Yes, what a wonderful world we would be living in, if that bad, bad bad fuel-eating Earth-destroying Microsoft just rolled up and died, died, died, clearing the way for the sent from the future electric motor like, Earth-friendly, good, good, good Linux. The free "Crysis" in 3D and the free OpenOffice Mind Reading Edition would be running on every desktop, and the CPUs would not need to be anything newer than i386, because of the heavenly efficiency of Linux.
Now I fully understand why you people hate Microsoft.
You still don't get the point or you just argue for the sake of argument. My point is not about the (in)efficiency aspect of MS (although that is indeed another issue). This thread is about monopoly
. My point is about how monopoly
keeps a bad product in the market and why bad-product hater hates the bad product, in response to your question. There are lots of people who praise electric cars. Unfortunately, because internal combustion engines monopolise the market, there're no recharging facilities or no plan to improve recharging facilities to make electric cars feasible (not today at least). That doesn't make internal combustion engine a good product. There are lots of people who like Linux and know it has a better architecture to begin with. Unfortunately, MS has monopolised the market in the beginning and therefore prevents a good architecture to take off while promoting a bad product to grow. It's especially bad when people like you constantly ignore the facts that MS has used dirty strategies to monopolise the market.
Now back to the topic of who is more monopolistic. Note that there's a huge difference between the following two:
1). Apple dominates
(not monopolises) the MP3 scene with iTunes
2). MS monopolises
(not dominates) the web browser scene with IE
For 1), if you don't like Apple or iTunes you don't have to use them to buy MP3s online and play them on your MP3 players.
For 2), many people are "forced" to use IE in some way because of dirty strategies used by MS. For example, MS creates Silverlight and gets its way into some big sites (perhaps somehow using MS's big market share which I applaud or using some dirty tactics which I won't applaud). Now here is the bad part. Silverlight is designed to check for the browser and pops up an annoying message window every time you run Silverlight on Google Chrome suggesting the browser may not be compatible. People like you who constantly ignore certain facts are of course going to switch to IE. On the other hand, I tried Silverlight on many different sites with Chrome and have never ever had any issue or glitch. So, what qualifies MS to pop up such an annoying message window? Note that this is not a dialog window where the user can acknowledge it and make it go away in any further occurence (even that is still bad tactics to me). The window pops up every time you initiate Silverlight on a web site and there's no way to disable further pop up in Chrome.
Now who is dominating? Who is monopolising? See the difference?