Microsoft Keeps Beating a Dead Browser
-
Purposely crippling the competitors product is a crime my dear.
They did NOT cripple competitors product, they made modifications to THEIR product so it wasnt compatiable with DRDOS.
And, if you look at the lawsuit by Caldera vs MS, it wasnt a CRIMINAL suit was it ? As a matter of fact, Calder bought DRDOS from Novel for the sole purpose of sueing Microsoft, since their Linux offering at the time had been atotal failure.
-
-
Honestly, so what ? why should MS make their product work with DRDOS ?I mean really, why should a buisness HELP the competition ?
I personally think what MS did was fine in that case....And yes I remember the whole issue, was a big money grab by a dyeing company.
This was the argument that IBM made when trying to stop Compaq from decoding the PC bios. Had Compaq not been successful, the PC would have stagnated under IBM. But because Compaq was able to re-engineer the IBM bios, the open PC platform exploded and we saw the price of PCs plumment as the technology got better.
The same with DOS. There were a few DOS clones out there and DR-DOS was not only cheaper, but they made some advances (i.e. OS file compression) that forced MS to do the same. Competition is good.
PhreePhly
-
This was the argument that IBM made when trying to stop Compaq from decoding the PC bios. Had Compaq not been successful, the PC would have stagnated under IBM. But because Compaq was able to re-engineer the IBM bios, the open PC platform exploded and we saw the price of PCs plumment as the technology got better.
The same with DOS. There were a few DOS clones out there and DR-DOS was not only cheaper, but they made some advances (i.e. OS file compression) that forced MS to do the same. Competition is good.
PhreePhly
And DRDOS is where now......
-
Wow Phree, that will take a long dive into the waywayback machine. But at the time i was developer of multi-user systems for CCPM and CDOS, as such i was pretty in touch with Digital Research. I even used to be a revendor for Europe at some time.
I do distinctly reading the proud article (and at the time it was impressive find encrypted code let alone decode encrypted code) by the techs at DR explaining in detail
with the disassembled parts from winloader how it worked.
If i remember well a new update of Win 3 was put out in no time, but DR-DOS had already gotten the bad press as a bad DOS and the damage was done.
This laid the basis for the feud between DR and MS.
-
-
And DRDOS is where now......
What does that matter? Again, I don't think MS did anything wrong, but the error message could have had an effect. Some beta testers may have seen the message as DR-DOS was not as compatable with MS-DOS as they thought, so they abandoned DR-DOS.
The check, however, did nothing to check compatability. All it did, as Petrossa stated, was check to see if the underlying DOS was MS-DOS, nothing more.
While I believe that this is fine during beta testing (having a controlled environment is your progative) if they truly caused the retail OS to blue-screen, that would be unethical. I don't think this was the case, so I have no issue with the code, but it most certainly does nothing to help MS's cause in fighting the monoply charge.
PhreePhly
-
![]()
Wow Phree, that will take a long dive into the waywayback machine. But at the time i was developer of multi-user systems for CCPM and CDOS, as such i was pretty in touch with Digital Research. I even used to be a revendor for Europe at some time.
I do distinctly reading the proud article (and at the time it was impressive find encrypted code let alone decode encrypted code) by the techs at DR explaining in detail
with the disassembled parts from winloader how it worked.
If i remember well a new update of Win 3 was put out in no time, but DR-DOS had already gotten the bad press as a bad DOS and the damage was done.
This laid the basis for the feud between DR and MS.
If DRDOS was such a hot product, then why did Novell sell it to caldera for a mere 400k ? Also is this the same DRDOS that violated the GPL ?
In October 2005, it was discovered that DR-DOS 8.1 included several utilities from FreeDOS and other sources and that the kernel was an outdated version of the Enhanced DR-DOS kernel. DR-DOS Inc. failed to comply with the GNU General Public License (GPL) by not crediting the FreeDOS utilities to their authors and including the source code.After complaints from FreeDOS developers (including the suggestion to provide the source code, and hence comply with the GPL), DR DOS Inc. instead pulled all 8.x versions from their website.
Like I said, DRDOS is where now ?
-
Alright guys, again, it is off topic.
Is IE dead or not?
That is the question.
~Lordbob
-
-
![]()
If DRDOS was such a hot product, then why did Novell sell it to caldera for a mere 400k ? Also is this the same DRDOS that violated the GPL ?
In October 2005, it was discovered that DR-DOS 8.1 included several utilities from
FreeDOS and other sources and that the kernel was an outdated version of the Enhanced DR-DOS kernel. DR-DOS Inc. failed to comply with the
GNU General Public License (GPL) by not crediting the FreeDOS utilities to their authors and including the source code.After complaints from FreeDOS developers (including the suggestion to provide the source code, and hence comply with the GPL), DR DOS Inc. instead pulled all 8.x versions from their website.
Like I said, DRDOS is where now ?
Come on, DOS was dead when Win95 arrived. While not completely dead, the headstone was being created. Windows was the de facto OS by then and Novell must have been happy to get 400k.
EDIT: To stay on topic, but IE is still NOT Dead!
Also, Novell was focused on Netware and that new fangled Linux.
That in no way shows that DR DOS was a bad product. In fact, it was very innovative, but the world moved to Windows.
PhreePhly
-
IE is dead as a dead thingie that's been dead for a very long time ( free adaptation of BlackAdder)
No seriously, IE works ok. It has it's bad and good points like all others. But if we're talking: is IE dead as a de facto standard browser, it's yes definitively
-
IE is dead as a dead thingie that's been dead for a very long time ( free adaptation of BlackAdder)
No seriously, IE works ok. It has it's bad and good points like all others. But if we're talking: is IE dead as a de facto standard browser, it's yes definitively
Actually, that's a pretty good point! Are we talking dead as a standard or dead as a product? If the former, yes and has been for a while. As far as the latter, nope, and won't be for a while.
I mean, W3C makes the standards, and the other browsers follow, except, the W3C begins the acceptance process only after 2 major platforms integrate the draft standard, but no one once to include a draft standard that will only change....
The whole process of standards is screwed up. Even the ACID tests are stupid. The percentage doesn't really mean anything, because the test scores linearly. If your renderer decodes in a different sequence, then your % passed changes.
PhreePhly
Quote