"Craig" wrote in message
> Plain and simply: Microsoft has been in denial of its monopoly
> position since it split with IBM in the '80s.

IBM PC and their compatibles were not the dominate personal computer in the
'80s. How did Microsoft get a monopoly running their software on them?

>They continue to believe
> they hold their position based on the quality of their product and the
> loyalty of their customers. Bunk, I say.

So you're going with the thought-control satellites theory?

> For years, they were the only game in town,

Which years were those? I can't remember any in which Microsoft was the
"only game in town."

> now they are beginning to
> face competition.

They faced competition right from the start. CP/M, GEM, Tandy, Commodore,
Apple, Atari, Sun... the list goes on and on.

> They will not survive if they continue to believe
> customers actively chose them over true competitors (Linux for
> example).

MS customers do actively choose them over Linux. Nobody from MS breaks
down your door and forces you to buy Windows at gun point.

> They will not survive if they think they can toss out
> ill-conceived products and expect their loyal customers to snap them
> up. That's not how it works in a competitive world.

Seems to me MS products have been steadily improving...

[blah blah blah snipped]