Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (19151)	9/2/1999 11:38:00 AM
From: Stormweaver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Hey Qwik ! Maybe at that time your were still more interested in Playboy than PC Week Actually I was hacking around on a PET 32 ; BASIC coding + playing a lot of 'adventure'. Also I only remember CPM from my DOS x86 assembly days (building .com binaries). Let's also remember that the PC was in it's infancy through most of the 80's and at that point there wasn't much x86 based competition. Atari 800, Apple II, Commodore 64 were different architectures. For ease of arguing let's forget the 80's unless we want to blame IBM for Msft being a monopoly ? Therefore let's judge "Msft monopoly" based on the 90's. In the 90's there was a plethera of alternatives to MS DOS and Windows: QuarterDeck, OS2, XENIX, SCO UNIX, QNX ... leading up to Linux, Solaris x86 ... more recently BeOS, JavaOS etc. So with all these alternatives why did people stick with Windows ? 1. Msft did home/business desktop the best first; no company could create a rival product and catch up. We cannot rule Msft a monopoly just because no other company has been able technically to create a rival to MS Windows/DOS. There have always been alternatives to MS products. Microsoft has an agressive business style; that's why there stock has increased a multiple of 144 from inception. Business is survival of the fittest - keep the government out of it. Cheers James