>>>I made up mind when I saw plug and play work in Win 95.
>
>IMHO we tend to forget how much "wow" factor came with those earlier Windows releases. Apart from the obvious screen GUI, Trutype fonts allowed really attractive inkjet documents in the dot matrix age. Windows for Workgroups allowed you to string together PCs without grappling with Netware. Insecure +++ but there was no internet or email vectors and a virus was what made you sneeze. Plug and play, as you note. Those were the days when early adoption of tech brought measurable business advantage, with most of that attributable to a great company called Microsoft.
>
>More recently? A lot of IT, including new OS, is just fixing things that ain't broke, or rearranging and creating jollies for developers who like lots of moving parts. The major changes are driven by the likes of Google and Apple who either didn't exist or were on the ropes in the days when Microsoft delivered blockbuster after blockbuster.

The notion that because a company produces a blockbuster tech application (e.g. Windows) it is more likely than another company to produce another one is logically flawed.

Corporate history is replete with examples. Eastman Kodak is a great example. DEC is a good one. Polaroid is another.

A former golf partner was one of the creators of Trivial Pursuit. He clips coupons, races horses and plays golf. When I asked him why he didn't do another game, he said that the odds that he will win the Powerball are better than the chances that he'll do another Trivial Pursuit.

Apple is a notable exception. Following the Mac with Ipod, the IPhone and the Ipad seems statistically impossible.
However, all that just increases the odds against another blockbuster for Apple.