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: cheryl williamson who wrote (46714)	6/14/2000 10:27:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Cheryl - re: No one will continue to buy a car that malfunctions, cheap or expensive. Guess it's been a while since you bought an "average" car!! <gg> With 3 kids in college I have bought 3 new low end vehicles in the last 2 years. All 3 had problems of one sort or another. A fuel system computer replacement at 2000 miles, a CD player that quit working, a roof that mysteriously "buckled", an electronic transmission that somehow kept getting confused about whether it should be in second gear. All quickly fixed under warranty. Par for the course on a car that sells for $10K. And it was equal opportunity malfunctioning, with GM, Ford and Chrysler all represented. I fully agree that MSFT designed products that were just "good enough". But hey, that's what the market is all about. The notion that they should have defined some standard of excellence beyond what the market was asking for is a nice thought but hardly a reality in much commercial software. The history of the business is littered with the bones of companies that decided to produce the perfect product, hang the expense - known as the "build it and they will come" school of financial ruin. Most engineers want to gild the lilly and produce a monument to perfection, but except in the rare case of the JPL or NASA, perfection is just not good business. Sensible managers develop market requirements and build products that meet those requirements. The history of MSFT shows that they were pretty good at doing that. With some exceptions - remember "BoB"?

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (46714)	6/14/2000 11:17:00 PM
From: Michael Do	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

>Message #46714 from cheryl williamson at Jun 14, 2000 9:45 PM ET The problem is: consumers deserve better. < So why doesn't $UNW sell their system for $399 like Emachine and displace MSFT? If any company does the consumer harms then It has to be $UNW with gauging consumers with overprice computer system that swam with bugs (remember denial of service attacks earlier on the year). Maybe we should petition DOJ lawyers launchs the antitrust against SUNW while they are still have job.. Mike

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (46714)	6/15/2000 1:17:00 AM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

<< Windows established supremecy via M$FT's monopoly, not by any other means. >> This statement is so totally off base that you are proving your own bias. This is misinformation of the highest order.