From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:10:57 GMT

khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
>In article <rdippold.719001794@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>
>>They're just using their position as "OS" provider to give them a
>>boost in their applications sales.  As far as Microsoft dirty tricks
>>go, this is pretty mild.

>If that is  the case in any substantial way, then perhaps you
>could point out a major Microsoft application that is so clearly superior
>to all competitors in speed and functionality? 

That doesn't follow.  An extra advantage won't necessarily make a
program better than its competitors.  It just helps.


>DOS is a leader because it has been the standard OS for intel-based
>personal computers for a long time.  Windows stands out because it is
>one-of-a-kind.  Someone else _could_ have made a great DOS
>pseudo-multitasking system and windowing system, but MS got there
>first.

Others have been there before, but they didn't have Microsoft's
staying power, dedication, and marketing applied to it.  GEM, PC-GEOS,
DesqView, etc.  There was a system out recently that would run on
8088s and was better than Windows except that it wouldn't run DOS
programs.  DesqView being the only one of those that was successful.
If you'll remember Windows 1.0 and 2.0, they were utter pieces of
trash, but Microsoft had the deep pockets to keep improving it.


>Is Word beating all competitors, in any incarnation?
>Is Excel?  Is any other of their DOS or Windows apps so much better than
>the best competition that one might think there was some unfair advantage?

Again, it doesn't follow.  Excel and Word are excellent programs.  How
much of that is due to being able to spend time on actually writing a
good program instead of finding ways to kludge around a major hole in
the API that actually has an invisible plug?


>Keep in mind that when DR-DOS 6.0 had problems with WIN 3.1, Microsoft
>sent them the info to help fix the problem.  They didn't have to.  It is not
>their product.  But they did (It was good business, not out of the goodness
>of their hearts).

Must be a couple versions of that story...


>Microsoft makes very good software.  They are very successful.  Why is it
>that so many people seem to think because they are successful they must be
>cheating?

Non sequitur.  Cheating won't make them successful, necessarily, and
just because they're successful doesn't mean they're cheating.
However, they have always made use of special calls, some of which are
very useful, which they haven't made available to outside developers,
and have even denied that these extra features ever existed.  Whether
or not you call that cheating is up to you.


>Every programmer friend of mine who has read about the
>so-called "special cheat functions" has expressed a lot of doubt that
>using them would amount to much of an advantage.  Microsoft has lot of
>competition, and some of them are doing just fine.  We are hardly in
>danger of stagnation at the moment.

Who said we were?  I just said they're using their position as OS
supplier to give them an extra boost.  Not all of those features are
useful for most applications, but when you need them you need them, or
spend quite a bit of time coming up with nasty workarounds.


>In fact, NT, OS/2, and the assorted flavors of user-friendlier(sort of)
>*nix will probably make the whole issue of undocumented calls in DOS and
>Windows pointless, in a couple of years.  New OSs = New programs!

Then it'll be undocumented calls in NT and OS/2.  They already exist
in OS/2, and they'll be there in NT, if only at the request of
internal applications developers.
-- 
The Spirit of 0x38
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc