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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21491)	11/16/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Gates evasive about browser market zdnet.com Too bad we can't evade him right back, IE4 is yours whether you like it or not. This is another episode in the ongoing saga of Bill's deposition dependent amnesia. He can't remember a thing! Government attorney David Boies at one point asked Gates for his response to an e-mail message from Microsoft executive Paul Maritz stating that browser share was "the No. 1 goal." Gates said he had no idea if that was the case in 1996. "Did you ever tell Mr. Maritz that browser share was not the company's No 1 goal," Boise asked. Gates paused, and he waited nearly 50 seconds before answering. "No," he replied. Bill had to think long and deep about that one. Maybe he was having a premature senior moment. On to the exciting conclusion, for which I must salute Will Rodger in advance, so as to not step on his NYT-style closing irony. During the remainder of the tape, Gates took a belligerent, combative tone, bickering with Boies over meanings of words including "we," "competition" and "concerned." Much of the questioning bogged down over a Gates memo referring to the importance of gaining market share for IE. Gates said he had no idea which specific companies he had in mind when he wrote that memo. At the time, Netscape Communications Corp. had a market share in excess of 60 percent of the browser market. Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21491)	11/16/1998 2:33:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Depth of an Old Microsoft-Intel Rift Is Disclosed in Court nytimes.com; Looking at the cover of Fortune shown in this article, it appears as if Bill is f***ing Andy from behind.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21491)	11/16/1998 3:49:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Hi - new to this thread. I installed Quicken99 this weekend and every other screen insisted that if I didnt use the new version of internet explorer (4.0?) as my default browser with Quicken then I was going to miss out on some very tasty "advanced features". In addition, the installation CD for quicken installs IE automatically - it doesnt download it from the internet - so the executables must be preloaded on the quicken CD Rom. Just the fact that IE is included in the installation process makes quicken install take twice as long as it otherwise would have, and then when you first bring up quicken youve got an IE toolbar flashing at you on the right side of your screen. You can get rid of the toolbar but all the new icons are yours to keep. In defense of intuit, there is a menu option to select a default browser which you can set to netscape, but then again you get the "advanced feature" warning when you remove IE as the default. What is the incentive for Intuit to do this? I know all about msfts little games with bundling from my days at Dell... but here we have a software company that theoretically competes with msft, whats the point? Fwiw I dont think many of those advanced features are too advanced and Ill bet they could accomodate both browsers pretty successfully. Im just peeved because Ive got IE4 hogging a bunch of disc space now. Michelle

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21491)	11/16/1998 11:06:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Expert questions value of Microsoft integration So here we finally have an attempt, however weak, by the government to show how Microsoft's anticompetitive technical decisions harm consumers. infobeat.com Basically, this says that some corporations value the flexibility of being able to switch or not implement browsers. To which I say, "So what." Microsoft says the study is biased. Like, Duh! As if the government wasn't going to put on evidence that is biased, and as if Microsoft's evidence, when we get to it, won't be equally biased -- about how every home Joe-PC user who ever lived just LOVES not having to pay for and install a separate browser. ;) So some consumers win and some consumers lose -- Which is very interesting, but irrelevant. I say: Show me the deadweight loss.