Hello Reginald,
I must compliment you on your posts, etc. I am in agreement with much of what you say, and I can really appreciate the thoroughness with which you do your work. I 'm very sincere about this. It's something I respect.
> I just took a long stroll up and down Wall Street to find some
> programmers, and I learned (confirmed)some very inreresting facts.
> The biggest purchaser of high tech, outside of the high tech sector
> does not really feel java is worth serious development time. The
> only ones on Wall Street who really want to push Java is Sun, > Everybody else is enamored with the new Office Suite and VB5/VBA. I
> personally would like to use Java (for the same reaon every body
> else does) but it just doesn't work for high end chores.
I would agree to a point ... and that's where the "distributed model of application execution", that I mentioned, comes in. CORBA has been em braced across almost all platforms ... and Java ... and C/C++ ... and Netscape (with a Visigenics(?) ORB as part of their NetOne announcement. High end chores (actually *any* chores) will be done where most appropriate.
One lesson I learned at te early Novell was the philosophy of "grow the market". If we view the "fight" to be over a static market then total market share *could* be siezed by a single player. But since we are in a market that is developing in unexpected directions there will always be an unknown introduced that can be siezed (or created) by almost anyone ... long term player or new comer. I don't know what I will run on my desktop (other than NT) for the next several years. But I know that Microsoft will struggle to make their platform the choice for all markets. When I walk up to a public Internet- booth or kiosk, or look at the seatback computer on the airplane, or use a computer in my hotel room, I'm not sure that all of these will be Microsoft. Java / Inferno (Lucent) / ORB technologies can make this happen. I don't know which ones will be successful. I don't think that Microsoft is going away.
> And on
> topof that, who makes the best Java development environment? Who has
> the fasterst implementation of the JVM? MSFT has effectively hedged
> thier bets, and I'm sure they are still hedging.
I agree that they are scambling. That's why they introduced their ActiveX direction. And they are hedging with their Application Foundation Classes, JVM, J++ Tools, and they have very good technology. I respect the people working there. But they know as well as I do that we are now moving off of the OS as we know it and "the network is the computer." Scamble to hold on.
> NT 5.0 is coming out in less than a calendar year, which leaves this
> a moot argument (it gives MSFT just enough time to finish racking up
> sales in NT 4.0).
Agreed. They are financially built around the upgrades. But what is NT v5.0? What's in it? A pretty weak contender if it's only a first cut at a directory. The early access doesn't look that good to me. But marketing *is* everything. Hopefully we will continue to educate the market what a *real* directory is about. Again with ORBs the APIs are no longer the game ...
> You are right, the NT 5.0 is due out in 1998, and 64-bit NT is due
> out in 1999. But the NT 5.0 looks to be very formidable.
What, besides the acknowledged marketing hype, is "formidable"? I'm curious about your perspective.
> AS for Price performance, take a look at NT 4.0 server (IIS3.0,
> Front Page, etc.bundled)
I'll touch on these first. NT Server v4.0 includes these. As they should. Web service is just file service. Front Page is part of their client application business ... but I will agree with you that it makes for a more "complete" solution.
> , SQL server on multiprocessor 200 mhs PPros trounce the compeition
> in price/perfromcance (that is why ORCL is tightening up thier ship,
> they see MSFT coming). MSFT has thier act together, they know what
> customers want to hear, and they know how to make them hear it
> (regardless of whether they arae telling the truth or not).
I agree. They are quite skilled at this.
> Doom was the most accurate word I can think of. Once MSFT reaches
> par with NOVL in market share, it will already be too late fo NOVL
> due to inertia and momentum. If is not the word to be using. I don't
> want to be pro-MSFT or anti-NOVL, but you arae going up against a
> very, very aggressive competitor who has one many a fight with
> inferior taechnology. They are now ramping up with superior
> solutions and their marketing acumun has improved, not decreased.
I would agree that this is a wild market and that Microsoft is very good ... both with the ability to rev. their software, add functionality, reuse code-base, and with their marketing.
> NOVL has/had a ery valuable asset, majority market share with a
> proprietary product,
I'm curious ... what do you mea n by "proprietary" here? Owned? Microsoft "owns" NT ... so NT is also proprietary? They use SMB as their primary file protocol ... is is "proprietary" also? I know that this is also mis-communicated often ... what was your definition intended toward? (Very curious here ... this is a very common statement, but I'm not sure why ...)
> but I am watching it get squandered due to a
> lack of aggressive mgmt. in the face of Very aggressive mgmt. and
> the market is accurately pricing the stock accordingly.
I don't know how to argue this logic or statement. And I don't know that I would!
Scott C. Lemon |
