As a developer, the close relationship between the folks that create the OS and the apps/app tools is great. However, this is only 1 side - and a very biased side at that - of an extremely many sided argument. I could think of 10 reasons why it is all good. Then again, I could think of 10 reasons why it could be potentially harmful - if not now - sometime in the future.

It is a complex issue. And for me, the jury is still out (no pun intended) on where all the chips fall on this issue.


>John,
>
>Don't you think that a lot of the things we get to discuss, ADO, COM, Automation, etc. are available because MS has access to both the apps and operating system.
>
>It was not so long ago that one could have little hope of tying 2 systems together. Typically you'd get a response from tech support like "Gee that sounds interesting. We've never done anything like that. But let us know if you get it to work".
>
>MS does control a hugh share. But is it really such a bad thing in this case? Plus, I think that a lot of other companies are in the position they're in because of their own lack of technical expertise, or marketing blunders.
>
>True, MS has overstepped their bounds in several instances. But I think penalties for those instances, as well as to prevent them from happening again would be more appropriate than a breakup.
>
>PF
>
>
>>Does MS have a monopoly? One one hand, yes. After all, if I want to buy a Dell Laptop, I have to choose among a choice of Windows. On the other, they don't have a monopoly if I look at the problem in terms of the fact that I could go out and buy a Mac. Then again, it could also be argued that the Mac OS and Linux are not perfect substitutes for Windows. If MS does not have a true monopoly, it has the power of one. And that is the substance of the argument.