or "What the heck were you thinking,
and why should we care?"

So what else is new? Anyone who DIDN'T see that one coming has been living in a Biodome for a lot longer than the folks who actually built it. You don't have to be the ONLY player on the block to be a monopoly; you only have to be the biggest, to an extent that your competitors must operate and survive, barely, in your shadow. Microsoft would have you believe that there is no danger, that Netscape, Sun, Linux, et. al. are an enormous check to the potential weed-like overgrowth of the computing industry by The House That Bill Built. Excuse me, I have to cough, "< BULLSHIT ! >" They might potentially be if it weren't for one enormous factor:

Microsoft cheats.

I'll be the first to agree that Microsoft has produced some outstanding products. Office has done wonders with productivity in the workplace. Windows 3.1 turned around the usability of PCs, so that people who couldn't afford Macs (talk about a monopoly!) could now have that kind of functionality for a much more affordable sum. Internet Explorer is, in my opinion, the best browser on the market. Remember, though, that that is only my opinion; there are millions who disagree with me. And every single one of them should have the choice to use Netscape's also-excellent browser, or anyone else's.

Microsoft DOESN'T agree with me, though. Nor do they agree with you. Their whole thrust, and not just in the browser arena, is that you should ONLY be allowed to use their products. Not only is it more money for Microsoft, it allows the company, and ultimately, Mr. G., greater control over how you live, how the world works. Mr. G. has a vision for the world, and he believes that his is the only correct one. The way to achieve that vision is to control our most vital technologies, our communication, in such a way that we have no choice but to follow his path.

If that means stifling competition, so be it. If that means bullying your "partners," who install your OS on their PCs, to the point that their continued existence as viable, profitable companies could end if they don't agree to your terms, so be it. If that means establishing "standards" by actually hacking into your competitors' computer systems, under the guise of "looking out for the consumer," so be it. This is no different than you, working hard to create a business, to support yourself and your family, and having organized crime come to you and say, "There have been a rash of fires that have destroyed other businesses in this area. We can protect you if you fork over your money to us; if you don't, then it would be a shame if your business was the next one to burn down."

PCs have to have an operating system in order to be useful; otherwise, they're just boxes that have a lot of expensive components inside, and make unwieldy doorstops. An operating system has to have applications to be useful; otherwise, it's just a program that lets your doorstop spin its hard drive.

Isn't it fascinating that Microsoft just HAPPENS to produce both of those vital pieces of software? Without an OS, no one would ever buy a box that said, "Intel Inside," or anything else. So it's fairly easy for Microsoft to claim to Intel, or any other PC hardware manufacturer, that their existence depends on putting Microsoft's OS on their systems. It'd be a shame if, for some reason, Microsoft just didn't have enough copies of Windows to sell to the manufacturer. Why, they just might have to close up shop, because no one would buy their boxes.

But wait, you say! There are other operating systems! Look at Linux, the new bright boy on the block! Yep, it's pretty cool. But, except for a few limited applications, it just doesn't have as much software available to run on it, so unless you're a die-hard Linux enthusiast, you probably won't get as much use out of a Linux box as you would a Windows box. Why? Because there are 10s of 1000s of applications that run on Windows. Of course there are; Windows runs 90% of the world's PCs, so more companies develop software for it. Heck, even Microsoft develops applications for Windows; imagine that. And those applications have the lion's share of the market place because nearly every PC you buy has them already installed, ready to go. We're lazy, folks; we don't want to do all the work ourselves. Microsoft knows this, and they exploit it. They can tell the suppliers that, in order to install Windows, they also have to install Office, or Works, because no one is going to buy their PCs without applications that run on them. Again, it would be a real shame if, God forbid, Microsoft didn't have enough copies of Office to go around, and the PC manufacturers wouldn't have a commercially-viable product to sell because of that. A damn shame.

There has been a lot of reaction since Judge Jackson's ruling. A majority of people believe it's a good judgment; a vocal group do not. Reading through the letters of this vocal minority, I've noticed a disturbing pattern. Most people who defend Microsoft do so on the basis of their software.

Honestly, folks, I have a problem with Microsoft's software. While they have the potential to create and release excellent software (as they have, indeed, in the past), Microsoft's monopoly status has led them to the point where they, frankly, could care less about putting out software that is fraught with bugs, with inconsistencies, with usability features that are, at best, confusing, and at worst, aggravating and impractical. No matter what they say to the contrary, they DO NOT CARE about the consumers' satisfaction with their software experience; they've gotten so much market penetration, and developed such a good promotional scheme, that people will buy their products now because we HAVE to, and we're left bitching, moaning, and ultimately resigning ourselves to the inevitable, hoping and 'PAYING' that the next version will be better. We live for the next version of Microsoft's software.

But Microsoft's software itself is not the issue here. The issue is the tactics that Microsoft has used to force companies to use their software. The issue is Microsoft's stifling and crushing of smaller companies that DO create innovative, superior alternatives to their own software. If you think Microsoft has done a lot to innovate and make the PC world a better place, stop for a moment, and imagine what it could be like if their competition had a chance. Microsoft doesn't want you to take that moment, folks. That's where the danger lies.

• Ever wonder why they call it a "user" interface? So does Microsoft, apparently. O2K, or Y2k? You decide.
• No matter what I do, I know that there is someone I can sue when I screw up. Whose fault do I REALLY think it is?
• I'm gonna party like it's 1999 on Dec. 31. That's ALL it's going to be. Want to know when the millennium REALLY starts?
• Don't try to call me in my car! Even if I ever DO have a cell phone, I won't answer. Find out why.