Windows has become dominant because it started out with a decent product and used a business model that allowed it to grow with the PC industry into any area it spread to. It didn't get there because it was better; it just had a better fit - it could be used by the average home owner who buys their PC or by those who build their own. It has had a symbiotic relationship with the hardware industry so drivers were plentiful. How do you compete with something that is designed to support random hardware configurations? By doing the same thing for less. Linux has some way to go but it's the only OS that has the potential to remove windows from dominance. The problem with Linux is this - open-source has been its strength and its weakness. Opensource allows more code to be written in a shorter time but it also allows divergence from a common goal. As a result, Linux has developed too many ways of doing the same thing, which just amounts to time-wasting. For instance, having so many different ways to install software on various Linux distros doesn't make the process easier and confuses the newbie. There are just some things that MUST be easy to do if they are commonly required as part of everyday use. You can't expect hardware manufacturers to support so many different installation types when creating drivers, as they would expend more effort creating drivers for a smaller market share. I think some advocates for certain distros are taking heed and some of the steps to correct this have already been taken. The latest Ubuntu version is an example of that new direction. Its installation is the smoothest i've seen for a Linux distro. It's going to take some doing to get it right where driver support is concerned, but it's also going to require cooperation from hardware manufacturers as well, so that drivers will be of the same quality as on windows.

As for the Mac, it's market share is rising in the US but not worldwide. Apple gains most of its users from those who switch from Windows in the US. As long as the Mac can only be built and sold by Apple there's no chance that OSX will be anything other than a niche market. Why? because it can't replace Windows globally. Apple doesn't have the resources to supply the world's PC users with their product. Apple sells from their own stores and that a major limitation. Secondly, Apple can't compete with the freedom that allows third world users to acquire PCs in the first place. The average user in the third world doesn't buy Dells or HPs unless they are buying laptops; they buy desktop PCs from numerous small local companies that use the latest cheaper components to assemple PCs locally. The issue is import costs. They are greater for PCs already pre-assembled so the brands just can't compete. The bottom line is that Windows and Linux can support such an environment but Apple can't. Linux in particular can potentially harness the PC user growth that is being driven by the third world. The emergence of Vista has hurt MS in its attempts to maintain third world adoption because, from all accounts, it's just too expensive. If the same will be true of Windows 7, then Linux distros should take advantage of this windows weakness. With economic times as they are, being free has even more appeal than ever.

Isn't a better fit by definitiona better product? Would you by a pair of jeans that didn't fit simply because of the label? No, you'd buy the jeans because they do fit and you're more comfortable, or at least most of us would. I've often wondered if Apple could maintain the vast compatibility of products that Microsoft has, I don't think they could.

Lets face it, Apple would have a much wider base today if they would have played a little nicer with the rest of the industry. Why not allow others to develope Mac clones but with less software features than a full fledged system? It just seems like Apple has shot itself in the foot in so many ways over the years. I would love to at least try OS-X, but on my terms and not Apple's.