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 : Forecross Corporation : Y/2000 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Jurik who wrote (1251)	7/20/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: Crandell Addington	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1654

Mark: It looks like you just don't get it. I didn't realize from your previous post that you wanted a technical explanation. (Of sorts) My answers will take a couple of posts, so I will start with the most important one first. HERE IS WHAT IS TO COME AFTER Y2K: While your abilities to conduct due diligence seem to be somewhat limited, judging from your current post, remember that Forecross' business is and has been automated legacy migrations. This means that the company inputs the customer's programs and outputs functionally equivalent programs in entirely different languages and platforms. They do this with full automation. Before any company would send its code to anyone, you know that they would conduct intensive due diligence. There is no Y2K company in the world that I have found with as impressive a customer list as Forecross. Since I have been following the company some of the names that I have seen that do business with Forecross include Bear Stearns, Bank of America NTSA, Aetna, Home Savings, Brown Brothers Harriman, TRW, Inc.(BDM), EDS, CIBER, NCR, A.T.&T., SCB, GE Lighting, Alcatel(French phone co.), City of Chicago, IBM, Edward Jones, Charles Schwab, Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank of Canado, New Brunswick Telephone, and I'm sure that the list goes on. Forecross does and always has done business with some of the biggest and best companies in the world, so they must have some superior technology. It must be intuitive to persons familiar with programming that to automatically migrate a program to a completely different language or platform requires a more robust technology than to simply detect and renovate a date format in the same language. It is this more robust technology that has spawned Forecross' Y2K solution. It is the same technology that is the basis for Forecross' plan for "after Y2K." While it seems certain from your post that it is unlikely that you have had many conversations with the CIOs and CEOs of major corporations, I do, and I can acquaint you with what I have identified as one of the major future trends in corporate information processing. TODAY'S LEGACY SYSTEMS, THE SYSTEMS THAT TURN VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE WORLD'S BUSINESS, DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TODAY'S LET ALONE TOMORROW'S TECHNOLOGY. A few of todays's cutting edge IT shops have already completed migrations from legacy code to Java. The business community is learning that it is not enough to be competitive in product and service markets, but that they must also compete in the arena of information processing to prosper. Forecross has been developing this technology for some time. Forecross' "after Y2K" plans are the main reason that I bought the stock in the first place. Y2K just turned out to be a bonus. It is my opinion and projection that the migrations that bring today's legacy system to tomorrow's technology are more than 100 times the size and cost of Y2K migrations, and just as inevitable. Every line of every program must be migrated, and the more automation the better. Who better to develop and implement future legacy migrations than the company that appears to me to be in the forefront now? (A small play on words to break the tedium of such a long post) Legacy migration has been in every FRX press release that I have seen, so they must not be "blowing smoke." From what I have been able to determine, they have been using their automated process to migrate entire databases and the code that serves them for nearly 20 years, and they must be the state of the art, judging from the customer list above. Now, how better to get this technology to market than through a very impressive list of teaming partners. But more about that later. I already have to apologize for the length of this post. I hope that I have provided something insightful for your consideration. Best regards, Crandell Addington

To: Mark Jurik who wrote (1251)	7/20/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: Crandell Addington	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1654

Mark: I am having second thoughts about you. Something was bothering me about your post while I was at lunch today. Consequently I reread this one as well as others that you have sent to other threads. Your inference that large shareholders (such as myself holding six figure share positions) receive preferential treatment upon calling the IR officer struck me as whining. I seldom call the company but do have several friends with holdings of 1,000 shares and even less, and they tell me that Pat Jones spares no effort to return EVERY call and answer all appropriate questions. I have NEVER been told that Pat Jones, nor anyone else at FRX, acted rudely nor inappropriately when fielding civil questions from stockholders. I would bet that the great majority of calls from stockholders are from those owning less than 5,000 shares. In support of that, a recent search by a known proxy solicitation firm reveals that FRX has over 1,400 shareholders (requirement for NASDAQ is 400). The further inference is that because of your alleged personal experience, that there must be something to hide. Tell me now just what that might be. Perhaps you have made a nuisance of yourself, represented yourself as having credentials which you do not have, or tried to interject your opinions about the management of FRX. Initially, I thought that you were just another FRX shareholder with a healthy self-interest in your investment or speculation, as the case may be. But now the question in my mind, in light of your whining, is whether or not you ever held any FRX, or whether you would like to attempt to establish yourself as a self-styled Y2K expert. As far as your credentials to make financial, marketing, or management analyses, I take note that in an earlier post that you were seeking help in trading on-line. Anyone lacking such an elementary skill as this, certainly can have no credentials to make the aforementioned analyses. I dislike having to do this, but you must now convince me that I am wrong. This is not intended to be the same type of post that I entertain myself with by tweaking one particular goof on this thread. On a closing note for the information of all on this thread, I offer the following: I can tell you that many of us are watching while the company is in the final testing of it's automated solution for double byte character sets. What this means is that I believe that FRX will be the only company to offer a completely automated Y2K solution for character sets that must be expressed in double bytes, i.e., Korean, Japanese, and Chinese. How's that for unique? More to follow in a later post. Regards, Crandell Addington