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: rudedog who wrote (10028)	8/7/1998 8:22:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Respond to of 74651

OS Open Sockets A. RE: "The Microsoft Operating System would be limited to being just that: a platform for running other programs. All programs. Not just Microsoft programs." When I said this I meant that the Microsoft OS should not evolve to run only Microsoft's software products (disguised as integral parts of the OS). I think we would be better off in a world with options like Word Perfect, PageMaker, FreeHand, Netscape etc. for Windows in addition to the excellent choices from Microsoft. B. RE: "The OS Open Sockets Solution. As a software developer who has worked both in the MSFT and Unix worlds, I believe that the current MSFT development environment already far exceeds the solution you suggest, with the NT subset being closer yet. There are clearly defined and published APIs for both applications and layered components which anyone can use, and they seem to work pretty well." If software runs better folded-into rather than run externally by the OS, as Microsoft seems to be claiming in the case of the browser, then let's do Sockets so other software can be folded-in with full functionality as the USER chooses. Explorer must connect to Windows 98 at several connecting points.Lets put all these points together in one place, standardize it and call it a socket. Lets publish the specs for the socket in such a way that other like-type software can be designed to snap into the socket and run as functionally as any piece of Microsoft's folded-in software. We all realize that the MS OS still allows programs like Netscape to somehow run externally. But, after all, folded-in is better, isn't it? Microsoft says so, don't they? Its the wave of the future, isn't it? Only Microsoft products will qualify to eventually run folded-in, right? Why put everyone else out of business? Who really wants an OS to run only some programs well and not others? And, who wants an OS that runs only Microsoft programs? Lets get back to a Windows Operating System that runs Windows programs, all Windows programs, not just Microsoft's Windows programs. Hal

To: rudedog who wrote (10028)	8/8/1998 7:11:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Dear Rudedog: You make an excellent point in your post but I have to disagree with you. This guy has never made sense and probably has never written a line of code in his life. If it was so hard to write apps. for MSFT then why did/does everyone write apps for MSFT rather than AAPL. The answer Hal will tell you is that they dominate but he forgets to ask how did they get to this position. The answer is that they took in the third party as quasi-partners as they developed their OS throughout the years. They worked with the third party people whereas AAPL did not make it easy for the third party app. writers! It really is simple. If they liked a utility they would generally adopt it by licensing the code or buying the company. As we all know they invented litle thmselves but were humble enough and flexible enough to adapt and adopt. They have themselves always walked the line and won big in the case of AAPL and lost in the case of Stacker but they on balance have been the winner through working with and making it easy for the third party developer to write their programs for the then curent MSFT OS. Big corporations have long memories and I believe that this whole anti-MSFT thing is being orchestrated by IBM (ironically themselves a victim of gov't. harassment) who was outmaneuvered by the then tiny MSFT and are still looking for some way to regain the lost territory. I am a Mac owner I have always been amazed at the short-sightedness of AAPL. To wit it is quite obvious that Jobs/AAPL was very shortsighted even in the latest maneuver wherein he/AAPL has taken back the cloners licenses which was his contractual right. He efffectively narrowed the market for the third pary app. writer. By the way who came to his rescue? Office 98! Speaking of contracts guys like Rubel don't understand those either. In their minds it is the latest whining complaint that should rule the day and not the contract they signed with both eyes open. Thanks for the excellent post. JFD