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: Alan Buckley who wrote (5016)	2/5/1998 7:55:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Oh dear Alan. You force me to once again pollute this august forum. So, you explain exactly how Compaq was threatening to fracture and fragment the integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience, and how Microsoft was force to defend Windows from the sad fate that befell Unix. Lest anyone think I'm being sarcastic here, the "fracture and fragment" and "integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience" phrases came from Microsoft. I'm always willing to reuse colorful prose, though. But, please explain how exactly removing the sacred icon fractured and fragmented the experience. Remember, no code or libraries were being removed here. The icon could be restored with the tiniest effort. What actually was going on here was Microsoft was asserting ownership of the Windows desktop, something that became necessary in its efforts to kill Netscape once and for all. Of course, Compaq complied voluntarily, after Microsoft threatened to pull the Windows license. Perhaps Alan would like to explain how there was no coercion involved in this little episode, or in the other negotiations with OEMs described in zdnet.com . Anyway, Microsoft wants very much for us to have integrity and uniformity in our internet experience, also. Why else would they be working on IE4 for Unix, also "free forever" no doubt? Microsoft is so well known for its efforts in the Unix arena. Ask SCO about that one. I imagine that Alan doesn't particularly care to debate this point. Elsewhere, he asserted that OEMs had no interest in shipping systems sans Windows because they had to install it anyway to test the hardware. When I pointed out that that wasn't my experience with my PC purchased last year, that the preloaded OS had never been run because the installation wasn't complete, he ignored the issue. He also chose not to debate my documentation that the price of Windows95 to OEMs had doubled since the launch, preferring to talk about prices 10 years ago. As a famous politician once said, facts are stupid things. Cheers, Dan, apologizing again for the drive-by barrage. Rude of me.