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: Andy Thomas who wrote (19983)	6/11/1998 2:12:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>I think the most cutting edge institution thus far has been Bell Labs. MSFT research is a far cry from that, at least at this point. <<< Yes, that's an understatement. Bell Labs has after all invented little things like the telephone, not to mention tens of thousands of other patented and unpatented technologies, and much basic science as well. Lately Microsoft has been funding an eclectic mix of researchers in a variety of fields, but not all together where they could synthesize I guess. They are trying to build some bench strength, apparently, or maybe just contribute (hard to believe that one), but they don't seem to have a team approach. That could be OK too. I have seen a couple of papers this year coming out of that. However, it takes decades to build the right kind of tradition whether in a research university or in a commercial R&D operation. Time will tell. But so far their record in software innovation has been pathetic. I fact I think I could name dozens of applications and systems design people that have done more individually. Jim Blinn, for instance. Anderson (of Ericsson.) Linus Thorvalds. (SP?) Lassiter. Codd. Probably even some of us here. In fact now that I think about it I would bet that you could name at least a hundred computer folks who have individually contributed more to the advancement of the technology than MSFT has in toto. My own accomplishments are more modest than those folks, but I still have some things to point to with pride vis-a-vis MSFT. For instance, I had the opportunity to work on code for the first large multiterminal (200 station) mainframe. We worked out some of the problems with multiuser/multitasking terminals and timeshare. I also worked on the first research project aimed toward computerizing heart monitors. I've been a lead, key, or only programmer or designer on a couple dozen retail titles. And other new things. So why would I ever in my most depressed moment take a backseat to the code cloners at Microsoft? Now I have had the opportunity to hear a little about the backgrounds of a number of others here that put my modest accomplishments to shame. Why should they respect MSFT? So many MSFT programmers, so little contribution. Sure they write a lot of code, come up with a lot of crap like OLE, but is that a contribution? On the other hand you have any individual team member from the old Xerox Parc DynaBook and Star days. Now they really invented something. Or you want to talk about real geniuses, how about Babbage playing around with ideas for registers and accumulators and general purpose programmability in a time when they rode horses and heated with coal. Now there was an innovator. And what about Turing? Mary Shelley? The Navy labs people? For MSFT to talk about themselves as innovators insults the memory of people like this. They have a few good people, true, who must feel like they are working in the caves of the Morlochs, cannibalizing the Eloi and wondering if they will ever be free to do something truly good again. Have a nice day, and please forgive my blowing my own horn, Chaz