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: Joe Sabatini who wrote (4108)	11/21/1997 4:16:00 PM
From: Peter Greenhill	Respond to of 74651

Good post Joe, I agree with every word. MSFT up 15/16 to 137 13/16 a 0.68% rise with NASDAQ down 0.36%. Where's this collapse below 130 some people on this thread were talking about. Enjoy the weekend. Pete Greenhill London

To: Joe Sabatini who wrote (4108)	11/21/1997 4:26:00 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

CPQ founder on MSFT strategic importance to US Interesting article at techweb.com

To: Joe Sabatini who wrote (4108)	11/21/1997 5:16:00 PM
From: X-Ray Man	Respond to of 74651

I am not a critic who would rather live in a world where MSFT is not a major factor. Just not a monopoly. There is a difference. So, obviously, your comments aren't addressed to me, nevertheless... MSFT has always been a slacker in the area of innovation and quality. This is well known. MSFT prowess has been in marketing and distribution. The complaint is that MSFT has successfully put other companies that were innovating by their marketing tactics. This, if true, would indeed hurt the consumer. Generally, people who make arguments along the line that you do are making a logical error. You presume that since we have new technology, we must be living in the best of possible worlds WRT this technology. The critics charge not that MSFT doesn't provide a product, but that the products and productivity would have been even better had MSFT not buried their competition with their marketing practices. That is the crux of the debate, and there are two sides. Nothing in your comment indicates the situation would be worse if a company other than MSFT were supplying similar functionality. Your comment also seems to imply that "compatibility" and a fixed standard is positive. Generally, I would agree, as might even most of MSFT critics. The question is who controls the standard and who can compete to providing products with that standard. There was a time when there were three vendors for DOS-compatible OS. But MSFT one, not by virtue of the quality and support of their products, but by marketing practices precluding choice from OEM for installed OS. My feeling is we are all worse off for that. You obviously disagree.

To: Joe Sabatini who wrote (4108)	11/21/1997 8:35:00 PM
From: johnd	Respond to of 74651

MSFT a great company. I am impressed with the Fortune article on R&D investments at Microsoft. This is what will propel future growth. To stick my neck out, I see 180 on this stock by end of 98 and a stock split along the way.

To: Joe Sabatini who wrote (4108)	11/21/1997 8:45:00 PM
From: Columbo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Microsoft has been a much needed unifying force for many years. Their leadership has allowed the average consumer to buy software (from any company) that will be compatible, Joe, You need to be able to comprehend what the industry would be like if this "standard" was open like it is in other industries. If the telecom industry didn't have open standards, you would probably be still making phone calls on rotary phones. But then we all probably would be here if that was the case (on SI). MH #0