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: Fred Levine who wrote (40810)	4/3/2000 6:49:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Respond to of 74651

Cream Always Rises If Microsoft is so competitive and innovative, as some posters have claimed, a break-up should have little effect in the long run. Why fight it? Hal

To: Fred Levine who wrote (40810)	4/3/2000 6:51:00 PM
From: sandeep	Respond to of 74651

Fred, your remedy won't work for the following reasons: 1) There had been competition in the UNIX market - Sunw, SCO, IBM, BSD etc. The problem was that you couldn't take a program working fine on one system and take it to another and expect it to work. In all likelyhood, the same thing will happen to Windows 2K+. 2) If you think that programmers can just get their hands on a complex OS like NT and start making compatible changes between 3 different companies, you don't know anything about software development. You should the "Mythical Man Month" written by the designer of IBM OS360. It would convince you that it is not possible to do what you suggest in a single company, let alone 3. 3) What makes you think that all OS programmers won't want to go the same company ? After all, they are all friends who have worked for some time together. Or, are you going to enforce who goes where ? The learning curve associated with newbie programmers will definitely slow down new OS features/bug fixes. It will be a complete disaster for consumers. 4) Shareholders may benefit for some time. But is that the objective of any punishment ? It should be the benefit of consumers and not shareholders.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (40810)	4/3/2000 6:52:00 PM
From: Nick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Fred: Comparing AT&T to Microsoft is like comparing apples to oranges. BTW, have you been using Linux or Windows; Word or Wordperfect?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (40810)	4/3/2000 7:02:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

ROFLMAO-- <<"I spent more time trying to get my Windows program to stop crashing, and if there was competition to make a better product, these bugs would be exterminated.">> Call RHAT quick,,, LOL! I walk people through installations of more 'puters in any month than most here will do in a lifetime. Few have a problem right out of the box. Even fewer have a problem that anyone with near avg intelligence cannot get running,, even those with little 'puter experience. Sure would like to know where or from which mfg yours came from. Most of the time it is not a software problem but a hardware problem. Upon installation or shortly after a simple reinstall of the Win CD takes care of all software problems...

To: Fred Levine who wrote (40810)	4/4/2000 5:11:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 74651

re "both the shareholders and consumers will benefit by simply creating 3 or more equal companies, each with the MSFT operating systems. They will be forced to compete." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Federal Government can force a company to create three duplicate products, each supported by its own corporate infrastructure, each serving the same market. -- Even the Federal Govt wasn't stupid enough to attempt to force AT&T to have three local telephone companies in each geographic region, each with its own set of telephone lines running down the street. And Standard Oil was broken up into companies serving different geographic regions also. That is because some standards do provide benefits to consumers. Even an idiot can see that.