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: John F. Dowd who wrote (32651)	11/7/1999 6:07:00 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Of course the government did build the A and H bombs. I kinda disagree with this. Scientists and engineers provided the brains to build these, and nearly all other modern marvels as well. The Government may have provided money and material, but not brains. Money and material were plentiful throughout most of our lifetimes, but knowledge had to be developed. I'd guess that brainpower is today's equivalent of yesterday's horsepower. Microsoft has recognized this and assembled an impressive team. Know where the bottlenecks are and address them seems like a good business plan. As previous posters pointed out, W.H. Gates bought DOS for $50,000 and thrust Microsoft onto the world stage of software. I'd guess most of the posters on this thread, and the overwhelming majority of Microsoft critics had, or could've, acquired $50,000 easily at that time. BUT THEY DIDN'T!!! Consequently, Gates is worth billions, and they're not. If you can't run, trip the guy who can. Cheers, PW. P.S. Governments are poor builders but superb destroyers. As such, we'd expect them to create the needed tools of the trade. Of course the government did build the A and H bombs.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (32651)	11/7/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: Bob Drzyzgula	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

JFD: I sense however that you have been "harmed" (annoyed might be better word) as a competitor rather than as a consumer. No, as a customer. One with 20 years experience in the industry and 15 years architecting computer networks. I could bore you to tears (and a first draft of this response would have) with ways in which Windows is a defective, unsupportable product and Microsoft is an arrogant, unresponsive supplier. But doing so would only distract from the central point I would be trying to make: The only reason that I continue to use Microsoft products is that, for very many applications, I do not have any real choice in the matter. You can say I do until you're blue in the face but that won't change the fact that I don't. I ran a Unix-only network for 10 years and ultimately could not continue doing so because the only way to provide modern, widely-compatible applications was by putting Windows boxes on everyone's desk. Dealing with Microsoft is very much like dealing with a monopoly Cable TV service provider, if you've ever tried this. The only reason people keep buying their services is because the only alternative is no service. The fact of Microsoft's monopoly is undeniable. This is not about the "Government calling the shots". This is about Microsoft breaking the law. Microsoft is free to be as successful as they like, they are free to provide terrible service, to insult their customers, and to charge prices as high as they like. They are even, given the baffling legal acceptability of "as-is" shrink-wrap software licenses, free to ship egregiously defective products. What they may not do is wield their monopoly power to make it possible to act this way without the massive loss of market share that would normally follow. "Everyone else does it" is not a sufficient defense. Those other companies are not monopolies. In fact, there are undoubtedly mechanisms that Microsoft quite properly used in the past that would be illegal for them to use now that they are a monopoly. --Bob