From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 05 Jan 93 21:24:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <8299@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.043019.11266@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <8292@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor exhibits
>>>identical performance to an Intel processor's documented behavior, you _are_
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Intel compatible.
>>   Umm, yes.  Is your rebuttal to my statement to merely state
>>the converse?
>
>No; read it again, especially the word I highlighted.
>Your claim is tantamount to saying that something is not Intel compatible
>unless it duplicates ALL of the target machine's behavior exactly, documented
>or otherwise.

    OK - I understand your statement now.  Let me pose a question:

If a function of the Intel processor was undocumented, but was being
used by a number of applications, and the clone processors didn't
support that function, are they still 100% Intel compatible?  And,
who should be responsible for fixing the problem:  The cloner,
Intel, or the applications writers?


>>>By default, then, MS-DOS' published API qualifies,
>>    Why are you qualified to determine what the default functional
>>specification is?
>
>So propose another one. Remember that functional specs are there so that the
>behavior of whatever is being specified can be fully understood, enough for
>someone else to program from them.

     This assumes that MS-DOS is an open system.  I don't believe
that it is.


> If you think that MS is not required to do
>so, just remember that IBM was forced to do so by the federal government
>during the IBM antitrust case, and what was good for IBM is just as good for
>MS.

    Which case was this?


>>> especially since MS will
>>>tell you every time you turn around that that's all a programmer should
>>>use...never mind that MS breaks that rule regularly...
>>     Doesn't sound like a rule - sounds like a suggestion.
>
>MS tells everyone else that undocumented interfaces are not guaranteed to
>remain working, and that they reserve the right to change them at any time, or
>remove them entirely. They then go on to say that those interfaces should not
>be used.

    Exactly true.


> Of course, MS can go ahead and use those interfaces themselves, and
>will get advance warning when they're going away so that they can have
>something ready and waiting.

     No foundation.


>Maybe it's a suggestion; that's all programming rules are anyway. The fact
>remains that MS gets an unfair competitive advantage from doing so.

     No foundation.


>>    Yup.  But Microsoft doesn't say that all future Microsoft systems
>>products will rely only on the published MS-DOS APIs.  Never said
>>it.
>
>...in other words, they expect everyone else to stick to the published APIs,
>but they don't have to. Yup. Really fair.

     I didn't say that, Jay.  I said "all future Microsoft _systems_
products", which includes Windows, MS-DOS 6, Windows NT, etc. etc.


>>    Jay, these "rules" that you're so fond of quoting - can you
>>tell me where they are published?  Put up or shut up, Jay.
>
>Look at any Microsoft programming manual. Right where they say that
>undocumented interfaces should not be used.

    That's still not a rule.


>>     You have yet to show evidence that Microsoft did anything to
>>intentionally break DR-DOS.  Put up or shut up, Jay.
>
>I _can't_.

    Thank you for finally admitting it.

				-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.