Would hitting Microsoft with anti-monopoly measures bring more utility than otherwise?

From what I understand, the entire company only took over the early computer OS industry by playing with the law and buying out their competition. Thanks to this, they amassed massive amounts of wealth and went on to simply buy out or eliminate competition from any areas thanks to this initial invention and the wider Microsoft software ecosystem that grew from it.

Is the regulatory economist consensus that Microsoft serves greater utility by being a tech "middle man" through their data centres despite the lack of possible growth and companies in other areas ( game studios, operating systems, browsers etc.)?