Funny, I've responded similarly when somebody brings up the Mac's relatively better reliability and simplicity compared to a Windows PC. Apple has it easy, because controlling the hardware makes the Mac world a "hardware monoculture". Diversity's a bitch, ain't it?

The difference is far smaller today, though, because PC architecture has become so standardized. Apple started using standard PCI cards back in the mid-90s, and has converged so much that it was painless for them to switch the chip--about the last thing not already PC-compatible--over to Intel.

The standardization seriously weakens that defense of Microsoft. Windows includes several hundred drivers in the installation disk for convenience, but Microsoft didn't write them, the peripheral manufacturers wrote the drivers. It's a marketing deal, not a technical feature. Much of the standard hardware works with Microsoft-supplied generic standard drivers, the oddballs can easily create custom drivers. It's just not that big a deal any more.

Which is why I think that Linux might be ready for prime time. All it has to do is to support the hardware standards, including Plug-n-play for automatic driver installation, and it's pretty much achieved technical parity with Windows. At that point Linux's success becomes more dependent on application support. It's still way behind, but in certain key areas like graphics, it's already equivalent. (And in some cases has been for years: AutoCAD is a native UNIX application ported to Windows.) File format standardization means that there are no technical barriers to duplicating functionality in Linux, even if the developers of Windows apps don't themselves choose to port them to Linux. See, for example, various clones of Microsoft Office available in Linux.

You can probably tell I've been giving the switch to Linux some serious thought ;-)

Now, the generic defense of Microsoft is all well and good, but you really didn't touch the actual question on the table, Eri's refrain of the oft-repeated lament "How can MS get away with putting such crap out on the market?"

My theory's consistent with free-market theory: Microsoft is actually doing a good job serving its primary constituency, business. Notice I said "constituency"...I can't find Microsoft's revenue by customer type, but business has a disproportionate influence on the marketplace for computer OSes that makes the actual revenue share moot. Purchasers of personal computers who learned their computer skills at work--the majority--will naturally buy the same OS for home use. Many of those will have no choice because of the need for a compatible home computer to support homework. So the question of what operating system will be used on 95% of the world's computers is dictated by the OS that business chooses. End of story...or is it? Can the dependency of the home user on the business OS choice be weakened and destroyed if the Linux marketplace can provide functional parity? And will that, in turn, weaken the corporate bonds with Microsoft, as familiarity with an alternative brings comfort to the workplace?

Will the free market at long last realize its promise of promoting excellence instead of mediocrity?