IMO, without Microsoft, people would be more aware of how computers work.
IMO, without Microsoft, people would be less aware of viruses. heh heh
it's true that MS is most attacked by viruses because it's the most popular, but anyone will tell you MS is not at all a very stable OS. quite inefficient too if you ask me. Linux doesn't even need an anti-virus program at the moment.

honestly though, if MS didn't do the whole GUI thing, someone else definitely would have.

If MS didn't emerge, then games and other common software would be made for OS's like Mac and Linux and i think Linux would be a lot more GUI oriented. Something like Ubuntu/SuSE Linux would have emerged in the late 90's and games would be compatible.

The reason most of the software around is mostly compatible with MS is because it's the most popular OS around because of it's ease of use. but if MS didn't become so big, some other OS would and games would be made for them instead,

Many people around the world believe MS is the best OS out there. MS is a great OS under certain limited conditions. a small change of those circumstances and MS is a mess. Anyone will tell you MS has only a fraction of the power that Linux/Unix has.

i haven't touched windows in the last 6 months or so and i must say, i'm VERY satisfied with Linux. Feels a bit like windows without the bugs and the viruses.

Originally Posted by Bazza` Fact is without Microsoft most software would not be as powerfull and stable as they are today, which in turn would would lead to less developed hardware (whats the point in making advanced hardware if the programmes dont need it?)

what do you mean? do you mean Microsoft is stable and powerful or did i misunderstand what you meant there?