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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (38637)	1/30/2000 11:51:00 AM
From: HULA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 45548

To Microsoft's product (CE) : no bundle, no threat. That's what Microsoft and DOJ are fighting for.

To: The Phoenix who wrote (38637)	1/30/2000 10:53:00 PM
From: get shorty	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 45548

Gary, I have another question for you. Ever since they acquired the Strongarm core, I have been waiting for Intel to make their move into the "internet appliance" sector. They're not moving as quickly as I thought they would, and I thought I had figured out why. I thought because the Strongarm was RISC vs. CISC, that all the existing CE apps. were useless. Without any apps. to speak of, and a much smaller pool of ISV's to leverage, Strongarm products would stall. However, in the limited research I have done, it appears that the Strongarm will run CE. Would you know if this is true? Is CE a plug n play OS for the Strongarm, or does it need to be ported? I agree with you that a CE/Strongarm product could be very competitive. FWIW, I'm long COMS, but I just like to understand what the competitive landscape looks like. I enjoy your posts because you present viewpoints that sometimes run counter to the raging bulls. Best Regards, -shorty

To: The Phoenix who wrote (38637)	1/30/2000 11:14:00 PM
From: lkj	Respond to of 45548

Gary, Agree, no one should ignore the power and money of Microsoft. At the same time, money and power don't always yield success. One of the problems with CE was that it was going after too many markets: from handhelds to set-tops, and from auto-PCs to gas pumps. In many fronts, it was fighting against the Palm OS, Linux, VxWorks, pSOS, and even embedded NT. The CE folks thought that one OS could meet all demands. This assumption has been proven wrong. Only lately, Microsoft has started shifting away from this one size fits all strategy. Yet this change seems to be more of a difference in marketing pitches than anything fundamental. No matter it's called Windows CE or Windows-Powered-for-PDAs/Set-top/AutoPC/gas-pump, it is still missing the point. Meanwhile, Palm is consolidating the handheld market. Palm is also getting into some very vertically integrated markets, such as enterprise solutions. Microsoft has a reputation of running over application developers by leveraging on its OS dominance. I doubt that application developers, such as Oracle, PeopleSoft, Sony, IBM... are willing to give full support to CE. Unlike the PC world where one could not avoid Microsoft, the handheld market is ruled by Palm. Why support MSFT when it's more beneficial to support Palm? Khan