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 : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scrapps who wrote (7280)	10/22/1997 5:10:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Scrapps - < I'd have to say it would NOT be acceptable if an OEM were to alter another software company's product by putting their competitors icon in it, but MSFT is looked at differently.> It is different of course, because MSFT is/should only be providing the operating system, not defining the product that CPQ delivers. Win95 is after all only a component as much as MSFT would like everyone to subscribe to their view that they are the whole product. (Reminds me of Louis XIV saying "L'etat c'est moi." - forgive the french, I probably screwed it up, but it translates to "I am the state.") MSFT is not the product. They only are supposed to be the operating system. Dictating which "other" products can be delivered by a computer manufacturer should be illegal. And the Justice department seems to feel that it is. Whatever CPQ decides to put on the desktop, is CPQ's business not MSFT's. Hard wiring IE to the desktop is pretty arrogant, imo. Putting NSCP Communicator there is not modifying their OEM product in any way, because it is merely presentation. The OS still works the same doesn't it?