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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (41187)	2/13/2001 7:36:22 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

MSFT won the browser war even though they got a late start. Once the internet was a viable platform, MSFT developed the superior browser and won the war. Tee hee. And we just ignore the part about how they had a monopoly and bundled their browser with every copy of every desktop O/S in the galaxy for free, using tactics already found in the courts to have been illegal. Today of course IE is the superior browser compared to Netscape. That's because Netscape went broke and didn't have any money to put into it, and M$FT had a cash-generating monopoly. Let's not forget that "Microsoft developed a superior browser" is not quite an accurate summary. What they did was to acquire (not develop) a SH*T browser, and then improve it over a series of releases as they illegally forced it down the public's throat. There are those who still claim that IE is a crappy browser; but nobody claims it's still worse than Netscape. In fairness Netscape would have gone broke even if M$FT hadn't resorted to anti-trust violations--but that's another story. But .NET? Sorry, I'm counting them out. 1,2,3, they're out. .NET will be late, it will be garbage, it will outrage rather than delight users, and this time the users will have a choice. M$FT may try to limit that choice, but even after the partial reversal of Jackson's findings and the rise of a Repbulican administration, they'll be constrained to something approaching legal behavior. I'm going to enjoy this. --QS

To: David Howe who wrote (41187)	2/13/2001 11:55:58 PM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Excuse me if this is redundant, but you're an idiot. MS is a one trick pony. They do one thing. They leverage their desktop monopoly, and they do that very well. IE is an example not of how MS has the ability to catch up with and overtake a competitor in a market they previously weren't involved in. It's an example of how they leverage. In fact, it's such a great example, the federal government and 19 states used it as an antitrust example (and won). Because IE is a superior browser to Netscape doesn't explain the IE marketshare. If IE didn't come loaded on PCs; if it wasn't purposefully welded into the operating system (compromising your data security, btw), it wouldn't be where it is today. But, so what? What did that get them? Folks are using ActiveX and VBscript instead of Java and Javascript? No. Developers are adopting MS standards over open standards? No. MS itself is trying to. I can't access the support documents on microsoft.com because I use a browser that doesn't do the non-standard (rich experience?) MS extentions. I needed to find out how to install Windows 98 for someone. I can't get to the damn installation instructions. 'Rich experience', my ass. So, they have the desktop OS, they have the browser, and they have the MSN service. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. Do you know why? -- no server monopoly. Not only do they have no server monopoly, for all their might, they can't break a 20% market share. Away from their desktop monopoly leveraging, MS is impotent. You said Sun ONE is just renaming existing products. Du-uh. It's branding -- it's branding the existing dominant standards, and it's a pretty shrewd marketing move, in my opinion. -JCJ