OSNews

If Windows were forced to compete on its own merits it would be a dismal failure. PC operating systems are a one party state.

It does compete and given that the alternatives have terrible hardware support, and there is a complete dearth of application support on non-Microsoft platforms like Linux, is there any wonder for Microsoft's monopoly.

People will start moving once they can run the same applications they have now, but in native linux form, on Linux; until that day, people will be forced to run Windows because of the ability to run the applications they like rather than it being anything to do with any so-called love of the Windows operating system.

Yeah, and not only does nobody care, but also "Windows Live" is being "hurt by weak branding".

How about a better and more to the point explaination; Windows Live sucks - plain and simple; Microsoft left it too late to deliver their services online, their Live content is too American focused - clue to Microsoft, the world doesn't revolve around the US of A, no matter how ignorant the general populace at Microsoft headquarters maybe.

Add that to the fact that Google provides a much better experience than what Microsoft can provide; is there any surprised? Google's search is more accurate and faster, their email service is snappy and not loaded with tonnes of ads and crap.

Something Microsoft fails to realise is just that, people want to use the service; if they keep pissing the end user off with constant barrage of crap from advertisements and requesting 'feedback', the end user will simply give up and go to the superior provider; and given how easy it is to move from one provider to another, its going to be difficult to lock people in.

Edited 2007-02-01 11:01

It does compete and given that the alternatives have terrible hardware support,

MOST alternatives have worse hardware support than Windows. Gee, I wonder whose fault that is.

and there is a complete dearth of application support on non-Microsoft platforms like Linux,

Eh, what?

is there any wonder for Microsoft's monopoly.

I agree, Microsoft's monopoly is completely explicable, but for completely different reasons than you would like to pretend. For example, even if NO other operating system had ANY hardware support at all, I am still PERFECTLY within my rights to have computers I buy supplied without an operating system so that I can install any I wish - but just try telling that to PC vendors.

People will start moving once they can run the same applications they have now, but in native linux form, on Linux; until that day, people will be forced to run Windows because of the ability to run the applications they like rather than it being anything to do with any so-called love of the Windows operating system.

Despite your contention to the contrary, there are now more areas than ever where users of other platforms can opt for similar and compatible applications, and that trend will most likely only continue. Whatever you think of Scribus, for example, it's one area I did not expect to see addressed by FOSS programs for quite a while yet. (And there are other, proprietary, alternatives). However, in the interim it might be a good idea for more Linux distributors to start shipping CrossOver Office.

How about a better and more to the point explaination; Windows Live sucks - plain and simple; Microsoft left it too late to deliver their services online, their Live content is too American focused - clue to Microsoft, the world doesn't revolve around the US of A, no matter how ignorant the general populace at Microsoft headquarters maybe.

Microsoft have shown themselves perfectly capable of shipping bucketloads of an excrescence with impunity - I refer not only to WindowsME, which I know only by reputation, but to Windows98 also. It's not quality of the product that matters when people buy operating systems, it's quality of marketing.

However, except for the points in this post, I agree, mostly.