SI
SI
discoversearch

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: rudedog who wrote (45572)5/28/2000 2:58:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
In other words you're saying Wintel achieves whatever low prices it can claim by sacrificing reliability.

Re: "Reducing or eliminating the market mechanisms that have driven the volume segment reduces the price performance advantage of the WinTel players, and forces them to assume (and include in their costs) many of the same expenses that the proprietary players must support. This reduces the tendency for customers to accept the WinTel proposition since their price benefit is reduced, and also slows the need for additional development, incentives for IHVs and ISVs, and other ongoing expenses."



To: rudedog who wrote (45572)5/28/2000 3:02:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
It is MSFT's ability to create and maintain common hook points at a couple of points in the architecture in partnership with the OEMS that has allowed thousands of independent hardware vendors (IHVs) and software producers to develop components for the WinTel platform, independent of the decisions of the big boys.

And how, exactly, does spitting OS and app parts of Microsoft impair the ability of the OS part " to create and maintain common hook points at a couple of points in the architecture in partnership with the OEMS "? Sounds like a red herring to me. You could just as well say "don't rock the boat", which is convenient from Microsoft's point of view but a bit dubious legally.

Cheers, Dan.