There is no compelling reason for a split since large institutional investors have the capital to buy shares regardless of the price.

I have to give them credit. They are pioneers but are they leaders? And one might want to ask the question that isn't it true that pioneers die with arrows in their backs?

What Microsoft has to do, arguably, is find way to recreate itself. And unfortunately this process of recreation, if you will, potentially carries the risk with it of cannibalizing Microsoft's existing product offering.

It will be affected as far as the quarter is concerned, but you have to look at full year.

I would not be surprised to see sales in the second half of 1996 and sales in the first half of 1997 to be under pressure as a result of this finding.

For a full-year basis we're looking at sales basically being flat this year versus where they were last year. But we're still staying at a fairly high rate.

I do think from a cultural standpoint that Microsoft is not yet quite thinking in the way that they need to competitively.

They have put in place contingency plans for the year. They have sufficient inventories to not have it affect their market share.

I don't think they are going to split. Management has indicated that while they are a public company, they would like to run themselves as if they were a private company and you could argue that's a similar path as Berkshire.