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 : Intel Strategy for Achieving Wealth and Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sonny McWilliams who wrote (19679)	6/1/1998 12:58:00 AM
From: David M Gambs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27012

Sonny, No offense intended nor any taken. As to what I feel MSFT could have done that would have headed this off: Instead of putting the entire browser on the systems, they should have broken it up into the GUI (the part that you see and interface with) and the underlying pinnings. Take that 'behind the scenes' stuff and make an API (Application Program Interface) out of it. They might also need to break this up into an API and Protocol Stack. Any application house could write to these 'underlying' components - including MSFT. Any application could use these components as well. Since much of the web goes through the TCP/IP protocol stack, any functionality not offered in the OS by MFST could still be written into the application and sent over TCP/IP just as it is now. What this would provide is easier coding, consistent interaction, ease of use, not to mention the flexibility to 'roll your own'. MSFT could put the encryption at the OS level as well. Virtually all of this 'underlying' component stuff is Standards based. Therefore, if the components are written to the Standard, no one should have any problems utilizing them nor should they worry that their product is being 'usurped'. I come from the old school of Computer Science. Many of those that are coming out of College today would not pass muster with me as they do not have the base of knowledge that I had to have. In fact, many Master of Science programs in CS only require classes that I had to take for my Bachelor of Science. This is starting to be reflected in products that are being delivered. To me NT 4.0 is the first OS that MSFT has released that I do not consider to be a Beta product. (Beta is pre-release code. Not production worthy). Maybe I am a bit too sticky. I do not think a software house should be releasing code that has as many bugs as many of MSFTs products seem to have. If INTeL® released a processor with as many errors, they would be raked over the coals for years. We seem to accept this 'unprofessional' level of work from software houses. Just a point of pride with me. When I was working in the software development arena, we prided ourselves on producing small, tight, bug-free code. The products that I see coming out of MSFT today would never have made it to release under those conditions. Yet we are willing to pay for what I consider, for the most part, sub-standard software. Unfortunately, it's really the only game in town if you want to play on the dominant field. When I purchase a new desktop system, the old one will be converted to BSDi UNIX or Linux. Then I can have a 'real' system at home. ;) Regards, dmg (Go INTeL® Go to $200 [post all splits: past, present & future])