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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JMD who wrote (6933)	1/9/1998 9:01:00 AM
From: Sawtooth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Off Topic Even More :: Mike, you said, << so herewith a few nits and picks.>> Friday Morning Trivia test: Do you know the interesting origin of the word "nitpicker"? Few do; you probably are one of the few. There aren't very many words that we use that are more descriptive of the implied analogy than calling someone a nitpicker, IMO. Your comment brought me a smile this morning. Thanks! ...Tim

To: JMD who wrote (6933)	1/9/1998 1:35:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 152472

WAY OFF TOPIC. Helping the poor was hardly an idea originated by Marx. Nor was the concept that enligtened governments have some obligations in that area. Marx purported to develop a grand historical and scientific theory for the inevitable evolution of society in certain directions and towards his ultimate ideal communistic one where goods would be distributed wholly without regard to rewarding those that produced them (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need). In my view virtually all that Marx added to the existing discourse was bunk, quite simply wrong. A strong statement, but there you have it.<g> However, to return to B.Gates, I never said he never engaged in any dirty tricks. I did say that dirty tricks were not the basis for the overwhelming success of Windows; meeting mass market needs better than the competition was. And there used to be real competition. From IBM. Msft simply won. And I agree that Netscape browser competition is good (and I use Netscape 4.something rather than MS Explorer....mainly cause Netscape USED to be much better, and they captured my mindshare then, and I haven't seen any reason to learn something else...YET.) And I tend to agree with the current DoJ position on the Msft browser wars. As I gather you do. I think. But that's it. For the government to try to attack Msft's operating system dominance would be an unmitigated disaster. (And the government would almost certainly loose under existing law, thank God.) ...And personally, I am quite pleased that many of those Apple developers which used to do their first and best stuff on Apple and then maybe get around to Windows six months or really a year or more later....are now writing first and best for PC's. (E.g. Adobe photoshop.) There are enormous advantages to platform standards. And the dynamics of Msft and the PC marketplace remain terrifically competitive. For one thing, if Msft doesn't continue to upgrade massively, they'll loose a lot of their sales volume. The irony is that it was Apple that tried to have a protected little monopoly, and to sell at monopoly margins. Although they had some enormous vision insights initially (adopting the Xerox Parc visual operating system which Jobs saw up the road in Palo Alto, to a VolksComputer) they blew it by attempting to thwart hardware competition, and even much appliation software competition. Made their machines always very expensive compared to the best deals in the PC world for similar horsepower. Anyway, my take. Regards, Doug