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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (12980)	12/31/1998 2:32:00 PM
From: JDN	Respond to of 64865

Dear Quiksand: Boy, your depth of knowledge sure impresses me. Especially about the HORSE!!! haha. JDN

To: QwikSand who wrote (12980)	12/31/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: Michael L. Voorhees	Respond to of 64865

QwikSand: Good point on OS/2. One has to wonder if there wasn't a little MS "sandbagging" on this project. This was a dismal technical failure for MS that IBM got stuck with (including all the delays which essentually parallyzed it). JMHO

To: QwikSand who wrote (12980)	1/1/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Quiksand, you and I agree more than we thought. The Unix camp or factions as you prefer, did not challange MSFT. They did not offer the consumer or business an alternative. Now they are panicing. Same with Apple, I agree with you Mr. Sculley was ok as a ceo, but he should not have appointed himself CTO. Again, that isn't MSFT fault. RE:Little bit of a dishonest (or maybe just ignorant) question there, Dale. IBM and Microsoft developed OS/2... No, no ignorance or dishonesty on my part. OS/2 failure belongs to IBM. They were calling the shots, they decided 4MB of RAM would be acceptable to the consumer (even though 1MB of RAM was selling for about $500). Also it was IBM, that never insisted MSFT sign a no compete clause, when developing OS/2 for IBM. And it was IBM that decided OS/2 didn't need compatibility. Dale