A Layman's View of VCSY part 1a/b - background

Note, I am placing these posts on this board because Yahoo has a 4000 character limit on posts there.

The following was posted on the Yahoo/VCSY board:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=361&mid=361&tof=1&frt=1
Message for Portuno or any other long (Not rated)
8-Sep-07 04:37 am by ns5000
Can you make a case for vcsy for a non-techie or "traders" as you put it.

Please do not put any links. Just explain in simple terms why msft can't develop vista or viridian or .net without the 2 patents you have been talking about.

I could consider investing purely as a speculative buy if you are able to spell out your case clearly in simple terms.


I responded with this and will add to the effort shortly:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=361&mid=369&tof=1&rt=1&frt=1&off=1
Layman's view of VCSY issues Part 1a (Not rated)
8-Sep-07 12:05 pm by portuno_diamo
One quick explanation I can provide is this:

Microsoft's entire development philosophy has been centered around their operating system on the PC for decades.

During those decades, VCSY's inventors' life work focused on the network and specifically the internet as a network.

The VCSY inventors worked on distributed networked computer concepts while MSFT worked on the personal local computer network.

By the time the internet was mature enough to have a "boom" centered on it, the VCSY work was mature enough to deploy, thus VCSY work was made available to the market in 2000.

Microsoft had only been able to build a browser and was only then branching out to attempt to mature smaller experimental efforts. Thus, MSFT's work comes to the market in 2008.

From 2000 to present, VCSY has been able to further develop their work.

At the same time, MSFT struggled to come up to speed on web operating systems and web applications within a corporate culture that dismissed the internet as a valid platform for building anything more complex or robust than electronic magazines.

THAT cultural difference between MSFT design and VCSY design is what sets the stage for the power behind the VCSY patents.

Remember what happens in design/build. The designer considers the problem and comes up with A solution. That solution may or may not flesh out properly. Revisions of that solution or entirely new solutions attempt to address the newly met issues and often require further mods or remakes based on new issues that crop up.

It's just like writing and having to do repetitive drafts to come up with the most elegant form.

VCSy's inventors have been doing this process for decades. Microsoft has been doing this in a limited way decades later than the VCSy inventors made it through their most basic obstacles.

The trader simply needs to consider this fundamental difference to see the effect of MSFT's "internet is a fad" philosophy. VCSY was able to virtualize and arbitrate (I will go into more detail why these two concepts are central to breaking free of the "PC" OS) whilel MSFT was hell bent on keeping everything locked to the PC.

Some say MSFT has superior resources, but, resources is not the issue. Simplicity and elegance in response to all the various screw-ups and dead-ends encountered in the human design process is key.

(continued in next post)
Layman's view of VCSY issues Part 1b (Not rated) 8-Sep-07 12:05 pm
(continued from previous post)

If resources were the problem, the most critical issues could be solved more quickly by simply adding people and money. So what YOU do at work should be able to be done by 20 times that many people in 1/20th the time. We all know it doesn't work that way in design because each of the 20 times more resources will encounter the same sets of issues and come up with various ways to solve them. Without the collaboration tools to bring those issues and solutions to the front so the 20x resources can contemplate them as one mind, the result is not 20 years of collective experience but 20 one year experiences.

If MSFT could have done what VCSY can do, they would have done it back in 2003/2004 when they were high on XML and touting Longhorn and all the other parts and pieces to anyone who would listen. Instead, it all went into a vault and has STILL not seen the light of day. All that is STILL not on the market because MSFT is only now issuing test versions promising to deliver even more test versions in 2008.

Meanwhile, the record shows VCSY has been quietly working to mature the solutions that were available as products for sale in 2000 and 2001.

Big difference.

Based on information VCSY longs have found, after the dotcom boom went bust, taking VCSY's shareprice down, VCSy was quietly working with others to flesh out their philosophy.

In the next post (which will require some simplification and I won't have time to do until later this evening) I will explain HOW 521/744 are technically superior to anything MSFT or any other vendor's have built for network architecting.

Then, I will explain "virtual" and "arbitrary" so you may see why the VCSy method is fundamentally superior to anything MSFT or any other vendor's have built for building, operating and controlling networked applications.

Hope this helps. There will be more of
the real portuno
http://search.messages.yahoo.com/search?.mbintl=finance&q=portuno_diamo&action=Search&r=Huiz75WdCYfD_KCA2Dc-&within=author&within=tm