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 : Microsoft - The Evil empire -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (85)	10/28/1997 12:11:00 PM
From: Kal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1600

I'm afraid you are plain wrong. microsuck did change Java so it only runs on win (lose) if you wrote the program using thier SDK. here dude, and please do DO some reading. javaworld.com Check on that site the changes microsuck made. i don't have the exact URL. then let's hear from you when you're a little more educated about the issue. MH #1

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (85)	10/28/1997 1:02:00 PM
From: Kal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

>>Are you suggesting that MS changed their JAVA implementation so that JAVA apps would not run on the MS VM? This is just plain wrong. What exactly are you talking about? Here is a beginning. javaworld.com what's your conclusion? MH #1

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (85)	10/28/1997 1:10:00 PM
From: Steve Booth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

Here's some of the material from the Kal referenced URL: techstocks.com I don't care what they do about extensions... I care about their changing their system so existing code won't work correctly. While the "write once, run everywhere" may not be a reality at this point in time, what Microsoft is doing is attempting to write code to make things so the JAVA initiative will fail. As part of that initiative they call their version of JAVA "compliant." That's one of the reasons SUN sued them. They have done the same thing with Javascript. (Although I have to admit Netscape's hands aren't clean on this one either).