I wish antitrust enforcement focused on this stuff again. Remember when MS merely including a web browser at all was brought into question?
(Edit: Actually, when it comes to gaming, Linux is getting better and better)
80% of common tasks isn’t enough when part of the remaining 20% is absolutely necessary for work
Seems like MacOS does not run on hardware that is not sold by Apple.
It was horribly slow but something more optimized like Rosetta might help.
It'll be a much harder game though for sure.
Many are MS-only shops, but a large and growing section are hybrid or in some cases Mac-only.
The rise of cloud (ie, OS-independent) solutions has had it's impact: Windows isn't required for the vast populace (MS still takes it's tax via Office365) of business workers.
The next frontier is Chrome as the overlord of the browser realm.
if your cad software or whatever doesn't work with your OS of choice I'd take it up with the vendor
Almost made me spit out my drink
The very first MS-DOS also included a text editor - for free! Oh, the humanity! Those evil Redmondians!
1) the text editor shipped with the OS is extremely basic. It is not competing to be the world's favourite text editor, and is probably required to have a usable OS out of the box.
2) the web browser was essentially a competing platform to the OS itself for many user tasks. To leverage your monopoly on one platform to control another is against anti trust.
2. If it was doing essential OS tasks, then it was part of the operating system.
I hope we can agree a text editor is different that a browser, word processor, or an IDE (at least nowadays). Nobody complains that Microsoft ships Nodepad or Paint, because they are the bare minimum and avoidable. Hell, they shipped Nodepad and Wordpad, and neither dented Word's market share.
Regarding 2, this is unbelievably naive. For such an important product, of course Microsoft would find a way to make it do "essential" OS tasks. Apple/iOS is obviously much worse in this regard. But for better or worse, iOS devices are a minority in the EU.
The Start Menu in Windows 10/11 is HTML/CSS. It's not a matter of "finding ways" to make it do things, HTML was pushed as being the document description / display technology, why wouldn't Microsoft use it for Explorer folder views and Active Desktop? Why shouldn't they be allowed to? You could embed web pages in the Win98 desktop background, that's the kind of embedded document thing people were researching and crowing about in the 60s and 70s in alternative OS's. It's the kind of thing users wanted with rainmeter and SysInternals' bginfo. IIRC you could edit the CSS and change the theme of Explorer folder views, give them new colours and background images.
> "Nobody complains that Microsoft ships Nodepad or Paint, because they are the bare minimum and avoidable."
Nobody complains that Microsoft shipped the best CSharp compiler csc.exe (before .Net span off into its own thing), and didn't ship or encourage Mono or Xamarin compilers. Or PowerShell and not Perl. Why don't those things attract the interests of the courts? And now they can ship Edge, and that's apparently fine now?
As if giving consumers free tools was harming them. As if Microsoft ever prevented any other browser from being installed.
Never mind that today nearly every OS comes with a free browser. Even my Kindle comes with one.