(FORTUNE Magazine) – Now that Judge Jackson has had his say, it's my turn. Here are my findings of fact about Microsoft.

1. Using Windows is a drag. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, or be mean or dour. But every time I install new software or buy a new device or upgrade my computer or sneeze, something happens, and I stop having fun. You've got to remember that I gave up the life I'd planned in order to devote myself to computers. Nearly 20 years ago, I had a promising career as a business editor. But then I got called by the personal computer: It seemed a big enough thing to spend a career covering it.

Good decision; I'm not complaining about that.

Twenty years later, all the things I was hoping would happen have happened. Personal computers are ubiquitous. Mainframes were designed for corporations; today's computer systems are designed for people. The balance of power has shifted, at least a little, from IT managers to end-users. But now that we've arrived at this fine stage, I find that one company controls everything about all those things. That company doesn't seem interested in making it fun for me to use my computer. That company takes itself so seriously that it's trying to fight the U.S. government. And that company often acts like a bully. (I've heard from people who were there that you could have said the same things about IBM in the late 1970s.)

Whatever analysis you want to engage in, the bottom line is that Microsoft's Windows operating system is a major pain in the rear end. There are a bunch of reasons for this, technically speaking. But the point is that during the 15 years or so that Microsoft has been developing Windows, it has paid a whole lot of attention to computer manufacturers (its real customers) and software developers (which it needed to sustain its monopoly), and very little attention to making sure Windows is usable for people (who are simply stuck with it because they have no choice).

So maybe I didn't quite get everything that I'd wished for.

2. Microsoft has not done anything wrong. As a venture capitalist, I'm now a director of several companies, some of which are publicly held. From my experience at those meetings, I can tell you that there can't possibly have ever been a Microsoft board meeting where the directors went into executive session and schemed to become a ruthless monopoly. In other words, I don't think Microsoft actually set out to do anything illegal.

As Bill Gates says, what's wrong with being supercompetitive? Isn't that the point of the capitalist system? Of course, being supercompetitive can lead to what looks and feels like anticompetitive behavior, to situations in which enthusiastic employees may step over the line, whatever ill-defined line there is. The Justice Department will have little trouble finding instances of behavior that can be deemed anticompetitive.

But finally, I think we all know this: Any red-blooded competitive company would do exactly what Microsoft did if it ever got to that same exalted position. It's just that no one else had the chance.

3. I want a choice. I want two operating systems. I don't want to be stuck with what Microsoft sells.

I used a Macintosh for 11 years, from 1985 to 1996. I actually liked that computer system. I started a business that ran on Macintoshes. I grew the business and ran a network out of my back pocket using that system. I got my start on the Internet and on the World Wide Web using a Macintosh. Recently I've been seriously considering returning to the Mac fold, because I'm so unhappy with Windows. But I keep getting stuck on the fact that the Macintosh is not that much different from Windows: It is still a personal computer; you still need to get software designed to run on the Macintosh (some of the stuff that I currently use isn't designed that way); and it is also an old system that Apple hasn't been able to modernize fully. It works better than Windows, but is it really a genuine choice?

I'm personally aware of--and in some cases, invested in--a bunch of companies that would like to offer choice. I'm a director of Be Inc., for example, which makes the Be operating system (BeOS). (My venture capital firm invested in Be back in 1996, and I became a director earlier this year.) Be is launched on an attempt to create a viable alternative to PCs. Not just Windows. Be thinks it can build a Web-based operating system to create the coolest and most-fun-to-use computer designed around the World Wide Web. Then there are a bunch of companies trying to make Linux, the operating system that grew out of Unix, a lot easier for normal people to use.

Then there are all those possible choices in the non-PC computing world. Our firm invested in a company called InfoGear, which just introduced the second generation of its iPhone, a telephone with a built-in Web appliance. I use the first-generation phone, which has its flaws, as a way to look at the Web from my home, the Digital Manor--even when I'm in one of the rooms that doesn't have a PC. I've also been using the Palm VII hand-held device, which has wireless access to the Internet and works on its own operating system. And I'm a director of a company called TiVo, which designed a box for your television; that box runs on Linux.

None of these devices use Windows. Of course, it's also true that none of these devices will replace a PC. Which leads to another of my key findings of fact: If we are going to get real choice, it will probably come from a fundamental change in computing rather than a legal ruling about how Microsoft can act.

4. Nothing will change because of the antitrust case. Now, this has been a whole lot of fun. It's a thrill that a federal judge stood up to Microsoft and said what everybody else thinks: You have a monopoly. Duh. It's amazing to me that Microsoft still wants to argue that it does not have a monopoly. (Isn't it time to fess up, guys? Why not just admit it and learn how to manage it responsibly? Please!)

But the federal government won't radically reorganize Microsoft. That would just be stupid. It can, as I have previously suggested, remove any intellectual property protection afforded Microsoft on its monopoly products, so that others can legally copy them. It can, as others have suggested, require manufacturers to install more than one operating system on every computer. (At least, I think it can do that.) It can and already does regulate Microsoft's ability to set the terms and conditions for licensing its monopoly products.

Anyway, that's the kind of remedy I expect. You'll have to excuse me now. I have to run downstairs and reboot the proxy server so I can send this column in. Then I have to figure out how to install that new color printer. And reconfigure the family PC so it will stop crashing when we launch a CD-ROM. I'll be back next issue. Provided I can just get all this stuff right.

STEWART ALSOP is a partner with New Enterprise Associates, a venture capital firm. Except as noted, neither he nor his partnership has a financial interest in the companies mentioned. His column may be bookmarked online at www.fortune.com/technology/alsop/.