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: Charles Tutt who wrote (3796)	10/24/1997 1:41:00 PM
From: Larry Sullivan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The very first OEM release of Windows 95 had Internet Explorer as part of the package. The OEM release is different than the shrink wrap version you or I can purchase in the stores, for instance as has been reported by all the industry press the OEM release that came out in mid 1996 contained FAT32 which is not available in the retail release. Larry...

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (3796)	10/24/1997 4:06:00 PM
From: Jon Stept	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Hi Charles. RE: Dispositive evidence... I think it is dispositive the moment Microsoft began to make Windows 95 internet centric. They saw a market developing and exploited their product to take advantage of it. To that effect, they changed the definition of Windows 95. Nothing anit-competitive about that. There seems to be an unsopken air of suspicion that Microsoft is lying or hiding the truth. I don't see them doing that, and I really don't see why they would have any reason to do that. The truth is they saw a company with a successful internet product, they saw a lucrative market, and they attacked. I thought that is how business worked? That is what every good company does, don't you think? Just one other thing. Don't you think it is kind of interesting that the news spin regarding Compaq's Win 95 browser decision was seen as Microsoft bullying them, rather than an equally valid spin that Compaq wanted to exploit it's relationship with Netscape to it's advantage? The article does not ask investigate why not just put on the Netscape browser with MS browser. One reason I can think of is Compaq was contractually obligated to put on only the Netscape browser, and no other browser, otherwise they would have to pay more money or could not put on Netscape on at all. Very curious why they did not include both. What do you think? Jon :)