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 Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Fox who wrote (63508)	8/28/1998 12:54:00 AM
From: StockMan	Respond to of 186894

Jeff, Re -- I think Gates was "livid" because the hooks "hooked" into stuff that were being changed for Win95 My recollection from the various "articles" was that in order to provide a "real time" facility in Windows, Windows would be relegated to a secondary OS executing on top of a "real time" kernel. Its unclear wether it would have been a successful venture, but there is little doubt that it would cause Gates to be "livid". Stockman

To: Jeff Fox who wrote (63508)	8/28/1998 2:42:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Respond to of 186894

Jeff, All this is interesting but far, far from sinister or illegal. All this looks to me like another attempt by DOJ to make some "federal" case out of normal business behavior. Right. MSFT is on top because Gates & co. does everything right. MSFT removes potential problems early on. The DOJ, unless they have some specific evidence of MSFT breaking the law, should leave MSFT alone. The DOJ seems to be on a long fishing expedition, trying to string together a lot of bits and pieces. Dale

To: Jeff Fox who wrote (63508)	8/31/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: Larry Loeb	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Jeff, As you remembered, it was about NSP: GATES: Our latest disagreement was last year, over NSP [a pet initiative of Grove's, called native signal processing, to write software to help new PCs wring better multimedia performance out of Intel's microprocessors]. Your guys developed software to give PCs more multimedia capabilities without having to add extra hardware. It was a great idea, but the rub was that your software couldn't work with Windows 95. You had your own method for handling 3-D graphics and audio, and so did we. GROVE: These differences occur because our business priorities are fundamentally different. We sell a new chip with a new computer; we don't sell many replacement chips or upgrades. Bill sees a big installed base to take care of. Last year Microsoft was involved with the biggest thing that they'd ever done--the Windows 95 launch. They were obsessed with it, and that's probably understating it. Chip performance issues were of secondary importance to Microsoft. It's not that we had a different notion of the goodness of enhanced multimedia performance. We just had different senses of urgency. I admit we were dumb enough not to understand that the software we developed was actually contrary to some of the features of Windows 95. And hence came all that crap. GATES: Yeah. Last summer you and I had dinner in San Jose when--for the first time, really--I was able to articulate the problem the way you just did. I was able to say, "Look, we don't disagree with your guys. We think they're smart. But this stuff does not work well with Windows 95." So we said, "Given that we agree on goals, can we share in the development of these things?" Intel deserves a lot of credit for stepping back. GROVE: We didn't have much of a choice. We basically caved. GATES: No, no, you didn't cave. Come on. If Intel had shipped that NSP stuff, you wouldn't have done yourselves any favors. GROVE: We caved. Introducing a Windows-based software initiative that Microsoft doesn't support...well, life is too short for that. The whole interview is available at: pathfinder.com Larry