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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (102076)	4/24/2000 11:38:00 PM
From: Eric Wells	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Could you point out which ones are original to MSFT and which ones are "improvements" to other people's software? GST - these are all Microsoft products - all built by Microsoft engineers. Every product - whether an automobile, an airplane, a web site, or a software product - has some link to products that come before it. Do you feel that Microsoft products are somehow inferior because they had predecessors engineered by other companies? You statement indicates that you feel this way. And through such logic, all products are inferior. If you feel I'm interpreting your words incorrectly, please elaborate. Windows 2000 crashed on me twice so far today. I am sure it is "my fault". I'm trying to recall the exact term that I was taught in my logic class in college to describe this sort of flawed reasoning - something like "extending the specific to the whole" or perhaps, just "gross generalization" might suffice. Please be real. I have software products from a multitude of software vendors crash on me on a regular basis. But I know that all software has bugs. Addressing your specific case - I've not used Windows 2000, so I have no opinion on whether it is a good product. But for you to extend your experience with Windows 2000 to make a broad statement on all Microsoft products - GST, you're disappointing me. OS2 was far worse than anything MSFT ever inflicted on me. I think we have different expectations on the quality of software. Perhaps due to the fact that I work in the industry (and have for the past 12 years), I know that no software is perfect. All software is flawed. Give me a piece of software and I guarantee you I can get it to crash. So, I measure software in relative terms. When I say "Excel is the best spreadsheet", I'm not saying Excel is a bugless, work of art when it comes to software. But what I am saying, though, is that Excel is better, in fact, much better, then any other spreadsheet software available on the market. maybe you're a DOJ employee> I am flattered -- LOL. Now who is being paranoid? GST, I have no idea who you are, what you do for a living, etc. I was joking when I speculated that you are a DOJ employee - but in truth, if you are, that would introduce an inherent bias in the things your write on this issue. I, as you know, worked for Microsoft - and I admit to my employment experience as introducing a potential bias in the things I write. It would be great if you could clear the air, let us know who you are and what you do to remove any possibility of bias on your part. But, of course, I respect your anonymity, so feel no pressure to do so. It is a good spreadsheet. Thanks for all the hard work. I could never have done it myself -- but somebody else could. And someone else could have painted the Mona Lisa - or come up with the theory of relativity. This is pure speculation on your part. You think Excel is a simple piece of software? the world would, could and probably will go on with or without MS I agree. And I certainly never said it wouldn't. Take care. I am sorry if I dissed your sacred cow. It's not my sacred cow. Your coming off as being prone to exaggeration - and it's unfortunate, because it weakens your arguments. My only goal in engaging in dialog with you is to try to understand your view as to why breaking up Microsoft would be better for the IT economy and the world as a whole. But you've yet to offer a good explanation (at least in my mind - others who are reading this thread may disagree). . Frankly, I think your reaction is the sort of thing that gives MSFT a bad name. I have no association with Microsoft at this point in my life - for someone to take my words and use them to tarnish the image of Microsoft would be an untenable leap of logic. Please educate and enlighten me - of all the things that I have written today, what, if anything can be interpreted negatively? Really, all I have asked of you GST is to provide some data to support your views - to provide some reference to law or precedent to support your view that Microsoft should be broken up - to provide some data to support your notion that Microsoft produces bad products. You've provided some data to suggest that one Microsoft product is bad - but in my view, you haven't provided any thing of substance. And in my view, your inability to provide substance has weakened your own arguments. You have no obligation to cite references of law or precendent in stating Microsoft should be broken up - you can conjecture and speculate all you want. But if it is truly just conjecture and speculation on your part, then I would ask you not to waste my time with it. I'm looking to understand what is really going on with this case - to understand why the DOJ might propose to break up Microsoft. When you first stated what I interpreted as a very forceful opinion on the subject this morning, I assumed that you were basing such opinion on something - some knowledge that you possessed of the case or of anti-trust law or in how anti-trust remedies have worked in the past. But I believe now that my assumption was wrong. Thanks, -Eric