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: Logos who wrote (10150)	8/17/1998 9:10:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Logos, >>The guys at IBM who built the IBM PC wanted to make a machine that was not brain-dead and wanted to build it quickly. They knew that if they used IBM parts, the IBM PC would have been over-priced and under-powered, and so they used Intel and Microsoft and the rest is history The reason they picked the 8088 was because it was underpowered. They did not want the PC to compete with their Minicomputer line. If they had wanted a powerful PC they would have picked the 68000 which was light-years ahead of the 8088. Cheers, Norm

To: Logos who wrote (10150)	8/18/1998 9:22:00 AM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 74651

>(they (IBM) were far too busy with mainframes and other much higher margin machines). EMFJI, but IBM was't too "busy". The PC folks were very focused. They just plain screwed up! They tried to crush the competition with the MicroChannel buss architecture and lost the market. The proprietary game simply didn't work. >But this type of independence was against IBM's usual corporate policy, and would not have been allowed had IBM not been worried about the government work! What do you base that conclusion on? They guys who got a little budget to develop the PC didn't choose MSFT and INTC because of pricing concerns. They did so because to they did not have the time nor money to develop a microprocessor or OS. (They were racing with Apple to capture market, but were not sure there was a real market to capture.) I believe you are mixing Bill Gates legal posture with the facts of history. IBM DID TRY TO CRUSH Microsoft with OS/2. It failed! It simply failed. It wasn't "afraid". It just made a serious strategic error and was outflanked by a more nimble competitor. >So just as the government lawsuit against IBM forced IBM to put away some of the nastier weapons and practises in their arsenal, I think the lawsuit against Microsoft is having the same effect. Even though I believe you have the evidence confused, I happen to agree with your conclusion.