@L
That would be Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, who was in a bunch of late 80s/early 90s movies.

Still a hell of a lot of money whatever way you look at it though.

You wrote:

“Microsoft’s going to purchase a company with massive brand loyalty, expert technical people, great if specialized infrastructure, and some great software purchases… and promptly rebrand the company, force the technical people to learn entirely new architectures, toss out the infrastructure, and cannibalize the software?

Ballmer’s an idiot, but he’s not that stupid.”

Oh, but he is, and they are. This is exactly how they’ve always operated. I sincerely doubt if they’re magically going to turn into a completely different company just now, with the acquisition of Yahoo.

and @ John Muir:

You’re right: the interoperable utopia is already here, with Boot Camp and Parallels and Fusion, and Apple has delivered it. Microsoft will resist with every fiber of their being, and I think that’s what, more than anything else, will confine them to the dustbin of history.

Personally, I won’t be using this capability until Wine is ready for prime time, but for everybody who thinks they “have to” run Windows: Why in the world would you buy a computer that can only run one operating system? More and more people are coming to ask themselves the same question. It’s only a matter of time now!

I’ve heard that argument a lot of times: all corporations are driven by profit alone, and therefore all of them are essentially amoral and self serving. It’s a view most often espoused by those just about to defend Microsoft … I wonder why that would be?

What makes Apple different to that idea is Steve Jobs and its culture of design. If Apple were about profits alone, OS X would be shrinkwrapped alongside Vista by now … at least to test the market if not as a riotous success. (I happen to think it would be a disaster for Apple, as Windows has never been about “good”, just ubiquity.)

But then again, if Apple or Google or any other firm whose products I use and who I respect were to turn evil all of a sudden: it wouldn’t matter.

Why? Because the last thing you wrote – an interoperable utopia – is hardly a pipedream. It’s the inevitable direction we are headed, and Microsoft’s woes are absolutely bound to it.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way. And where there’s demand for a Google and an Apple, there will be others who would succeed them if they fail. As for the role of bad guy, I really don’t think there is a self-sustaining requirement for that. MS can approach their ultimate culture and identity change whichever way they like. Just rest assured they will be the means of their own bankruptcy if they insist on going down in fire.