SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Justin Banks who wrote (20516)7/28/1998 5:45:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson
   of 24154
 
Justin,

Are you saying that IDC falsified the numbers?? Which of
IDC's methods are you speaking of that "leave a little to
be desired"?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20531)7/28/1998 6:26:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh
   of 24154
 
Microsoft responds to DOJ: Complete denial zdnet.com 

A certain court date fast approaches, so it's time to round up the usual suspects. In this case, Bill seems to be going primarily with the revisionist history defense. Those brilliant Microsofties, they were on top of things all along. No wonder it's all beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.

It planned to integrate Web browser technologies into the Windows operating system "long before rival Netscape Communications Corp. even existed." The government has contended that the software maker only incorporated its browser technologies into Windows as part of a wider assault on Netscape.

The decision to include Internet Explorer technologies in Windows 95 was made before Netscape was founded. The company said it decided to integrate Web browsing functionality to satisfy consumer demand for Internet-enabled operating systems as well as to remain competitive with IBM's OS/2 Warp and the Apple Macintosh.


I wonder if Paul "Air Supply" Maritz will be called upon to testify on these historical plans. After all, his testimony on the RealVideo matter was definitive and unambiguous, even if he didn't choose to show up at the hearings. Oh,I forget, he's just a junior executive.

Internet Explorer has gained share on its own merits and not because the company exploited its desktop operating system monopoly to cut exclusive deals with Internet service providers and others. Recent market surveys put Microsoft's browser at about a 45 percent share of the market.

So, why did Bill "drive a stake through the heart of MSN" if IE was going to win anyway? Was he just feeling insecure that day?

It did not attempt to "illegally divide the browser market" with Netscape in the spring of 1995. The document says officials from the two companies met twice in June 1995 "to explore ways in which the two companies could work together to improve their respective products.... Microsoft has never attempted to divide the market for Internet browser software."

No, only a complete monopoly would do. It's what the customers want! It's where we want to go! War is peace, ignorance is strength, Windows is Open!

In addition, Microsoft rejected charges that it rigged its license agreements to restrict the ability of computer manufacturers to alter the Windows desktop screen that users see when they boot up for the first time.

No, of course not. That's an old story, of course. They were just defending the integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience. Same as when they told the OEMs to quit badmouthing Windows 98. It sucks less, really it does. The OEMs all love Bill, but being mere mortals they sometimes get confused and have to be straightened out. "They have to ship the machines the way we build them".

Cheers, Dan.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20533)7/28/1998 6:38:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh
   of 24154
 
Microsoft responds to suits news.com 

Microsoft today filed a counterclaim against the Justice Department and 20 state attorneys general who sued the software giant in May, charging that their suits are unconstitutional.

Just in case you were wondering when Bill, Rick Rule, and Bill Neukom became experts in constitutional law, here's the apparent argument.

Microsoft argued: "Like other software products, Windows 95 and Windows 98 are subject to the protections afforded by the Federal Copyright Act of 1996, enacted in accordance with...the Constitution."

Well, there you go. Naive high school civics guy thought that all federal statutes were enacted "in accordance with the constitution", subject to judicial review of course, but what could he know, being merely mortal and all, compared to the smartest guys in the history of the known universe.

Many of Microsoft's arguments are not new.

Yeah, and I think they would have been better off sticking with the trusty Chrysler car radio instead of the "constitutional" defense, but I'm no lawyer.

Cheers, Dan.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20534)7/28/1998 6:46:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh
   of 24154
 
Serious NT bug emerges news.com 

Meanwhile, another timeless headline on a different topic. At least this one doesn't seem to be leaving any warships dead in the water.

flaw in Microsoft's Windows NT operating system allows an ordinary network user, and possibly anyone with Internet access, to impersonate a system administrator.

Armed with knowledge of how to exploit this flaw, anyone on a
Windows NT client on an NT network can gain the power to switch other users' passwords, add new addresses, change access rights to confidential network areas, and generally run the network in the same manner as an administrator, according to Mark Edwards, a private security consultant and principal behind the NT Security and NT Shop Web pages.


Better watch out with those web site names. Sounds like a profound violation of somebody's sacred intellectual property rights.

"It's a pretty big problem," he said. "Even though it's a local attack, it's probably one of the top five or six bugs [for Windows NT]."

Now, for a concise explanation:

The bug consists of code written by programmers.

As opposed to your normal "known issue", I guess.

Prasad Dabak, Sandeep Phadke, and Milind Borate, three programmers from India, discovered the flaw late last year. Edwards recently verified the existence of the flaw. The bug is similar to another NT glitch discovered last year, he added.

The trio are in the midst of publishing a book tentatively titled "Undocumented Windows NT," a guide to undocumented API (application program interface) calls.


Hope they got good lawyers, lest anybody forget the history of the web site formerly known as ntinternals.com. What they're doing is unconstitutional! No fair!

Cheers, Dan.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20535)7/28/1998 7:38:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson
   of 24154
 
MSFT Admits NT lags behind Solaris
techweb.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (20536)7/28/1998 9:34:00 PM
From: drmorgan
   of 24154
 
>> In terms of "server years," where one server runs for 12
months or 12 servers run one month, there are 20 or
more reboots on NT vs. "single-digit" reboots for Solaris,
an attendee told CRN. The results were part of a
presentation given by a Microsoft executive at the
summit.<<


After reading this article the thought that comes to my mind is can NT ever catch up? NT will keep improving but so will Solaris. It looks beyond obvious that if you want to run a stable and reliable server then Solaris (or I'm sure SGI etc) is the choice. I would think for small companies though NT may be a good choice if cost is a big factor and you could get through the downtime.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: cheryl williamson who wrote (20532)7/28/1998 10:39:00 PM
From: Justin Banks
   of 24154
 
Cheryl-

Are you saying that IDC falsified the numbers?

No, I'm just saying that you can make numbers say what you want without really lying.

Which of IDC's methods are you speaking of that "leave a little to be desired"?

They totally ignore Linux. Completely. Linux is a serious contender in the Unix desktop and server market, and IDC doesn't even ack. that. Also, they tend to use percentage gains over previous years when Sun has only been selling into the market segment they're talking about for one or two years. It's the same 'NT has exponential growth' thing I gripe about. It's easy to show a %100 increase over last years sales when last years sales weren't diddly. Also (and I could be wrong about this), they're not able to count secret systems, which account for a larger percentage of some vendor's sales than others.

-justinb

(mostly I was just venting steam)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20534)7/29/1998 12:06:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh
   of 24154
 
DOJ widens Microsoft probe zdnet.com 

And as Letterman would say, we all know how painful that can be. This was a little confusing at first, it seems the current Sherman action is narrower than I thought. I ain't no lawyer, and the closest I come to playing one is naive high school civics guy. Others take playing lawyer more seriously, of course.

Another source said the government had originally wanted to include some of these broader areas of investigation into the antitrust suit that was filed earlier this summer.

"That was the initial hope but the court set a rapid schedule and set in play a new dynamic," said the source. "If they do bring another lawsuit, the Department probably won't do it until they get through with the later rounds of the current trial."


Ok, the current suit seems to have narrowed somewhat. Maybe. We'll see.

None of the sources was able to gauge with any precision when the Justice Department might bring another lawsuit.

A spokesman for Microsoft said the company could not speculate "on what the government may or may not be considering."


"We're confident that once all the facts are reviewed that any reasonable observer would conclude that Microsoft's actions are legal," said the spokesman, Mark Murray.


Right, any reasonable observer can't help but agree with Microsoft on this case. Does that mean you have to swallow the whole revisionist history, about planning browser integration with Windows before Netscape even existed? Why did Bill have to cut the deal with Spyglass in early '95 then? Those brilliant Microsoft programmers, falling down on the job again, like with speech recognition? What happened to all this code being worked on since '93?

And what has this got to do with the Chicago school "consumer" theory that was supposed to be the big deal in the appeals ruling? Once again, my small mind feels victimized by hobgoblins.

Cheers, Dan.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20539)7/29/1998 2:17:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton
   of 24154
 
Here's one about DOJ's "new" strategy, but I fail to see how it differs any from what Bork said a while back on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

zdnet.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (20540)7/29/1998 7:21:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton
   of 24154
 
Do you remember your saying that MSFT's strategy in giving away the browser was economically unfeasible? Do you still stand behind that assertion? I went through MSFT's recent numbers, and they are doing WELL! If you haven't seen it, browse to rcmfinancial.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.