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: Charles Hughes who wrote (18537)	4/16/1998 7:29:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Chaz, Received this email of data from somewone. What is wrong with modern software developers? Its not like the Year 2000 was something that came out of nowhere and caught everyone by surprise. Does UNIX have the same problem with dates? One of the big selling points for Win98 must be the "Now includes century in all dates! A Windows98 Exclusive! Upgrade now!". "Where In Time Do You Want To Go Today?" /////////////////////////////////////////////////// REDMOND, WASHINGTON, 1998 APR 15 (NB) -- By Martyn Williams, Newsbytes. Microsoft Corporation [NASDAQ:MSFT] has announced details of Year 2000 compliance tests it has carried out on its own software. The company says there are some problems with some of its most popular products, including versions of Windows 95, MS-DOS, Office, Word, PowerPoint, Visual Basic and Internet Explorer. The information was announced as the company launched its new Year 2000 Web site, at microsoft.com . It said minor problems were found in: Fox Pro 2.6; Internet Explorer (32 bit) 3.0, 3.01, 3.02, 4.0, 4.01; MS-DOS 6.22; Office 4.x Standard; Office 95 Professional and Standard; Outlook Express (Mac) 4.0; PowerPoint 4.0; SQL Server 6.5 Enterprise, Small Business Server; Visual Basic 5.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.0; Visual C++ Professional, Learning Edition 5.0; Visual Source Safe 5.0; Visual Studio Enterprise 5.0; Windows 95 4.00.950; Windows for Workgroups 3.11; Windows NT Server, Standard / Enterprise 4.0; Windows NT Workstation 4.0; Word 95 7.0; and Word 6.0. In the case of Windows 95, the core operating system would not be affected but some "minor" functions, such as the file finder function would not be able to correctly sort files by date. Microsoft said non-compliant software was Access 2.0 and Word for MS-DOS 5.0. Word will become useless after 2000 as it will not be able to save files. In testing its software, Microsoft looked at five main criteria. To be certified as Year 2000 complaint, the software must be capable of storing and calculating dates in four-digit format, converting user-entered two digit dates correctly to four digits, calculating leap years correctly, not using special values for dates with its operational range, and functioning through until 2035. Reported By Newsbytes News Network: newsbytes.com

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (18537)	4/16/1998 11:25:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Ok, Chaz, you can have full credit for Fred Moody's fantasy. Like I said, I learned my lesson, I can't go beyond sarcasm on this stuff, and I don't predict a breakup. As for Bill getting all his eggs out of one basket, shoot, he wants to own everyone's basket, diversification won't help him much there. Think he cares if he's worth $25gig, or $50gig, or $100gig, when he wants to control the world? Ain't about money at this point. But, I will foolishly repeat my somewhat serious misgiving about a hypothetical functional breakup. An OS company + an app company leaves two pretty well entrenched monopolies. Not quite to the same degree as now, the OS company would still have the OEMs by the short hairs but wouldn't be able to leverage the same bundling deals, and the apps company wouldn't have the quite the same reach when Office was its main bundling channel, their main leverage would be in the, er, office, but I don't think competition would be that much greater. The others stuff, well Backoffice may have some leverage, the rest is pretty mundane. I (hypothetically) pity the MSN arm. Now, if there were two or more nanosofts fighting it out between each other, starting from the same base, you might have something. Wouldn't have worked for the old Standard Oil kind of breakup, with physical assets to divide, might have worked with AT&T and the RBOCs, if it'd happened somewhat later. Or, maybe this is all sarcastic too. I leave it to the audience to judge for themselves. Mum's the word. Cheers, Dan.