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 : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: spitsong who wrote (31780)	1/11/2002 4:09:41 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213182

Of course it chose not to renew that agreement, and Sybase has been crippled ever since. The two facts are somewhat independent. In fact the Microsoft deal gave access to a database originally developed by Watcom which was purchased by Powersoft which was then purchased by Sybase. This deal was never the bread and butter of Sybase. Somewhat independently, the database market went through a major consolidation in which a lot of minor players disappeared or shrinked radically, including dBase, Paradox, Fox (owned by M$), Informix, Sybase among others. This consolidation had more to do with the lack of need for yet another corporate database and the raise of the computer as a word processor. IMHO Oracle was saved by the appearance of the dynamic web page, which is usually implemented using a database in the back end. Here's a bit of trivia: the original SQL Anywhere (later licensed to M$) was written over a month by two programmers just for kicks. It was smaller and faster than anything else out there, although admittedly a bit less feature rich. That is why Sybase targeted the embedded space with this server, as this market that doesn't need as many features.

To: spitsong who wrote (31780)	1/11/2002 7:02:58 PM
From: OrionX	Respond to of 213182

re: SQL Server Pinza, Actually IMO MSFT actually did a spy job on Sybase by pretending to agree to a mutual development partnership but then once they got enough technology and know how, they cancelled their agreement and went off to develop SQL-Server. The first version was clearly a ripoff of Sybase's technology. OS/2 was also the precursor to NT 3.51. NTFS and HPFS (i think that's what it was called) are brother and sister. While MSFT went on touting NT 3.51 as a real OS, even though it was brain dead by many accounts and hated by even the most pro-microsoft people I've known, IBM made big strides in improving some of the weakness in OS/2 like memory utilisation, pre-emptive multi-tasking, code/application isolation and efficient memory usage. Even NT 4.0 never really surpassed those features of OS/2. Ever wonder why many financial institutions kept on using OS/2 for so many years.