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 : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (28819)	11/8/1999 5:55:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

It's my understanding there are certain obstacles to getting a "new OS" to market. These obstacles can be deadly and with out time and money there is no chance for success. Unfortunately, MSFT has all the time and money it can afford to "battle" any new comers at this time and the foreseeable future. Here's the rub: One of the highest hurdles in getting a new OS to market is support from hardware vendors. I don't believe it's easy or cheap to write new code for a new OS much less get some hardware company to invest in doing that for/with you as MSFT has. [In the past, it's been said that MSFT had gone out of their way to make it known to hardware vendors that doing just this was not good for their own good. Just the thought of this possibly happening should alarm us all. This type of "behavior" is ONLY good for MSFT and in a level playing field it's damn good business - only thing is that MSFT isn't playing on a level playing field and that changes things.] What I'm thinking is along the lines of the multitude of drivers developed for Windows platform for instance. If this hurdle was to be lowered say by allowing a company to re-use the software (layer) in the Windows OS that interfaces with the hardware device driver in some way...if this information (source code) was made available publicly for a licensing fee I believe we could see a change in the computer industry - a shift if you will. Perhaps we need to commoditize the OS - standardize it and accept that MSFT will get some percentage of every system shipped with the OS. That percentage would be akin to a license agreement only that MSFT can't control the price. It would be fixed thus eliminating much of the power they have over hardware vendors (PC makers). I don't profess to be a programmer nor do I understand it enough to assume I'm correct in my line of thought but I do understand business and what controlling some aspects allows you to do in the marketplace. Perhaps licensees can produce their own "brand" of OS with UIs, utilities et al and bundle them with a generic OS from MSFT which would be compatible with all hardware current and forthcoming. MSFT would also recieve $$ for the ongoing development of the hardware compatibility...? Either way you slice the hype, the reality is this: If you and I were to create the next greatest OS, the probability of it being bundled and shipped on PCs for the top PC-makers in the world are next to NIL. Why? Because none of those companies can afford MSFT losing a shipment or two of Windows. They know it, MSFT knows it and now the DOJ knows it too. There was a time in NYC where every CEMENT contract for constructing a new building carried a 2% "Mob tax" - nothing got built without the Mob getting their cut. In fact, many sites went cold when the Mob decided they wanted more money - I see MSFT doing the same thing in the software industry. The only difference is that these guys talk a different language, wear nicer clothes and even have college degrees. Peter J Strifas