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: tonyt who wrote (43948)	5/1/2000 2:12:00 AM
From: TTOSBT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Re: "MSDOS was inferior to DRDOS" Some always say MSFT's products are inferior yet they have always come out on top in sales and public demand. Maybe that's what this case is really about? As I have stated in a previous post it must be frustrating to feel superior and continuously get beat by the inferior. TTOSBT

To: tonyt who wrote (43948)	5/1/2000 12:04:00 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

tonyt - re: their exclusive contract with IBM, CPQ, etc made it impossible for DRDOS to compete. This pervasive urban myth has no basis in fact. There were never any exclusive contracts with IBM, CPQ or any of the other big OEMs related to DR DOS. The only evidence of anything even remotely like this was a licensing deal with a small outfit in Germany which gave a steep discount if they shipped DOS exclusively. CPQ in particular has always maintained a number of competing OS offerings. They sold more OS/2 than IBM did, and in the server space, MSFT products are still a minority - they sell more units with Novell, SCO, Linux and others (including Solaris). Whatever the customers want. Not to say that MSFT did not do whatever they could to make life hard for DR DOS, but they did the same for EVERY other OS. And at the end of the day, there was no credible evidence that they did so by restrictive or exclusionary contracts.