Netscape vs. IE, -- Unix vs. Windows
I'm getting pretty tired of hearing technical debates about various computer products. The reason why Microsoft dominates a large portion of the space isn't due to any superior technology. In fact, Msft's products are not technically frontier state-of-the-art stuff and never have been. They don't need to be. Riding the frontier is far too risky!
In the days of mainframes, IBM was never the technology leader. They just delivered adequate products; but with superior marketing and support. Microsoft has done much the same.
UNIX was in the marketplace for at least 15 years before Microsoft was even a twinkle in Bill's eye. Why didn't they dominate the market? Possibly because there wasn't then, and still isn't, a single common version of Unix for which software writers can target their code; Bell Labs, Berkeley, HP, Sun, Linux - they're all different in significant ways. No software vendor knew for which one they should target their code or they incurred extra costs to support several versions.
Along comes Microsoft providing a common (albeit defacto) platform for all those little machines (PC's) at which everyone was laughing. The fact that virtually all PC's had DOS (and later Windows) meant that hundreds of software vendors had a common base for which they could target their programs. More 3rd party programs = more fuel for selling more PC's and DOS/Windows with it. The synergy has generated a massive market and made PC's (together with their operating software) quite ubiquitous. It made business sense. A fragmented UNIX market didn't.
Almost never has Microsoft been the first into the market. They let the other guys make the technical mistakes, and hopefully learned from them. Then they built products that embraced an adequate level of functionality and masterfully marketed the hell out of it. Yes, Microsoft has occasionally run amok - but on the whole I believe that users are getting what they want - lots and lots of application programs, that are adequate for their needs, available on a common platform and priced competetively. Technical excellence simply isn't necessary and it is more risky both to build and to use.
Finally, I believe that the computer industry necessarily trends towards common standards. Sometimes those standards are proprietary (e.g. Windows) and at other times they are public (e.g. W3G and HTML). I'm not sure which way is best - but I am sure that without common (monopolistic?) standards we'd have a fragmented, unconnected, non-interoperating marketplace. Computers probably wouldn't be nearly as ubiqutous and would probably be much more costly..
I know what I've said won't convince those of you who remain technology bigots from one camp or the other. I just wanted to express my, possibly different, point of view.
BTW - I use both Linux and Windows for servers; and I test everything I write on multiple versions of all the popular browsers