Originally Posted by Sean_W
Microsoft has had a monopoly in this market for well over 15 years now and it's notoriously hard for 'any' OS to get a foot hold. Just to prove this, let's take Linux as an example.
Linux is successful in various markets like, Server, Netbook, small devices, super computers. Microsoft got split a part in the 90's(During the Clinton years) because of their monopolistic tactics. Today yet again, Microsoft are being fined because of this and their refusal to be more open and let competing software compete. Their technologies are incompatible with other OS's and their network protocols just don't allow other OS's to interpolate with it.
Despite the bull**** many Windows elitists say about Linux, it's not because "Linux is hard to use" and "Linux is not ready for the desktop" junk statements. It's because Microsoft have a monopoly on the market, pure and simple fact.
Once again, go look up the term TCO and how it applies.
Companies are still investing in Microsoft because, they get a complete solution at the same or LOWER TCO for the duration they are looking at (typically a 3 year SA setup, same with RedHat if they went that route).
Microsoft has been fined for some monopolistic behavior but the gist of it is, they have money so they are targeted. The single biggest monopoly (Apple) doesn't get targeted because, by comparison, they have a much smaller market share, even though they have strangled their competition through lawsuits and the like.
When a product is made more INSECURE because 3'rd party AV makers and others whine that they are going to lose money, that's when I lose respect for their stance. Likewise for the browsers (Mozilla, Opera) whining that Microsoft should install their browsers on THEIR operating system.
I will be interested to see how Chrome OS does, although I am not a big believer in cloud based computing with all my data stored out there, for security reasons.
Good for a laugh, not good for a power-user.