decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Comes 2924 | 101 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Comes 1951-->MS emails: Novell networking
Authored by: foulis on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
<p
align=right><b>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT<br><u>1951</
u></b><br>Comes v. Microsoft</p>
Erik Stevenson<br>
------------------<br>
<br>
From: johnlu<br>
To: bradsi; jimall;paulma<br>
Cc: bobmu<br>
Subject: RE: Network strategy and NCP<br>
Date: Wednesday, January 05, 1994 7:18AM</p>
we too want to have a substantial position in the network business. but
co-existence seems to be a better route to that position than the creation of
alternative non-coexisting technologies. novell does have 70% of the market, i
haven't seen a business plan from anyone where that changes substantially over
the next 5 years.</p>
so given this, i want our client to be a natural thing to buy for this 70% of
the market, so i want to do a great job co-existing with netware and enhancing
the client side of netware so that these customers have a strong reason to buy.
if we can establish the ms client as the natural network client on install on
all nets, then we have made a big step up. we have strong competition in this
area – novell is serious about PNW, they have added quality people to the team
(Kyle Powell), they want to kill our network client and establish their own as
the standard Windows Network desktop. we are in a position of strength here, WFW
is outselling PNW, we need to grow this lead. this implies being a better NW
client than PNW.</p>
from this base we can then provide extended functionality and expand the
protocols as needed. I don't understand why we wouldn't use extended ncps for
our extensions – it makes it that much easier for 70% of the market to use our
extensions. i don't think file system protocols are a strategic technology –
they are just a technology that we should use or discard as it makes engineering
sense. what is strategic is the quality of our client and server implementations
– ease of use for users and admins, robustness, scalability, performance. file
system protocol has no measurable impact on these metrics – we have yet to
identify a distinctive advantage of NCPs that we cannot achieve in SMBs or vice
versa.</p>
i think we should pursue similar tactics on the server side – build a great
server that is compatible with the largest part of the market, and then provide
extended functionality on top of that.</p>
i don't think we have done a very good job of analyzing the competition in this
debate. at this point, novell is quite aware of all our plans for cairo and
chicago. we have to assume that they are going to provide a system that they
will represent as having the same capabilities as cairo. i wonder how easy that
system will be to trial and deploy in real customer nets – i suspect that on our
current path, it will be easier to deploy the novell solution in an existing
netware net than it will be to deploy the cairo system. And i suspect the
immediate tangible benefits of the novell solution to a netware user will be
greater than the immediate tangible benefits of the cairo solution. for these
reasons, i think we need to be more netware compatible than we are
today.</p>
finally, i worry a great deal about novell's continued growth in the ncp file
server business. their continued unopposed dominance of this business gives them
an incredible amount of cash with which they are funding their entry into every
other part of our business. i think a more direct attack on this cash flow would
be welcomed by customers, lucrative for us, and would lessen novell's ability to
fund other investments.</p>
it is pretty clear we are not coming to closure on this. i'm no
longer</p>
<center>Page 283</center>
<hr>
<br>
convinced it is appropriate to come to closure. Perhaps we need two distinct
efforts – one effort to provide very netware-compatible systems, and one to
provide and alternative. lowering our risk by placing 2 bets against our largest
threat doesn't seem like a terrible thing, in fact it seems like a time-honored
microsoft strategy.</p>
<br>
<br>
----------</br>
|From: Jim Allchin<br>
|To: bradsi; johnlu; paulma<br>
|Cc: bobmu<br>
|Subject: FW: Network strategy and NCP<br>
|Date: Tuesday, January 04, 1994 7:18PM<br>
|<br>
|I know bob didn't expect me to forward this private piece of mail,
but</br>
|I agree with the major points he included and I thought others
should</br>
|see this. (Bob, forgive me.) Above and beyond the NCP issue,
I</br>
|wanted to point out the critical importance of synergy of the
systems</br>
|products. They have to be “made for each other”.</br>
|</br>
|NBU made two major mistakes (1) trying to ignore the compatibility</br>
|aspect that is required with a competitor that owns 50-60% of the </br>
|market and (2) simply copying Novell and not offering any real
value</br>
|add. We won't make those mistakes again. However, we could make</br>
|another very bad mistake by enhancing Netware networks with our</br>
|clients. We should not do this. It is a fine line (compatibility</br>
|vs. enhance), however we should focus on making Chicago and </br>
|Daytona&Cairo work better than Chicago and Novell. I'm not
saying</br>
|that the UI shouldn't be improved, but I'm saying that much more
focus</br>
|should be put into making our systems seamless together. If we
don't</br>
|do this, then we are not using the strength of being in the same
company.</br>
|<br>
|One of (the?) largest new business area within MS is the server</br>
|business. It is clear that tight integration with the client is</br>
|required to win. It's no different than our apps in Office. Sure</br>
|our apps will work with other apps, but they sure work better if
they</br>
|are our apps. (Maybe Lotus is a better example here, I don't know.)</br>
|<br>
|jim<br>
|<br>
|<br>
|----------<br>
|From: Bob Muglia</br>
|To: Jim Allchin</br>
|Subject: Network strategy and NCP</br>
|Date: Saturday, January 01, 1994 1:06PM</br>
|Priority: High</br>
|</br>
|Jim, I haven't been involved in the detailed discussions on this
issue</br>
|so maybe this is totally obvious. But then again.... I marked this</br>
|high-priority because I think it's worth reading and I know what
your</br>
|email queue is like.</br>
|----------</br>
|<br>
|It's very clear that personal and corporate systems are out-of-sync
on</br>
|whether we develop future enhancements based on NCP or SMB. It is
also</br>
|totally clear that we MUST get in-sync. What is not clear is WHY</br>
|we're pursing different paths. This issue is not about manpower or</br>
|client memory size, it is about strategy.</br>
|<br>
|Fundamentally, there are two possible networking business strategies
we</br>
|can pursue – co-existence or ownership. Everybody agrees that</br>
<br>
<center>Page 284</center>
<hr>
<br>
|networking today equals Novell. The question is, do we accept this
and</br>
|assune it will remain true for the foreseeable future, or is it our</br>
|STRATEGY to change that? If we are pursuing an ownership strategy,</br>
|then we need to take appropriate steps NOW. We need to use every</br>
|weapon at our disposal to take them out.</br>
|<br>
|Clearly, I view it as my job to increase our network market share
and</br>
|replace Novell wherever possible. Eventually, I want MS to have
70%+</br>
|market share. However, I don't think there is universal agreement
that</br>
|this is a practical plan.</br>
|<br>
|If we believed that Novell will continue to dominate the networking</br>
|world in the foreseeable future, then we would need to focus on</br>
|maintaining our client franchise while building a profitable
business</br>
|selling server solutions into Novell environments.</br>
|<br>
|In this model (co-existence), our client-side networking effort
would</br>
|be primarily focused on making sure that we have great connectivity</br>
|into Novell servers. We would need to expend this energy because
our</br>
|Windows franchise depends on Novell connectivity and we cannot rely
on</br>
|Novell. Since we assume it will be a Novell world, we must clone
all</br>
|of their features to ensue we remain competitive. In many ways, we</br>
|really don't care whether customers use our software or Novell's to</br>
|connect to their Netware servers – we just want to make sure the</br>
|connectivity is there. We would also focus on cloning their API,
again</br>
|just to make sure clients work great in a Novell environment.</br>
|<br>
|Since all customers use Novell, when we add networking features we
need</br>
|to make sure they work great with Novell servers. Chicago point and</br>
|print support on Novell print servers is a good example of this</br>
|Clearly, SMBs are irrelevant and we should just adopt NCP.</br>
|<br>
|On the server side in a co-existence world, our focus would be to
add</br>
|value into Novell networks. NT SQL Server with Novell clients is a </br>
|great example of this. Further, if we really believed that</br>
|co-existence was our destiny, then Cairo is not properly focused.</br>
|Cairo would be thought of as additional services for Novell
networks.</br>
|For example, it would be important to content-index Novell
networks.</br>
|Also, our whole directory plans would be in question – why bother
when</br>
|NW4 will be installed in almost every customer site? Instead, we</br>
|would focus on adding value to NW4 installations.</br>
|<br>
|On the other hand, if our focus is to own the networking business,
then</br>
|we would do things very differently. We need to do everything we
can</br>
|to encourage customers to buy MS networking software instead of
Novell.</br>
|The key points:</br>
|<br>
|1. Own the API and get ISVs to write to it. This is the first rule
in</br>
|systems software. If Novell loses control of the application API,
then</br>
|our ability to displace them in installations is vastly improved.</br>
|<br>
|Interestingly, Novell is weak on this point. Although they are</br>
|pursuing a similar strategy with Appware, we are in a stronger
position</br>
|with our Windows run-rate and our strong relationship with ISVs. We</br>
|can use our NW clients to get MS software installed in a large</br>
|percentage of customers systems. When our software is running, we
can</br>
|add APIs. If these APIs are attractive to ISVs – say they are</br>
|cross-NOS instead of Novell specific, we can get ISVs to write to
them.</br>
|Specifically, I suggest we add Win32 WOSA APIs in areas which we</br>
|currently don't cover. Administration is one good example.</br>
|<br>
|Even on the server side, Novell has weaknesses we can exploit. NLMs</br>
|are hard to write and they have a confused strategy wrt Unixware.
All</br>
<br>
<center>Page 285</center>
<hr>
<br>
|we really need to do here is continue our evangelism effort to get</br>
|server apps written for NT.</br>
|<br>
|2. Leverage Windows to differentiate MS Networking software. When
we</br>
|add new networking features for which Novell has no native services,
we</br>
|should focus on making them work on MS networks. If Novell catches
up</br>
|and adds support, then we can add support for Novell. A perfect</br>
|example of this is point and print support in Chicago. NT already</br>
|supports this, there is no equivalent concept in Novell print
servers.</br>
|When Chicago ships, this should only work on NT and Chicago systems.<br>
|Other examples are only supporting content indexing of OFS drives
and</br>
|only supporting catalog storage on OFS volumes.</br>
|<br>
|To be clear, I am not suggesting crippling Novell installations. If</br>
|Novell supports a feature – for example, long filenames or</br>
|authentication, then we should support it. My point is lets not go
out</br>
|of our way ti make things work on Novell. Instead, lets use these
cool</br>
|new features to give customers REASONS to buy MS software on the
network.</br>
|<br>
|3. Interoperate, make migration easy. Our network clients need to</br>
|support all of the Novell features our customers demand. They need
to</br>
|be as good or better than the ones Novell provides so that
customers</br>
|have no motivation to install Novell's client. We need to make it
easy</br>
|for customers to migrate from Novell servers to NT AS. We need to
use</br>
|terminology which is familiar to Netware administrators. We have
not</br>
|done a great job on this in the past but we are now focused on
these</br>
|issues.</br>
|<br>
|We should also take advantage of tactical opportunities to install
our</br>
|server solutions into Netware networks. This can provide a foot in
the</br>
|door for further sales.</br>
|<br>
|4. Equal Novell in performance, add features they cannot easily
match.</br>
|No surprise here. This is our plan with Daytona and Cairo.</br>
|<br>
|5. Establish a strong channel. We can't win without doing this,</br>
|however it is a separate topic.</br>
|<br>
|If we are on an ownership strategy, should our file protocol be NCP
or</br>
|SMB? I contend that if we are to gain control of the networking</br>
|business, each major component must be either owned by MS or an
open</br>
|standard. Transport stacks are critical components but we have
decided</br>
|to focus on industry standard protocols which are widely used (IPX
and</br>
|TCP). If NCP was an open standard , then we could consider using it
as</br>
|our file-level protocol. However, it most definitely is not. It is</br>
|clearly proprietary to Novell and is thus controlled by Novell.</br>
|<br>
|Since Novell controls NCP outright today, we cannot hope to own it
in</br>
|the future. The best we could hope for is that it becomes an open</br>
|standard. Yet, this too is a long-shot. I think this is analogous
to</br>
|Sun's attempt to make the Windows API an open standard. Any attempt
we</br>
|make to change NCP into an open standard will fail for the same
reason</br>
|Sun will fail with Windows – Novell can (will) choose to pay no</br>
|attention to the standard and will implement new features which</br>
|continually leave us behind.</br>
|<br>
|Because I believe that we are on an ownership strategy and because
we</br>
|need to control our own destiny, we should consider SMB our
strategic</br>
|protocol and should base new features on SMB. We still need to</br>
|implement NCP for compatibility purposes but we should not consider
it</br>
|strategic.</br>
|<br>
|bob







[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes-2667
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 03:42 AM EDT
<p>Ryan Richards - Problems with Microsoft continue... Page
1</p>

<p>From: Rob Steele<br/>
To: Frank Nutt<br/>
Date: 3/10/97 5:21PM<br/>
Subject: Problems with Microsoft continue...</p>

<p>Frank,<br/>
I appreciate your help in getting the image of
&quot;Memphis&quot; (Windows 97) code. We understand that
selected sites have received &quot;Nashville&quot; (Internet
Explorer 4.0) which was supposed to be in Windows 97. It is
critical that we get this code as other developers have. We
need to test our GroupWise WebSight integration and other
program interaction areas.</p>
<p>Also, the other issue we spoke of still looms heavily. It
is the one where the new MAPI32.DLL that is deployed as part
of Office 97 breaks GroupWise 5 operation. There are now
&quot;required&quot; calls/properties that are not
documented as such therefore we are at the mercy of the
Developer support line. They have very limited assistance
verbally and no written documentation on the changes. For
for a product API standard, we should have had these changes
spec&rsquo;d out for us long before they ship it. These
calls have been customized and tailored to Outlook and force
us to do the same... which we would do if were knew the
extent or specifics of the changes.</p>
<p>Also, our developers had to call the Word 97 Developer
support for assistance with some integration problems only
to find out (verbally) about two new registry entries that
had been created and must be set for things to operate
successfully. Again, no documentation on these calls.</p>
<p>Any contact with a MAPI or Windows Messaging member of
management so that we could get this resolved would be
appreciated... and as soon as possible as we have a
&quot;broken&quot; solution out there as we speak.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Rob Steele<br/>
Product Line Manager<br/>
Novell GroupWare Division<br/>
steele@novell.com</p>
<p>CC: Ed McGarr, Eldon Greenwood, John Gailey, Paul Smart,
Stewart Nelson</p>
<p>NWA 000197</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2691
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 06:33 AM EDT
<p>From: Ben Slivka<br/>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 1997 5:24 PM<br/>
To: Hyer Bercaw; Sara Williams (DRG); Brad Lovering;
Yuval Neeman; Charles Fitzgerald<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Farhana Armad; Tom Button;
Drew Fletcher; Jeff Robbins; Chris Shaffer; Bob Muglis
(Exchange); John Ludwig<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>OK, sounds like we&rsquo;re all in agreement.
Sara&rsquo;s 0..4 points, plus AFC support. The tricky part
will be language that says they must support our stuff
exclusively in preference to Sun&rsquo;s - I think as long
as we have language that their product should not give
&quot;preference&quot; to Sun over MS (level playing field).
I&rsquo;m happy, because I expect our technology to be
better than Sun&rsquo;s.<p>
<p>Comments?</p>
<p>--bens</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Hyer Bercaw<br/>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 1997 10:16 AM<br/>
To: Sara Williams (DRG); Brad Lovering; Yuval Neeman;
Ben Slivka; Charles Fitzgerald<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Farhana Ahmad; Tom Button;
Drew Fletcher; Jeff Robbins; Chris Shaffer<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>We excluded JVC from the redistributables in the SDK so
that competitors could not just use our compiler without
providing something in return. A special agreement with
individual ISVs regarding the SDK would probably be a good
option.</p>
<p>Hyer Bercaw<br/>
Visual J++ Product Manager<br/>
www.microsoft.com/visualJ</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Sara Williams (DRG)<br/>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 1997 9:55 AM<br/>
To: Brad Lovering; Yuval Neeman; Hyer Bercaw; Ben
Slivka; Charles Fitzgerald<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Farhana Ahmad; Tom Button;
Drew Fletcher; Jeff Robbins; Chris Shaffer<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>yes - i think we should do the whole sdk, but right now
we explicitly exclude jvc.</p>
<p>-Sara</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Brad Lovering<br/>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 1997 9:35 AM<br/>
To: Sara Williams (DRG); Yuval Neeman; Hyer Bercaw; Ben
Slivka; Charles Fitzgerald<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Farhana Ahmad; Tom Button;
Drew Fletcher; Jeff Robbins; Chris Shaffer<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>Why don&rsquo;t we just have them redist our SDK? I think
this achieves both our goals.. and avoid us the cost of
supporting strange component mixes.</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Sara Williams (DRG)<br/>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 1997 9:31 AM<br/>
To: Yuval Neeman; Hyer Bercaw; Ben Slivka; Charles
Fitzgerald<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Farhana Ahmad; Tom Button;
Drew Fletcher; Brad Lovering; Jeff Robbins; Chris
Shaffer<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>definitely agree that we should extract full platform
support in return for redist rights</p>
<p>requirements:<br/>
0. redist our VM and IE4<br/>
1. use RNI and COM and not JNI for any native code
calling<br/>
2. use our debug and jit api<br/>
3. support SQL Server, IIS<br/>
4. no support for sun interfaces where a MS one exists
(need to find better legalese, of course)</p>
<p>what else?</p>
<p>-Sara</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Yuval Neeman<br/>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 1997 9:14 AM<br/>
To: Hyer Bercaw; Ben Slivka; Charles Fitzgerald<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Sara Williams (DRG);
Farhana Ahmad; Tom Button; Drew Fletcher; Brad Lovering;
Jeff Robbins; Chris Shaffer<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>JVC will have syntax to support calling into native entry
points and com.</p>
<p>You have to realize there is cost in doing this, and it
can also slow us down on future innovation.</p>
<p>I will look into the cost issue.</p>
<p>Once we license it to one isv many will want to follow.
</p>
<p>If we do this we should extract full platform support.
</p>
<p>Yuval.</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Hyer Bercaw<br/>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 1997 8:57 AM<br/>
To: Ben Slivka; Charles Fitzgerald; Yuval Neeman<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Sara Williams (DRG);
Farhana Ahmad; Tom Button<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>Please realize that the JVC compiler is code agnostic
(i.e. it doesn&rsquo;t care if you use JNI, RNI, or COM).
The compiler does not force them to be tied to our platforms
in any way.</p>
<p>We should only license JVC to solid supporters of our
system strategy. We have not licensed JVC in the past
because the companies that requested it didn&rsquo;t support
our systems strategy. An example is NetDynamics who wanted
everything to run on Netscape and who did not want to
support native SQL server, but who did support Oracle and
Sybase. They were pretty rude as well.</p>
<p>We are willing to evaluate licensing JVC to supporters of
MS systems strategy. However, we need to make sure that the
lock to our platform is in the contract because the lock
isn&rsquo;t in JVC.</p>
<p>Hyer Bercaw<br/>
Visual J++ Product Manager<br/>
www.microsoft.com/visualJ</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Ben Slivka<br/>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 1997 10:48 PM<br/>
To: Charles Fitzgerald; Hyer Bercaw; Yuval Neeman<br/>
Cc: Paul Gross; Tod Nielsen; Sara Williams (DRG)<br/>
Subject: RE: aimtech wants to redist jvc<br/>
Importance: High</p>

<p>As pgross emphasized repeatedly today during his talk at
the AICG meeting, the #1 goal of the tools division is to
further the aims of the platform team.</p>
<p>We should absolutely license JVC to all comers!</p>
<p>Anyone who disagrees should please explain why.</p>
<p>Thanks, bens</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Charles Fitzgerald<br/>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 1997 8:55 PM<br/>
To: Ben Slivka<br/>
Subject: FW: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>I think this is a battle to fight with yuval, but makes
sense.</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----</p>
<p>From: Sara Williams (DRG)<br/>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 1997 12:21 PM<br/>
To: Hyer Bercaw<br/>
Cc: Charles Fitzgerald; Jing de Jong-Chen<br/>
Subject: aimtech wants to redist jvc</p>

<p>I know that answer of record has been no, but I think
that we should reconsider.</p>
<p>There is a whole class of java tools that don&rsquo;t
compete w/ vj who need to redist a java compiler. If they
can&rsquo;t use ours, they&rsquo;ll redist sun&rsquo;s.</p>
<p>Having these ISVs redist our jvc gives us great leverage.
First, we can require them to redist our VM as well.
Secondly, we control the code they generate - get them to
use native code, we generate JNI, and then all the apps
built with that tool are tied to our VM.</p>
<p>Our compiler is FAR faster. Aimtech told me that if the
Sun compiler takes 24 seconds to compile a piece of code,
our jvc will do it in 2-3 seconds. They are ready and
willing to talk publically about this, so this could be a
big win.</p>
<p>How do we make this happen?</p>
<p>Thanks,<br/>
Sara</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

1643 Transcript
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT
Note: My first transcript; hope I've done it right.

<p><b><u>Donna Poreda</u></b></p>
<p>From: Richard Tong<br>
To: Brad Silverberg; Jonathan Roberts (Xenix); paulma<br>
Subject: RE: Snowball naming "A" or "B" options<br>
Date: Tuesday, May 04, 1993 2:29AM</p>
<p>Gives us some time to figure out what to do. Boy, are these UK guys
passionate about this. We'll figure this out.</p>
<p>Rich</p>
<p>----------<br>
From: Brad Silverberg<br>
To: richt; Jonathan Roberts (Xenix); paulma<br>
Subject: FW: Snowball naming "A" or "B" options<br>
Date: Monday, May 03, 1993 3:58PM</p>
<p>fyi</p>
<p>----------<br>
From: Steve Ballmer<br>
To: philb<br>
Cc: bradsi; paulma; rolfs<br>
Subject: RE: Snowball naming "A" or "B" options<br>
Date: Friday, April 30, 1993 11:47AM</p>
<p>thx for the input will share with the guys I agree but they cna make
good cases both ways</p>
<p>----------<br>
From: Phil Buggins<br>
To: Steve Ballmer<br>
Cc: Rolf Skoglund<br>
Subject: Snowball naming "A" or "B" options<br>
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1993 11:53AM</p>
<p>As per telephone call with rolf and as per discussions between UK
product marketing & Redmond here is a summary of UK views:</p>
<p>Our vote is clear: Option A - Win Pro</p>
<p>Option A is the only option that will achieve against our key business
goals:<br>
- Increase Revenue per Windows PC, i.e increase avg price of Windows<br>
- Build a strong consistent family of Windows operating systems<br>
- Beats Novell, address the threat of Personal Netware.</p>
<p>I think we all agree we need a clear concise Windows Family Message,
the simpler the better, so :<br>
&nbsp;Win 3.1 for the home, disconnected, isolated user<br>
&nbsp;Win Pro for the connected business professional, need to make all the
IT contentious stuff easily turn on/offable at install time Get this version
preinstalled by all major OEM's<br>
&nbsp;Win NT for the power specialist(need more work on crystallising this!
needs to be consistent with "most powerful o/s for client/server
computing!)</p>
<p>Option A is simple, concise, consistent with Windows family and
addresses the network client needs of WinNT.</p>
<p>The turbo &amp; workgroup add on approach in option B will further
confuse &amp; fragment the market, is inconsistent with our goal of reducing
SKU's &amp; simplifying things and is TOTALLY inconsistent with the Win NT
model! Furthermore we all agree that Workgroup computing is now a fundamental
part of everything, o/s &amp; apps, and therefore having an addon doesn't
make sense.</p>
<p>&gt;From reading the proposal the primary reason for recommending
option B is the belief that IT will not buy anything with Peer/Ras/Mail
included, which is debatable:<br>
- Industry momentum, it is IN WinNT, Unix, MACINTOSH and Novell(soon)<br>
- Not ALL accounts have a problem, you will always have some IT depts who hate
change, how many IT depts wanted GUI!<br>
- It is strategic for MS to have this stuff on every connected corporate
desktop!!</p>
<p>However we should not lead our marketing of WinPRo with Peer, we have
removed all mention of PEER from UK mktg of WFWG, we lead with integrated
networking services, extra flexibility, extra options etc. and need to address
all security issues.</p>
<p>Option B also plays into the hands of our competitors by fighting on
their terms by separating connectivity software from the o/s(again NOT the WinNT
model!), moving to the WinPro approach will maximise our strengths.</p>
<p>cheers</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2734
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT
<p>HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL<br/>PURSUANT TO<br/>PROTECTIVE
ORDER</p>
<p>To: Ted Waitt, Bill Elliott<br/>
From: Penny L. Nash<br/>
Date: July 11, 1997<br/>
Re: MS Relationship Issues for Steve Ballmer<br/>
CC: Jim Collas, Jim Von Holle, Kathy Skidmore & Jim
Wharton</p>

<p>Per your request here are a list of Relationship issues
concerning Microsoft. Please review and provide your
comments as to how much of this should be sent to Steve
Ballmer.</p>
<p>In the past six to twelve months we have seen a steady
decline in the over all business relationship between our
two companies. The below examples show this decline.</p>
<ul>
<li>Obvious negative treatment due to our differences
regarding Office.<br/>
- Competitors continued Sales of Office 95 beyond
contractual cut off dates.<br/>
- Adding new application titles/bundles to support our
Software Strategies has become burdensome and time
consuming. This has created unwillingness to use MS content
in our bundles or our software strategies.<br/>
- MS causing delays in software PO shipments (due to
licensing issues in MS&rsquo; Troika System), which have
ccaused Stop Ship situations (UK &amp; APAC) and risks
little or no inventory levels globally. This had rarely
happened in past years but became very noticeable in the
last 3-6 months on a &quot;global basis&quot;. This has
created negative feelings toward MS and unwillingness to use
MS content.</li>
<li>Lack of support/responsiveness from our Account Mgr on
addressing/resolving issues.<br/>
- When issues are communicated they are immediately
delegated. Very little communication (takes days or with no
return call or mail) or ownership of issue resolution.
- When issues are delegated, the person(s) to which the
delegation is given do not have decision making authority,
thus creating delay in resolution. Often requires escalation
to get immediate attention to issues.<br/>
- Often are referred to others within MS to get movement on
things and are frequently told &quot;this is not my
responsibility you need to talk to...&quot; (e.g. Agreements
with other divisions of MS). When issue reach a higher level
(either at GW or MS), we then see moment (CYA mode begins).
<br/>
- RFQ for Mouse - MS was one of three Mouse Suppliers that
was sent this RFQ. MS did not reply, BF stated the he felt
that they did n ot need to reply because of our current
contract and committments.</li>
<li>Very Little Trust in our Account Mgr or OEM Team<br/>
- Net PC Specification. GW involved in discussions but not
part of the OEM Team in drafting this specification (Dell,
Compaq, HP &amp; Intel) with MS.<br/>
- Country Store Proposal provided to incorrect contact after
being specifically informed of correct contact and
cc&rsquo;s.<br/>
- No copy to Supply Management (for tracking) or correct
contact for timely reply. Appears that MS is trying to
divide us. Causes frustration on both sides and creates a
negative opinion of MS on our side.</li>
<li>Very Little Trust in our Account Mgr or OEM Team
Cont&rsquo;d<br/>
- Often get mixed/numerous mixed messages/communication.
Causes delays in action, no accountability on either side
and frustration on both sides (but yet this continues even
after communication of GW&rsquo;s Supplier Policy from GPO
&amp; Supply Mgmgt).<br/>
- Sets up meetings with GW representatives with no
communication to Supply Management or GPO, both internal at
GW and off-site at MS. This creates mixed messages, no
accountability on either side and inconsistent messaging
from GW. (but yet this continues even after communication of
GW&rsquo;s Supplieer Policy from GPO &amp; Supply Mgmgt).
</li>
<li>Limitations on GW Flexibility<br/>
- Changes in policy with no communication.<br/>
- Changes to Windows 95 CD<br/>
- Funding for Premier Support Services Contract.<br/>
- MS dictates how GW should deliver product to our customer
even when supplied with compelling proof of our customer
needs/frustrations on their product(s).</li>
</ul>

<p>* * Note</p>

<ul>
<li>2/97 - Dell/Micron Continued Promotion/Sales of Office
Pro 97 Upgrade Program at N/C<br/>
GW cut off per contract 2/1/97. GW complied with contract
cut off date. In prior discussions MS stated that
&quot;All&quot; OEM&rsquo;s license to offer this Upgrade
ended on 2/1 as well as sales of Office-95 &amp; 4 3<br/>
~ GW $30 Upgrade option at point of sale 2/3 - 2/23.<br/>
- GW ended Program on 2/23 per our agreement.<br/>
~ 2/26 MS BF notified of Dell continued sales of Coupon
Program with purchase of Office 95<br/>
- MS response that Dell was to Stop on 2/1, but was also
given the same point of sale upgrade option as GW ending
2/23. The Dell rep was notified that this to stop
immediately.<br/>
~ 2/27 Dell still offering Office 95 &amp; Upgrade Offer.
<br/>
~ 2/27 GW turned $30 Upgrade Offer back on pending Dell
discontinuation of program.<br/>
- MS BF very unhappy of our decision to turn program back
on.<br/>
- Provided his authorization with restriction; should only
be used if we could loose a sale.<br/>
~ 2/28 Call placed to MS BF. No resolution<br/>
~ 3/3 Discovery of Micron&rsquo;s promotion of Office 95
with &quot;free&quot; Upgrade Coupon.<br/>
~ 3/3 MS BF Notified.<br/>
~ 3/4 Dell discontinues Office Pro 97 &quot;free&quot;
Upgrade and begins offering at $215.<br/>
~ 3/4 Micron continues Office 95 as standard with
&quot;free&quot; Upgrade Coupon to Office 97 SBE or $29
upgrade to office Pro 97.<br/>
~ 3/6 Dell offering Office 97 SBE as standard with $215
upgrade to Office Pro 97.<br/>
~ 3/6 Micron offering Office 97 SBE as standard with $199
upgrade to Office Pro 97. Still offering Office 95 on some
lines.<br/>
~ 3/7 Micron now in compliance.<br/>
** Calls placed daily to MS BF.<br/>
** Numerous discussions of GW&rsquo;s business with MS Dell
Rep.<br/>
- Quote: &quot;What ever MS gives GW impacts the Dell
Account.&quot;<br/>
** Threats of making sure that Dell and GW do not have an
advantage over the other to end the political war.</li>
<li>3/97 Request for GW Australia to provide fulfillment of
Office Pro 97 Media from GW Sydney<br/>
GW reasoning, low volumne numbers and cost effectiveness.
This request was provided to previous OEM Acct. Mgr. which
was never addressed prior to New Acct. Mgr.<br/>
~ MS BF reply - NO!<br/>
- Determining factor for this answer was that MS has traced
Grey Market distribution of Office Products to GW2K.<br/>
- Cost issue addressed again with BF and he states;
&quot;then why are you doing business there?&quot;<br/>
** Any notices or questions regarding Grey Market
Distribution of MS Products have been addressed with proper
resolution. Only one on record at GW.</li>
<li>3/97 Allegations of Grey Market Distribution in
Egypt<br/>
~ 3/20 MS BF requests information on GW System Sales into
Egypt (GW OEM Product found in Grey Market).<br/>
~ 3/21 Total of 3 systems sold into Egypt from Jan. - March
&lsquo;97.<br/>
- 1 to US Embassy<br/>
- 1 to US Citizen<br/>
- 1 Destination to Distributor (no application SW)<br/>
~ Issue Dropped.</li>
<li>Modifications to Win 95 Backup CD<br/>
In the past MS has provided authorization to make additions
to the Win 95 CD (from late Q3 94 until recently Q1 97).
These changes provided our customers the availability of one
location for all files needed for re-installation of the OS.
Since the arrival of the New Acct. Mgr. MS has stated that
GW can not continue to make &quot;any&quot; additions to the
Win 95 Backup CD due to policy change.<br/>
~ Policy Change was never communicated to GW until first
discussion with BF.<br/>
~ OSR (Operating System Release) releases. We receive
OSR&rsquo;s from MS with fixes, added files, drivers, etc...
MS will not allow GW to incorporate these releases into the
Win 95 backup CD deliverable, MS is requiring that GW
deliver the OSR on a separate media (diskette: adding
COG&rsquo;s). Numerous discussions with MS with a reply of;
&quot;We have NO resources available to do this, they are
working on Memphis and we can not afford to pull anyone off
at this time.&quot;<br/>
~ Pix 4 (Intel &amp; Microsoft) - Requested that MS address
issue. Main issue for GW 1) customer satisfaction/OOBE (out
of box experience) issues regarding Windows &lsquo;95 which
would provide one location for the customer &amp; 2)
providing the necessary files for the New Technology.<br/>
- GW&rsquo;s request stalled by Acct. Mgr. BF<br/>
- Files needed are MS files, but MS would still not provide
GW the approval to add to Win 95, only provided approval to
add to separate CD or ship on diskette.<br/>
~ Enabling USB. GW needs USB integrated into the setup of
Win 95.<br/>
- Numerous discussions with numerous individuals at MS. No
movement from MS. USB is a top priority for GW.</li>
<li>Win NT 4.0 Service Packs (SP&rsquo;s)<br/>
~ MS does not provide OPK (OEM Preinstallation Kit) for
Service Packs. Thus it creates increased download time
(manual download), decreased manufacturing productivity,
increased support calls and increased customer dis-
satisfaction.<br/>
- GW has requested that SP&rsquo;s be provided in OPK form.
MS has not provided OPK to date.<br/>
~ MS does not permit us to incorporate Service Pack into our
Win NT 4.0 CD Deliverable, MS requires that GW provide on
separate media (1 additional CD adding additional
COG&rsquo;s).<br/>
~ MS has been provided backup data outlining our issues,
added costs, time, etc... with no reply other than;
&quot;there is NO OPK available and NO resources to create
one.&quot;</li>
<li>Premier Support Agreement<br/>
~ In past years (4+) MS OEM Sales has funded 100% of this
Support Agreement.<br/>
~ MS has stated that OEM Sales will no longer fund this
agreement moving forward.<br/>
- The 97-98 Agreement MS OEM Sales will only fund 80% of
this agreement and GW is responsible for the balance. Total
cost of this Service Agreement is $60,000. MS OEM Sales is
funding $40,000 and GW is responsible for the balance of
$20,000.</li>
<li>Future Licensing of Past versions of MS Operating
Systems<br/>
~ Questioned MS on concerns from MA Customers.<br/>
- MA Customer(s) are hearing (from MS Field Sales Reps) that
GW will be loosing their ability to offer past versions of
Windows products.<br/>
~ MS BF stated that he has not seen the new version of OS
Agreement therefore he can not address the issue. Concerning
the rumors, at this time there are no plans to change your
choice of OS&rsquo;</li>
<li>Licensing of MS Application Titles<br/>
~ Contract amendments for simple product additions take
weeks and numerous calls to follow-up before action is
taken.<br/>
~ This has created delays in time-line execution for product
launch, unwillingness to use MS content in our bundles or
our software strategies.<br/>
~ MS&rsquo; pricing for their products is way out line
compared to other SW Suppliers with just as or better
compelling titles.</li>
<li>Missing Licensing Information from MS&rsquo; Troika
System<br/>
~ All Regions including US have had numerous instances in
the last 6 months where our Replicator&rsquo;s can not
produce or ship product to GW to fulfill our PO&rsquo;s due
to the fact that MS&rsquo; system shows GW as not being
licensed for a particular product(s).<br/>
- MS has made it perfectly clear to some specific AR&rsquo;s
that if they ship said product(s) they risk their AR License
with MS.<br/>
- In some instances this has resulted in a STOP SHIP
situation for several days.<br/>
- In others, it risks little or no inventory levels globally
which could/would have caused a STOP SHIP situation.<br/>
~ Each instance has resulted in days of calls both with MS,
the AR and our Subsidiaries before resolution was reached.
This had rarely happened in past years but has became very
noticeable in the last 6 months on a &quot;global
basis&quot;. This has created negative feelings toward MS
and unwillingness to use MS content.<br/>
Example: MS Mouse Drivers - GW has been licensed for the MS
Mouse for many years. The contract is 3+ years in the
making. GW has been reproducing the Mouse drivers for years
per the terms of our agreement. Recent PO&rsquo;s have been
put hold by MS; 1) questioning our quantities, 2) stating
that we do not have the right to reproduce &amp; 3) stating
we do not have the rights to distribute separate from the
Mouse. All of these issues are outlined in the contract
and/or amendments providing us the license grant to do so.
<br/>
~ We had to provide the proof to MS.<br/>
~ We supplied the language locations in the agreement(s).
<br/>
- BF has not been involved in this issue. He delegated it to
his admin to handle. Neither BF or his admin took the time
to review or have knowledge of this agreement prior to
placing our PO&rsquo;s on hold.<br/>
~ To date our PO&rsquo;s are still on hold pending our
answers to questions on our large PO quantities.<br/>
This situation alone has created a willingness to bring in
&quot;new&quot; Mouse Supplier.</li>
<li>No Reply to RFQ for Mice<br/>
MS was one of three Mouse Suppliers that was sent this RFQ.
MS did not reply, BF stated the he felt that they did not
need to reply because of our current contract and
committments.<br/>
- Our minimum committment with MS has been met.<br/>
- Our contract with MS expires at the end of 1997<br/>
Other Mouse suppliers can provide the same type of Mice as
MS but a significantly lower price point than MS. Thus the
RFQ to bring MS to the negotiation table for our business.
</li>
<li>MS Mtgs held with GW representatives On-site &amp; Off-
site with no notification of Supply Management or GPO<br/>
~ Numerous Mtgs with GW representatives<br/>
- No Accountability on either side<br/>
~ Marketing invitation to OEM Acct. Mgr. to Golf with GW
Mens Golf League<br/>
- Threat that he may have come in contact with information
that he should have had access to.</li>
</ul>
<p>Gateway 2000 Inc.<br/>Confidential Information</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2921
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT
<p>From: Dennis Foster<br/>
To: Dave Wilkes; John Gailey; John Robertson<br/>
Date: Tue, Jun 9, 1998 3:46 PM<br/>
Subject: GroupWise vs. Outlook 98</p>

<p>On 05-21-98, I called our Microsoft Premiere Support
number to request help with the conflict between GW and
Outlook 98. I spoke to Barbara Thomas who generated case
SRX9805216011611.</p>
<p>My initial request was that MS consider it a bug that
Outlook 98 by default installs using the &quot;Internet
Only&quot; option for e-mail services. I told her that it
was our opinion that the Outlook 98&rsquo;s setup program
should inspect the system it&rsquo;s being installed on and
choose the &quot;Corporate or Workgroup E-mail&quot; option
by default if the Windows Messaging System (WMS i.e., MAPI)
was installed and profiles have been defined and choose the
&quot;Internet Only&quot; option by default otherwise. This
would probably eliminate 90% of the complaints we get as
I&rsquo;m sure most people when reading the screen
containing these options don&rsquo;t realize what&rsquo;s
being said and simply go with the default as being
&quot;safe&quot;.</p>
<p>On 05-28-98 I received a call and e-mail from Barbara
telling me that my request had been investigated and Adam (I
don&rsquo;t recall having heard his last name) from
Microsoft would be contacting me. On either the 28th or
29th, I got a call from Adam. He told me that MS views the
way Outlook 98 was operating as a &quot;Feature&quot;, not a
bug. They would take my request and submit it as an
&quot;Enhancement&quot; for future development. I
discussed/argued the issue with Adam for several minutes,
explaining how by defaulting to &quot;Internet Only&quot;,
Outlook 98 ends up breaking a GroupWise installation that
had up to the point Outlook 98 was installed, worked fine. I
explained to him that the setup screen made no mention of
MAPI services being changed and/or broken for applications
that need them. His response was that the user is given an
ample description of what was going to happen and that we
should &quot;educate&quot; our users to make the correct
selection during Outlook 98&rsquo;s setup. All in all,
I&rsquo;d describe my conversation with Adam as equivalent
to talking to a rock.</p>
<p>I believe that the changes I made to the address
book&rsquo;s initialization flow last week is probably the
best that we can hope for without Outlook 98 changing. We
may want to add something to our README about this. The
check/change I put into Surge for Outlook 98 could easily be
retrofitted into a Jolt CPR build as well, assuming we
don&rsquo;t mind the resource the changes.</p>
<p>FYI: Before I made the changes mentioned above, when
installing Outlook 98 using the &quot;Internet Only&quot;
default option, the following problems were encountered:</p>
<ul>
<li>No Novell address book service providers are
available</li>
<li>There is no way to add them to your profile (the old
MAPI profile dialog has been replaced by something Outlook
98 specific).</li>
<li>Sometimes (usually?), our call to login to MAPI fails (I
don&rsquo;t fully understand why this happens).</li>
<li>When we can login, Outlook 98&rsquo;s LDAP service
provider causes us grief because of its problems
implementing the MAPI APIs we use. The problems here
include:<ul>
<li>Calls to IMAPITable..Restrict GPF when passed
NULL for the restriction. This is the only documented way in
MAPI to delete a restriction.</li>
<li>The way we use MAPI for LDAP services for Boldon
James and Nexor doesn&rsquo;t work with the Outlook 98
provider. I&rsquo;ve found two areas that we could/should
change that should be compatible with the Boldon James
and/or Nexor providers.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>Dennis.</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2922
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT
<p>From: John Gailey<br/>
To: Michael Buck; Rex Olpin<br/>
Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 2:20 PM<br/>
Subject: Win98 and Microsoft MAPI Service</p>

<p>In a clean install of Win98 (not over an existing Win95
installation), the Microsoft Windows Messaging System (MAPI)
is not installed. GroupWise 5.2 will auto-detect this fact
during install and will attempt to install the MAPI system
by accessing the Win95 CD. However, the MAPI system has been
moved to a different location on the Win98 CD, causing the
GroupWise 5.2 install to fail in its attempt to install
MAPI.</p>
<p>End-users can manually install the MAPI system from the
Win98 CD. To do so, they must run:
toolsoldwin95messageuswms.exe</p>
<p>This self-extracting executable with install the MAPI
subsystem (and unfortunately, will also install MS Exchange
Inbox and MS Exchange Post Office.)</p>
<p>Rex, we need a TID written up for this for our current
GroupWise 5.2 customers.</p>
<p>Michael, we need a fix for this for the next GroupWise
5.2 service pack.</p>
<p>this is anti-competitive!</p>
<p>Aaarghh!!!</p>
<p>- John Gailey</p>
<p>CC: Bill Street; Craig Miller</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2923
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 04:17 AM EDT
<p>From: Sam Jadallah<br/>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 10:38 AM<br/>
To: Kevin Johnson (ECU); Lori Moore Ross; Jeff Raikes;
Steve Ballmer; Rich Tong; Brad Chase<br/>
Cc: Bryan Watson; Paul Bazley; Wendy Barokas; Ann
Redmond; Jake Lansche; Bill Henningsgaard; Deborah
Willingham<br/>
Subject: Channel Champions Analysis</p>

<p>Below is a high-level analysis and year to year
comparison of the 1998 CRN Channel Champions Survey. The
research was conducted in February and March; 6,000
resellers were polled.
Results are on a 7-point scale, where 1 equals &quot;very
dissatisfied&quot; and 7 equals &quot;very satisfied&quot;.
Unlike the VARBusiness Annual Report Card where we supply
our resellers, this is a random survey with CRN&rsquo;s
readership. The fact that we won only one category (desktop
suites) is a problem. I do not believe this study to be very
influencial with the channel (product reviews are more
important), but this is an indicator of overall channel
attitude and perceptions of us. The detailed numbers (along
with the gaps) are on the spreadsheet at the bottom of this
email.</p>

<p><strong>Take-Away from 1998 Channel Champions:</strong>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Our extremely low ratings in technical support and
response time appears to have had the largest impact on our
drop this year in all categories (started from a very low
base below 5.0 - no other vendor is that low!)</li>
<li>Product quality ratings are down in 7 of 8 categories,
Microsoft averages 5.5 while other vendors hover between 5.7
and 6.1</li>
<li>Verbatims reflect increased reseller frustration with
product quality and technical support, no other significant
trends</li>
<li>The Internet/web categories were particularly bad. we
lost on every single item of the 3 categories (web design
tools, internet server, web browser) including items like
product return. This is strange and this is probably a good
deal of general negative perception/dislike in those
categories.</li>
</ul>

<p>Key Actions:</p>
<ul>
<li>We&rsquo;ll schedule time with CRN to walk thru and
understand who they surveyed and their methodology.</li>
<li>Kevinjo/Lorim to schedule a meeting with my team/me to
do a drill down on the tech support issue. How does this
compare with our internal views on support quality? Is
support pricing a factor in this?</li>
<li>Product quality and reliability is well discussed
already. We&rsquo;ll supply and drill down data we have to
wpg on this.</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Satisfaction for Microsoft fell in the following
categories:</strong></p>
<p>Product Quality: Down everywhere except DBMS, which was
flat</p>
<ul><li>competitors are hovering in the high 5.7-6.1 range,
we are averaging 5.5, with only one 5.8 in software
suites</li></ul>
<p>Price Performance: Down everywhere but Software Suites
and Internet Server, which were flat</p>
<ul><li>no significant trend here, tenth of a point
difference in multiple categories, won 2 of 8
categories</li></ul>
<p>Technical Support: Down everywhere but DBMS</p>
<ul><li>drop was not dramatic from last year, but we started
from a very low base (no other vendor has below a 5.0 in
support)</li>
<li>competitors are at least a 1/2 point to full point
higher in many categories</li></ul>
<p>Vendor Return: Down all</p>
<ul><li>Most significant drop of all vendors across the
board, .25 decrease in most categories</li></ul>
<p>Vendor co-op: Down all but DBMS and SMS</p>
<ul><li>tight race in most categories, scores all over the
board for all vendors</li></ul>
<p>Vendor Response time: Down all, except GroupWare</p>
<ul><li>very low base from last year, all MS scores below a
5.0 this year, competitors all hover between 5.1 - 5.3</li>
</ul>
<p>Upgradibility: Variable</p>
<ul><li>no significant trend for MS, we are competitive in
this area</li></ul>

<p><strong>Microsoft gained satisfaction across the board
in:</strong></p>
<p>Product Availability: Upward trend</p>
<ul><li>competition strong, gap averaged 2/10s point</li>
</ul>
<p>The detailed ratings for this year and last year are
attached:<br/>
[Channel Champions results1.xls...]</p>
<p>the published survey is at:
http://www.crn.com/sections/supplement/794/794ccindex.asp</p
>

<p><strong>CRN&rsquo;s Channel Champions
Report</strong></p>
<p>06/15/1998</p>
<p>KEY Same</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Network Operating Systems</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="2">1998</th>
<th colspan="3">1997</th><th
rowspan="2">1998 Delta to
Winner<br/>(bigger number is worse)</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Novell</th><th>Mic
rosoft</th>
<th>Novell</th><th>Artisoft</th></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.70</td><td>5.90</td><td>5.20</
td><td>0.70</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td></td><td>5
.30</td>
<td>5.80</td><td>5.30</td><td>5.50</td><t
d>-0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td>5.60</td>
<td></td><td>5.60</td><td>5.60</td><td>
;5.00</td>
<td>0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>6.10</td><td>5.80</td><td>5.90</td><t
d>-0.30</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>4.90</td><td>5.30</td><td>4.80</td><t
d>0.70</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.40</td><td>5.00</td><td>4.90</td><t
d>0.50</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.40</td><td>5.00</td><td>4.70</
td><td>-0.20</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td>5.10</td>
<td>4.80</td><td>5.10</td><td>4.70</td><t
d>0.50</td></tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.20</td><td>5.40</td>
<td>5.45</td><td>5.36</td><td>5.10</td><t
d>0.20</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table border="1">
<caption>Database Management Software</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="2">1998</th>
<th colspan="4">1997</th><th
rowspan="2">1998 Delta to
Winner<br/>(bigger number is worse)</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Oracle</th><th>Mic
rosoft</th>
<th>Lotus</th><th>Oracle</th><th>Borland</th>
;</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.80</td><td>5.60</td><td>5.80</
td><td>5.60</td>
<td>0.50</td></tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td></td><td>5
.10</td>
<td>5.60</td><td>5.40</td><td>5.10</td><t
d>5.50</td>
<td>-0.30</td></tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.40</td><td>5.30</td><td>5.50</
td><td>5.30</td>
<td>0.40</td></tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.80</td><td>5.70</td><td>5.70</td><t
d>5.60</td>
<td>-0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>4.40</td><td>5.20</td><td>5.10</td><t
d>4.90</td>
<td>0.70</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.40</td><td>5.30</td><td>5.30</td><t
d>5.50</td>
<td>0.00</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td></td>
<td>4.90</td><td>5.30</td><td>4.90</td><t
d>4.90</td>
<td>4.70</td><td>-0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.00</td><td>5.10</td><td>5.20</td><t
d>4.90</td>
<td>0.20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.30</td><td>5.40</td>
<td>5.34</td><td>5.32</td><td>5.31</td><t
d>5.22</td>
<td>0.10</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table border="1">
<caption>Groupware</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="3">1998</th>
<th colspan="4">1997</th><th
rowspan="2">1998 Delta to
Winner<br/>(bigger number is worse)</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Lotus</th><th>Nove
ll</th>
<th>Microsoft</th><th>Lotus</th><th>Novell</th&
gt;
<th>Netscape</th></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>6.00</td><td>5.90</td><td>5.70</
td><td>5.50</td>
<td>5.90</td><td>0.30</td></tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td></td><td>&
lt;/td>
<td>5.50</td><td>5.40</td><td>5.40</td><t
d>4.90</td>
<td>5.80</td><td>0.30</td></tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td>5.70</td>
<td></td><td>5.60</td><td>5.70</td><td>
;5.70</td>
<td>5.10</td><td>6.00</td><td>-0.10</td><
/tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>6.10</td><td>5.70</td><td>5.80</td><t
d>5.50</td>
<td>6.20</td><td>0.00</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.40</td><td>4.80</td><td>5.50</td><t
d>5.00</td>
<td>5.50</td><td>0.70</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td>5.30</td>
<td>5.20</td><td>5.10</td><td>5.30</td><t
d>4.60</td>
<td>5.40</td><td>0.30</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>4.70</td><td>5.60</td><td>5.10</
td><td>4.60</td>
<td>5.50</td><td>0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.10</td><td>4.90</td><td>5.20</td><t
d>4.90</td>
<td>5.50</td><td>0.40</td></tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.26</td><td>5.53</td>
<td>5.45</td><td>5.40</td><td>5.50</td><t
d>5.00</td>
<td>5.70</td><td>0.27</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table border="1">
<caption>Software Suites</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="3">1998</th>
<th colspan="3">1997</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Corel</th><th>Lotu
s</th>
<th>Microsoft</th><th>Corel</th><th>Lotus</th&g
t;</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td>
<td>5.80</td><td>5.70</td><td>6.10</td><t
d>5.80</td>
<td>5.70</td></tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td>5.50</td><td&
gt;</td>
<td>5.60</td><td>5.50</td><td>5.80</td><t
d>5.50</td></tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.50</td><td>5.90</td><td>5.60</
td><td>5.40</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td></td><td>5.90</td>
<td>5.70</td><td>6.00</td><td>5.90</td><t
d>5.70</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.10</td><td>5.00</td><td>5.30</td><t
d>5.20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.00</td><td>5.60</td><td>5.20</td><t
d>5.00</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>4.70</td><td>5.50</td><td>5.10</
td><td>4.90</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.10</td><td>5.20</td><td>5.30</td><t
d>5.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.39</td><td>5.38</td>
<td>5.30</td><td>5.60</td><td>5.50</td><t
d>5.30</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table border="1">
<caption>Web Browsers</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="2">1998</th>
<th colspan="2">1997</th><th
rowspan="2">1998 Delta to
Winner<br/>(bigger number is worse)</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Netscape</th><th>M
icrosoft</th>
<th>Netscape</th></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.50</td><td>6.20</td><td>0.50</
td></tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td></td><td>&
lt;/td>
<td>6.00</td><td>6.10</td><td>0.10</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.70</td><td>6.30</td><td>0.60</
td></tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td>6.20</td><td></td>
<td>6.20</td><td>6.40</td><td>0.10</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>4.90</td><td>5.70</td><td>0.90</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.40</td><td>5.90</td><td>0.60</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.10</td><td>5.40</td><td>0.40</
td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.00</td><td>5.70</td><td>0.80</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.10</td><td>5.60</td>
<td>5.50</td><td>5.90</td><td>0.50</td></
tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table border="1">
<caption>Internet Server Software</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="2">1998</th>
<th colspan="2">1997</th><th
rowspan="2">1998 Delta to
Winner<br/>(bigger number is worse)</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Netscape</th><th>M
icrosoft</th>
<th>Netscape</th></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.60</td><td>6.00</td><td>0.50</
td></tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td>5.60</td><td&
gt;</td>
<td>5.60</td><td>5.90</td><td>0.10</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td>5.80</td>
<td></td><td>5.60</td><td>6.10</td><td>
;0.20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td></td><td>6.10</td>
<td>6.00</td><td>6.10</td><td>0.00</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.00</td><td>5.60</td><td>0.80</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.30</td><td>5.50</td><td>0.30</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.20</td><td>5.30</td><td>0.30</
td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.10</td><td>5.50</td><td>0.60</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.20</td><td>5.60</td>
<td>5.40</td><td>5.80</td><td>0.40</td></
tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table border="1">
<caption>Network Management Software</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="4">1998</th>
<th colspan="4">1997</th><th
rowspan="2">1998 Delta to
Winner<br/>(bigger number is worse)</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Intel</th><th>Nove
ll</th>
<th>HP</th><th>Microsoft</th><th>Intel</th>&
lt;th>Novell</th>
<th>HP</th></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td><td>
</td><td></td><td></td><td>5.90</td>&l
t;td>6.00</td>
<td>6.10</td><td>6.20</td><td>0.10</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td></td><td>&
lt;/td><td></td>
<td></td><td>5.80</td><td>5.40</td><td>
;5.60</td>
<td>5.40</td><td>-0.40</td></tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td></td><td>
</td><td></td><td></td><td>5.90</td>&l
t;td>5.90</td>
<td>5.90</td><td>5.80</td><td>0.00</td></
tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td></td><td></td><td></
td>
<td>5.60</td><td>5.90</td><td>5.80</td><t
d>5.90</td>
<td>5.60</td><td>-0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td><td></td><td>5.30</td><td>5.40</td&g
t;<td>5.40</td>
<td>5.70</td><td>0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td><td></td><td>5.50</td><td>5.30</td&g
t;<td>5.30</td>
<td>5.50</td><td>-0.20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td>5.40</td>
<td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5.40<
;/td><td>5.20</td>
<td>5.30</td><td>5.20</td><td>-0.20</td><
/tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
<td></td><td>5.40</td><td>5.50</td><td>
;5.50</td>
<td>5.60</td><td>0.10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.42</td><td>5.59</td>
<td>5.58</td><td>5.54</td><td>5.63</td><t
d>5.56</td>
<td>5.62</td><td>5.61</td><td>-0.07</td><
/tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table border="1">
<caption>Web Design Tools</caption>
<thead>
<tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th
colspan="3">1998</th>
<th colspan="3">1997</th><th
rowspan="2">1998 Delta to
Winner<br/>(bigger number is worse)</th></tr>
<tr><th>Microsoft</th><th>Netscape</th><th>A
dobe</th>
<th>Microsoft</th><th>Netscape</th><th>Adobe</t
h></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Product quality and
reliability</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.90</td><td>5.70</td><td>5.90</
td><td>6.00</td>
<td>0.20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Price/Performance</td><td></td><td>5
.80</td>
<td>5.30</td><td>5.60</td><td>5.80</td><t
d>5.40</td>
<td>0.40</td></tr>
<tr><td>Upgradability and
compatibility</td><td></td><td>
</td><td>5.70</td><td>5.70</td><td>6.00</
td><td>5.80</td>
<td>0.20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Product
availability</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.90</td><td>5.80</td><td>6.10</td><t
d>6.00</td>
<td>0.40</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor technical
support</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.60</td><td>4.80</td><td>5.40</td><t
d>5.60</td>
<td>0.90</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor return
policies</td><td></td><td></td>
<td>5.20</td><td>5.20</td><td>5.40</td><t
d>5.50</td>
<td>0.80</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor co-op marketing
programs</td><td></td>
<td>5.30</td><td>4.70</td><td>5.40</td><t
d>5.30</td>
<td>5.20</td><td>0.30</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vendor response
time</td><td></td><td>5.30</td>
<td>5.50</td><td>5.00</td><td>5.30</td><t
d>5.50</td>
<td>0.40</td></tr>
<tr><td>Overall
satisfaction</td><td>5.30</td><td>5.70</td>
<td>5.50</td><td>5.40</td><td>5.70</td><t
d>5.60</td>
<td>0.40</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2924
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT
<p>Ryan Richards - Re: Help - Microsoft Global Enterprise
Program..? Page 1</p>

<p>From: Samantha Mudd<br/>
To: Craig Gilchrist<br/>
Date: 6/18/98 10:46AM<br/>
Subject: Re: Help - Microsoft Global Enterprise
Program..?</p>

<p>Craig</p>
<p>Spoke to ISC about this today and it is something that
corporates can buy into by committing to all MS technologies
such as Exchange, NT server, NT workstation etc..but
obviously they can run these alongside other vendor
technologies.</p>
<p>It is still sold via the channel LAR&rsquo;s but MS get
much more involved in the negotiation of the deal.<br/>
Normal discount structures apply.</p>
<p>They pay in three annual lump sums, no reporting or
audits.<br/>
They have to count all workstations and if this increases at
end of each year, they are just counted for next years
financial installment.</p>
<p>Advantages are the customers / channel have minimal
admin..one PO one invoice each year. The customer feels
secure in knowledge he has paid it all up and is legal to
run his business on the MS licences. MS get much closer to
these accounts as the LAR&rsquo;S&rsquo;s&rsquo;s must pass
on these Global enterprise leads to a MS representative.</p>
<p>Hope this helps<br/>
PS ISC Ltd have to date not passed on one such lead yet!
<br/>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Craig Gilchrist 06/16/98 07:01pm
&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br/>
Hi all</p>
<p>I heard today of a new program being offered by Microsoft
to key customers called the &quot;Global Enterprise
Program&quot;. (&guot;Global Enterprise Program&quot; is a
translation so it may be something slightly different in the
UK.) I understand that the program is &quot;MLA-like&quot;
(a sincere form of flattery?) and is being offered only to
existing &quot;top-tier&quot; Select accounts. Obviously,
any moves made by Microsoft to broaden their licensing
offerings is of great interest to us and I would appreciate
your help in gathering any information possible about this
new program. If you hear anything or are able to &quot;pick
up&quot; anything in written format on your travels, please
let me know in order that we can fully investigate and then
counter as appropriate.</p>
<p>Many thanks for your support.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Craig</p>
<p>CC: Murray Treece, Roy Fox, Sam Lawrence, Sandra
Woodley</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Comes 2924 - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
Comes 2916
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 08:34 AM EDT
<p>From: Kurt Kolb<br/>
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 6:02 AM<br/>
To: Ken Myer<br/>
Subject: FW: FY99 memo</p>

<p>do not forward - note the last line in the email.</p>

<p>-----Original Message-----<br/>
From: Joachim Kempin<br/>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 2:22 PM<br/>
To: OEM Personnel Sales Communication; OEM Personnel
Sales Communication - Intl.<br/>
Subject: FY99 memo</p>

<p>I hope this will make you understand our FY 99 directions
and prepare you for the sales meeting. I am sending this to
you as the chairman of MSLI. See you in Vail.</p>

<p><strong>FY99 the Year of the &quot;NTW Drive&quot;
</strong></p>

<p><strong>Preamble</strong><br/>
During FY98 we have seen a slowdown in the PC market caused
by the Asian crisis. The incremental sales of &lt; $1k PCs
did not offset this. Therefore, we expect the market to show
less than 13% worldwide unit growth for FY 98. Unit growth
impacts not only the OEM but all of MS business. While I am
cautiously optimistic to see a recovery to a 15% growth
level by the second half of FY99- I am more pessimistic
about the immediate, CY98, outlook.</p>
<p>As a result of this I expect our revenue growth for the
next 12 months to slow from our traditional 40%+ growth rate
to 25-30%, but even that might not be guaranteed. When
analyzing why we are growing revenue faster than the demand
for PC units is developing the following crosses my mind:
</p>
<ol>
<li>We continue to see higher valued operating systems<br/>
While the shift from the MSDOS/Windows 3.x combo to Windows
95 is basically complete, customers are now shifting their
focus to NTW.</li>
<li>We continue to increase our penetration in the SB
segment.<br/>
While this is getting tougher in some industrial countries-
not fighting piracy as effectively as I would have hoped
for- we are still seeing good progress in most development
countries.</li>
<li>We continue to find opportunities in the server,
hardware, and consumer area.<br/>
Over the last 18 months we have fine-tuned our value selling
skills. Recently this has been instrumental to closing
additional business in non-OS areas and has helped us to
better position all our products. It is key for us to
continue to learn this because we are by no means perfect.
</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>Competitive Landscape</strong><br/>
We continue to watch for computing paradigm shifts. While
the NC was a big threat to us two years ago, I believe low
priced PCs and CE handhelds/terminals have made this an
unlikely new desktop computing platform proposition despite
the fact that SUN and IBM are still trying. The Java threat
on the other hand is real and will not go away. After
examining this more carefully, it becomes clear to me that
the Java OS will try to conquer the embedded marketplace
from palm pilots over game machines to low-end terminals,
while infesting all other computing devices with it&rsquo;s
programming language. &quot;Develop once, run
anywhere.&quot; While this sounds promising, it is not
reality, at least not yet and probably never will be. Any
on-the-fly compiler/interpreter will be big in code and slow
in execution and would need to guard it&rsquo;s standard.
While we see some derivatives already, big and slow does not
make it easy to put Java OS into devices with less than 8MB
of RAM. This is a huge limitation, which we can easily
explore with Win CE and it&rsquo;s thinner kernel.</p>
<p>Our disadvantage in this area is not having enough feet
on the street, not talking to the right potential customers
and not having a real-time extension. As you can imagine,
FY98 will be the year to change this and deliver more design
wins with Win CE while improving the product.</p>
<p>Supporting the Java initiative are Sun, Oracle, IBM, and
Netscape. The biggest issue for us is IBM&rsquo;s support,
while at the same time being in the PC camp and trying to
get favorable treatment from us. IBM continues to be our
largest software competitors, not just in size. Notes, DBII,
and Smart Suite are the other examples where we compete with
them and this means we will continue to treat the PC company
as a valued customer- with respect but with less trust than
Compaq/Digital, Dell and HP. Meaning you will not see any
field engagements with IBM and only a bare minimum of
product marketing activities if any.</p>

<p><strong>Application Bundling</strong><br/>
The PC price erosion will continue for our consumer title
prices, and will probably lead to less bundling over time.
This will be true for DAD applications as well. Corel is at
a point where they are offering their &quot;office&quot;
suite for free, counting only on upgrade revenue- later! We
have to stay flexible and opportunistic in the area and
watch the competitors constantly to avoid surprises and loss
of business. Stay flexible when customers propose to bundle
lower priced application solutions on lower end systems
while retaining office product bundles in special market
segments like small business. The key for us is that they
bundle Microsoft solutions and do not give their money to
competitors- so we need to win their hearts and minds!</p>

<p><strong>FY99 goals</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Double NTW marketshare in all segments</li>
<li>Increase SB bootable units by 30%</li>
<li>Expand embedded group customer base and allow no key
design wins for Java OS</li>
<li>Continue to improve relationships with all
customers</li>
<li>Reach $6.5B in OEM revenue</li>
</ol>

<ol>
<li><strong>Double NTW marketshare in all segments</strong>
<ul>
<li>Royalty accounts<ul>
<li>offer penetration based incentive
pricing</li>
<li>focus marketing spend</li>
<li>develop programs for small business and
&quot;PC buyer&quot; segment</li>
<li>introduce NT 5.0 upgrade opportunities
around launch</li>
<li>continue to sell NT 4.0 and 5.0
values</li>
</ul></li>
<li>SB<ul>
<li>incent DSPs to promote/sell and SBs to
buy</li>
<li>get all regions/subs behind an NTW drive
to create more customer demand (this should be funded out of
ROEM marketing money)</li>
<li>have an upgrade program available like
the one we are doing for Windows 98</li>
</ul></li>
</ul></li>
<li><strong>Increase SB bootable units by
30%</strong><br/>
This might be easy in development countries but the
industrial countries will need extra efforts and out of the
box thinking to contribute to this goal knowing that they
contribute the highest volume.<ul>
<li>have a consistent DSP incentive program around
the globe which rewards results and NOT just activities</li>
<li>develop and promote a reward program for repeat
purchases of BOS products</li>
<li>connect all customers (SBs) where possible to
the web and use it to help them grow their business
(creating non-counterfeitable value)</li>
<li>increase investigative activities</li>
<li>keep the anti-piracy devices current and
innovative</li>
</ul></li>
<li><strong>Expand embedded group customer base and allow no
key design wins for Java OS</strong><br/>
We will add 15-20 people to this group in CY98 and direct
them to talk to embedded device manufacturers outside the
current OEM customer base. The expansion will be clustered
around the world while maintaining a critical mass in
locations where we put manpower. It will contain AMs and SEs
as well as 2-3 customer competence centers for second tier
customers. Management directions will come from Redmond
while being fully integrated into the subsidiaries of
choice. This will be an exciting thrust focussing on market
share and not on high per unit prices. The key is not to
allow design wins for Java and to definitely win the
strategic business opportunities.</li>
<li><strong>Continue to improve relationships with all
customers</strong><br/>
We started 2 years ago to relearn how we do our business and
while I have seen good progress we have still a long way to
go. The entrenchment of the value selling process is not
complete and as such I am suggesting we apply some methods
to make FY 99 a break through year in this regards. I am
thinking of the following and need your active
participation:<ul>
<li>Policy improvements, to make it easier to do
business with us</li>
<li>Make the Holden concept the way you work with
customers</li>
<li>Offer an equivalent Holden training to the DSP
group</li>
<li>Improve feedback and the best practice process
inside the group</li>
</ul></li>
<li><strong>Reach $6.5B in OEM revenue</strong><br/>
While operating system revenue will remain more than 80% of
our revenue, the shift to NTW is going to be the largest
contributor to this goal after pure unit growth. Without
more then doubling our NTW penetration this goal will be
impossible to reach. In addition, it is the most strategic
thing for us to do for MS, all other opportunities are way
less important. Looking at Novel&rsquo;s current recovery it
will be important to continue the server opportunities in
OEM more then in the past. In case Novel starts bundling
with OEMs or persues more opportunities through the DSP
channel please let us know and we are prepared to act as we
see fit. The following are the other opportunities, which
could contribute to achieving this goal:<ul>
<li>higher mouse and keyboard penetration</li>
<li>doubling ROEM revenues (SBE and SBS sales)</li>
<li>pursuing per-system IMG, SBE, and server
agreements with royalty</li>
</ul></li>
</ol>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Comes 2916 - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT
Comes 2914
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT
<p>From: BHENDRICK<br/>
To: Ryan Richards<br/>
Date: Sun, May 31, 1998 7:03 PM<br/>
Subject: Re: NDS for NT / LDS Church</p>

<p>Ryan,</p>

<p>This document that Gary provided is a common document
that is being delivered in many of our major market
accounts.</p>

<p>Microsoft Consulting is coming into our accounts and
repeating this message over and over. (I think it is based
on a template.)</p>

<p>Actually, I am good friends with a guy at the Church
Office Building (Larry Adams) that could provide us with
more information if we need this from them.</p>

<p>(He is on the NT Domain project. Last time I was in town,
I had lunch with him and told him they should be doing
NDS4NT. He requested that the Church Headquarters give us a
fair shake in the evaluation process.)</p>

<p>I think that Kenneth Gaul should add this doc to his list
of issues around NDS4NT.</p>

<p>As a FYI, the jury is not out on Service Pack 4. There
seems to be several versions of the beta patch kit that is
floating out there to customers under NDA&rsquo;s.</p>

<p>SP4 is supposed to be officially released sometime in the
month of June.</p>

<p>Stay Tune!!</p>

<p>Ben Hendrick<br/>
Novell Consulting-Atlanta</p>

<p>&gt;&gt;&gt; Gary Hein 05/30/98 05:34PM
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br/>
Don&rsquo;t know if you guys have seen this document yet,
but it&rsquo;s just another example of lies propagated by
MS. There are some very disturbing remarks, including:</p>

<p>Although it is possible to establish bi-directional
trust, the trust connection can not be used for
administering remote, unmigrated domains. This means that
centralizing management with NDS for NT requires a wholesale
conversion of the entire enterprise</p>

<p>GH: False</p>

<p>Note that NT servers would need to run IPX/SPX to support
NDS for NT as well as TCP/IP to access other network
reqources and to comply with current standards.</p>

<p>GH: False - NDS for NT works over IP - no need to add
IPX. This is a scare tactic.</p>

<p>Service Pack updates are questionable at best. MCS has
not yet released Service Pack 4.0, however we suspect it
will replace the existing samsvr.dll. To protect against NT
Service Packs replacing samsrv.dll, NDS for NT checks at
shutdown time and replaces samsrv.dll with the Novell
version. MCS believes potential for failure is very high, as
soon as any dll starts depending on new exports from
samsrv.dll. Replacing this one critical dll could case the
system to fail to boot and recovery could be very difficult.
</p>

<p>GH: Perhaps advance knowledge of SP4?</p>

<p>Microsoft has repeatedly stated that it will support
their NT customers and NT&rsquo;s basic functionality, but
in areas that NDS touches, namely security and
authentication, Microsoft will refer customers to Novell.
<br/>
This has the potential of creating some confusion in the
resolution of issues revolving around security and
authentication.</p>

<p>GH: Scare tactic</p>

<p>Also, comments from PeopleSoft should be solicited to see
if PeopleSoft and Tuxedo are supported in environments where
NDS for NT is in use as well as the IntranetWare client.</p>

<p>GH: Is it possible that MS is telling NT developer that
they should not support their products with NDS for NT?</p>

<p>Windows NT has a feature where anonymous logon users can
list domain user names and enumerate share names. Customers
who wanted enhanced security requested the ability to
optionally restrict this functionality. Windows NT 4.0
Service Pack 3 and a hotfix for Windows NT 3.51 provide a
mechanism for administrators to restric the ability for
anonymous logon users from obtaining system information.
<br/>
These anonymous connections are also known as NULL session
connections. During the installation of Novell&rsquo;s NDS
for NT, the samsrv.dll is replaced. Novell NDS for NT
currently does not include support for restricting anonymous
connections. MCS see this deficiency as a security weakness.
</p>

<p>GH: This is the Red Button attack, which MS
&lsquo;claims&rsquo; is fixed with SP3, but really
isn&rsquo;t. Again, this is completely incorrect - using NDS
for NT will not impact the security flaw mentioned in this
document.</p>

<p>Anyhow - I don&rsquo;t know if this is of any use to you
but I thought I&rsquo;d forward it over anyway.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Gary</p>

<p>CC: David Bradford</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )