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: Bob Drzyzgula who wrote (33504)	11/9/1999 5:52:00 PM
From: William Hunt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Thread ---Does anyone remember in what month Windows 98 came to market . Thanks for your response BEST WISHES BILL

To: Bob Drzyzgula who wrote (33504)	11/9/1999 6:18:00 PM
From: Alan Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

[Windows for Workgroups did not become Windows 3.11. WFW as originally released as a 3.1 version, followed by a 3.11 version.] No, Pournelle is correct. Windows 3.1 was a massive bug fix upgrade to Windows 3.0 that added lots of stuff the fledgling Office apps needed, e.g. it beefed up the font and printer support big-time. However, it did not add integrated networking. That came later in Windows for Workgroups, also known as Windows 3.11.

To: Bob Drzyzgula who wrote (33504)	11/9/1999 6:26:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

BD: I'll concede your points on minutia but the bottom line is that IBM and AAPL misplayed the market and abused their own advantage and were,therefore, their own severest harming agent. If I own a lemonade stand and I beat out the guy across the street I have in a way harmed him economically. This kind of harm does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the consumer is harmed. The overall point that the author was making was that the good judge didn't and still doesn't have a clue about the industry and was biased to the point where he should have recused himself. Reread the transcripts of the trial and see that the judge was the second or maybe the first prosecutor in tha court room and his demeanor was in a word rude when it came to MSFT and very collegial in addressing the DOJ attorneys. But as I have noticed you think an awful lot like the Judge so what's the point?. JFD

To: Bob Drzyzgula who wrote (33504)	11/9/1999 6:42:00 PM
From: Duane L. Olson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Bob...That Byte column was interesting.. FWIT, here was my reply to Jerry: Jerry, You had me with you for much of your column...until you got to part about "no harm to consumers".. Oh, my goodness! Jerry, if you went down to buy a new Lexus, and you wanted a nice economical, 4-cylinder engine. And the Dealer said: "Fine, we will sell you one, but you must also pay for a Super-98, 300-HP engine, whether it meets your needs or not, and whether or not you ever intend to use it".. And if this occurred because All auto dealers were locked into an agreement to sell the Super-98 --If that were to occur, MOST of us would consider that "harm to the consumer" If you see it differently, you are entitled to your opinion, but I hope that view never becomes widespread in the U.S., so long as we intend to retain a system of free-enterprise Democracy. OTHERWISE..keep up the good work, Jerry! Good luck investing ! tso

To: Bob Drzyzgula who wrote (33504)	11/9/1999 8:59:00 PM
From: Charles T. Russell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"Many commentators loudly mourn the innovations that might have happened had Microsoft not suppressed them, but they are shy of naming them. None seem to see the innovations Microsoft has made to Windows, which now incorporates dozens of items we used to buy from third parties. These include calculators, text and programming editors, search functions, games, file viewers, audio recorders and players, networking, and, dare I say it, Web browsers. None of these are necessarily the best of their class, but most are adequate, and their inclusion does not harm consumers -- although it may well harm competitors." Had he written this in 1992 I'd be damned impressed. This is awfully old news. What has happened for the last 7-8 years?

To: Bob Drzyzgula who wrote (33504)	11/9/1999 9:37:00 PM
From: Duane L. Olson	Respond to of 74651

Bob, Thanks so much for sharing your experiences, for recognizing the (generally) civil nature of discourse on this thread, and for attempting to apply a few rules of reason and logic to ameliorate the more emotional, subjective verbiage. I particularly would like to associate with your comment: "Pournelle keeps admitting that Microsoft probably has harmed competition but refuses to admit that they've harmed consumers. As has been oft repeated on this board and elsewhere among Microsoft apologists, the link between these things that is explicitly recognized in law is totally ignored. Although I would expect that anyone who refuses to accept that link to see it, Pournelle trips himself up on this repeatedly.." Generally, what I have seen is sort of a backhanded acknowledgement that Microsoft's actions were at least questionable, in some cases, but even when confronted with the fact that certain actions are flat illegal, they generally come with a justification for the actions something like "Well they saved the consumer from their own stupidity (!)' With defenders like that, Microsoft really doesn't need a lot of enemies. Hope you'll come back frequently, Bob. A voice of reason is generally welcome anywhere...and yours certainly was. tso