Interesting rebuttal by Wilt - we've drifted OT a bit but to add a bit more spice to the conversation then

Apple, and latterly Microsoft, in their smartphone OS have sought to create a very controlled and closed architecture. The benefit of the Apple solution is that there is none of the widespread anarchy that exists in the Android world, and that Wilt has quite clearly featured in his discussion. Microsoft have, indeed, licensed their OS to other manufacturers, it had to, even with its partnership with Nokia. But the licensing is rigid to the point of hardware itself, buttons in specific places and order, sealed memory systems, strictly structured UI and so on. If you read back to my early feedback on the Samsung Omnia 7, loaned to me by Three, you will find why I found the WM7 OS quite so horrid. Yes, some love WM7, and probably anything that MS ever put out, but I ignore such driven passions

Turning to the Windows PC (desktop and server) OS ... I have been involved with Microsoft Windows since the first public release back in *mumble*. It was my "day job" in an international enterprise. NT is probably when Windows finally grew up. Like all companies that make it big, Microsoft got there because it was first, and because it licensed its OS for use on what would turn out to be a generic standard. If they didn't have the cooperation of Intel it wouldn't have been like that, and it took AMD (and others) to follow Intel in order for Windows to run on their hardware. In all of that time, however, the repeated assertions by Microsoft of creating the next marvellous OS have amounted to not very much at all. They even started to copy and lift ideas directly out of OS X when Vista came along (Gadgets anyone?). To my consternation, at least, Microsoft remain wedded to the Registry, a source of much income for me when I went freelance

I will also state, for the record, that it was Microsoft Office that sealed that company's successful fate in the Enterprise. Even today, how many private individuals have a legitimate copy of MS office running on their PC? Relatively recent discounting for "students" is a sign that MS recognise their product is prohibitively expensive outside of business, and the threat of other OS implementations of "Office" applications is tangible, particularly in the tablet business where a 'halo effect' could occur, as it does with MP3 players, that draws the public's attention away from the global de-facto OS. Reading between the lines, I would say that Microsoft well know and understand the insidious threat that is becoming ever present.

Alternative desktop/server OS to Microsoft? Linux has entered the enterprise and remains there. And as the likes of Ubuntu finally learn the lessons of history and become easier to manage they get some traction also. I'll cite HSBC, for an example, who replaced their global set of OS/2 Warp branch teller terminals with a complete re-write on Linux. In the server game there is a whole lot of Linux out there, unseen, and supporting absolutely huge environments with consummate ease. But yes, Linux is not mainstream on the desktop, although it is less "geeky" than ever before.

Mac OS X is a significant OS that should not be ignored too lightly. While it, too, is not mainstream, it is pretty much "the other" OS to Windows. The cost of the hardware is often slated but when a Windows peer is assembled the difference is in pennies. Although Samsung did manage to copy one of the Macbooks last year and come up with a price that exceeded the Apple counterpart! My own direct experience of Mac and OS X is that it is the most stable and reliable combination of OS and hardware available at any price. The entire ecosystem that comes with Apple kit extends across desktop and portable equipment. Seamlessness is the watchword, and it works. Most importantly of all, and almost completely overlooked by the other OS, is the inherent data security and assurance. With Time Machine, for example, it is almost impossible to lose your data. Out of the box the backup and recovery of not only data, but versions of data, works with minimal effort to set up. All of the other OS do not come even close, and require quite a bit of specific knowledge and deliberate purpose to establish anything like it. For that alone I would state that OS X sets the bar, even though in pure unit numbers it remains far behind Windows.

I am not predicting failure of any of the above, that would be foolish. But the market hold and position will experience a seismic shift, as it has already done so in financial worth terms. Apple trounces everyone with the iPhone, Google trounces Apple with Android, Nokia lose their No.1 position for smartphones, Microsoft enter the fray and partner up with Nokia, other smartphone OS emerge and flounder.

These are, as the Chinese are wont to say, interesting times.