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 : Microsoft - The Evil empire -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: POB who wrote (677)	2/5/1998 3:43:00 PM
From: Kal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

Why? simple, confusion. When you have confused masses it is easier to steer them. It's the art of malicious redifenition, repackaging, and regurgitating. As if to sound he really has created something new. Desparation. it's not the first or last time he throws meaningless terms at the industry. OLE -> ActiveX, COM, DCOM DNA ..etc, many terms of which have died, IMO. it is the same maliciousness in using the word Explorer: it is your windows file viewer and ms browser. average People assume sort of relatedness. 'The internet' icon on the desktop.. as if internet was created by microsoft. not only is he a genius in marketing, but in subtlety. MHO

To: POB who wrote (677)	2/5/1998 4:03:00 PM
From: Judd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

WOW! Great article! DNS is going to replace all known computer technology. It will make paper and phones obsolete. I'll have the power of the world in my shirt pocket. It sounds really complex and fascinating. This is the reaction he wants from computer illiterates. I love it when Gates tells me about the future. Like he can really predict it. He will only follow the leader and make new terminology to make it look like he invented it. DNS is probably a rip-off of some old VMS technology, or something.

To: POB who wrote (677)	2/5/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: K. M. Strickler	Respond to of 1600

I think MSFT is starting to 'feel' the 'pain' in supporting such a large 'embedded' base. MSFT wants to continue to 'support' the 'old' while developing the 'new' platforms to gain the added functionality of developing 'hardware'! I suppose MSFT wouldn't have to write the OS for MMX, but how would MMX fair? Would you have MSFT stop upgrading the non-MMX platform instead, and 'dump' the embedded base of users. Kind or a catch-22 in my mind! Ken