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: miraje who wrote (14644)	12/4/1997 10:51:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>''Some modules are called the OS, some are called the application,'' said one software developer. ''The computer doesn't know that. There is no border.'' <<< Actually, this is technically incorrect, unless you are talking about DOS or Win31 or some other obsolete system. Most OSs are segregated into their own space, with strict protocols for passing data and messages back and forth between the apps and the OS. On some systems, even old ones like the IBM S34, not only was this division enforced by hardware, but the vendor (IBM) would not even sell you a compiler that could write into OS space. Most divisions are not that strict. But the programmers quoted anonymously by the semi-intrepid SJMN are incorrect in that. Ignorant, in fact. Of course that is not the point. The point is that you don't have to continue to allow Microsoft to absorb all of the business into the OS instead of providing us with an API to integrate our apps into. That lets us compete while integrating. This was supposed to be the point of Windows, according to what they promised us for a decade to entice us to write to their specs. They said they would provide a standard look and API for integration, and we would all write apps to that, and everbody would make money. Instead, we put up the R&D money, they scooped up all the marbles, and the industry took another clobbering (circa early 90s.) Why go through this again with the Internet? Microsoft only has maybe 20,000 to 25,000 employees. If they just get away with two things, the browser integration and the attack on Java, they could destroy many times 22,000 jobs, while reducing choices for the consumer and eventually weakening US technology in the world and undercutting our future. This is not to mention putting in proprietary hooks to enable other Microsoft enterprises from the stock market to online commerce to television delivery. In our stupidity in this country we allowed the steel business, the television manufacturing, the car business, the video game business, and many others to go overseas. Do we also really need to allow the General Motors of the software industry to work it's planned obsolesence and monopolistic strategems on us until the one bright star of the US economy, the computer software business, is also destroyed? Enough companies have already gone under, I think. Unless you only hold Microsoft stock, I would think you would tire of it too. Chaz

To: miraje who wrote (14644)	12/4/1997 11:35:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Well, James, Chaz beat me to the punch on this one, his understanding matches mind. Of course, if you accept the Microsoftese definition, that the OS is whatever they say it is, then nothing much matters. I did notice this quote, though, that caught my interest: But in a 1995 agreement with the Justice Department, Microsoft tacitly acknowledged its operating systems' monopoly status and agreed to abide by some government-imposed conditions on how it could wield its power. Justice is now saying that Microsoft has broken the agreement by using its OS monopoly to promote a separate application -- specifically its Web browser, Internet Explorer 4.0, which is now provided with Windows 95. Of course, it is well known that I have a reading comprehension problem, so I'll leave it to others to reconcile that with the statements from a local antitrust expert, which I quote in message 14166 here. I don't claim to be an expert on the law here. But other big, important companies, most recently AT&T and IBM, have had to deal with these matters, and I don't remember them whining far and wide about how unjust it all was. Oh, I forget, those two are part of that nefarious Gang of Five that the 2.5 million members of the ACSA have their undies in a bunch about. As for me cheering Justice on, well, if you say so; mostly I'm entertained by the process. Even if Microsoft loses it's not likely to make any difference, if Microsoft ever gets around to shipping the operating system formerly known as Windows 97. All the OEM's will say that they really, really want to ship IE with Windows95 anyway. In fact, Bill's made sure that they've already put that on the record. It's just one battle. Now, excuse me while I retire to say my prayer again. Cheers, Dan.

To: miraje who wrote (14644)	12/5/1997 3:01:00 PM
From: John Donahoe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

RE: If definitions of applications and operating systems were put into law, these programmers might have to go through rigorous negotiations with the OS creator to make sure their products are separate. That would give the creator (think Microsoft, only bigger) even more power and control. Interesting article. I have noticed that in the dreams of many of the most rabid $Bill haters is a DOJ action that results in the creation of three "baby $Bills". One a OS company, one a browser company and one a application company. To me it's unclear if this would be a bad thing for investors and conversely a good thing to MSFT's competitors. Their dreams, if turned into reality, may become a nightmare. JD