> Perhaps I'm more paranoid, or realistic.  Your option...  :-)

I choose pessimistic.  I used to work for IBM when they were on top (and
interestingly, everyone seemed to be rooting for Microsoft), so it's
easy for me to visualize how a large company can lose its footing.
 
> Assumption 1 - most users don't care whose operating system 
> is on their computer, as long as it runs the kids games, can 
> read/write stuff that can be read/written at the office, and 
> works like the old OS did.

Exactly...which is why the OS is a commodity.  Without extenuating
business circumstances, the profit margins are just not there.  Because
they don't care, they won't mind having it replaced with something that
is better about staying out of their thoughts and lives.

> Assumption 2 - system assemblers (e.g. Dell, Gateway) will 
> continue to supply MS operating systems because a) they have 
> to in order to have access to other MS products, and b) 
> that's what their customers want (see assumption 1).

Several of these vendors already offer Linux as an option.

> 1.  Microsoft withdraws support for open standards and non-MS 
> interfaces from their OS and apps, and acts to reduce 
> interoperability of their software with other software.  This 
> could include subtle or unsubtle changes to accepted 
> standards (e.g. FTP, HTTP, and anything else) or complete 
> lack of support for these standards which make it impossible 
> for an MS system to interoperate with any other system.

Their strategy is called "embrace and extend."  So far, however, it
hasn't worked very well.  Most of the time Microsoft strays from the
standand only to be slapped around and forced back into compliance, or
at least forced to participate with other vendors to develop standards.

> 2.  Other software vendors (including open source groups) try 
> to play catch-up with MS and fail, because MS can spend more 
> money/time changing things faster than others can adapt.

Microsoft, as an OS vendor, doesn't scale well.  It really doesn't make
sense to have a relatively small number of people in Redmond possessing
all the knowledge of the OS that most of the world relies on.  It
doesn't make logical sense, but more importantly, it doesn't make
economic sense.  Time will bear this out.  I don't really know what
other vendors are trying to catch up to (besides market share and
application support).  It's an OS, and in many ways, it's behind most
others.

> 3.  Other vendors and groups refuse to play by Microsoft's 
> rules and are marginalized.

Vendors that choose to face Microsoft head on are probably going to lose
that battle.  They are on top, no doubt.

> 4.  MS wins.

Wins what?  I think they continue to do well, but eventually transition
out of the OS business.

> Short of government intervention can anyone think of a way to 
> alter this scenario?  I fervently hope so.  (And before 
> anyone suggests it, murder/assassination is absolutely out of 
> the question).
> 
> Bob Jarvis
> Compuware @ Timken

Yes, stop giving them money.  There is only one application that I'm
waiting for before I switch over to Linux wholesale, and that's a good
financial management program (if only Intuit would port Quicken over).
I've got 5 computers in my home, and there's no way that I'm going to
shell out $1500 to install Win2k (or XP) on all of them.

- Stephen