Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu, with a more aggressive installation proceedure are doing best …

What aggressive installation procedure does Ubuntu use? Are you saying that it wipes out other OS’s like Windows does? If so, then I see no technical reason for that and it does violate a Linux tradition of trying to play nice with other OS’s (even those others would be Windows.)

Even today, Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu, with a more aggressive installation proceedure are doing best against distributions that install much more cautiously. Seems nice guys finish last.

DR-DOS and OS/2 were positioned to compete vigorously against MS-DOS and early versions of Windows. Through a series of predatory acts from 1988 through 1994, however, Microsoft essentially eliminated both DR-DOS and OS/2 from the market. BeOS, on the other hand, emerged later (around 1998), long after Microsoft had established its monopoly power in the operating systems market. When Be threatened Microsoft’s hegemony by pursuing a “dual boot” strategy to overcome the applications barrier to entry, Microsoft responded with a series of anti-competitive acts which drove Be from the market.

[...]

124. During the late 1990’s, Microsoft confronted a new operating system entrant in Be’s BeOS. BeOS was developed as a powerful, graphical, easy to use computer operating system capable of handling the vast streams of data required by multimedia applications. From the time of its release in the Fall 1998, BeOS for Intel-compatible PCs received widespread praise from journalists and industry leaders for its technical capabilities, speed and ease of use.

125. Recognizing that the applications barrier to entry made any immediate attempt to displace Windows prohibitively expensive Be attempted to position BeOS as a “complement” to Windows and thus adopted a “dual boot” strategy. Microsoft, however, used anti-competitive OEM licensing terms, coupled with threats, to force OEMs not to pre-install BeOS alongside Windows on their PC products.

[...]

Microsoft’s Predatory Conduct Toward Be

137. Be was founded in 1990 for the purpose of creating a powerful, graphical, easy to use operating system capable of handling, on low-cost personal computers, the vast streams of data required in multimedia applications, in Fall 1998, Be—in collaboration with Intel—created a version of BeOS for Intel-compatible PC$ which received widespread praise in the industry.

138. Be recognized the obstacle posed by the applications barrier to entry, and consequently Be offered to license BeOS to OEMs for pre-installation on PCs in a “dual boot” configuration. Such a configuration would allow the end user to choose which operating system (BeOS or Windows) to load when the computer was turned on. Be’s “dual boot” strategy would circumvent the applications barrier by allowing consumers to use BeOS if they wanted to take advantage of its multimedia capabilities but then boot into Windows if they needed to write a letter, create a spreadsheet or take advantage of other applications for the Windows platform. Be predicted that as its operating system became more widely deployed on “dual boot” computers, its growing user base would make it a more attractive platform for application developers.

139. Like Microsoft, Be recognized the importance of pre-installation in the OEM channel. Indeed, overcoming the applications barrier required BeOS to be installed on as many Intel-compatible PCs as possible. To that end, Be eventually offered to license BeOS to OEMs for “dual-boot” installation at no cost.

140. In September 1998, Hitachi verbally committed to Be that it would pre-install BeOS alongside Windows on a line of its personal computers. In November 1998, however, Hitachi informed Be that it could not install Be’s boot manager or BeOS launcher on its computers; instead, BeOS would have to be booted from a floppy disk (which would significantly impede end user access to the operating system). Hitachi eventually explained that the terms of its license with Microsoft prevented it from offering another operating system in a “dual-boot” configuration. Hitachi also informed Be that after it had notified Microsoft of its intent to pre-install BeOS, Microsoft sent two managers to Japan to express Microsoft’s anger over the arrangement. Microsoft also threatened to raise the price of Windows to Hitachi if Hitachi installed Be’s boot manager on its computers.

141. Be’s attempts to market BeOS to other OEMs confronted similar anticompetitive obstacles. Despite backing from Intel, the technical superiority of BeOS for multimedia applications, and the fact that Be eventually offered to license BeOS without royalty, Be was unable to convince even a single major OEM to risk Microsoft’s ire by offering a dual boot PC with BeOS pre-installed. Be has thus been excluded from the market.

However, to focus on the bootloader, Be Inc (maker of BeOS) beat M$ in court, but lost the battle anyway simply because M$ had no intention of ever complying with the court.

http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/

In contrast, all other systems do a pretty fair job at getting along, even if there is no effort made to intentionally accommodate other systems on the same machine.

For example, dual booting OS X and Linux (pick a flavor) is a breeze. Triple booting OS X, Linux and BSD (pick a flavor) is easy, too.

Market share and control are the only currencies the M$ movement values, so any fines must bite into those or else are doomed to be ineffectual or even harmful to the market. The EU needs to enforce a 1 year ban on M$ formats and protocols. That would have benefits lasting for years, even if M$ shaped up and complied enough that the ban were lifted.