The thing I dislike about MS (as well as other near-monopolies) is their tactic of destroying all competition, sometimes without acquiring the innovations that brought around the destruction. Without competitors their "innovations" grind to a halt. And the consumer ends up with whatever they deliver. Think about products that MS has innovated: Bob (the OS), MS Money, MSN (the first iteration). All failed miserably. How to fix? Acquire other companies and rebrand their products as MS ones. This approach doesn't so much take brains as money.
MS consistently touts their product as the best, denying any security flaws in the software for upwards of half a year (as in the case under discussion). As was already pointed out on this thread, their "innovation" tends to be either "ripping off" or "buying out" a true innovator. Ask anybody who's been borged by either MS or any other large software company, how their intellectual property (as well as human resources, i.e., employees) is treated after the assimilation. The sad truth is, it's usually squandered. The defense for MS that I see a lot is that Bill Gates is a smart guy. I don't deny it, but he's also an unethical and ruthless guy. That's the part I dislike.
