SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly?
MSFT 481.20+0.1%11:12 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: david_si who wrote (44036)5/1/2000 2:03:00 PM
From: SunSpot  Read Replies (1) of 74651
 
There is no doubt, that the biggest problem today in this discussion is, that people believe, that the package named "Microsoft Windows 2000" is an operating system, and nothing else. This really messes up the discussion, because if we don't use the same words for the same things, nobody gets anything productive out of it.

The OS company will contain an operating system capable of running Windows programs. This does not mean that it will contain all the COM objects and applications, that is included in Windows 2000 today. This seems quite unsellable, doesn't it?

No. As far as I read the document, it opens up the possibility of bundling and customization in a way that we have never seen before. I cannot see anywhere, that it should be forbidden for the applications company, to make a CD-ROM, that will install Windows 2000, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office etc. in just one installation. This is not possible today.

I believe this will be the scenario, because the competitors (IBM/Lotus, Corel, etc.) will have the possibility to do the same. You will be able to buy a bundled Windows/MSOffice with Internet Explorer, and you will be able to buy a Windows/CorelOffice/Netscape solution.

The good thing is, that all your Windows programs will run, no matter if you buy Windows from IBM or Microsoft.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext