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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14143)	11/16/1997 4:56:00 PM
From: Harvey Allen	Respond to of 24154

Dan- Interesting remedy- pull Explorer 4.0 return to Win95/Explorer 3.0. Bonus for the user both companies get a chance to concentrate on quality. Harvey

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14143)	11/16/1997 5:34:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Daniel, What references can be cited about browser/OS blending circa 1993? We all know the MS was asleep at that time as far as browsers were concerned. I do not want to talk to Fred, I want to see what was written back then. There os no doubt that the blend is a conquest strategy, and not a natural one. Include it and Netscape vanishes. Integrate it firmly and it cannot be used apart. The option to use the old desk top does not mean unblended. Just the visual differs. How does Netscape 4 work if you install over explorer four, as you normally would?? Buggy?? Bill

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14143)	11/16/1997 7:19:00 PM
From: Reginald Middleton	Respond to of 24154

<Well, that's one point of view; others say DOJ, in a precedent setting action, found Microsoft not guilty of being a monopoly, whatever that means.> Still having a problem reading clearly, huh? Hooked on phonics?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14143)	11/16/1997 10:37:00 PM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Sun's JavaStations delayed yet again: zdnet.com Dan, also at the end of the article we have: "It's not the hardware that's going to be important -- it's the software." Recall that I was trying to explain this a while ago, in saying that Total Cost of Ownership required a "software solution," not an NC.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14143)	11/17/1997 1:46:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24154

I sort of slipped and discovered I had a reading comprehension problem. Not that I care anymore, but I looked back and discovered that it was true, I have no idea what was being said. Anyone want to take a crack at it, be my guest. Message 12957 here: Well, as for precedent, There has been action, whether purely legislative or not. Remember MSFT. Just because it did not go against MSFT does not mean that precedent has not been set. Not knowing what that meant, I replied, naively, Uh, anybody want to take a crack at translating from the Regimondese? I can't make heads or tails of this. There's a century worth of precedent that the judges can pick or chose from. What makes you think that your particular view is the "truth"? After some more meaningless back and forth, we get 12961: Dan, all of that typing and you have said nothing. MSFT has set no precedent, hih? So I assume that the decision handed down by the Justice department on per processeor deals, OS bundling and online networks must simply be in my imagination. If not, what does it mean. The JD has already rendered a decision on MSFT. Their decision is an interpretation of the law, by the top cops in the country. Their decision apparently states that MSFT is currently, and has not historically been in no major violation of anti-trust policies as currently interpreted by our nations honorable adjudication system (sans the decree issued, of course). If you don't like it, fine. If you don't agree with thier decision, that is fine as well, but stop pretending that it didn't happen. If it happened, it can be considered precedent. And in 12968: Neither I nor my legal friends agree. Yet, even if your boss has a point, in order for it to come back it must have been out of favor inthe first place. You see, Dan has to wipe the "I hate MSFT fog" off of his glasses before he realizes that our fair federal govt. does not currently, and has not historically considered MSFT an unfair monopoly. Maybe we should replace congress and the Justice Department heads with UNIX programmers. That would teach that big bad hihgly efficient company they call MSFT a good lesson. It's true, I couldn't comprehend any of this, still can't, and I really and truly don't care to, either. Maybe it's all inoperative at this point anyway, as Al Haig would say, or maybe Janet Reno is a closet UNIX programmer. Who knows? Who cares? I'm just following the news these days. Cheers, Dan. (Sorry, this may be a little slip on my pledge. I did a little rationalization in posting this, as it refers to pre-pledge material. I'll be an absolutist from here on out)