From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 04 Jan 93 04:18:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

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.