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. who wrote (41668)	4/10/2000 3:36:00 AM
From: Lin	Respond to of 74651

"Microsoft goes to Dell, Compaq, HWP and says: If you guys sell any systems at all with Win 95 installed, then we are going to assume that you installed it on every machine. You are going to be charged as if you installed the Win95 software on every machine shipped. So you can install an operating system from one of Microsoft's competitors if you want, but, you still will have to pay us for Win95, even if it was not installed on the computer as shipped" This reminds me of the $500 hammer. defense dept. purchased some ten plus years ago. I wonder why Dell, Compaq, HWP did not buy the retail box in the market and install it in those machines they want to install only to save themselves some money. Cheers,

To: John F. who wrote (41668)	4/10/2000 8:03:00 AM
From: abbigail	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Dear John F: OK smartipants, what do you think MSFT deserves? "Microsoft was wrong to have competed in the fashion they have. But, the company will not get what it deserves..." Or maybe you've got a better OS you would like to tell us about? abbigail <:\|

To: John F. who wrote (41668)	4/10/2000 6:29:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

John - re: Microsoft goes to Dell, Compaq, HWP and says: If you guys sell any systems at all with Win 95 installed, then we are going to assume that you installed it on every machine. You are pretty far off base - although correct in the notion that MSFT intended for "per system" licensing to raise the barrier to other vendors. But the program you describe was only one of many ways to buy OS bits from MSFT, and was never mandatory. It was just the way to get the highest discount level. All of the OEMs had the option of tracking licenses sold, and paying just for those. MSFT has at least 6 different methods for OEMs to buy bits - so the notion that these OEMs were somehow forced to take per-system licensing is just incorrect - they did it to get the best price, if they did it. Also, this practice was not even discussed in the current DOJ action - it was an issue in the previous action and consent decree. MSFT has not offered per-system licensing for more than 5 years.

To: John F. who wrote (41668)	4/11/2000 10:13:00 AM
From: SunSpot	Respond to of 74651

Microsoft is a brand. In the PC age it was also a market standard, but not any more. Microsoft never invented something really useful, and wasn't in the position to do so, because you don't roll out a new invention in such a large scale. There are plenty of useful alternatives to Microsoft products. You can discuss look-and-feel, price etc., but that doesn't leave Microsoft to being anything else than a brand. What Microsoft needs to do now is to stop talking new technology etc., make the existing code work better and less complicated, buy other companies and products and sell it in a decent way that is compatible with US law. I mean, why on earth do people buy Macintosh computers? Definitely not because they are high-tech. I'm not sure that Bill Gates is the man, that Microsoft needs the most right now.