Apple leading things would be worse than Microsoft because they wouldn't just own the OS but the hardware too, secret instructions would make it damn near impossible for a competitor to create a clone or write a competing OS for it, and as piratePeguin said they could charge what they like for the hardware and make people upgrade often.
If I was using Windows, I would want XP so I can get IE7 when it's released. I've used Windows on this system and it wasn't increadibly pretty (i.e. fast/snappy) (not as pretty as GNOME on GNU/Linux is), I would really want another 256MB RAM (so I'd have 512MB altogether).On GNU/Linux, I can use the latest Firefox on Slackware 8 (probably). If Firefox sucks on my 32MB RAM system, I can use dillo.EDIT: http://www.microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml#upgrade
Is it possible though to run a linux distro w/kde an OpenOffice and still have a reasonably fast stable machine.
For example a 233 mhz pc, maybe a 20gb hardrive, 64 megs or ram, vid card no memory on it, ps 2 mouse, keyboard.
Doesnt linux require ppl to upgrade in order to make it functional for regular use?
Who says it would stay that way? It didn't work this way even in reality, as Apple DID allow licensed clones for a couple years in the mid-90s. This didn't exactly take off as expected (Apple would be much like MS with the operating system), so Jobs stopped it and went back to the old way. If Apple had the marketshare, the clones could've stayed. Not just existed, but stayed, because they were real for a while.
But can it run gnome and openoffice?
][/font]if Microsoft has contributed anything good and worthwhile in the computer industry