From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:27:51 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan04.041856.10899@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     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"?

Because MS has quite a bit to gain and very little to lose by doing so.
Besides, If it weren't intentional, MS would have helped to fix the problem,
and in fact would have at least let DR test 3.1 with DR-DOS 6 on the same
basis as any other developer. After all, not doing so runs the risk of having
the folks who use and love DR-DOS not go out and buy Windows.

>>Windows helps to sell MS-DOS. DR-DOS does not. Seems pretty obvious to me.
>     How does Windows help sell MS-DOS?

1) Because Windows requires a copy of DOS...
2) If Windows only works with MS-DOS, then at least some folks who want to use
Windows will go out and buy MS-DOS.

>    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.

Let me into MS' files, and I will. Until then, I can only go on the external
evidence of MS' actions. That evidence leads me to this conclusion. You choose
not to accept that evidence. That's your right, but don't accuse me of not
providing any.

>>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.

You know damned well what abandonment I mean: MS has completely abandoned its
customers who believed it when it said that OS/2 was its strategic direction.

It's incredibly sleazy business practice to load everyone on a ship, then
declare it to be sinking, and turn around from your custom-made lifeboat and
put torpedoes into the side.

>     Again, please specify.  I'll be happy to address it.

Why? I have, and so far you've completely failed to.

>>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?

You mean like keeping faith with its customers? Like trying to compete
legitimately in the OS/2 software market, and getting at least some business
from those who have chosen to stick with what MS said was its strategic
direction?

>> 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.

Oh, good grief. I have put up, here, repeatedly. You have chosen to ignore
that. ARE YOU TOO GODDAMNED STOOPID (tm) to recognize when someone posts
something you don't like, that you shoud respond instead of acting like it
never was posted in the first place? Or is there a version of PETE.EXE
filtering all news into microsoft.com?

>				-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.


-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy