You know, this article sounds a lot like the cell phone discussion.

Many thought that a portable phone was "superfluous" and over-the-top. That was before the next wave of technology turned them into portable PCs, video cameras, personal (and even not-so-personal) music players, GPS, 411, and etcetera.

One may not yet find a use for some certain new features. But therein lies much of the forward thinking of Microsoft. Most vendors build from absolute front end visibility needs, and come lacking when it comes to functionality, durability, and flexability. Microsoft on the other hand comes at it from the platform up, allowing connections to be made under the hood that others merely wink at. Maybe the value of some certain connections won't be realized until later, but the flexibility of the platform in the end stays in the game the longest.

Microsoft from the beginning focused on sharing information, vice blocking all others out. Yes, they did go through a security transition, but the flexibility of their platforms kept them solvent.

Give me bigger, better, faster, and more flexible, every time. Until another competitor enters the market that even comes close to the toolsets and the ease of connectability, I will choose MS product almost every time. This is not a one sided view; I have as much experience with open source and many other competitors as I do with MS wares, as I have had to work in co-mingled environments for most of my career.

Far too many employers see only initial cost, and not long term goals vs. TCO. Far too many well meaning IT folks do not know the difference(s) between platforms, having worked with only one or two.