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 (14312)	11/20/1997 11:13:00 PM
From: Dermot Burke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Geez Dan, where is Justice getting all the internal MSFT stuff?This is getting pretty good, this witch hunt.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14312)	11/21/1997 3:18:00 AM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Dan, this is strange. The date of that email was Dec 20, 1996, where Allchin said, "think first about an integrated solution." IE4, the "integrated solution" was in Alpha development since well before May 1996 (I know, cause I was running the "May Alpha" of IE4 at that time (it was [illegally] available from many warez sites)--also refer to my "Nashville" post, #14150, from last week). Note, this was even before IE3 shipped in final form, which was August 13, 1995. Microsoft's plan at the time was to begin IE4 beta testing at about the same time as the IE3 launch (so again, August 1995, but just like all other software, IE4 slipped. Public Beta began in spring 1997). In light of these facts, I'd have to conclude, obviously, that Jim Allchin wasn't making a strategic decision to integrate IE and Windows at that time. Instead, it seems as though he was reaffirming their strategy to Paul Martz, a strategy was conceived long before that email was ever sent. The DOJ may be able to prove that "integration" took place after the consent decree (and I'm sure MSFT will be using the nashville argument in their defense). But I don't think this email message can do it.