I agree that competition is a good thing. I'll chime in with some others that having linux compete with Windows helps keep Microsoft in line.

On the other hand, limiting hardware can allow software to reach higher potentials. Take the game console industry - when you can choose (and hence limit) the hardware for graphics processing, IO, etc., you can tune everything for fantastic performance. There is actually discussion about whether PC gaming will go away someday, because it's getting stupid to purchase a $2000 game pc when you can purchase a $500 desktop for business and a $400 box for gaming. Limiting windows to intel and intel compatable copies would allow the system to be tuned for better and better performance.

So, my vote is: Stay right where we are. The only reason for considering a move would be instability at Intel. If the whole thing were based on AMD, I'd be considering my options right now.

Considering a release to Linux: The question is - Does Microsoft think competition is good for them? Right now, the reason I don't buy Linux is that it doesn't run as much software as Windows does (It's also not as dependable as everyone makes it out to be; a story for another day). The software that it has is generally of lower quality. If Microsoft takes the lead and starts providing software for Linux, then they're shooting themselves in the foot by giving up a key advantage over other operating systems.

Forgive me for being a bit of a Pollyanna, but right now the balance appears just about right. Microsoft has enough "little dogs" barking at its heels to keep Microsoft in line. If they get too lazy, the competition could catch up. Microsoft if forced to press on for better quality and features. The only problem? Expense. So, if someone in a third world country wants to get Ubuntu for free, they can get it. Pretty nice.