There are other OS choices.

Yes, there are other operating system choices, but no viable ones in the consumer market, as detailed in Jackson's fact finding declaration. The absence of viable alternatives is the logical same as no alternatives. The mere existence of another operating system does not an alternative make.

Consumers rarely use a computer solely to access the operating system. The operating system simply serves as a means to access applications. It is within the applications that consumers actually accomplish work. And while Windows is indeed user-friendly, it cannot be argued that Windows is so much more user-friendly than say OS/2, Apple, or BeOS that 9 out of every 10 people will select Windows every time. So, how has Windows garnered and maintained such a dominant market position? Through application support and contracts with PC manufacturers. The more applications are available for Windows, the more likely it is to attract additional consumers. The more consumers the applications attract, the more likely it is that additional applications will be developed for the Windows operating system. The more applications and consumers, the greater the commitment from PC manufacturers, and, consequently, the greater the power Microsoft has on the market. It has little to do with the actual functionality of Windows itself.

To compete with Windows, an operating system would need both application support and PC manufacturing support before even having a chance to compete in the consumer market. However, it is extremely difficult to get one of these necessities without the other. This becomes impossible when you factor in the Microsoft-induced pressure applied to both application developers and PC manufacturers. Only a backlash against Microsoft, or government intervention, would open either door. Thanks to this trial, Microsoft is experiencing both. By bringing Microsoft's questionable business practices to light with this trial, Microsoft is facing a PR nightmare that has opened the door a crack already to competition, thus the recent successes of Linux which would have been unheard of before. A legal ruling would open the door completely by hamstringing Microsoft's bullying tactics. This does not guarantee that a viable competitor will emerge, just that they will have an opportunity to do so that was not there before. Some perceived competitors are listed below, along with reasons as to why they should not be considered as alternatives to Windows.

• Apple
  • As mentioned in the Findings of Fact, a switch to an Apple OS requires the user to completely switch hardware platforms as well. The large majority of people are simply not going to incur the financial burden of this selection without either a substantial incentive to make the move through either an overabundance of exclusive application availability on the Apple platform or an exorbitant rise in the price of the Intel-based computing platform. Neither of these items shows any signs of occurring. This is not to mention the fact that Apple was close to hearing a death knell just a few short years ago when suddenly they receive a large infusion from...Microsoft?? Now, why would Microsoft invest millions of dollars into what it commonly referred to as an 'enemy'? The only logical conclusion is that Microsoft knows that Apple has no intention of ever entering into the Intel-based market, relegating it to a niche player. However, the mere existence of Apple allows Microsoft to issue this exact argument, that they don't have a monopoly due to competition from Apple. The argument just simply doesn't hold water.
• BeOS
  • A victim of the cyclical nature of software mentioned above and detailed in the Findings of Fact, the BeOS operating system will never gain a large enough either PC manufacturing support or application support to become a viable alternative to Windows. This is due, in large part, to the exclusionary efforts of Microsoft. The success of Microsoft's tactics is evidenced by Be's recent decision to make the BeOS an open source efforts in attempts to capitalize on the success of Linux at the sacrifice of profits related to the operating system.
• UNIX variants (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, SCO)
  • These are server based operating systems and are not intended for the consumer market. SCO, while having the ability to run on an Intel platform, is still aimed at the server, not consumer, market. Microsoft is not implied as having a monopoly in the server market, so these are not competitors.
• Linux
  • The only one here that stands a chance in the future, but not at present. Even Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, has stated publicly that Linux was not and is not geared toward the average consumer. Sure, companies like Red Hat and Corel are making strides in that direction, but that is in the future and cannot be considered in a case dealing with the past and present activities of Microsoft.
• AOL/Netscape/Time Warner
  • Until there comes a time when this merger produces an Intel-based platform that can operate without the existence of a Microsoft operating system, they will not be a competitor in the operating system space.
• OS/2
  • Even IBM has stated that all consumer oriented development of OS/2 has ceased. OS/2 is now strictly aimed at the business server market and is no longer a Windows competitor.