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: alydar who wrote (62423)	11/1/2001 9:28:31 AM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Rocky - I'm a little surprised that you think Sun or Oracle could lead the next wave of architectural development on the net. Sun One is, so far, an empty recycling of a bunch of existing initiatives, late and architecturally disconnected. Oracle is retrenching heavily to try and shift their designs - both at the app and database level - to advance beyond the local execution framework which has been their strong suit to date. Both companies are very late to the party and have significant hurdles to overcome, particularly because J2EE links execution to services, which is not the way the next generation designs seem to be developing. IBM has done the best job of covering all the bases architecturally but still is hampered by J2EE limitations. I think it is Sun who has the big challenge, not MSFT. 2 years ago they had architectural leadership - now they are way behind. I just got back from a session with CIOs of major companies - almost all said that MSFT has architectural leadership in Web services (but few thought MSFT was ready to deliver real products yet). The majority saw IBM as the "reliable" architectural vendor. Many said they have shifted deployment away from Sun due to Sun's lack of architectural vision and what those executives saw as Sun's attempt to maintain their proprietary and high cost approach at the customers' expense. This was a group of more than 100 CIOs and IT executives, so it was not a random sample.

To: alydar who wrote (62423)	11/1/2001 12:31:40 PM
From: David Howe	Respond to of 74651

<< it is incrementally better than previous os's not revolutionary. xp will only do as good as the pc industry. >> I agree partially and even with that said, SO? The reason MSFT is so profitable is because it's linked to the PC industry for much of their business. MSFT's growth is coming from other products. A pick up in PC sales would be a bonus, but not one that is necessary in order for MSFT to be very successful. << that being said, msft will remain a hugely profitable and serious competitor. >> I agree with this. Maybe we come to the same conclusion by looking at it from two different perspectives.