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 (17767)	3/4/1998 11:17:00 AM
From: Thure Meyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Technically there are other PC operating systems, but that isn't the issue and trotting out a list of them as a defense of MSFT practices isn't getting to the point. Each of the list, except for Linux which is a different sort of phenomenon and OS/2, are of marginal interest for the sake of this discussion which deals primarily with the WinTel computers. And for the typical business user only OS/2 is a viable possibility. So lets look at what has happened to OS/2 over the last 3 - 4 years. From a technical standpoint OS/2 was superior to anything that MS had to offer; the TCP/IP implementation was particularly nice at a time when Windows had no real connectivity options. But MS stopped building native OS/2 applications and it is only lately that IBM has managed to continue with the Lotus Suite. This was interesting in light of their clear ability to do so, given that Presentation Manager and Windows came from the same root technology. It is the application suite (i.e., spreadsheets, word processors, etc.) and their interaction (OLE), internal formats and so on, that allows MS to control and strangle this marketplace. For better or worse due to whatever path dependent events in the past, MS has achieved a "locked in" position from which there is no exit at this time (in other words a monopoly). The result is that each time MS declares something as part of their "OS" they eliminate small companies trying to compete in that niche. Its a great position to be in, let others take risks in building applications, finding customers and erecting infrastructure, then copy what they have add it to your OS and roll it out in the next upgrade; which everyone has to buy because switching is too expensive and would involve the whole industry. Internet Explorer is the canonical case. MS and Gates had no clue as to the significance of the Internet and distributed computing in general (just look at their record in that field). IE was not part of any operating system until MS perceived a threat from Netscape and it should be clear to you and everyone that "integrating" it and signing bundling arrangements with Dell and others is an obvious ploy to destroy competition. How much clearer can it be? The history of MS is fascinating. From a five and dime software house to how they are today. Its history of incredible luck, other companies stupidity and market predation. Thure