Why such success for the "no names"?.Note the period after the question mark.
Under "The Internet"
Without an effective well designed and well promoted Web site,There should be a comma after 'effective'.
More as I read the rest of it.
BTW, depressingly good work. The only poroblem I see is the length. Which is why it's depressing: The problem is so large you can't describe it in any shorter format.
More:
Under "Web Services":
... promoted by three of the major proponents of Web Services, IBM, Bea Systems, and Sun Microsystems.Should have a colon instead of comma before "IBM".
Under "Wireless Networking":
You use wireless were it is impracticalShould be "where".
Also under "Wireless":
and with broadband all less than 1.5-MB perShould be "at".
Under "Mobile Devices":
because it's similarity to a full function PC, means they can expectLose the comma after "PC".
Also under "Mobile":
this will be a very dynamic field, allowing innovative companiesLose the comma after "field". (BTW I'm anal about extraneous commas, having once had a tendency to using too many.)
now defunct Napster, not only bog down your networkThe comma. ;)
Under "Microsoft 'Road Ahead'":
familiar with all Microsoft's tricks, In marketsComma should be a period.
And
especially outside the U.S..Note double closing period.
Under "Longhorn":
License 6 does force customers to upgrade on Microsoft's schedule, whether they want to or not, but a majority of the market has not adopted License 6, despite Microsoft's threats.Lose first and third commas.
Where you write:
I find it probable Longhorn will largely end the use of reliable, low cost servers (Linux, NetWare) for Windows users.You might want a footnote to explain that you're talking about SAMBA, and what that means.
as did it's "universal filesystem" predecessorDrop the apostrophe.
Under "Microsoft Office":
Microsoft Office, not Windows is Microsoft's true cash cow, and it is Office, much more than Windows, that ties customers to Microsoft's expensive licensing plans.Need more commas, I'd write:
Microsoft Office, not Windows, is Microsoft's true cash cow; and it is Office, much more than Windows, that ties customers to Microsoft's expensive licensing plans.
Where you say that Office 2003 will only run on WXP and W2K w/ SP3 you might want to point out that the significant bit in W2K is not a technical issue but a licensing one. IOW that the only reason for ensuring it won't run on W2K without SP3 is that they don't want it to. (Thane has said as much, though I don't know where you could find public references/confirmation.
Under "Paladium":
and at lower prices than their original planned.Should be "they".
Under "Licensing":
Microsoft says to .Extra space before the period. (Damn, how'd I even see that?)