PatInCanada,
All of your points about Microsoft are well taken. I know there are a lot of people out there who simply can't stand Microsoft and Bill Gates. While there is truth to the fact that Microsoft has tightly coupled their IE browser with their OS and has many advantages in the Applications market (i.e. Office, etc) because of all the code they've built into their Windows products, I don't necessarily agree that Microsoft has squashed other software vendors from writing high-end software that is perfectly compatible with their Windows Operating Systems. There are thousands of Windows applications out there that work perfectly well with many versions of Windows. Microsoft does a pretty good job at supporting software and hardware developers seeking to create and market Windows compatible software/hardware.
I personally have a love/hate relationship with Microsoft's products (Windows, IE, Office and all their API's and interfaces that make their products "talk" between each other and communicate over networks). Nothing prevented IBM, Apple or any other software giant from developing and marketing a PC desktop OS that could have dominated the market the way Microsoft Windows now does. IBM fell on their face with OS/2, which claimed to be the greated GUI-front-ended OS ever. Apple, with their MAC hardware and OS has a niche market, but nowhere near the install base of MS Windows. Microsoft did a lot of things right in creating and marketing Windows to run on "generic" Intel-based PCs. Apple screwed themselves by making their hardware and micro-code proprietary. IBM simply dropped the ball with OS/2 - leaving Microsoft there to pick up the pieces and create Windows NT and all subsequent versions of NT.
The anti-trust stuff has more to do with browser technology and Internet standards than anything else. Microsoft HAS leveraged their HUGE install-base of Windows to gain an advantage in the Internet arena - but they legitimately gained such a huge install-base of Windows by creating Operating Systems and products that could be run on a wide variety of affordable, "generic" hardware and opened up their architecture to a host of software and hardware developers.
By NO MEANS am I some cheerleader for Microsoft. There are many things about their Windows OS and application products that I do not like. Windows is a resource HOG which eats up RAM, CPU cycles and disk-space like no other OS out there. The fact that Windows runs on such a wide variety of hardware can make it a nightmare to support due to all the variables with hardware compability and drivers. Windows is the MAIN target of viruses, malware and external hack attacks - making it extremely vulnerable if not secured properly. IE uses Microsoft-specific controls, add-ons and APIs which are NOT always compatible with other industry standards. This makes supporting websites and other Internet features difficult as MS products are not always cross-compatible with other Internet standards. This problem isn't just a "Microsoft" problem, but rather a cut-throat competition between competing companies such as AOL, Apple, Sun MicroSystems, Adobe and others. Everyone out there wants to dominate the Internet and as a result - there exists a hodge-podge of incompatible standards that don't work well together across operating systems, browsers and media players.
Personally, I would like to see an open-source OS/Platform such as Linux take over the desktop. Linux is MUCH faster than Windows and will run well with FAR less RAM, CPU and disk space than Windows. They key to open-source platforms like Linux catching on will be when large companies like Adobe start porting their products to run on Linux. Right now, there's no money in doing so when Windows and MAC OS have such a stronghold on the desktop.
The broadband market, much like the desktop OS market, is driven by market share and potential revenue. If the large telcos and broadband cable providers don't see $$$ to be made in a specific area, they typically won't invest. While I do believe in the power of a free-market economy, situations like this, I feel, DO require government intervention. There are many local governments here in the U.S. which are fed up with the slow implementation of broadband by the telcos and cable companies. As a result, they are taking matters into their own hands and "lighting-up" entire cities with broadband. It's not a popular option in a country where big business rules - but necessary when these large companies are leaving out folks who live in rural or sparsely populated areas where an investment in broadband network infrastructure cannot be cost-justified. Dial-up is legacy technology - simply too slow and outdated given the current applications that exist on the Internet today.
You absolutely need a good active firewall and active anti-virus software if you're on the Internet. I wouldn't rely on Window's built-in firewall as it is very rudimentary in its capabilities. Based on everything I've read and all of the interaction I've had with people who are experts in these matters - I would recommend a combination of Zone Alarm (
www.zonealarm.com) for firewall protection and NOD32 AntiVirus (
www.eset.com). Eset also makes a Security Suite product with a firewall included which is worth checking out. I'm not sure how Eset's "bundled" firewall compares to Zone Alarm (others here - please chime in with your opinions). There are several common sense things you can do to protect yourself while online. NEVER open email from any source you're unfamiliar with. NEVER respond to any pop-up or email that claims to be from a legit source requesting personal information (i.e. banking info, birthdates, addresses, etc.). Enable the built-in privacy and pop-up blocking features in IE or other browsers.
- John