05/11/19 'WE DON'T DRINK SOFTWARE PROGRAMS LIKE COLAS'

'WE DON'T DRINK SOFTWARE PROGRAMS LIKE COLAS'

Your excellent set of articles (''What to do about Microsoft,'' Cover Story, Apr. 20) overlooks two factors that bear on how Microsoft Corp.'s monopoly power in operating systems affects innovation.
First, we don't drink our software programs like colas or wear them out like cars. Once I have a copy of Windows or Office, it will last until I decide to replace it with something better. Microsoft must constantly compete with itself--it is going to take the right combination of features and price to get any significant portion of the 250 million PC owners using Microsoft operating systems to upgrade to the next version. If Microsoft stops innovating, it stops growing.
Second, with the huge installed base of Windows-based software and the tremendous amount of time that has been spent learning how to use it, it is unlikely that any company could now succeed with operating system innovations that are incompatible with existing software.
The standard has been set, we are enjoying network economies that stem from it, and even if Microsoft were to dissolve tomorrow we will probably have only incremental innovation for some time to come.
Kit Sims Taylor
Bellevue, Wash.

Break up Microsoft--the operating system company and the applications company. The current situation is hurting everyone--the users and the whole PC software industry, including Microsoft. The current PC desktop is dominated by a third-rate operating system and that domination is being used to successfully hoist mostly second-rate applications onto the world's PCs.
Just ask any PC user (power users or novices, it doesn't matter) whether they look forward to installing new or upgraded software. Invariably the answer will be ''no.'' The reason is the fragile Windows operating system that permits every application to modify, in unpredictable ways, what should be protected operating system files. The result is a reluctance by users to add, replace, or upgrade applications as often as they might--this hurts sales and it hurts innovation.
A stand-alone operating systems company would hopefully strive to provide the most competitive, flexible, and robust operating platform, rather than the current situation whereby the operating system is basically used as the marketing tool of an application software company.
Leon A. Kappelman
Denton, Tex.

In dealing with Microsoft's dominance, an additional option is adopting mandatory standards in the field of data accessibility, similar to the standards that are applied to water or electric installation systems. No one is afraid that one manufacturer will give away water pipes for free, since all the other manufacturers can still make products that can be connected to these pipes.
Likewise, if the files of word processors, spreadsheets, and all the other applications met an official standard of accessibility, the dominance of Microsoft would not prevent other manufacturers from developing products, and the users would not be afraid to purchase them. Such a standardization may inhibit innovations, but since it promotes competition, in this case it would be justified.
Abraham Meidan
Tel Aviv

Your issue raises the many age-old questions about regulation and monopolies. In reality, Bill Gates & Co. have managed to bring millions of people into the technological age. If it were not for Steve Jobs and the Apple aristocratic thinking, his company might be the cover story. It is Apple, after all, that brought us the wonderful invention of windows and the wonderful mouse.
So let's get to the issue: Microsoft should be watched, not disassembled. Its current software still relies on a basement full of DOS, so until Microsoft wanders totally into a more efficient user interface, it should be prohibited from doing the things Bill Gates used to accuse IBM of doing.
Watch Microsoft like a hawk and prohibit truly unfair practices, but for everything else leave them alone.
Philip A. Guercio
Palmetto, Fla.

We're stuck with Windows on the desktop. If the development of information technology is to continue at its current pace, Microsoft must be prevented from further extending its hegemony and be required to compete on a level playing field.
Specifically, the company should be required to divest itself (and its operating systems) of Internet Explorer; perhaps to Spyglass Inc., from whom it currently licenses the Mosaic technology at the heart of all browsers. A piece of the windfall might even be returned to the taxpayers, who, after all, provided the funding for the development of Mosaic in the first place. Microsoft should be given the choice of creating a level application-programming-interface playing field or divestiture of its applications business.
Andrew Allison
Carmel, Calif.

In your story, you argue for Justice action to increase innovation in the industry. Some may argue that the pace of change spurred by new technology is actually too fast! The information-systems community and users in general already have a hard time assimilating new technology. Product cycles and depreciation schedules are already dangerously thin.
The marketplace provides tremendous competition and opportunities for the resourceful. Even as Microsoft is significantly raising its prices, freeware is getting a new look. Linux is being used as an Internet hosting operations system at many sites, and Apache Internet server software is used at more sites than Microsoft's. The bottom line is that I'm suspicious of a federal fix to a problem that doesn't exist. I don't think I could afford a ''fix'' of Microsoft.

I. Henry Kalb
Manager, Information Systems
City of Allentown
Allentown, Pa.

No one ever mentions the one most controlling factor: the behavior of the consumer. My IBM Aptiva came bundled with three ISP selections. I chose one and disregarded the others, including MSN. The computer came with the Lotus SmartSuite installed; I installed Microsoft Office at my choice. And I have installed both Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, using either when one is a better choice than the other. If you let the marketplace decide, it will. We don't need the Justice Dept. to decide for us.
Chris Ericksen
Rancho Dominguez, Calif.