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: Thunder who wrote (57238)	4/10/2001 5:00:55 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 74651

Thunder, re: what is your opinion as to why they have not done so, as of yet? The short answer would be ROI and the fact that Windows has grown up to the point that saying they are in competition with other server/workstation OSes is no longer a joke. Microsoft porting their applications to UNIX would make my job easier, but could enable their competitors OSes, especially Linux. re: The "hate" portion of my "personal relationship with Microsoft" CAD tool vendors have so far been largely unsuccessful in porting their tools to Windows. Which is sad for me as it makes my job harder, I would like to be on a single platform - but I guess that's why I have a job making UNIX and Windows play nicely with one another, let alone just getting all the UNIX variants to place nice nice, including Linux. One area of trouble with CAD tools on Windows has been the Windows idea of a single version/latest version mentality. In CAD tools we regularly have ten or more versions of a tool and can switch between them (or run them at the same time) at will under UNIX to support the version the client/customer may also be on. Under Windows this has been impossible until Win2K, yet the mechanism in Win2K doesn't work 100% as yet, nor do older tools know the new rules/guidelines they need to follow in order to support the feature. I know of no who has successfully installed every version of MSOffice, as an analogy, on Win2K - never mind the why portion. Then there is the file association aspect and which of the ten versions of a tool would I associate the file with? I would need some form of pop-up to help me select the one I mean. Then there's the system versus user aspect of various tool installations, ideally a single installation should support whoever logs into the box. The list goes on and on, and the work arounds are endless. In the end the CAD vendors themselves have in many, not all cases, just given up and I will continue to need to support both/several environments for years to come. Microsoft has made great strides and each version of the OS is better, but they may never be effective in some markets. I love them and I hate them, in the desktop market and as an investor they are the best I have worked with. In the engineering field they tend to be a hindrance and get in my way more often than not. OK, I've spilled my "opinion" based on my experience - your mileage may vary. I have come to appreciate OS agnostic approaches, even though it can be quite fun to throw rocks at MSFT and UNIX from time to time - it's just not very constructive in the end.

To: Thunder who wrote (57238)	4/11/2001 8:48:19 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 74651

Microsoft picks FireWire over USB By Joe Wilcox, Special to ZDNN 11 April 2001 Microsoft will not support a budding peripheral-connection standard in its forthcoming Windows XP operating system, instead favoring a technology developed by Apple Computer. The Redmond, Wash.-based software maker said it will not include support for USB 2.0, the latest iteration of the universal serial bus connection technology, in Windows XP, its next-generation operating system expected later this year. Microsoft will instead throw its support behind IEEE 1394, also known as FireWire, which was developed by Apple. USB 2.0, which will succeed the current USB 1.1 standard, and FireWire are means of connecting PCs to peripherals, such as printers and digital camcorders, at high speed. USB 2.0 will deliver throughput of up to 480 megabits per second vs. FireWire's 400mbps or 12mbps for USB 1.1. That's up to 40 times faster than USB 1.1. Microsoft's position further accentuates the debate over USB 2.0 vs. FireWire. It also creates strange bedfellows: Apple and Microsoft on one side pitted against USB 2.0's major backers on the other--Compaq Computer, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lucent Technologies and others. Microsoft, too, is a founding member of the USB Implementers Forum. Microsoft's decision slams USB 2.0 at an important juncture in its development, a move that could keep the connectivity standard from finding a firm footing in mainstream computing, said IDC analyst Roger Kay. "The longer (USB 2.0) is delayed, the more traction FireWire gets," Kay said. "USB 2.0 on paper is great, but the lack of real USB is going to give FireWire time to entrench itself for those high-bandwidth types of applications, such as video." USB 2.0 becomes the second major technology not supported in Windows XP. Last week, Microsoft said it will not add support for Bluetooth, a wireless connectivity standard, to Windows XP. As with Bluetooth, a lack of Microsoft support in the latest version of the market-leading consumer operating system makes USB 2.0 adoption more onerous for hardware manufacturers and software developers. The software giant won't deliver a family of device drivers or other software to simplify how the technology gets incorporated into Windows. Microsoft refused to provide a product manager or executive to discuss its USB 2.0 position, choosing instead to communicate through a press representative. "USB 2.0 support will not be included in the (final) version of Windows XP due to the fact that there is not a sufficient array of production-quality devices to test against," she wrote in an e-mail. "Microsoft will not ship support for a standard that they can't guarantee a great user experience on." So far, USB 2.0 looks good as a concept, but little else, said Dataquest analyst Martin Reynolds. If nothing else, Microsoft's "wise decision" proves that "USB 2.0 isn't ready yet," Reynolds said. "We've had demonstrations of proof of concepts, but without a plethora of products out in the marketplace it is difficult to gauge it. At this point, it doesn't make a lot of sense for Microsoft to put in a set of drivers that are not debugged and fully qualified."