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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jill who wrote (32178)	11/6/1999 8:31:00 AM
From: Catcher	Respond to of 74651

this verdict or finding or whatever you call it points up the need (imo) for amendment to judicial process that puts weighty decisions like these in the hands of a super-informed tribunal--not a single ill-equipped judge. not quite the simpson case but this is clearly "simpsons material"--eh Homer

To: Jill who wrote (32178)	11/6/1999 9:38:00 AM
From: Greg Jung	Respond to of 74651

All these quick quotes are laughable. The finding of facts is a classic piece of laying out the truth as everyone knows. Some parts are very entertaining, however, such as Microsoft's use of a marketing firm to try and show little change of netscape's web-browser share: LOL!! The audacity of these people to put that out and expect it to be taken up. In Microsoft's hometown, Redmond, Wash., local supporters quickly rallied to Microsoft's defense. "We strongly disagree with the judge's findings," said Washington Gov. Gary Locke. "Microsoft products have greatly benefited consumers!" And OJ Simpson was a great football player. Anybody with any doubts, just go read the findings.

To: Jill who wrote (32178)	11/7/1999 12:18:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 74651

"We strongly disagree with the judge's findings," said Washington Gov. Gary Locke. "Microsoft products have greatly benefited consumers!" Judge Jackson did not say that MS products have "harmed consumers". He did say that MS business practices have harmed consumers, by stifling competition. My thoughts are mixed on this ruling. Obviously, MS has greatly benefited PC users the world over. Remember how eagerly people bought up Win95? The stores even opened at midnight of the release date. I do believe that it is a specious argument to suggest that MS does not have a monopoly in OS for the Intel architecture chip. Of course they DO have a monopoly, and it was rightfully earned, and furthermore, that monopoly directly benefits consumers and businesses the world over. You pick your application, and you are grateful that the OS base is so large, that software developers are eager to write you any specialized app you want, and because they will sell so many packages (if it's good), that it will be relatively cheap. In accounting packages for example, the accounting software landscape today is truly an enlightened marketplace, with excellent packages for any size or type of business. And they all work with the x86 architecture PC. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, I do have to reluctantly admit that MS has pushed too far in some areas, and, I do believe that my choices have been limited due to MS "Gunboat marketing". Before Win95 even debuted, John C. Dvorak wrote a column in PC Magazine entitled "Microsoft's Gunboat Marketing". As an aside, let me say that I think that as far as the browser wars are concerned, the consumer was not harmed at all. Both products are free for the download, or bundled with various other packages. Where MS went too far, and limited my choices, is in pushing MS-Office. I personally have always used WordPerfect/QuattroPro, now known as Corel WordPerfect Suite. I think it's a better product, and a better value. For $99 (upgrade price), you get the main apps, PLUS Presentations. The MS counterpart to Presentations is Powerpoint, which the PC OEMs only offer in the "Professional" version (it's in the Standard version of MS-Office, but Dell and Gateway don't offer that version), for which the major PC vendors charge a whopping extra $265 for. Here is what I wanted: A PC from a "major" vendor like Dell or Gateway. Those were my top picks, because the combination of 24/hr phone support, plus the overall performance/price/bundled software mix. BUT, I wanted the latest version of Corel WordPerfect Suite bundled in, instead of MS Office SBE. You can't get that from either Dell or Gateway. Oh sure, you can get Corel WordPerfect Suite preloaded on your PC, but you have to pay extra for it, and you have to have the MS package on there too. Which of course, you are paying for. The reason of course that you can't get only Corel WordPerfect Suite preloaded (and not the MS app) is because MS has used the same old "gunboat marketing" tactic to push MS Office, as they used with Win95/98: You (the OEM) want to preload on only some computers, you pay ~85/unit. You load it on every PC you sell, and you pay ~65/unit. So in this way, it is forced down every consumer and business's throat, whether they want it or not. You want something else? You pay extra. Not a little bit extra, but the full retail price. Then the OEM will preload it. Some choice. Thanks, MSFT! You screwed yourself. I was able to get the configuration I wanted, but I had the choice of one (1) vendor: Quantex Microsystems. I took it. I had no choice, if I wanted a system where I wasn't paying extra for MS apps, which I didn't want.