Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/28/10:46:26
> Might be possible, but he made it sound liek the OS would blow up the
> computer if it wasn't MS-DOS, all it does is warn, and truth be known,
> DR. DOS was never 100% MS-DOS compatable so the warning was called for.
> I never ran across any probelms under windows, but I only use windows,
> to this day, for filmanager and Works.
>
My understanding with DRDOS is that from v6 on there has been 100%
compatibility.
>
> Umm, that was for MS's liscence agreement that IBM had to pay money for
> every system sold whether MS-DOS was on it or not. Frankly, I thought
> this was dumb, IBM should have known better than to sign such a thing.
>
Actually, it wasn't IBM, but damn near ever clone maker on the planet.
You might want to read the info on Caldera's suit against ms. Has a lot
of good info in it.
> But let's point out a few point they don't harp about,
> 1. AT&T, the makers of this precious Unix OS at one time was ordered
> by the FCC to permit useage of thier long-ditance lines, until then
> they were essentially a monopoly. Anyone care? No? So why the fuss
> over MS?
>
Nobody cared until MCI was formed and tried to compete against them. When
AT&T raised it's boot to crush him, they found out that Mr. McGowan(?)
happened to be holding a really long nail, pretty close to vertical. ;)
> IBM and Intel have committed several violations, yet they never made the
> news, but MS puts a warning message in Windows and the World is
> making a mountain out of a mole hill.
IBM spent 20 years in the courts in anti-trust battles. (if memory serves,
1960-1981..?) I don't know about Intel...
> See the point? A legitimate complaint is one thing, but most of these
> people just do it to bitch.
Now THAT is a fact. ;)
g.
- Raw text -