Andrew Gideon wrote:

Presuming that Netscape (or whomever) didn't bundle their product with the
monopolistic OS in a way that eliminates competition, along with contracts
that discouraged OEMs from using alternative OSes, then it wouldn't be
likely that any single product would achieve 90% reach anyway.



See, this kind of crap is what passes for "information".

OK. So you have an opinion about MS. Wonderful. An opinion is like an
asshole. We've all got 'em. But that doesn't make you special.

MS "bundles their product with the monopolistic OS"? Bull****. If
there's any obstacle out there preventing ANYONE from doing precisely
what Bill Gates has accomplished, providing THE WORLD with a PC-based
operating system THAT WORKS better than anything else out there (you
wanna' challenge the consumer usage numbers?), state what that obstacle
is NOW, before any more of your baseless charges that MS is
monopolistic. It's not a "monopoly" - he built a better mousetrap-
what's your problem with that? We can do that in this country - it's
fair, and it's legal. Get over it.

I prefer Netscape as a browser, and NOTHING in the Windows operating
system does any "eliminating", or in any other way, precludes my use of
a non-MS product.

C'mon. Get a life.

You gotta' problem with Microsoft? Fine. That's your privilege. But
lose all the diatribe about how Gates and MS are getting in your way of
doing what you want. It ain't happening. You're hallucinating.