Why People Hate Microsoft (Browser Wars Five Years Later)

[sterlingice]

Now, I know there aren't a lot of Microsoft apologists out there but they always say the same thing: "Why is the government/another company out to get them? They're just out to make a buck and whoever is holding them down".

To them, I submit the simple passage from the following: "For example, IE 6, the latest version of Microsoft's Web browser, released in August 2001, does not yet offer a tool that automatically blocks Web pop-up advertising. Microsoft has <news:link id="5105139">promised pop-up blocking</news:link> as part of a Windows XP upgrade due out later this summer known as SP2. That puts it well behind Opera and others that have offered pop-up blocking for months in response to overwhelming consumer demand."

There is a reason leveraging monopolies in one field to take over another is illegal via Sherman and it's because what everyone said has come to pass. They took over a market where they viewed a potential threat and now do nothing but stifle innovation while letting their own product lag behind. I mean, August of 2001- if you use the adage about 1 normal year being 7 computer years, it would be like Ford not having improved since the Pinto (tho some would argue this is the case ;) ). This is why us "chicken littles" decry Microsoft and it's not that we hate everyone successful but if you are going to control an industry, you have certain obligations to it and they aren't holding up their end of the bargain to us, the users.

Microsoft behind $12 million payment to Opera

By Evan Hansen and Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/2100-1032-5218163.html
Story last modified May 24, 2004, 4:00 AM PDT


Microsoft agreed to pay Norway's Opera Software $12.75 million to head off a threatened lawsuit over code that made some Web pages on MSN look bad in certain versions of Opera's Web browser, CNET News.com has learned.

Opera disclosed the payment last week in a terse press release that omitted other details, including the name of the settling party and the nature of the dispute.

But a source indicated that the payment came from Microsoft in order to close the books on a clash over obscure interoperability problems. On at least three separate occasions, Opera has accused Microsoft of deliberately breaking interoperability between its MSN Web portal and various versions of the Opera browser--charges that the software giant has repeatedly denied.
News.context

A Microsoft representative said the company does not comment on rumors.

Reached by phone, Opera executives refused to name the company involved in the settlement or describe the nature of the legal claims, citing a confidentiality agreement.

"We forwarded a few facts to a big international corporation and settled before we took legal action," Opera Chief Technology Officer Hakon Lie said Tuesday. "This resolves an issue very close to my heart."

The deal marks the latest in a string of settlements from Microsoft, which is seeking to simplify its business by clearing up potentially damaging legal claims. In the past year, the company has agreed to pay billions of dollars to wrap up litigation with Sun Microsystems, digital rights management developer InterTrust and Time Warner's Netscape Communications division, among others.

While the Opera payment is relatively tiny, it underscores ongoing ripple effects in the browser market that stem from the overwhelming dominance of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Having used its desktop operating system monopoly to help trounce its primary rival Netscape, Microsoft has effectively abandoned significant browser development efforts. That's left companies with negligible market share such as Opera and Netscape's Mozilla open-source project to lead innovation in the field.

For example, IE 6, the latest version of Microsoft's Web browser, released in August 2001, does not yet offer a tool that automatically blocks Web pop-up advertising. Microsoft has promised pop-up blocking as part of a Windows XP upgrade due out later this summer known as SP2. That puts it well behind Opera and others that have offered pop-up blocking for months in response to overwhelming consumer demand.

Last year, a member of Microsoft's IE team indicated that the company planned to drop independent development of the browser altogether, opting instead to fold its functions into the next major overhaul of its Windows operating system, a project code-named Longhorn.

Since then, however, Microsoft has remained largely silent about its long-range browser development plans.

"I'm not sure what their plan is, whether they'll do some upgrades with SP2, wait for Longhorn or break out a separate release," Directions on Microsoft analyst Matt Rosoff said. "Whatever they do, IE is not a major strategic technology for Microsoft anymore...They don't have a huge team working on IE, and there hasn't been a lot of evolution in IE for a couple years."


Web authors bow to IE

IE's dominance has also created fallout for Web standards, because Microsoft delivers the Web to roughly nine out of every 10 people who use it.

Although IE 6 provides good standards support, some Web site developers have decided that it's easier to create sites that work best with versions of IE, rather than use code that works equally well on all standards-compliant browsers. For example, Shutterfly, the online photo store backed by Netscape co-founder Jim Clark, does not support any version of Opera or Mozilla browsers, according to a warning displayed on the site this week.

The problem has been a top issue for Web standards advocates for some time, shifting the focus of standards compliance away from browser makers and toward companies behind popular Web authoring tools, such as Macromedia and Adobe Systems.

Opera's past complaints with Microsoft included charges that the software giant deliberately sought to undermine the experience of Web surfers using its browser by delivering a different set of instructions to Opera than those sent to IE for rendering Web pages on MSN. The results included misaligned margins and indentations that cut off some words, among other things.

Microsoft in 2003 admitted that it had taken steps to detect different types of browsers accessing MSN and sent different Web page layouts to different products. But the company said its efforts were aimed at promoting standards compliance rather than at hurting products that compete with its dominant Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft said it has since stopped the practice.

"MSN is committed to providing the best experience we can to all of its consumers, and there is no intent to degrade the consumer experience for any visitors to MSN," a Microsoft representative wrote in an e-mail. "When this issue hit last year, MSN tested Opera's latest browser, determined and made adjustments to ensure all Opera 7 users had a quality experience while visiting MSN."

Opera, by contrast, has long contended that Microsoft's alleged maneuvers were intentional and hurt its reputation.

MSN's browser lockouts at the time provided incendiary ammunition for Microsoft critics, including anti-Microsoft industry group ProComp, which in 2001 accused Microsoft of unfairly exploiting its massive lead in the browser market to muscle out smaller competitors.

"Who else could it be but Microsoft?" ProComp President Mike Pettit said this week, referring to the payment.

Pettit cast a jaundiced eye at the transaction, along with other settlements Microsoft has made with rivals that have alleged wrongdoing.

"If you really analyze the harm that is inflicted and measure the damages paid, it's a very small dollar amount to Microsoft," Pettit said. "It's just the cost of doing business to them, so they're just going to keep doing it over and over. They pay 5 or 10 cents on the dollar in damages way after the fact, and the net effect of it is to further unbalance the playing field. In the final analysis, they got away with it."

These days, Opera is looking to move past the PC to distribute its Web browser on devices such as cell phones and personal digital assistants. As a result, Opera will in the future face less of a threat from Microsoft, Opera director John Patrick said.

"People wonder why anyone would get into the browser business," he said. "But this isn't about Microsoft and the PC. It's about every other kind of device, from set-top boxes to cell phones. IE doesn't dominate that. It's a different market...The opportunities are enormous."

[Marmel]

Eventually the limitations of IE forced me to find a different option, and Firefox (and the early incarnations) have worked perfectly for me. I think it is natural in the business world for people to move to the higer end product if the 'standard' starts lagging behind. Who knows if that will happen with the stanglehold Microsoft has on web browsing though.

Question: How does Firebird, Opera, etc... make any money whatsoever?

[Franklinnoble]

Eventually the limitations of IE forced me to find a different option, and Firefox (and the early incarnations) have worked perfectly for me. I think it is natural in the business world for people to move to the higer end product if the 'standard' starts lagging behind. Who knows if that will happen with the stanglehold Microsoft has on web browsing though.

Question: How does Firebird, Opera, etc... make any money whatsoever?
I don't know about FireFox, but I know Opera is advertiser-supported, unless you buy the upgraded version.

[ISiddiqui]

Something I don't understand. If Microsoft is so evil by holding back innovation, then how can you download something like Opera or Firefox which have those innovations? Apparently MS didn't hold back innovation that much.

[Franklinnoble]

Something I don't understand. If Microsoft is so evil by holding back innovation, then how can you download something like Opera or Firefox which have those innovations? Apparently MS didn't hold back innovation that much.
The theory is that Microsoft can afford to give away IE for "free," because it's bundled with the OS, and, in fact, is unremoveable from Windows. Other browser companies can't turn a profit because no one wants to pay for something that they already have for free.

Plus, the proprietary knowledge Microsoft has of the Windows OS makes it much easier for them to optimize ALL of their software (not just the browser). Integrating IE with Windows gives it an advantage that Opera or Mozilla can't really compete with - although I commend them for building a better browser despite the obvious handicap...

[dawgfan]

I hate the problems with IE as much as anyone, and I'm disappointed that IE isn't given more priority within Microsoft in terms of development. That said...

Before IE came out, consumers had to pay for browser software. They are all available for free now. Is this not a benefit to consumers?

When IE was competing with Netscape, the quality of browsers improved a great deal to the point where many considered IE the best product. This benefited consumers in providing better browsers.

Now admittedly, IE improvement has stagnated greatly. Still, it's difficult to say innovation has been stifled when a consumer can easily download a free alternative browser with a great deal of innovation beyond IE such as Opera, FireFox and Mozilla. I wish Microsoft was staying ahead of the curve, but unfortunately it's a truism of business that often the market leader becomes a follower in terms of innovation.

I'm glad that IE will finally have pop-up blockers built-in, but in some ways not having it standard in IE has allowed other businesses to jump in with mods to IE providing this service - consumers had the option of addressing pop-up annoyances plus other companies were able to improve their brand by adding value to IE.

I'm curious SI, how do your feelings about Microsoft compare to companies such as Nike or GE or Dow or Union Carbide?

[Franklinnoble]

I hate the problems with IE as much as anyone, and I'm disappointed that IE isn't given more priority within Microsoft in terms of development. That said...

Before IE came out, consumers had to pay for browser software. They are all available for free now. Is this not a benefit to consumers?

When IE was competing with Netscape, the quality of browsers improved a great deal to the point where many considered IE the best product. This benefited consumers in providing better browsers.

Now admittedly, IE improvement has stagnated greatly. Still, it's difficult to say innovation has been stifled when a consumer can easily download a free alternative browser with a great deal of innovation beyond IE such as Opera, FireFox and Mozilla. I wish Microsoft was staying ahead of the curve, but unfortunately it's a truism of business that often the market leader becomes a follower in terms of innovation.

I'm glad that IE will finally have pop-up blockers built-in, but in some ways not having it standard in IE has allowed other businesses to jump in with mods to IE providing this service - consumers had the option of addressing pop-up annoyances plus other companies were able to improve their brand by adding value to IE.

I'm curious SI, how do your feelings about Microsoft compare to companies such as Nike or GE or Dow or Union Carbide?
You work at Microsoft or something? :)

Personally, I'm not anti-MS... hell, I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for Microsoft... but they did pretty much squash Netscape (and Word Perfect, and Borland, and they've nearly killed Novell), and they used their OS monopoly to do so.

The problem is, I don't see how you could force Microsoft NOT to use their OS as leverage for their other products. That's just smart business. I think there was a small window of opportunity in the 1980's for other operating systems to establish themselves on the Intel chipset, and nobody really stepped up to the plate. IBM dropped the ball (repeatedly), and there were only a few other half-hearted attempts (GeoWorks, DR-Dos, etc.)

If there had been an alternative OS in the 80's and early 90's that could have challenged Microsoft's dominance, things would have been much different. But MS-DOS was king for a long time... and Microsoft leveraged that with Windows, and the rest is history... Nowadays, the only alternative you have is Linux, and it's not easy to use, and it's not compatible with all the software people want to use these days. Businesses won't embrace it, because it doesn't integrate as tightly with all the Windows-based server operating systems they're running now. ;)

So, we're going to have to accept that there will only be niche markets for software companies to make improvements on Microsoft's offerings, and that Microsoft will eventually catch up with them and crush the upstarts. I don't doubt that at some point, IE will have pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing, and ad-blocking, just to make it as cool and useful as FireFox. Until then, I will be a small part of the browser revolution.

[sterlingice]

I'm trying to keep the vitriol out because I think this is a fascinating debate. Few arguments will change my mind but I really am interested in hearing the other side. But it's really hard, as someone wanting to go into the field, to view Microsoft though anything but a negative lens. Also, keep in mind I've gotten the equivalent of Econ 101 about 5 years ago and that's the extent of my knowledge so anything you can throw in thataway would probably trump what I know.

Personally, I'm not anti-MS... hell, I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for Microsoft... but they did pretty much squash Netscape (and Word Perfect, and Borland, and they've nearly killed Novell), and they used their OS monopoly to do so.
I still lament the loss of WP. Sure, it's still there but it's a shell of it's former self. Back when it was still kindof a fight (WP8 vs Office97), Word Perfect was light years ahead of Office even though and even Lotus was better. But WP changed hands so many times (WP Company to Novell or Corel) and all of those companies lost so much money on the deal that it's just barely alive these days.

And if you think free browsers are great, how about paying $500 for a copy of office? They went after Netscape because they (wrongfully) viewed it as a threat to their desktop monopoly. As a sidebar, I'm not sure how you claimed it cost money. Netscape cost money for companies but was free for individuals for the entire life of the product. The same was true for IE at the time.

So, we're going to have to accept that there will only be niche markets for software companies to make improvements on Microsoft's offerings, and that Microsoft will eventually catch up with them and crush the upstarts. I don't doubt that at some point, IE will have pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing, and ad-blocking, just to make it as cool and useful as FireFox. Until then, I will be a small part of the browser revolution.
And this is the part that really bugs me. How do you have innovation when there's no real money to be had because one company keeps everyone else out despite numerous flaws in their product. Money still drives innovation and when you erect such high entry barriers, it just leads entrepreneurs elsewhere and stagnates your field.

I'm curious SI, how do your feelings about Microsoft compare to companies such as Nike or GE or Dow or Union Carbide?
To be honest, I can't tell you much about their business models as I am not in their field. I really couldn't tell you about Dow or Union Carbide. GE has competition in many of their fields and so does Nike. When I go to Foot Locker, there's a good 50% of the store that's Nike but there's another half that is Reebok or Adidas or some sort of speciality shoe. Microsoft runs on over 90% of computers and that's as close to an absolute monopoly as exists.

The closest thing that I know a little about is AT&T. From stats I've seen, they kept prices pretty low for quite a while despite having a monopoly. When someone wanted to integrate in was another story and it took court rulings to do it, but until then their costs were on par with their cost increases. In other words, they couldn't leverage their monopoly because of regulation so costs got passed onto consumers but not much else. They didn't get to just pocket the excess revenue from having a monopoly and had a responsibility to the consumer cost-wise.

Microsoft doesn't have this limitation: there is no competition and the only OS's they have had to compete with lately are really their own (i.e. very few were convinced to upgrade from Win98 to that debacle that was WinME). So when they charge $400 for the new copy of Office or $200 for the new copy of Windows, they are setting the price not based on cost and revenue curves but based on where they can maximize profits because there is no competition.

SI

[dawgfan]

And this is the part that really bugs me. How do you have innovation when there's no real money to be had because one company keeps everyone else out despite numerous flaws in their product. Money still drives innovation and when you erect such high entry barriers, it just leads entrepreneurs elsewhere and stagnates your field.

You say this, and yet here are Mozilla, Opera and FireFox innovating in the browser market.


To be honest, I can't tell you much about their business models as I am not in their field. I really couldn't tell you about Dow or Union Carbide. GE has competition in many of their fields and so does Nike. When I go to Foot Locker, there's a good 50% of the store that's Nike but there's another half that is Reebok or Adidas or some sort of speciality shoe. Microsoft runs on over 90% of computers and that's as close to an absolute monopoly as exists.

The closest thing that I know a little about is AT&T. From stats I've seen, they kept prices pretty low for quite a while despite having a monopoly. When someone wanted to integrate in was another story and it took court rulings to do it, but until then their costs were on par with their cost increases. In other words, they couldn't leverage their monopoly because of regulation so costs got passed onto consumers but not much else. They didn't get to just pocket the excess revenue from having a monopoly and had a responsibility to the consumer cost-wise.

Microsoft doesn't have this limitation: there is no competition and the only OS's they have had to compete with lately are really their own (i.e. very few were convinced to upgrade from Win98 to that debacle that was WinME). So when they charge $400 for the new copy of Office or $200 for the new copy of Windows, they are setting the price not based on cost and revenue curves but based on where they can maximize profits because there is no competition.

SI

My question wasn't so much about specific business models, but more addressing the level of vitriol that Microsoft engenders among so many people. I don't think Microsoft should be immune from criticism and there are certainly a number of things that bug me about what we do, but the level of hate that some people have for the company seems so completely out of line with reality when you compare MS to other companies with serious ethics questions that transcend the business arena and encroach upon human rights, moral grounds and environmental responsibility.

[ISiddiqui]

The theory is that Microsoft can afford to give away IE for "free," because it's bundled with the OS, and, in fact, is unremoveable from Windows. Other browser companies can't turn a profit because no one wants to pay for something that they already have for free.

I guess we are really suffering because we are getting free browsers :p.

IE may have overwhelmed Netscape, but in the end it is because they had a superior browser, especially when Netscape came out with their Version 4.

[Surtt]

IE may have overwhelmed Netscape, but in the end it is because they had a superior browser.

??????

And,...
the govenment sued Microsoft back in the 90s becouse they felt sorry for Netscape.

The next thing you will be telling me is Microsoft has good customer service.

[Desnudo]

??????

And,...
the govenment sued Microsoft back in the 90s becouse they felt sorry for Netscape.

The next thing you will be telling me is Microsoft has good customer service.The government, more specifically, The Justice Department, sued MS back in the 90s because that's what the government does, Republican or Democrat. It's almost never motivated by a pure sense of right or wrong. Inevitably you end up with people working in government who see free enterprise as a threat, not a benefit.

As for IE, I have no complaints, it's free, it does the job for me. Key word for the consumer here: free.

[ISiddiqui]

the govenment sued Microsoft back in the 90s becouse they felt sorry for Netscape.

The 'tying' of brower to OS complaint died pretty bad. The courts didn't instruct MS to not tie in IE with Windows. The big decisions were about Office and strongarming OEM manufacturers.

And look at CNET reviews of the browsers. IE ended up being a vastly superior browser.

[Franklinnoble]

The 'tying' of brower to OS complaint died pretty bad. The courts didn't instruct MS to not tie in IE with Windows. The big decisions were about Office and strongarming OEM manufacturers.

And look at CNET reviews of the browsers. IE ended up being a vastly superior browser.
Do you have a link to this? I find that difficult to believe... I'm not saying you're lying, I just can't believe a group of so-called technical professionals would not see that Microsoft has done NOTHING with IE in the last two years.

[Mr. Wednesday]

It's funny, usually people would be thrilled if Microsoft weren't making major changes to their products. CF the usual complaints with every new version of Office calling it "bloatware". MS can't win. :p

Personally, I don't think Microsoft crushed Netscape because they were worried about a browser market as such. That was the time when people were talking about server-based applications with dumb, browser-based terminals as a real possibility. I think Microsoft felt that Netscape's browser position was a threat there, and muscled them out to protect their core OS business.

[Franklinnoble]

It's funny, usually people would be thrilled if Microsoft weren't making major changes to their products. CF the usual complaints with every new version of Office calling it "bloatware". MS can't win. :p

Personally, I don't think Microsoft crushed Netscape because they were worried about a browser market as such. That was the time when people were talking about server-based applications with dumb, browser-based terminals as a real possibility. I think Microsoft felt that Netscape's browser position was a threat there, and muscled them out to protect their core OS business.
There's a difference.

Microsoft farting out a new version of Office every year while providing no real improvement is bloatware.

Ignoring browser innovation when consumers are clearly showing a preference for more robust alternatives is entirely another matter.

[sabotai]

I guess we are really suffering because we are getting free browsers :p.

IE may have overwhelmed Netscape, but in the end it is because they had a superior browser, especially when Netscape came out with their Version 4.

Version 4 of Netscape was a TOTAL disaster. That killed it off more than anything. I was a faithful Netscape user up until that POS came out.

[dawgfan]

Do you have a link to this? I find that difficult to believe... I'm not saying you're lying, I just can't believe a group of so-called technical professionals would not see that Microsoft has done NOTHING with IE in the last two years.

I think he meant at the end of the Netscape/IE wars that IE was being reviewed far more favorably. I have no doubt that currently IE is near the bottom.

[Franklinnoble]

I think he meant at the end of the Netscape/IE wars that IE was being reviewed far more favorably. I have no doubt that currently IE is near the bottom.
Well, on that we agree. For a while there, IE was beating the crap out of every browser on the market, but as I said before, they've done NOTHING lately. I've been a hard-core Mozilla FireFox/Firebird user for over a year now.

[clintl]

Basically, the problem with Microsoft is that it tried to use its monopoly power in the OS market to achieve monopoly status in several other software markets. That is a no-no, and should be a no-no, and the fact that Microsoft has not repented means that it still deserves all of the scorn it gets.

Its comeuppance may be on the way. I just read an article in which studies are beginning to show that open source software achieves much, much lower defect rates than proprietary software as it matures. This may signal the beginning of the end of major software companies being able to have a closed source software business model. Microsoft will have to change its ways to survive.

[GrantDawg]

Version 4 of Netscape was a TOTAL disaster. That killed it off more than anything. I was a faithful Netscape user up until that POS came out.
Me, too.

[ISiddiqui]

I just can't believe a group of so-called technical professionals would not see that Microsoft has done NOTHING with IE in the last two years.

Like dawgfan said. IE doing nothing in the last two years has no bearing on it kicking the crap out of Netscape. And there were a TON of Netscape users who never used Netscape again after version 4. It was an unmitigated fuckup. THAT is what cause IE to zoom to the market share it has now.

[Franklinnoble]

Basically, the problem with Microsoft is that it tried to use its monopoly power in the OS market to achieve monopoly status in several other software markets. That is a no-no, and should be a no-no, and the fact that Microsoft has not repented means that it still deserves all of the scorn it gets.

Its comeuppance may be on the way. I just read an article in which studies are beginning to show that open source software achieves much, much lower defect rates than proprietary software as it matures. This may signal the beginning of the end of major software companies being able to have a closed source software business model. Microsoft will have to change its ways to survive.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The easiest way for Microsoft to crush and dominate the open-source market would be for them to make the Windows 9x code open source. Developers would dump Linux like a hot potato, and Microsoft would only solidify their monopoly, all the while killing their competition, and negating the possibility of an anti-trust lawsuit.

[clintl]

Yeah, but an open source Windows would be a good thing because other people could fix Windows bugs without waiting for Microsoft to do it, and it would inhibit Microsoft's ability to create a monopoly in other software products because competitors would have the same information about the operating system that Microsoft does. An open source Windows would be a much better product.

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, but an open source Windows would be a good thing because other people could fix Windows bugs without waiting for Microsoft to do it, and it would inhibit Microsoft's ability to create a monopoly in other software products because competitors would have the same information about the operating system that Microsoft does. An open source Windows would be a much better product.
My point exactly. But they would still be able to sell a shitload of MS Office and Visual Studio, and their server and 2K/XP workstation business (at least amongst corporate clients) would only increase. It would just give average home users a free OS, making access to the technology that much easier for everyone.

It's a great f'ing idea. I'm gonna write Bill Gates a letter or something...

[QuikSand]

It's a great f'ing idea. I'm gonna write Bill Gates a letter or something...

Send him an email. I hear he is paying good money for people who send emails.

[Surtt]

Send him an email. I hear he is paying good money for people who send emails.

I thought Dave Thomas was doing that.
No wonder I didn't get a check.

[sterlingice]

My point exactly. But they would still be able to sell a shitload of MS Office and Visual Studio, and their server and 2K/XP workstation business (at least amongst corporate clients) would only increase. It would just give average home users a free OS, making access to the technology that much easier for everyone.

It's a great f'ing idea. I'm gonna write Bill Gates a letter or something...
Except that Microsoft get a metric assload of cash from selling OEM versions of Windows to Dell, Gateway, HP, etc, and I doubt they'd want to give up that cash. Plus, it would be shunned by the open source community because it's Microsoft. And, who wants to run a patched up version of Win95 when they could be running XP that comes with their computer. Linux is attractive to the DIYers for quite a few reasons, but the other 90% of people want their boxes running without having to do much so downloading an OS and installing it themself wouldn't work.

SI

[Franklinnoble]

Except that Microsoft get a metric assload of cash from selling OEM versions of Windows to Dell, Gateway, HP, etc, and I doubt they'd want to give up that cash. Plus, it would be shunned by the open source community because it's Microsoft. And, who wants to run a patched up version of Win95 when they could be running XP that comes with their computer. Linux is attractive to the DIYers for quite a few reasons, but the other 90% of people want their boxes running without having to do much so downloading an OS and installing it themself wouldn't work.

SI
Nah... they'd still sell a ton of OEM copies of WinXP... because people will always be willing to pay for the "gold standard." But what this would do is allow mom-and-pop computer shops and vendors like e-machines (are they even still around?) to be more competitive and offer cheaper PCs, because we're rapidly reaching the point where the hardware required to do basic computing is cheaper than the Windows license. And an open source copy of Win98SE that's been modded and beefed up by the open source community will be just about as good as WinXP for most home users.

Corporate companies will still swarm to 2k/XP because of domain/active directory security, etc. It's a no-lose scenario.