But you're suppose to integrate features in a componentized, or decoupled way, so that you can swap out 'components' at will. That's what the customers want, that's what the developers want, that's what the market is chosing.
It's just not what the bean-counters want.
MS's management, for obvious reasons, doesn't want the word processor, web browser, etc to be an interchangable 'component' of the system. They want all the other software to be 'integrated'. If they had their choice, they'd copy and 'bundle' every single possible app into their 'OS'.
Purely for monopolistic reasons, even tho the market is trying to innovate the other way. They own the train tracks, and therefore they control the trains.
This also explains their moves on Java and with .NET.
With a cross-platform programming language, the OS becomes just another component that can be switched out as need be. So first they tried to pervert Java into being Windows only, as their internal emails showed, and then when the courts slapped them for that they just copied Java and made a Windows-only version in C#.
MS will break any law to try and prevent java from moving to the desktop, as it's now poised to do. I believe that a mountain of evidence shows that MS has done some bad things in the past. I believe that's why they lost the court case.
C# has been released to several standards organizations. As such, other non-Windows companies will have access to it. Many people are working on Linux, Mac, and other OS releases for C# that MS does not control. Besides, I thought that C# was no Java according to you.