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: Punko who wrote (6733)	5/8/1998 9:46:00 AM
From: JPS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Does any body know where the next base is for MSFT (downside that is)? How did it open this morning? Thanks

To: Punko who wrote (6733)	5/8/1998 9:48:00 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 74651

That may not have been the absolute bottom but it was getting close enough on my TA system to make me cover on my MSFT short (82 15/16 down from 90 1/4 and 91 1/4). I now have neither positive nor a negative holding in MSFT. David

To: Punko who wrote (6733)	5/8/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Shibumi	Respond to of 74651

Re: Ayn Rand puking and Microsoft not being an innovator. Let's ignore Objectivist philosophy for the moment and focus on your assertion that Microsoft is an innovator. To prove your point, you quote something from Mitch Kertzman. Where I have trouble understanding your point is when you draw the line where you do between research and development. I agree that to date Microsoft has been much more of a development (execution) than a research shop -- but then again, this is pretty much the standard for most companies. Microsoft started writing a BASIC interpreter from scratch, then they had the luck (opportunity and preparation) to take advantage of DOS, and so on. Other than the fact that Microsoft has been insanely good at execution (and thus has a vast majority of one segment of the operating system business), how does Microsoft's fundamentals of operations with regard to innovation differ from other companies? Borland started out building a great little Pascal compiler -- but Wirth invented the language. Sybase, Oracle, and Informix all rose up on relational database technology from IBM. Apple took the Xerox PARC technology and implemented it on a mass market computer. Cisco took the idea of general computer routing to specialized routers and has since acquired their way into the general purpose networking business. And so on... I don't understand the logic of your position. No one does anything these days without standing on the "shoulders of giants". The fictional Galt did both the research and the development -- but it's hard to believe that the author believed that he began from "scratch". All that time he spent at the university, he was studying research and applied applications that other people had generated.