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 (21353)	11/11/1998 1:26:00 AM
From: Dabbler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Bearded, I think you are missing a few pieces of the puzzle with this NSP stuff. NSP was NOT a separate INTC consumer product. It was a technology INTC wanted MSFT to integrate into Windows, which would have required a substantial rewrite of the OS scheduling subsystem. MSFT did not want to commit to this. Additionally, if NSP were to be produced separately by INTC, it would have meant two competing schedulers running against (and breaking) each other. Although NSP could be made to run well with certain applications, it did not integrate with Win95 in a way which allowed overall system quality to be preserved - hence the label "low quality software". Linux code would also be considered "low quality software" if it was used in the same context (trying to integrate Linux-designed code into the Win95 OS). Secondly, NSP does nothing for improving Internet traffic. It smoothens a/v only on the endpoints and does nothing to hasten better communications. Thirdly, the NSP battle was not fought by the marketers, it was fought by the technologists at MSFT, who did not want an INTC product to become widespread which would break their sacred kernel code all to hell. To MSFT, it was tantamount to a "virus" being shipped by their primary business partner, who was not very concerned with how smoothly the system was integrated.