1.  No, every moron conpiracy theorist out there THINKS Microsoft is a monopoly.  Every educated person who knows what a monopoly actually is knows that Microsoft is NOT a monopoly. 

2.  Yes, boycott Microsoft.  So basically you're boycotting almost the entire genre of PC gaming as well as an entire half of the HD console generation.  All because of your misinterpretation of the word "monopoly".  Sony is every bit as evil of a company as Microsoft is.  Shouldn't you boycott them too?  How soon we forget that a couple of years ago Sony was trying to slip rootkits on to our PCs by adding them to all audio CDs or that they charge such a high premium for their latest console because they're trying to shove BluRay down everyone's throat.  Shouldn't we just boycott them too?  How about Nintendo who has drastically decreased the manufacturing cost of the Wii, yet still will not lower the price one cent. 

3.  But let's get back to the monopoly thing for a moment.  Have you noticed at all that Apple is digging more into Microsoft's market share these days?  Have you noticed all the companies switching over to Linux to save money on licensing?  Have you noticed that Microsoft is putting on a pretty aggressive Apple-targeted marketing campaign right now in order to finally address those BS "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials?  If Microsoft was a monopoly, none of this would be going on. 

You can "boycott" whatever you want for whatever stupid reason you want, but at least understand what you're boycotting first.  I truly believe that 95% of all boycotts are unfounded and that about 99% of all INTERNET boycotts are completely pointless and baseless.  Especially these "army of one" boycotts like "Boycott ***** because they didn't give a good review to a game I like!!"

Please.

I'm sure Microsoft would be more competitive if Windows only had 40% of the market.  What I'm talking about though is that some people think of Microsoft as an "evil" company because of their monopoly and business practices but any company in the same situation would likely do the same thing. 

Some might even do more, lets look at Nintendo during the monopoly they enjoyed with the NES:

"Nintendo's near monopoly on the home video game market left it with a degree of influence over the industry exceeding even that of Atari during Atari's heyday in the early 1980s. Unlike Atari, which never actively courted third-party developers (and even went to court in an attempt to force Activision to cease production of Atari 2600 games), Nintendo had anticipated and encouraged the involvement of third-party software developers—but strictly on Nintendo's terms. To this end, a 10NES authentication chip was placed in every console, and another was placed in every officially licensed cartridge. If the console's chip could not detect a counterpart chip inside the cartridge, the game would not load. Because Nintendo controlled the production of all cartridges, it was able to enforce strict rules on its third-party developers. Third-party developers were also asked to sign a contract by Nintendo that would obligate these parties to develop exclusively for the system. These extremely restricted production runs would end up damaging several smaller software developers: even if demand for their games was high, they could only produce as much profit as Nintendo allowed."

Now could you imagine the uproar if Microsoft attempted to lock out developers from using Windows unless they licensed it and could only produce an amount that Microsoft allowed?  What about if the developers were also forced to sign an agreement not to develop for any other operating system?

I guess what I'm saying is that other companies have done similar things or even worse but it seems like people want to make an example or Microsoft.

No, Microsoft is technically not a monopoly.

However, they have effective 100% control over the OEM market. They dictate the specs (in the case of netbooks, they say you can't have >1GHz CPU, >160GB hard drive or >10.2 inch screen, they dictate the pricing (ever seen Dell or HP sell a Linux PC for less then Windows even though Linux is free?) and they dictate the architecture (because MS refused to make a non-Intel version of Windows there is no longer any alternatives to x86 in the desktop market).

Every school in my country, under government rules, is forced to have Windows and Office. This is because software can only come from certain approved vendors and no non-MS supplier is on that list. My school IT department says it's illegal not to have Internet Explorer, and suspended me for installing Firefox.

"Now could you imagine the uproar if Microsoft attempted to lock out developers from using Windows unless they licensed it and could only produce an amount that Microsoft allowed? What about if the developers were also forced to sign an agreement not to develop for any other operating system?"

Games for Windows. It does most of that stuff already. Especially where you get preferential treatment as a developer if you sign up (e.g. access to Games Explorer, which is on every copy of Vista sold) and you're forced to make it compatible with the Xbox 360 controller and DirectX. You also get special advertising from MS through their MSN (which the default homepage for IE on every Windows PC) and their logos on the box.

The amount of unethical and illegal stuff they've done is huge. Look up Linuxpatent threats, interfering with the standardisation of OOXML, bundling of Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, etc., etc.