home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11726 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3691
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.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: <1993Jan05.213449.24716@microsoft.com>
- Date: 05 Jan 93 21:34:49 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <1993Jan04.073317.15131@microsoft.com> <1993Jan4.211423.1419@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1993Jan4.211423.1419@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
- >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
- >:
- >: Yes. Not all interfaces are documented. If some application
- >: is using one of those, it's clearly not covered by the functional
- >: specification. In this case, who's to say which product is more
- >: compatible? I suggest that it should be the original - the cloners
- >: have the responsibility of correcting their own product to match,
- >: or ignore the application in question.
- >
- >In other words, the only applications we can trust to run on MS-DOS
- >are those written by Microsoft? Is this what you are saying Phil?
- >
-
- Interesting interpretation. What I'm really saying is that
- the only applications that you can be 100% sure will run on
- MS-DOS are those that use only the documented APIs. Apparently
- some Microsoft applications don't fit into this category either.
-
- -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.
-