Hey, why don't *you* prove that Microsoft did have a negative impact. And STFU if it's going to be saying that Nutscrape's sales went down...
Um sure... Win95 appeared on the market with IE included with it. Later, Microsoft required OEMs not to remove IE from the machine, or breach their OEM contract. Finally, Microsoft intertwined IE with the guts of Windows in an attempt to make it inseparable (and failed at that). Netscape's sales started to decline in 1995 until they were vaporized by 1997 and giving away their browser so that they could make money off branding.

This is a textbook example of why *bundling is ILLEGAL* when you have a monopoly, which Microsoft did by 1995. If they didn't, Netscape would have had a market in the non-bundling vendors. But Microsoft was a single entity that controlled access to nearly every PC in existence, and they used that to shut Netscape out of the browser market. In addition to the real-world evidence, there were examples of Microsoft memos outlining their anticompetitive behavior presented in the courtroom. I can't think of how one would possibly counter-argue this.

Netscape 4 is one of the buggiest pieces of software out there. It's hell to develop for, and it's hell to use.
Try developing for IE circa 1997 when Netscape 4 was released. (It was IE 3.0 at the time.) CSS didn't exist then, and Javascript was a laughable hack. Comparing NS4 to modern browsers on technical merit is a joke.
(For crying out loud, it reloads a page when you resize the fucker) -- are you going to deny this? -- and if so, you don't even deserver being replied to.
That's funny, considering that I *would* deny that, and I would be correct. NS4 had poor CSS support (due to the standard hardly existing at the time). The reason that some web sites reload when you resize them is because of Javascript that has been placed there by the developer, in order to work around the CSS bugs.
Saying that OS2 was struck by Microsoft is equivalent to saying McDonalds is being hurt by Burger King. Get real. Get FUCKING REAL.
How can you be so inflammatory when you know nothing? Microsoft co-developed OS/2 with IBM up to version 2.0 (in fact, it was known as Microsoft OS/2 before that time), and they bailed from the project in 1991. That didn't stop them from taking HPFS from OS/2 and renaming it to NTFS, using the OS/2 bootloader, modeling the Win32 API in NT 3.1 and the executable format after OS/2's, etc etc. IBM marketed OS/2 like shit, and Microsoft took advantage of IBM's co-operation with them in the early days. It was dirty pool. Yes, you might argue that all's fair in business, so I'll remind you of that next time you drop a $100 bill, and I keep it instead of bringing it back to you.

I'm not sure what your snippet about BeOS is supposed to prove to me. BeOS never had a chance because Microsoft's licensing agreements didn't allow OEMs to even load a secondary operating system on any computer they ship. It didn't even have the *chance* to compete on any technical merits it might have had; it was doomed before it ever came to market. This is why monopolies are bad -- they are black holes that suck in anything that comes near them and either assimilate it or destroy it if it's undesirable or uncooperative.

There is no proof in the market.
Yes, but there is plenty of proof in courtrooms. Don't follow antitrust trials much, I gather?
Now you sir, are entitled to STFU, or provide something in return!
Acknowledged, over.