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 (34012)	11/15/1999 4:50:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Respond to of 74651

JFD, i do concede they're good...no doubt about that. regards, hb

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (34012)	11/15/1999 5:53:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

They are dominant because they are good. If the O/S is so flawed as all the detractors claim then it follows that building a better system should be no problem- which is it here folks? As you know, I don't think that's the only reason. But I agree that it's a major part of the reason. All things considered, Windows NT is a better operating system than anything anyone else has ever made. Windows 9x is pretty good too. IE 4+ is a better browser hands-down than anything Netscape was ever able to deliver. Part of what makes it so good and so useful is the componentization that became such an issue in the bundling issue of the antitrust case. The long-simmering, but nonetheless often ill-considered and silly Microsoft bashing in the computer industry gets dragged into this case. Without it, there would probably have never such a case, but it really has very little to do with this particular case. IBM, Apple, and dozens of others including Commodore and Tandy screwed up along the way. All of them offered systems that were in some ways better -- sometimes even far better -- than what Microsoft offered at the time, but none of them managed to provide a compelling alternative that could topple Microsoft's growing dominance. Team Redmond used deft marketing, partnerships, and an astounding technical savvy to move the computer industry toward its vision. As the case that ended in the '95 Consent Decree shows, there were a few legally questionable tactics used even during that period, but it's still nearly impossible to argue that the results have been all that bad for the industry as a whole or for consumers who don't (and shouldn't) care much about what might have been. But did Microsoft violate antitrust laws in the period when they'd been caught off-guard by Netscape, Sun and others? Yes. (And I'm confident that Judge Jackson, who hasn't yet spoken on that issue will say they did.) And then there's that more general question on which I disagree with you and most others on this thread: Are antitrust laws and other such social-benefit concepts good and necessary? I think they are. You, of course, disagree for fundamental, thoughtful, and well-considered reasons. (Even though the thoutfulness of the disagreement is often masked by silly but entertaining rhetorical parrying that's such a part of such a forum as this.)