If microsoft was forced to play fair from the start..?

Question

How much better do you think our operating systems,and applications would be right now.. Also, if 90% of the internet world uses the internet for mundane things like music,video, e-mail, and porn, how much would it matter anyway, do ya think?

Answer 1

Not much better. Fair play has noothing to do with the MS way of ""Software Development"", which is mockery to the entire professional development community - not to mention - the entire WORLD!

If you are going to do something, do it right and do your level best to get it right the FIRST time - not the v. 5.2.4.1 or service pack 23...

I understand the immense challenge developing SW for the billions of projects, systems, networks, customer and end-user needs. But to produce a product hap-hazardly, and, in my humble opinion, release it far too soon, is irresponsible to the world!

First the world, next Detroit - I'm turning in my driver's licence!

http://news.com.com/Car+crazy+Microsoft+in+the+drivers+seat/2100-1046_3-5419404.html

Final rant...

If Microsoft made cars...;^)

In response to Bill Gates'' comments, General Motors issued a press release stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. MacIntosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

Answer 2

I don't like windows that much, but i hate this thing with everyone always saying 'fair-unfair' when it comes to the hedgemony that Microsoft has.. mostly because before that Apple has the same thing. Fact is every computer company and software company is looking to have the monopoly, not just Microsoft.

Linux wants it, Apple wants it, Microsoft wants it. It's a fact of business.
--
but to your question market competition has always been a huge factor for innovation, so if they had only a 1/3 market share then the product itself would probably be alot better.

As for the applications i don't think that would really matter much. Applications tend to focus more on the hardware, once they hardware is powerful enough for it then it's simply a matter of translating it to that operating system. In a way you could say that they'd be worse. If no one operating system was king the developers would have to spend more money on translating software then putting that same money into developement. The idea of monopoly is two sided.

Answer 3

Microsoft would still have about 40% of the market share. Apple would have about 30%, while all the others like Linux would have the remainder.

Edit: Linux is not a business. For the most part it is open source and owned by no one. There are some distributions that you have to pay for, but you get support for those. For the most part, Linux is free, and unmonopolistic.

Answer 4

You do not understand America. If you ask a Special Agent of the US Government about playing fair he will tell you something like...Who Ever Told You THat Life was Fair !!!!!

Answer 5

MS is going down..it is not even 25% of the buzeniss they own..built for constant repair and full of built in bugs..Mac is taking over fast.

Answer 6

I think we would be far more advanced because of competion.