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 (11019)	9/25/1998 3:31:00 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Re: OS Vendors Any number? The reason CPQ and others are using non-INTC chips is because INTC is an invisible component and cheaper 100% compatible substitutes are available. Neither is true for Windows today and promises of "cheaper equivalence" tomorrow will remain promises until someone can actually show something real backed by a credible marketing and support plan. Until then MSFT will continue to dominate the consumer space and MSFT investors will reap the rewards of that dominance.

To: rudedog who wrote (11019)	9/25/1998 9:24:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Rudedog: They, cpu makers, will go elsewhere if and only if they come up with: 1. Backward compatibility for apps. 2. Killer apps. to move the cpu populace to some new OS 3. Backward compatibility with existing hardware drivers. 4. Popular familiarity with the GUI 5. A real perception of value at the price the OS is offered at. 6. A universe of software that equals that presently available for Windows Although the Mac is an infinitely better GUI and system to work with it lacks many of the above elements and therefore is where it is today. John Dowd P.S. Does anyone know why Wintel has performed so well this week?

To: rudedog who wrote (11019)	9/26/1998 10:20:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Respond to of 74651

The Pulpit, "Free at Last!!" pbs.org Microsoft clearly feels the threat of free software, not only in their reaction to Linux, but also in their recent move to hurt Samba. This unannounced but highly subversive move is a good example of the New Microsoft. Remember that Windows NT has been nibbling away at Netware as the dominant server operating systems for PC local area networks. Samba, which is free and runs like a champ on Linux, which is also free, makes those NT servers unnecessary. You can run Samba and Linux instead. Microsoft does not like this. And since Samba and Linux generally work better than NT anyway, Microsoft has a further reason to be upset. Microsoft made some changes to the way Windows NT implements SMB when it released Service Pack 3 for Windows NT 4. One of these changes was to implement encrypted passwords during user authentication. Since Samba did not use encrypted passwords, there was a change that needed to be made to the Windows NT registry to force clear text passwords. Windows 98 also transmits encrypted passwords unless the registry is modified. The instructions for making these changes were available on Microsoft's support Web pages at the end of July. No more. Checking back on September 18, the instructions were gone along with any reference to Samba ever having existed. This has the quality of a Hitchcock movie where someone disappears and suddenly everyone is claiming to the hero that the person never even existed. The Microsoft search engine found no information when it searched for "Samba". Searching for the same information using other key words such as "LanMan," "Lan Manager," "SMB," and "smbd" also yielded nothing. The knowledge base also allows a user to specify a particular article number for retrieval. The article we want is Q166730, which is suddenly no longer in the knowledge base. Samba must die. With the upcoming antitrust action against Microsoft, the removal of this information seems odd. This was a decision to remove existing support, not discontinue future support, for a competing product. But the most interesting aspect is how it shows Microsoft has become fearful of free software. Microsoft should be afraid. Free is a very powerful concept and one that holds more power than most of us can even imagine. Free is making more sense to me all the time. Microsoft hates free. Linux ... FREE!