According to popular culture, we always have choices.

True enough. When a gun is pointed at your head, though, you should probably hand over your money: We may always have choices, but sometimes only one merits consideration.

Which brings us to the second in our two part series that asks the musical question, “Do you have to buy Microsoft’s products?” Last week’s column looked at operating systems and concluded that a typical CIO has two choices: Either use a mixture of Macintoshes and Windows systems — the Macs for general-purpose workstations and Windows for desktops running client/server business applications along with the standard word processor/spreadsheet/e-mail software — or simply standardize on Windows across the board.

This week we look at office suites. The contenders: Microsoft Office and Anything Else. (Astute IS Survivalists will conclude that this won’t be a detailed comparison of features-and-functionality.) The question isn’t whether Microsoft has a monopoly. In the case of office suites it clearly does not, since except for your perceptions and requirements (and probably a few hidden APIs that aren’t very important), Anything Else plays on a level field.

As we did with desktop operating systems, we’re looking at this architecturally. The question is, if you buy Anything Else, do you face technological inhibitors to business integration that can only be solved through unacceptably expensive or unreliable kluges. (“Kludge” has a lot of definitions. Here’s mine to add to your list: the paperclip attaching the bag to the box you already connected to the system with a Band-Aid.) In other words, it all boils down to file formats. We’ll look at word processors for this analysis; the same issues apply to spreadsheets.

If you don’t share files electronically you have complete freedom of choice. Use paper (and fax) as your medium of exchange and every employee can use a different word processor without causing any serious problems. Yes, I know how hard it would be to support. (The answer: Not Very.) There’s no significant impact on your architecture. You don’t need any standard, let alone making it Office.

If you share files only internally and not with your business partners, there’s no reason to choose one office suite over another except price. You won’t find all that much difference in functionality (unless you really like Mr. Paperclip). From a features and functionality perspective they’re all awesome.

So if you’re not using Office now, don’t waste your money converting. This is the perfect time to procrastinate, because a dollar tomorrow costs less than a dollar today.

What if you do exchange files with your business partners? Here’s the most basic rule in the systems integration book: Standard native data formats are better than neutral interchange formats, which in turn beat custom interfaces. Custom interfaces are sometimes, but not always, superior to manual re-keying. (They may cost more than the manual labor.)

For word processors, a standard native data format means both parties using the same file format, and today that means Microsoft Word. Rich Text Format, or RTF, is a neutral interchange format, which makes it second best even if it were perfect. If you’ve ever used it you know it isn’t — even automatic numbering fails to convert accurately. ASCII? Forget it — formatting matters.

So like it or not, if you’re e-mailing documents and spreadsheets to business partners in any volume, you only have one choice.

And Microsoft won this one in a fair fight, by betting on Windows when WordPerfect bet on OS/2 and Lotus bet on its lawyers.

The electronic mailbag got pretty full after my column on the Microsoft/Justice Department controversy. (See “The Justice Department’s action on Microsoft has everyone missing the point,” April 20, page 104.) Most letters were complimentary. A few pointed out that since Microsoft has a “noncoercive” monopoly it will eventually fail without government intervention. Their conclusion: Keep government out of it.

Well, OK. In fact, since muggers eventually die of old age, I guess we don’t need to prosecute them either.

Some readers thought I wanted to prevent Microsoft from integrating Internet Explorer into its future operating systems. Heck, it can build it into Hydra for all I care (just what you’d want, too: a Windows desktop accessing a server-based browser –- the ultimate “stupid client architecture”).

But no matter how much Microsoft sings, dances, and plays the tuba, Internet Explorer isn’t part of the Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0 operating systems.

The biggest question on everyone’s mind, though, is whether Microsoft really has a monopoly in desktop operating systems. Since this hits you where you live, let’s take a close look. Do you have any real alternatives to Windows?

If you’re the CIO for a typical company, you’re establishing an architecture, not buying stand-alone PCs, so you probably have these requirements:

1. A quality word processor, electronic spreadsheet, end-user database, e-mail client, and Internet browser for general users. You’d prefer Microsoft Office since that’s the format used by most of your business partners.

2. A platform for commercial client/server business applications (accounting, payroll, inventory, or a whole enterprise resource planning system). You need a platform most vendors build for.

3. A platform for which you can develop and deploy in-house client/server business applications. Typical in-house applications have to last a decade or two, so future support is critical. And this OS has to match the OS that fits requirement No. 2 since you’ll need to run both in-house and commercial applications on the same desktops.

4. If the OS that satisfies requirements No. 2 and No. 3 isn’t the OS for general users, it has to support the same office suite or you can’t share files electronically. (No, “Save as .rtf” isn’t good enough.)

Quality engineering doesn’t make the list as a requirement.

An OS that satisfies all requirements can be the company standard. An OS that satisfies No. 1 and No. 4 can participate in a mixed architecture. Other OSes may run on some desktops, but only for specialty uses.

Windows passes all the tests. How about the alternatives: Unix, OS/2, and Macintosh?

Unix fails requirement No. 2, so you can only use it in a mixed architecture. And no Unix satisfies requirement No. 4. Scratch Unix.

OS/2? With SmartSuite OS/2 partially satisfies No. 1 and fully satisfies No. 4. It fails No. 2, though –- few manufacturers of business software create OS/2 clients anymore –- and as a result, No. 3 as well. You can use OS/2 except where you need to deploy client/server applications.

How about the Mac? With Microsoft Office it satisfies requirements No. 1 and No. 4 nicely.

The Mac, however, fails dismally on requirements No. 2 and No. 3. So although you can use Macs in a mixed environment, you can’t make them the standard, only a niche participant in your architecture.

Then there are the intangibles, like availability of suppliers, support, and programming talent. All of these make Windows more attractive than its competitors.

So here are your options: Use Macintoshes for general-purpose desktops and Windows for those running business applications, or use Windows for everything and save yourself the headaches of a mixed environment.

A judge and jury will have to decide if, for desktop operating systems, Windows fits the legal definition of monopoly.

Do you, as a typical CIO, have a realistic desktop operating system alternative today? The answer is pretty clear, even if you don’t like it.