Without Microsoft having continued so far, computing would be very different today.
Yes, it would be literally years farther forward ahead, which is what the DoJ found when they found them guilty of abusing their monopoly position — right before Ashcroft (under Bush) decided that they would not even get a handslap for it.
If Microsoft had stagnated (Anti-Microsoft jokes elsewhere, please) with Windows 95, and left computing to newer upstarts, I expect we wouldn't have anywhere near the compatibility and interoperability we have today.
What? You are clearly clinically insane. Microsoft has always been the enemy of compatibility and interoperability. They create their own garbage protocols and APIs when the industry already has protocols that do the same thing. They buy out companies making cross-platform software and terminate or deprecate the non-windows versions.
Even among non-Microsoft OSes, interoperability is a mandatory feature.
If only you knew what "Open" meant. Hint: It has nothing to do with the OSI. Openness was a central feature of Unix since time was time. It meant documented (often with source access) and thus interoperable. Microsoft is the odd man out here. Source access is extremely limited; only governments have complete source trees.
In contrast, I'm reminded of the pre-Windows days where particular software was written for a particular system, and that was it.
Less Windows software is cross-platform than software for any other platform except perhaps the Macintosh. Another central feature of Unix is portability. It's also a central feature of C. But Microsoft creates their own specifically non-interoperable garbage APIs to the detriment of all, like Direct3D.
Now, we have OpenOffice, Wine, and Samba, all from different projects united in the goal of slaying the Microsoft beast.
Yes, those are all projects which exist only because Microsoft is hostile to compatibility and interoperability. You don't even understand your own argument.