So if OS/2 XP had 90% marketshare and the rest fighting for the other 10%, you'd be happier than if Microsoft had the 90%?

Would you be happier if IBM owned 90% of the market, and used their own browser bundled/intergrated with the latest version of OS/2, sold their own Office Suite, and forced OEMs to pay for installs even if they didn't install OS/2 on each and every system?

What makes IBM, Apple, DRI, etc better than Microsoft?

If I had my choice, it would be an easier to use Linux with Mozilla installed as an optional part of the Linux install.

By buying Microsoft products, each and every one of us that bought a MS product, helped to make Microsoft what it is today. Every MS-Shop, every home user, everyone who uses a MS product helped to create the monster that is now the modern Microsoft. But what if a different company had 90% of the marketshare and abused their monopoly?

but we would have more than one OS as "standard". Write a program for OS/2, and then DR-DOS wouldn't run it. Write a program for Linux, and Plan9 wouldn't run it. Write a MacOS program, and BeOS wouldn't run it. Etc.

Best thing to do is crack open that Microsoft API and have other companies clone their own Windows to use that API, or build emulators or whatever to run Windows software. Then everyone can have a piece of the pie.

Remember in the early 80's when Compute! and other magazines had source code for programs, and each program had like 6 ports or more? One for each major machine?