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: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15414)	12/23/1997 9:08:00 AM
From: drmorgan	Respond to of 24154

Reg - As in the case with software, I would go with a new phone company. That may not be so easy. Sure it's easy to change your LD company but what about your local (who provides the connection) carrier? In my area there is one (US West) company that you can deal with. Other's are trying to compete with US West but they are making it very difficult. I can go with another company and have them install a frame relay, but I really can't afford a T1. All of this is the mess still left over from the monopolized telco days. Derek

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15414)	12/23/1997 4:03:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Respond to of 24154

Reg, "As in the case with software, I would go with a new phone company. You cannot oversimplify this issue." You can go with a new phone company today, but was that always the case or were choices fewer at one time? Can anybody remember a time when "The Phone Company" was your "choice" for phone service? Bad example, Reg, very bad example. Cheers, Norm

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15414)	12/23/1997 8:27:00 PM
From: Schiz	Respond to of 24154

<It's not about not being able to do it, it's about ms having an unfair advantage. How would you like it if the phone company charged $200 for a new connection but gave you a phone for free?> As in the case with software, I would go with a new phone company. You cannot oversimplify this issue. Ok so it was a bad analogy. That's the problem with ms. Their deathgrip on the consumer is so strong we can't even find a decent analogy. If the consumer had a choice of an operating system that would (seamlessly) run the current applications that they own for windows then they would truely have a choice.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15414)	12/23/1997 8:58:00 PM
From: Schiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I have a few questions. 1. From the press releases that I have seen, the doj wanted to hold ms in contempt for violation of the consent decree and fine them 1mm per day if they continued to violate it. The judge issued the preliminary injunction due to the doj making a good case and showing that they had a very good chance of winning. How did the judge overstep his bounds? If the information I have is not accurate please post links to verbatim accounts if possible. 2. Does it really matter whether ie is integrated into the os or not? If microsoft integrates a seperate product into the os for additional leverage is this really any different that requiring a seperate product to be installed with the os? Can they integrate every software product they've ever developed into the os and just because they share code it's all the os? Perhaps one doesn't need any technical background at all to determine whether they are seperate or not. There has to be a line somewhere. If ms wins this where will they stop?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15414)	12/23/1997 11:36:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>> As in the case with software, I would go with a new phone company. You cannot oversimplify this issue. You seem to be doing your own simplification. There are significant barriers to switching to a new computer OS, unlike switching to a new phone company. For example, there are system interfaces that may need to be reengineered (e.g. legacy integration), there is the cost and time of retraining, there are costs associated with internal support, installations, upgrading, researching and buying new software to replace identical functionality, researching and buying new hardware (if current hardware does not run the MSFT OS), etc. And this list is not exhaustive. Moreover, just a single one of the barriers I have listed above can make it too prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, risky, and chaos-causing to switch. I just wish you would concede even a single argument that has been presented when it is clear that you are wrong. How about conceding on the fact that the costs associated with switching may make the ability for an organization to switch undoable.