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: XiaoYao who wrote (21348)	11/11/1998 12:06:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

How? I think it supports MSFT's claim, Intel wrote "low quality software" which would break Windows compatibility. It only partially supports the claim. The definition of "low quality software" is not any software which breaks Windows compatibility. I guess then Linux counts as low quality software as well. So what if it made Windows run slower? The consumers could choose whether or not to use NSP with Windows. Remember that word, "choose." That's the whole point of a free market. In any case, low quality or not, we, the people, were denied the opportunity to get high quality video over the internet. As far as your later example, you are mischaracterizing the threat Microsfot made to Intel. Microsoft didn't say "If you develop NSP, we won't support NSP." Microsoft said "If you develop NSP, we won't support MMX!"

To: XiaoYao who wrote (21348)	11/11/1998 8:16:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

How? I think it supports MSFT's claim, Intel wrote "low quality software" which would break Windows compatibility. Right, Bill said it was "low quality software", so it must be true. Bill didn't need Intel's help breaking Windows95, it seems to do a good job falling apart all by itself. Maybe it's self-incompatible, the software equivalent of an autoimmune disease. Cheers, Dan.

To: XiaoYao who wrote (21348)	11/11/1998 4:18:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

How? I think it supports MSFT's claim, Intel wrote "low quality software" which would break Windows compatibility. If the software was such low quality, then why did MSFT feel the need to threaten Intel to drop the development. Couldn't they just let the market decide? Doesn't it make more logical sense that the problem was not in the software being low quality, but in the fact that it was not compatible (or at least did not perform well) when running under Windows? Isn't it possible that the same software might have performed just fine with other operating systems?