Nav: HOME - Editorial Menu
Microsoft - Abusing a position of Power...
...or a necessary evil? - Two sides to the same storey
While this discussion could run to 500 pages and make a reasonably think book - lets look at the case for - and against Microsoft.
The majority of opponents to the (generally accepted) Microsoft near monopoly of the Operating system (i.e. Windows) and Office Applications market (i.e. Word, Excel, etc) complain bitterly about the Microsoft products being sold by default with new systems and the associated costs with staying on the Microsoft bandwagon of upgrades and new versions of their applications, which almost everyone agrees happens far too often.
Speaking as someone who uses and maintains Microsoft based networks for many small and medium sized clients in the UK - you may be surprised that I broadly agree with this - even though this has been the mail line of business for my company for many years.
So - do we use Microsoft products because they're the only option - Obviously NO - there are thousands of alternative products - both commercial and open-source that anyone is free to choose from and use.
Are the Microsoft products of better quality and the easiest to use? - Well - I would say there is no clear answer here, some products have become so huge and bloated with features they have become more difficult to use. Consider the latest version of Office - Office 2007, which has has a complete re-design of the user interface to accommodate the huge number of features and options. But - there is no option to use the 'old' pre-office 2007 format, so we are forced to use the new way of doing things, which we may decide is better in the long run - but a choice would be nice.
So why does almost everyone use the Microsoft Operating systems and applications if they're expensive - not clearly the best and there are alternatives?
Consider this:
- Familiarity - Users have 'grown up' with the familiar Microsoft products and used them for so long that generally little training is required to move to new versions.
- Compatibility - In most cases, files are compatible to a large extent between versions - and where problems exist, there's always the option to upgrade to a newer version of the application, at some cost.
- Inertia - Once on the Microsoft bandwagon - it would be a very brave person who would seriously suggest moving to an alternative application suite - even at much reduced cost, the retraining and other potential problems could easily outweigh any initial cost saving.
So - the bottom line - We (Businesses) Need Microsoft - at present - as their far less than perfect applications and operating systems allow us to generally get on and use our computers in our day-to-day life's much as we expect to. Businesses can exchange documents and information reasonably easily and we have an acceptable level of functionality on our desktop systems. While Mac and Linux users ridicule Windows boxes for their perceived unreliability and cost of applications and upgrades, they (the Mac and Linux users) confine themselves to a niche market with endless variants of applications, desktop managers and user interfaces, each with it's own quirks and compatibility issues. Would you want that in an office staffed by actual users with real jobs, rather than Computer hobbyists? I think not.
The future?
Until there is a viable alternative to the Microsoft Windows and Office application suites - that is so compatible and similar to use, then there will be no mass migration to Linux or any other platform. What IS needed is a stripped-down low cost platform that is Standardised with a single windows-like desktop manager people can understand and use - and FULL Microsoft application compatibility. Until the US government force Microsoft to do this, however - it will never happen.
The Editor, May 2007