You've got to take the context into account. At that time, the alternatives were things like typewriters that were even more labor-intensive to use. They were l

You've got to take the context into account. At that time, the alternatives were things like typewriters that were even more labor-intensive to use. They were learning a tool that made them more productive, and therefore more valuable. Nowadays, Microsoft's Office suite was, is, and, all indicators suggest, will continue to be a bigger productivity multiplier than any of its competitors. For people who primarily work in office software, choosing something like it is the sensible default for any company whose primary motive is profit. Sure, it costs money, but the cost of the software is tiny compared to a skilled office worker's salary - small enough that I'd estimate it wouldn't have to make someone even 1% more productive to justify the retail price, let alone what it costs if you qualify for any sort of volume discount. There are other motivating factors that could come into play, sure. But if we're talking places that have to pay for their labor (i.e., not home use) and make heavy use of office software, going with the one with the lowest TCO is a sensible default.