Microsoft is number one for one reason. They provide the best value. Microsoft is number one for several reasons. Bill got lucky and had his OS used on the new IBM system. Since IBM owned business, this is that got used by everybody. Then Microsoft made its windowing system sit on top of DOS, making an easy upgrade. Then it built another windowing system using the same APIs so it would be compatible with the previous, allowing an easy upgrade path again. So, take IBM's dominance and predatory business practices, throw in a few of Microsoft's own predatory practices, and you have the reason Microsoft is number one in a few areas. You also have the reason why Microsoft operating systems are far behind others in architecture and security.
Yeah, it's a bit behind because they have such a large footprint on the world, they just can't say...let's ignore our previous versions and start over (as Apple did). But then Apple didn't get a real OS until recently with OS X.
MS is now getting to a point where they can do that since XP brought the 9x OS over to the NT platform. Now Vista can close that gap. So yes, they were a victim of their own success.
The most advanced technical solution is often not the best solution. Most die hard techies just don't understand that. Because when you play that game, what happens when M$ jumps past their competitors? Companies will just keep moving from one IT solution to another.
BTW: Your "Luck" example is very liberal of you. So Microsoft won life's lottery. What about Microsoft Exchange? How did they leverage IBM's stranglehold over business to make Exchange #1?
Microsoft is number one for several reasons. Bill got lucky and had his OS used on the new IBM system.
Lucky? Talk about ridiculous statements. Gates was
brilliant. He turned an investment of $50K into
billions of dollars in licensing revenue.
Since IBM owned business, this is that got used by everybody. Then Microsoft made its windowing system sit on top of DOS, making an easy upgrade. Then it built another windowing system using the same APIs so it would be compatible with the previous, allowing an easy upgrade path again.
And what does this have to do with "luck"? MS was competing against IBM. As you say, IBM owned business. It wasn't luck that made Windows successful. IBM ignored DOS at its own peril, just as Lotus ignored graphical Excel, just as Novell ignored integrated file/print servers, etc... That's a helluva string of "luck".
So, take IBM's dominance and predatory business practices, throw in a few of Microsoft's own predatory practices, and you have the reason Microsoft is number one in a few areas.
You've already contradicted yourself. If IBM was predatory and controlled "business", then MS should never have been able to gain a foothold in the market. But it did, despite all that. Face it: The reason that MS succeeded is that it was smarter than its competitors. IBM, Lotus, Novell, and countless others made incredibly stupid decisions.
You also have the reason why Microsoft operating systems are far behind others in architecture and security.
First of all, it should be pointed out that truly sophisticated desktop operating systems rivaling workstations only really came into existence within the past decade. Linux came into being without any of the baggage associated with DOS or Win9x, and this baggage was a drag on MS's ability to modify its OSes. MS couldn't simply change Windows wihout incurring huge compatibility problems -- and compatibility is one of the virtues that MS offers that keeps it on top of the desktop OS market. You can deny this, if you like, but Linux simply isn't going to take away market share from Windows any time soon, based on that concept alone.
Nonetheless, like Windows Server 2003, MS has changed all of that in Vista. Obviously, security has become as big of an issue as compatibility. It is enforcing the use of LUAs (Limited User Accounts) to prevent malware from installing itself. Apps that previously required Admin access won't be able to run without a password; essentially equivalent to doing a "su name password app". As well, all of the remote services will be locked down by default and will need to be enabled individually. Server 2003 has an excellent security track record. Even you will have to admit this. Compare
RHEL to
W2003. Vista is being built on top of the Server 2003 codebase, which is solid code.