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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ToySoldier who wrote (18350)	3/19/1999 5:27:00 PM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

WE ALL know how well MSFT executes on their commitments to their customers and the industry This is your most socially unacceptable habit--putting words in other people's mouths. No, Toy, we don't ALL agree with your ridiculous insinuation. Try facts instead of lame brained, broad brush, meaningless crap. Talk about a sheep!

To: ToySoldier who wrote (18350)	3/19/1999 10:55:00 PM
From: Brian Malloy	Respond to of 74651

Only time will tell my friend. NOVL and IBM singularly and jointly have said things in the past that were going to "put nails" in MSFT's coffin, yet when I look at which company has been the most successful since say 1987 MSFT wins game set and match. And as you so eloquently allude to the market is the ultimate judge of what companies are doing right and wrong. That judge says MSFT wins. Of course you can continue to carry a chip on your shoulder and lash out against MSFT. However, by doing so you simply dilute the value of words for you come across as biased. So please, don't confuse your misguided partisan sniping with Investment acumen/advice. By the way, I've made money with both NOVL and MSFT - that is the goal after all. Embrace & Extend

To: ToySoldier who wrote (18350)	3/20/1999 7:26:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Respond to of 74651

Famous Last Words: Ed Muth on Linux Only Toy will enjoy ... netrinsics.com Ed Muth reminds me of a moron. Where do they find these guys? Here's a picture of him ... linuxworld.com "The more I study Linux, the weaker I think the value proposition is for consumers. " Ed Muth Those darn free, stable operating systems that lower support costs ARE a terrible value now aren't they? But most notable of all about this article are the things Sheriff Ed didn't say. He didn't claim that NT is more robust than Linux. He didn't claim that NT performs better than Linux running Microsoft's own SMB file-and-print sharing service. He didn't even claim that NT is outgrowing Linux in the server market. Now, we might hypothesize that Sheriff Ed didn't make any of these claims because he knows perfectly well that none of them are true. Linux routinely turns in continuous-uptime figures that NT administrators dare not even dream of; it's faster and more efficient in nearly every service category from Internet to SMB; and Linux is gaining server marketshare faster than NT. The trouble with this theory is that Microsoft has never been famous for reluctance to tell lies to suit corporate purposes. Microsoft's video fiasco in the DOJ trial is only the most recent example in which it was caught doing so. How about that Valentine(?) guy? Snake Oil 2000 "the greatest project in the history of mankind"? I'm not trying to be funny or mean but to me he looks like a cross between Steve Ballmer and Igor's sister? Seriously. I sh#t you not. I like my NOVL. Adding to NOVL, DELL and AOL because they rhyme. Thanks for the informative posts. Rusty Toy LINUX ... the truth shall set you free.

To: ToySoldier who wrote (18350)	3/20/1999 8:16:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Respond to of 74651

Cult members will prefer "scripture" from the "Vatican" ... microsoft.com

To: ToySoldier who wrote (18350)	3/21/1999 6:19:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Broken Windows Theory By JAMES GLEICK New York Times Technology Forget about Y2K. This is serious. Microsoft now acknowledges the existence of a bug in tens of millions of copies of Windows 95 and Windows 98 that will cause your computer to "stop responding (hang)" -- you know, what you call crash -- after exactly 49 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes and 47.296 seconds of continuous operation. All right, it's not really serious. At least there's no need to stockpile groceries and bottled water. It's just an unusually poignant reminder of how unreliable computer software remains, compared with the average household appliance. It's also a great excuse to hang out on the phone with a support engineer. The reason you didn't notice this bug yourself is that you've never kept your PC running that long without crashing for one of a thousand other reasons. Still, aggrieved PC users around the globe are passing the word in relevant Internet newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion, alt.microsoft.crash. crash.crash, alt.is.bill.gates.satan. (Amazing how many relevant newsgroups there seem to be!) They snicker about the new "autocrash feature." It turns into a United Nations gripe session. "Maksymalny uptime Win95 = 49.7 dnia," a user in Poland reports. "Vamos, un reboot," says a Chilean victim. Some have started a competition to see if they can keep their PC's running long enough to hit the bug. Why 49.7 days? Because computers aren't counting the days. They're counting the milliseconds. One counter begins when Windows starts up; when it gets to 232 milliseconds -- which happens to be 49.7 days -- well, that's the biggest number this counter can handle. And instead of gracefully rolling over and starting again at zero, it manages to bring the entire operating system to a halt. How did Microsoft discover the bug, almost four years after the release of Windows 95? Melissa Havel, a public-relations representative with the thankless chore of obfuscating these questions, says that a Microsoft "partner" stumbled across it. (A partner, she says, can be just about anything: a PC manufacturer, a customer, maybe even The New York Times -- cool!) "We keep our conversations with our partners confidential, and therefore are unable to tell you exactly who reported this issue," she says. Anyway, suppose that you want to be responsible and get the problem repaired -- you know, just in case? The good news is that Microsoft has a "supported fix" now available. The bad news is that Microsoft isn't making it easy to get. You find yourself in an episode of "What if Kafka Tried to Get Tech Support?" You are entitled to free support unless, perchance, "this product was already installed on your computer when you purchased it from the Original Equipment Manufacturer." Of course, Windows came with the computer. So you call the manufacturer, whose tech-support people don't know anything about this bug or the "supported fix." Next, Microsoft advises, "Please call the pay-per-incident number." There, you must authorize a $35 charge to your credit card. But not to worry: "This fee is refundable if it is determined that you only require the fix you requested." Eventually, if my experience is any guide, the case will be "escalated" to a senior technician, who will e-mail the relevant files. Then you'll get a new error message: "The disk labeled 'VTDAPI Update Release' is now required. This disk is provided by your computer manufacturer." They'll look into that. Meanwhile, you can't have your $35 back, because the case is not yet closed. And any millisecond now... "Autocrash feature". I like that. Who says MSFT doesn't innovate? Got LINUX?