Slashdot Mirror

'Waggener Edstrom, reported it would meet with "a lot of editors" regarding MS-DOS 5.0 in 1990, and: .. 'informally' plant the bug of FUD in their ears'

Caldera subpoenad a large number of Microsoft emails and the attitude displayed in them is just reprehensible. They didn't want to compete on merits, or provide a better product. They just wanted to win, regardless of their own merit in the marketplace.

Slight correction, It wasn't Windows 3.x, it was Windows 95. It was a big deal at the time because Microsoft jacked up the price of Windows from $40 to $80 (Since both were bundled together, they get to double the price, their logic, not mine). Obviously if Win95 ran on top of Dr. DOS, Microsoft couldn't double the price. This is why MS settled the case quietly, people would be pissed if they knew they were being forced to by software they didn't have to.

Link to case here:
Caldera News;

Enjoy,

No, I've never heard of CP/M; I'll look it up. Which I've just done, and although it may not exactly support MY standpoint, it in no way supports yours. http://www.maxframe.com/CPM.HTM has a quick synopsis.
What, then, is a "first mover"? According to http://searchcio.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid 19_gci509397,00.html , "In the business world, a first mover is a company that aims to gain an advantageous and perhaps insurmountable market position by being the first to establish itself in a given market."

Now, I'm the last person to assert that if a company, paradigm, orgamism, WHATEVER has an advantage, or even a HUGE advantage over its competitors, that it's ALWAYS going to be on top; "insurmountable" is never, or rarely, literally that. However, very few people are going to argue with Microsoft's huge dominance of software these days, or with Intel's position in microprocessors (embedded ones, too). You may argue with the fact that some of the companies in the list were actually not the VERY first to go into their respective markets (but some of them were!); however, as my links show, the companies were, in many cases, the first to popularize their technologies, and popularizing, whether through advertisement, word-of-mouth, or even by locking the market onto whatever "standard" you're working on is just as important as having a truly useful, innovative product (fortunately or unfortunately).

I apologize for the term "knee-jerk reaction" I used in my original posts, and realize that you have some good points. However, in your first post you gave no evidence to back up your "insight", which was, essentially, that the winners get to write the history books. I have the feeling that we'll not agree on these points, but thank goodness the internet is anonymous, eh? And truly, debates, even dumb ones, make life interesting. :)

You realize those strategies about pre-announcing vaporware to freeze markets are illegal too. note the vaporware lawsuits the company-pressently-called-SCO launched against MSFT for this strategy.

Yup! As someone else rightly pointed out DOS gained Unix bits in version 2 (which is the first version I was familiar with myself). Gary Kildall based CPM on DEC OS / History of DOS. That's the good thing about Slashdot is you can be completely wrong about something and there is usually someone else around with more knowledge than yourself in that area who can set the record straight. Sorry for any confusion caused due to my lack of knowledge on the history of CP/M!

It's fun to read Microsoft execs talking about their strategy of pre-announcements

Nathan Mhryvold (in discussing a threat from Sun Microsystems) sent the following memo to the Microsoft executive staff,...explaining why and how Microsoft could use preannouncement to crush the demand for a competitive product:
The purpose of announcing early like this is to freeze the market at the OEM and ISV level. In this respect it is JUST like the original Windows announcement. ...

Mhyrvold elsewhere explained at length how Microsoft killed VisiCorp with vaporware: Microsoft "preannounced Windows, signed up the major OEMs and showed a demo to freeze the market and prevent VisiOn from getting any momentum. It sure worked VisiOn died, VisiCorp died...

Consider the famous 'CALDERA INC.'S MEMORANDUM, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S "PRODUCT PREANNOUNCEMENT" CLAIMS"

• Nathan Mhryvold (in discussing a threat from Sun Microsystems) sent the following memo to the Microsoft executive staff, ,b>explaining why and how Microsoft could use preannouncement to crush the demand for a competitive product:

  The purpose of announcing early like this is to freeze the market at the OEM and ISV level. In this respect it is JUST like the original Windows announcement. ...

  Mhyrvold elsewhere explained at length how Microsoft killed VisiCorp with vaporware: Microsoft "preannounced Windows, signed up the major OEMs and showed a demo to freeze the market and prevent VisiOn from getting any momentum. It sure worked VisiOn died, VisiCorp died...

actually didnt ms skip the number 4 in version numbers for dos?

Nope, they shipped version 4.0 twice. The second version of 4.0 didn't really offer anything over 3.3 (and was really buggy), so most people just skipped from 3.3 to 5.0 (I still have the manuals :-)

You can see the timeline at the bottom of http://www.maxframe.com/HISZMSD.HTM. There is also a timeline at http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.htm

Since we are playing nostalgia, I should also mention that I used MS-Windows 1.0 once. I was really impressed that it had a Paint program, and went to save my work of art. In those days, standard file dialogs didn't exist (you had to wait till Windows 3.1 for them). It brought up a dialog with a textfield asking for the filename. I started typing, and then wondered how long a name it would let me enter. The answer is that it let me enter a really really long name - I mashed the keyboard until I got bored. I click OK, and the screen froze and the hard disk light blinked every 5 seconds or so. I eventually rebooted the machine to discover most of the root directory entries had gone. Ah, the joys of buffer overflows! A quick session with Norton Disk Doctor got them back. I didn't touch Windows 1 again, but was an avid user of Windows 286, and then 3.0 and onwards once Windows became more mainstream.

If Kildall signed a deal with IBM, it would have been Bill Gates who died in a bar fight.

> CP/M, which is surely as old, if not older, than UNIX.

Sorry, but CP/M was made in 1974. UNIX was started in 1969.

IBM subjected the operating system to an extensive quality-assurance program, reportedly found well over 300 bugs, and decided to rewrite the programs. This is why PC-DOS is copyrighted by both IBM and Microsoft.

IBM DOS was the only thing for sale where I was working, we didn't stock, carry or offer MS-DOS until the AT&T 6300 came out. We had never heard of MS-DOS before then. One of the drawbacks of working for a big corporation..

Anyway, you are right, here's the poop on DOS..

http://www.maxframe.com/HISZMSD.HTM
History of MS-DOS

By: Leven Antov

Development of MS-DOS and PC-DOS began in October 1980, when IBM began searching the market for an operating system for the yet-to-be-introduced IBM PC.

IBM had originally intended to use Digital Research's (actually, they had the somewhat pretentious name of "Intergalactic Digital Research" at the time) CP/M was then the industry standard operating system - you either ran a BASIC with disk functions, someone's proprietary OS, or CP/M.

Folklore reports various stories about the rift between DRI and IBM. The most popular story claims Gary Kildall or DRI snubbed the IBM executives by flying his airplane when the meeting was scheduled. Another story claims Kildall didn't want to release the source for CP/M to IBM, which would be odd, since they released it to other companies. One noted industry pundit claims Kildall's wife killed the deal by insisting on various contract changes. I suspect the deal was killed by the good ol' boy network. It's hard to imagine a couple of junior IBM executives giving up when ordered to a task as simple as licensing an operating system from a vendor. It wouldn't look good on their performance reports. It would be interesting to hear IBM's story...

IBM then talked to a small company called Microsoft. Microsoft was a language vendor. Bill Gates and Paul Allen had written Microsoft BASIC and were selling it on punched tape or disk to early PC hobbyists, which was probably a step up from the company's original name and goal - they were Traf-O-Data before, making car counters for highway departments.

Microsoft had no 8086 real operating system to sell, but quickly made a deal to license Seattle Computer Products' 86-DOS operating system, which had been written by Tim Paterson earlier in 1980 for use on that company's line of 8086, S100 bus micros. 86-DOS (also called QDOS, for Quick and Dirty Operating System) had been written as more or less a 16-bit version of CP/M, since Digital Research was showing no hurry in introducing CP/M-86. Paterson's DOS 1.0 was approximately 4000 lines of assembler source.

This code was quickly polished up and presented to IBM for evaluation. IBM found itself left with Microsoft's offering of "Microsoft Disk Operating System 1.0". An agreement was reached between the two, and IBM agreed to accept 86-DOS as the main operating system for their new PC. Microsoft purchased all rights to 86-DOS in July 1981, and "IBM Personal Computer DOS 1.0" was ready for the introduction of the IBM PC in October 1981. IBM subjected the operating system to an extensive quality-assurance program, reportedly found well over 300 bugs, and decided to rewrite the programs. This is why PC-DOS is copyrighted by both IBM and Microsoft.

It is sometimes amusing to reflect on the fact that the IBM PC was not originally intended to run MS-DOS. The target operating system at the end of the development was for a (not yet in existence) 8086 version of CP/M. On the other hand, when DOS was originally written the IBM PC did not yet exist! Although PC-DOS was bundled with the computer, Digital Research's CP/M-86 would probably have been the main operating system for the PC except for two things - Digital Research wanted $495 for CP/M-86 (considering PC-DOS was essentially free) and many software developers found it easier to port existing CP/M software to DOS than to the new version of CP/M. The IBM PC shipped without an operating system.

IBM didn't start bundling DOS until the second generation AT/339 came out. You could order one of three operating systems for your PC, assuming you popped for the optional disk drive and 64

Microsoft don't write software, they assimilate :)

Microsoft made their name through DOS - but did they write DOS? No, they bought Seattle Computer Products' 86-DOS operating system. Microsoft wrote Internet Explorer, right? Well, no, it was born out of code licensed from the Spyglass browser. Did they write SQL server? Nope - that was again developed with code licensed from Timeline.

Infact, whatever the latest bandwagon is, Microsoft buys out the competition? Instant messaging becomes in vogue? Microsoft buys an instant messaging developer. Holes in file security? Microsoft buys a XDegrees, a security specialist. Worried that Mac's can emulate Windows? Microsoft buys Connetix, the makers of Virtual PC. Microsoft worried about viruses negative effects on OS sales? Don't worry, Microsoft have just bought GeCAD, an AV vendor...

Only problem with that is CPM is now owned by Caldera. Just can't win eh?

Of course, IBM would be foolish to have allowed such a thing....

Oh no, IBM would never have made such a licensing mistake

Now, who owns CP/M?

Let's see...

CP/M was developed and marketed by DRI (Digital Research Inc.) DRI sold out to Novell. Novell sold all of DRI's stuff to Caldara.

From this link:
Caldera Inc. owns all trademark and copyright to CP/M

Now, what was the question?

Rebuttal: If by bastardize it you mean change it to suit their needs, the needs of their users, and make several big improvements - you are very right...

I am not certain where you are coming from, but it is an indisputable fact that Microsoft rarely (if ever) invents the technology that it markets. Back in the mid-90s, industry pundits used the term, "leveraging" to describe this behavior. Examples are, of necessity, numerous. Here are a few examples off the top of my head, that every computer hobbiest should know:

1) DOS and Windows both contain code originally written by Digital Research for CP/M. In fact, DOS is a CP/M clone, re-compiled for the 16-bit microcomputer.

"on July 24, 1996, Caldera Inc. filed a private Federal Antitrust Lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for alleged illegal activities and unfair practices in the marketing of MS-DOS and its successors, including Windows 95 and Windows 98, both of which are still Digital Research CP/M at their essential core. The lawsuit was settled out of court in January 2000 at which time Microsoft Corporation agreed to certain terms and paid certain funds to Caldera Inc."

CP/M: The First PC Operating System

2) Visual Basic was derived from the work of Alan Cooper (aka, "The Father of Visual Basic"), who had created a new Windows shell he called, "Tripod." Microsoft bought Tripod from Alan Cooper and code named it, "Ruby."

Why I am called "the Father of Visual Basic"

3) File compression had a rough birth into Microsoft's official OS distribution. Originally, Microsoft did not offer any data compression utilities, but several other companies did. One company, named, "Stac," lent their disk compression utility for Microsoft to evaluate. Microsoft included Stac's code in MS-DOS 6.0, but Stac sued, claiming that there was no licensing agreement for distribution (IBM also included Stac's code in PC-DOS, but they had a distribution license, and so were not sued). The two companies settled out of court. Microsoft initially pulled its disk compression software off the market, but then returned it after the settlement.

You see, the problem with your comment is that it's way too left-wing to ever be completely true

Left Wing or not, he is reasonably accurate.

while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software,

Stating that Microsoft has not invented the technology it markets is not the same thing as claiming that the quality of their product is poor.

which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues.

Considering that Microsoft had about a 15-year head start over Linux, you make a sad statement.

Actually in larger metropolitan areas Police helicopters are equipped with Steadicam style cameras and near military grade image recognition systems that once locked onto a vehicle will keep the camera tracked to it at all times. Older systems required manual reacquisition of the target after it passed under a bridge or similar obstruction, but many of the newest units are perfectly capable of doing this on their own. The D.C. area even has a U.K. like ground based video surveillance and tracking network.

What the military can provide is a larger number of high resolution imaging and tracking systems making it more likely that they will be in the right spot at the right time to be able to acquire the fleeing suspect's vehicle.

Still I would have expected it to be cheaper to borrow air units from Baltimore and other neighboring cities than to re-task surveillance aircraft from the military. The "sword vs scalpel" analogy is apt. The military is a very big stick and tends to be a bit cumbersome to communicate and interoperate with. Particularly when going through multiple levels of city, state, and national governing bodies.

But it is also likely that this is partly about the blame game. With military units involved the D.C. police department has some of the pressure and blame removed from its shoulders should this drag on too much longer. That is not to say that passing the buck is a primary goal of involving the military, but you can be certain that the benifit has been brought up by someone within the police department when they were discussing this idea.

That one who modded this post down as flamebait, obviously doesn't know the history.

Unfortunately, the Open Source Movement has shot itself in the foot by providing lots of alternative office solutions with non-interchangable file formats. One of the most well documented formats seems to be Open Office's new XML-based one. If Open Source Advocates agreed on a single format, then Microsoft could either be forced to use this format, or to provide filters. Without such an agreement, the only thing that can be asked for are 100% specifications of all Office formats, now and in the future -- this will be harder to verify since there would be no open source reference implementation.

One of the biggest threats to open source is open source itself. The fragmentation of different solutions makes migration hard or impossible.

Indeed. In fact, your quote of my original posting included the assertion that Microsoft has indeed has some practical uses.

And I will give Microsoft credit where it's due. Microsoft can be at least partially credited for standardizing the Intel x86 architecture, for one thing. IBM may have created it, but it was the clone makers selling it to run MS-DOS that standardized it. For sure, it was a dated kludge of an architecture even when it was introduced in 1981, but the fact that we don't have 18 different popular desktop platforms has terrifically simplified buying a computer. The adoption rate has been increased greatly as a result of Microsoft selling MS-DOS.

On the other hand, Microsoft did not invent Plug and Play. The Amiga had it in 1985, the Mac in 1984 and the TI-99/4 in 1979. They merely managed to make it work (sorta) on the Intel platform that IBM designed and they standardized.

Microsoft did not invent the Internet, did not invent TCP/IP, multitasking, multi-user operating systems, e-mail, etc. Hell, they didn't even invent MS-DOS.

So, what does Microsoft do well? Sell their products and implement standards. Not good standards, usually.

Like VHS winning over Beta, Microsoft usually pushes the technically inferior standard, of its own or someone else's creation. Just on sheer volume. And again, like VHS winning over Beta, a default operating system and platform sure makes it a lot easier to use your computer.

Anyone else here old enough to remember trying to mount DOS diskettes on an Amiga, or Amiga diskettes on a Mac, or Mac diskettes on a TI-99/4A? That's the only part of Microsoft which has been a blessing to the industry.

As with most other people who've got experience with more than one operating system (and, better still, several hardware and CPU platforms), I've seen enough variety of computers to know that Emperor Bill has no clothes.

VHS versus Beta? Beta's still very much alive, thank you. Consumers don't know quality, but TV stations sure do.

I've yet to meet anyone with any degree of experience in multiple operating systems who still feels positively about Microsoft. If all you've ever driven is Hyundais, I guess it's pretty hard to understand how someone could like a Plymouth Superbird or a Porsche 959.

And, lemme tell you, Windows 2000 makes a nice daily driver. Disposable, just like a shiny new Hyundai Sonata.

True. It's so much better to have similarly incompetent people actually managing to get online, contract every dread e-mail virus known to man, and then continue to pollute *my* webserver (paid for with *my* money) through *their* idiocy, right?

Really? In what market does Microsoft hold a monopoly? Operating systems? Browsers? Evil? Hardly. If someone is a monopoly that means that it has no competitors in the market in question; that is, if you have a product belonging to that market, you must have obtained it from the monopoly........Given the definition, does Microsoft hold a monopoly in any market? No. To disprove this, I need only examine my network ...

You must have not been alive when DOS was the only operating systerm. Microsoft was enough of monopoly to snuff out caldera's DRDOS. Evidently they felt guilty enough to pay 150 million for what they did This antitrust case is DejaVu all over again, They did this by introducing an incompatibility in DOS according to Undocumented DOS that had no technical reason whatsoever other than to break DRDOS compatibility with Windows 3.1/DOS. DRDOS had a real chance for market penetration - it's just that MS would not allow it to be installed by OEMs. More detail here

The proof is simple and direct. The conclusion is the only one possible. Microsoft holds no monopoly in any market.

The proof is simple and direct. You are wrong. Pull your head out of the sand. The world doesn't revolve around you and your 6 pc mini-network.