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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (21310)	11/9/1998 9:02:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Excerpts of Bill Gates' Testimony nytimes.com Today's tale of the tape is more amusing than usual. While Netscape was conspiring with DoJ, Intel was off trying to corrupt users with low quality software!!!! Q: Did you or, insofar as you're aware, anyone else at Microsoft tell people at Intel that they should leave the software side of the PC business entirely to Microsoft? A: We were having a hard time coordinating our work with Intel, and we thought the quality of some of their work was very low as well as not working with any of our new Windows work. We may have suggested at some point that the net contribution of their software activities could even be viewed to be negative. Q: And did you tell them that that software also was not consistent with cooperation between Microsoft and Intel? A: I doubt I used those words. I suggested that it wasn't helpful to any of their goals or our goals to have software that had incompatibilities and was low quality and broke. ------ Q: Did you, Mr. Gates, personally ever express concern to (Intel Chairman Andy) Mr. Grove that Intel's software work was beginning to overlap with Microsoft's software work? A: Only in the sense that the low quality and incompatibilities were inconsistent with any goals that Intel might have had in doing that work. Q: Why was that a concern? A: Because Intel was wasting its money by writing low quality software that created incompatibilities for users, and those negative experiences weren't helpful for any goal that Intel had. Q: Were they harmful to any goal that Microsoft had? A: Only in the sense of hurting PC popularity by creating negative user experiences. Tee hee. Users being so conditioned to the integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience, that must have been some really BAD software that Intel was developing. Really, really low quality. Totally unlike Windows95, and Windows98, the OS that was supposed to suck less. Cheers, Dan.