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 (34259)	11/18/1999 5:36:00 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

History lesson... IBM cobbled together a microcomputer using an Intel processor. The IBM name gave this less than stellar machine some credibility. IBM needed an OS. Digital Research snubbed IBM. Microsoft rolled out the red carpet. Bill Gates agreed to supply DOS to IBM, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY. Because DOS was available to others, clones sprang into existence. Compaq and Dell are clones. Bill Gates pulled the wool over IBM's eyes and the PC industry was established. Bill Gates saw the potential of selling a $100 program (Windows) which would give a PC (cheap) the functionality of a Mac (expensive). (Here's where I realize I'm mixed up about who I'm posting to. I thought I was posting to CW...) If I were with SUN, I'd want Microsoft to continue down their current path, because, on that path, they don't pose a threat. The last thing I'd want would be having Microsoft looking in my direction while seeking a new opportunity for themselves. The path is littered with the remains of companies that were flattened by Microsoft. Don't get caught up in the events of today and consequently fail to see the overall picture developing over time. I admire your resolve in supporting your employer's position on this thread and they are fortunate to have such a loyal employee. Likewise, Microsoft shareholders have strong feelings about their company. I doubt anyone's mind will change after reading either your or my posts, but it's always rewarding to see the situation from another perspective. Thank-you for your participation. Cheers, PW.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (34259)	11/18/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

1st the buyers of these rights would not have the manpower to maintain the code How do you know that?? Unix has been "maintained by committee" for years. Don't confuse the O/S w/ apps, John. You add value w/apps. The O/S is just there to drive the hardware and to maintain a secure and reliable platform for apps. In an effort to be something other than a me too product the new company would make changes which might not be too good for the consumer. We can easily foresee the crazy quilt patchwork of 3-5 Win98's all with different level of compatibilities. Presently I believe that the API's are available to bona-fide developers. The proliferation of incompatible O/S's is potentially a problem, but not necessarily so. I think a deal can be structured to prevent this from happening. What is the point when the next version of Windows will be entirely different from the kernel out i.e. It will not be a DOS overlay? Not everyone will buy it, especially at first. There are still copies of Windows 95 around. The next version of Windows would have to become public domain as well. In short, MSFT would have to get out of the O/S business. I think an exception could be made for server O/S's but not desktops. Sun does have an "open" Solaris policy. But, don't confuse open with non-proprietary. The point about MSFT is not to just publish the O/S code but to take the profit motive out of selling it. cheers, cherylw