Your post, I mean.
We have one of tens, if not hundreds of millions of consumers, who have, as the courts in Europe and the US have consistently ruled, been systematically screwed by MS, taking them to court over exactly such an issue. Being screwed.
MS brings to market a substandard product, discontinue the produce most people actually want to buy, XP, and to enforce their monopoly on Netbooks they keep XP around long after they would ordinarily have killed it simply to try and keep Linux off Netbooks, etc. Including discounting it. So the product everyone wants, but is denied by MS policy is now too cheap for them to make money off, so they force everyone else to buy a product they mostly don't want at an inflated price. Iff that is not the very definition of Monopoly power I don't know what is.
Meaning Vista is so poor, and market competition forces them to cut prices on their only competitive product, XP, for NetBooks, but they use their monopoly position to railroad everyone else into Vista.
No one wants their New OS, VIsta, no one with any braincells, but instead of allowing market forces, the ones all the rich pricks in charge of MS pretend to worship, they ram Vista down their customers' throats.
At the very least MS is so tone deaf that they fail to set customer expectations properly, which is probably at the root of this woman's outrage, justified, because as others have pointed out she is clearly not the most technically au fait.
Calling it a "Downgrade" was a dumb move, why would anyone not conversant with all the above implied and stated feel they should pay for a "downgrade"?
MS have this coming, after years, and remember in the US all those lost monopoly cases resulted in bupkiss in terms of enforcement, it was only the EU that actually did anything substantive