home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!philipla
- From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
- Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
- Message-ID: <1993Jan04.041856.10899@microsoft.com>
- Date: 04 Jan 93 04:18:56 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <8240@lib.tmc.edu> <1992Dec31.052018.5365@microsoft.com> <8288@lib.tmc.edu>
- Lines: 84
-
- In article <8288@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
- >In article <1992Dec31.052018.5365@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
- >> News flahs for you: Windows 3.1 is not the same as Windows 3.0.
- >>There were changes in the source code. One or more of those changes
- >>caused incompatibilities with DR-DOS.
- >
- >Duh.
-
- Come Jay, surely you can think of something wittier than that.
-
-
- >>If you want to show that
- >>your sinister plot exists, you need to show that something was
- >>_intentionally_ done to make it break on DR-DOS. You haven't
- >>done anything of the sort. More foundationless accusations.
- >
- >If DR-DOS conforms to all published interfaces to MS-DOS, and a new version of
- >Windows breaks when used with that same DOS, and the previous version worked
- >fine, and MS refuses to help fix the problem, then the conclusion that MS
- >intentionally made Windows quit working on DR-DOS is very hard to escape.
-
- I still contend that this line of "logic" is terminally flawed.
- Can you explain how you get from "Windows doesn't work with DR-DOS"
- to "Microsoft intentionally put code into Windows to make it
- not work with DR-DOS"?
-
-
- >> Windows applications help to sell Windows. DR-DOS does not.
- >>Seems pretty obvious to me.
- >
- >Windows helps to sell MS-DOS. DR-DOS does not. Seems pretty obvious to me.
-
- How does Windows help sell MS-DOS?
-
-
- >> Provide factual evidence of this malice.
- >
- >Good grief. YOu don't have it either for your side. You simply believe that MS
- >is the good guy.
-
- Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on the accuser.
- It's not my responsibility to prove Microsoft's innocence - it's
- your responsibility to prove their guilt. So far you haven't
- shown any evidence rooted in anything but your own mind.
-
-
- >Still, you haven't explained the OS/2 abandonment,
-
- Which "abandoment" do you mean? It would be incredibly
- poor business practice to stick with a sinking ship.
-
-
- > or the NT FUD,
-
- Again, please specify. I'll be happy to address it.
-
-
- >MS is trying very hard to attain 100% domination of the OS
- >market. You can deny that all you want, but it's still true, and you won't
-
- Oh, I won't deny it at all. In fact, I've pretty much explicitly
- stated that this _should_ be the goal of the company. It should
- be the goal of _any_ company.
-
-
- >convince me otherwise unless and until MS restores OS/2 support in its
- >software products
-
- Can you show me a sound business reason why Microsoft should
- continue to support OS/2 in any of its products?
-
-
- > and competes with it and DR-DOS technically instead of by
- >sleazeball tactics.
-
- There it is again - those "sleazeball tactics" that you have
- yet to substantiate. It's time to put up or shut up, Jay. Show
- me some evidence or admit that your accusations have no foundation
- whatsoever.
-
- -Phil
-
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Phil Lafornara 1 Microsoft Way
- philipla@microsoft.com Redmond, WA 98052-6399
- Note: Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
-