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: K. M. Strickler who wrote (17210)	2/7/1998 11:14:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Sure, MSFT could abandon all of the systems that have gone before, 'tear' off that clean sheet of paper, and get together with the latest and greatest design, and tell all of the embedded sales to trash their systems, and get the new one! But Ken, Microsoft is telling everybody who doesn't run NT to do this already. If the world is supposed to standardize on NT, I think NT ought to, you know, maybe do things right? Microsoft abandoned plenty of what had gone before when it did Windows, like the considerably cleaner and more capable architecture of X Windows. Which, by the way, was truly "modular" too, and not modular in a way that only Microsoft knows about. It was widely available, for free, on systems that were probably slower than the standard new system when Win3.0 hit the streets. But it didn't fit into Bill's business plan. But Bill's promised us WinTerm, which, when it finally ships, will do probably most of what X did, in that unique, "open" Microsoft way, only 10 or 15 years or so after X did the same stuff. Sort of like how Win95 finally allowed the PC guys to write 32 bit programs only 10 years after the 386 hit the street. Microsoft is taking us where we want to go! It just takes a while sometimes. Maybe that's a good thing, though. Cheers, Dan.

To: K. M. Strickler who wrote (17210)	2/7/1998 11:44:00 AM
From: Justin Banks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

K.M - ure, MSFT could abandon all of the systems that have gone before, 'tear' off that clean sheet of paper, and get together with the latest and greatest design, and tell all of the embedded sales to trash their systems, and get the new one! Yeah, that would be real SMART! You can bet that void would be filled only too happily by the other software vendors! Then everyone would say, "See, I told you MSFT would self-destruct!" Thank you for making my point. A monopoly is bad for innovation and progress. -justinb

To: K. M. Strickler who wrote (17210)	2/8/1998 7:39:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

>>Actually a 'gain' in capacity could be gained by blocking to 1024 instead of 512, but then there would be that 'backward compatibility' problem!<<< I don't think anyone else has as bad a file system as Microsoft at this point. NT is a little better than Win95, but the incompatibility between the two causes even more problems (like, I need an MO drive now for both systems on my little network. Stupid.) Of course, the disk compression they had for a while solved the inefficiency if not the size limit, but the Stacker ripoff fiasco appears to have hosed that up for a long time to come. I do wish they would fix the compression (I mean, pay the royalties to Stacker or whomever is now necessary and put it back in.) Folks, tell me: Does Solaris, or HP, or OS2, or mainframe IBM, or anything else you can think of, have these size limitations and huge percentage of wasted disk space caused by the Microsoft FAT system? This is entirely a software problem, fixable with new bios and OS code. Maybe not even new bios, since SCO and NT don't do those huge clusters, on the exact same machines with the same drives and BIOS ROMs.