I don't like to gloat, but to all my Wintel-using friends (and even <shudder> family): "I told you so". (I love the quote from one Linux fan regarding the DOJ's finding that Microsoft is a monopoly. He called it "the Duh heard around the world".) How much evidence does the DOJ need to convict Microsoft of monopolistic business practices? Apparently, a lot. Do they have a lot? Sounds like it to me.

Is there really any viable Operating System(OS) alternative? Not if the corporate-herd mentality among IT administrators has anything to say about it. In the quest for compatibility, standardization and saving a few bucks in the short term, IT administrators fell for the "No one ever got fired buying Microsoft" line.

But what of other OS's? M$ says they have lots of competition? Do they? Actually, yes. But only now that they've been reigned in by the DOJ.

By keeping them on a short leash for the last year or so, the DOJ has inadvertently allowed competitors like Linux and Macintosh to flourish. Without fear of retribution, major computer manufacturers could then sell the free OS, Linux, on their computers. And the black mark on M$'s "good name" allowed new users to consider other options like the Mac.

But are they enough competition to warrant letting M$ off with a slap on the wrist? Not a chance.

Linux? Uh, not yet anyway. I've tried it and it works for the most part every bit as well as Windoze, which is to say, not easily. But few if anyone already running Windoze will change since all their applications run only on Windows. Talk about high price of entry...

What about the MacOS? Still only 12%, but growing again. Is it better? Unquestionably. It's the difference between a Chevy and a BMW. (Sure you can get a Camaro that'll toast a Bimmer, but which would you rather own?)

Has Microsoft used their position to gain unfair advantage? You betcha. Ask Apple, Netscape, Real Networks, IBM, Sun or any of the hordes of innovative software company's whose ideas were knocked-off by M$ and put out of business.

Windoze is a piece of inelegant crap. Poorly designed from the get-go and shoddily constructed over a patchwork of bug-ridden DOS code. It's the result of thousands of programmers and third-party component drivers unaware of what each other was doing. Hence its incompatibilities and continual fixes (M$ calls them "issues").

Finally, the darling of Wall Street is losing some of its luster. With the surging interest in Linux, companies are eschewing the herd mentality and pleasantly discovering that they can replace their crappy Windows NT servers with license-free Linux ones. The endorsement of major companies like IBM, Sun, Netscape and others have lent Linux the cred it needs to succeed in the business environment. Hopefully, it will catch on on the desktop as well.

After playing with a HP PC, I can say that, as far as PC's go, it's as good as Windows. Still, all it really succeeds in doing is pointing out the vast superiority of the MacOS for MOST users (serious computer-types hate the Mac's friendly user-interface because it "hides" complex code from users. Huh? Isn't that the idea?).

Plug & Play on the Intel machine is a joke. Design aesthetics are feeble at best. My Mac makes the Linux and Windows interfaces look like a student project. And I'm only running version 8.1.

Bill Gates is, in my opinion, evil. Now, I wouldn't care if his crew in Redmond actually made good products, as I'm sure Steve Jobs is no saint himself. So let's say he was forcing us all to drive BMW's (arguably the best car in the world). If that were the case, I wouldn't be complaining. But the analogy is closer to making everyone drive Yugo's. Badly designed machines that are unreliable at best and dangerous at worst.

You may be asking yourself, "If their stuff is so bad, why don't more people complain"? I feel it's because they don't know the difference. To most people Wintel is to typewriters, what Yugo's are to the horse and buggy. A serious leap in technology, yes, but still not good.

Most people don't realize that a computer CAN work correctly most of the time. That it can actually REWARD experimentation. And can make you LIKE using computers (No, really. Try a Mac for thirty days).

That's why Mac owners rarely complain about their computers. Mac's are NOT overly confusing and frustrating. They are logical and understandable. If something doesn't work, you can usually figure out why through trial and error (usually pointing to the culprit as Mac-versions of Microsoft software...). Trial & Error attempts on the PC result in serious damage to the system or simply locking up and forcing you to take it into a dealer to fix. As people are fond of pointing out, Americans wouldn't tolerate this kind of crap in any other product. And yet, now we're suing the manufacturer of a demonstrably inferior product for owning 90% of the market. How sad is that?