As the debate on Vista grows from the angry to the comical, I am beginning to notice an interesting trend. More people that I speak with about computing have expressed an interest in trying alternative operating systems and hardware. In fact, I am of the opinion that in 5-6 years' time, you'll be able to walk into your local electronics store and choose between a variety of operating systems, all with approximately equal levels of functionality. Games, again in my perfect little world, will be written for these varying platforms. While I feel Microsoft will probably still be the dominant O/S, I see their numbers hovering in the high 60-low 70 percent rather than the 90 percent they enjoy now.

And of course, if I'm right, and if this happens, there will be a lot of users cheering the death of their stranglehold, without acknowledging what Microsoft's dominance has brought us.

Microsoft's tenure as the primary O/S on the vast majority of machines has helped standardize PC computing to allow development and innovation that could never have occured if developers were still arguing about software platforms. It helped bring about the commercialization of the Internet and make the home computer ubiquitous as what someone learned in their office could be carried home with them with no difficulty. But Microsoft is finding itself where many monopolies are at the end of their usefulness as a monopoly -- unjustly villainized and stereotyped.

Monopolies, for all of their negatives, bring about innovation. It was a monopoly in regional markets that brought about the first Transcontinental railroad. It was a monopoly that brought our phone service to the level that it is at today. What a monopoly does is allows fewer resources to be spent on advertising and more on research and development. After all, if you're the only game in town, what good's a print ad going to do you?

But in a free market, monopolies and the principles of free markets (however far we have gotten off the course, we are still, basically, a free market in many areas) eventually find themselves obsolete. Once the innovation is done, once they have gotten to a comfortable point and expansion opportunities become limited, monopolies become bloated. With no competition, they can charge whatever they want and become increasingly less efficient at customer service. Once a customer has grown dependent on their product, the monopolies can lead them anywhere.

This, in my opinion, is where Microsoft is and why competition can help correct its course. Windows Vista has a number of compelling features and is, by many standards, a great O/S. But by just as many other standards, it sucks. I don't need to go over the pros and cons here; there's no shortage of articles espousing either position to be found, both on JU and the Internet at large.

Once competition enters the picture, the companies that once were monopolies improve. They didn't get to be dominant by being stupid, and they adapt to the business environment in which they find themselves. As the ex-monopolies improve, so does the industry. And in the end, the consumer benefits.