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 : Y2k Why the stock-market will collapse within days/week -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul van Wijk who wrote (35)	5/20/1998 2:39:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 185

Paul, you totally lost me on the connection between Win98 and Y2K. Win98 is Y2K compliant, as is Win95. So it seems to me that for example, if a smaller company has been using an old "mini-computer" that is not Y2K compliant, then if they totally scrap the mini-computer and convert to a new client-server environment with a network of Win98 machines, then buying Win98 will also solve their Y2K problem. Why would you stop shipment of Win98? 1) It is mostly consumers who are going to be buying it at retail. Their resources are not going to help big companies solve their Y2K problems, so consumers are free to spend their money on whatever they like. 2) New PCs will now have Win98 on them as of yesterday. MSFT shipped Win98 to PC OEMs on Monday. So now, instead of paying MSFT for Win95, the PC OEMs pay MSFT for Win98. Both are the same price. So no additional resources are being spent there. Like I say, I don't get the connection between Y2K and Win98. As for Janet Reno, why would you care about her opinion on an IT matter? She just said last week that she got "confused about where her files were, whether they were on the hard drive or on the soft drive," so she has quit using a computer and has gone back to pen and paper. She said, "at this time I have no personal relationship with a computer". as for your statement, "But I do agree with your President. And if I were in his position I would stop Microsoft immediatly." The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government here in the USA. Janet Reno is the head of the Judicial Branch. The Justice Dept is under and part of the Judicial Branch. The other major branch (to make the three branches of government as stated in the US Constitution) is the Legislative Branch, which is Congress (Senate and House of Representatives). The point here is that Clinton has absolutely no authority to make any decisions that fall under the authority of the Judicial Branch. So it won't be Clinton's say-so. As for Janet Reno...she's no tech person, and this case is highly technical. She will go along with whatever Judge Jackson says. He is the judge who has been given this US vs. Microsoft case.