Slashdot Mirror

Apocryphal. In fact, Lotus PC-clones that shipped with DOS were considered unpurchasable/unstockable if Lotus failed to run.

Now, by the early 90's Lotus was no longer the killer app. But, I would check out wikipedia's article on how vital Lotus was. Here's an article quoting the Lotus team refuting it.

It's not a morality question -- Lotus was more popular and not having Lotus would have doomed DOS more than not being available on DOS would have hurt Lotus.

DOS ain't done till 1-2-3 won't run.

It wasn't just DOS, although that was its stronghold. There were also versions available for: Unix, Macintosh, Windows, and OS/2.

Hmm, didn't know this though: Lotus 1-2-3 : "The charting/graphing routines were written in Forth by Jeremy Sagan (son of Carl Sagan)"

I believe that reference to Forth should be, "the fabulous Forth language."

While you're busy looking up stuff the old timers lived through, you may want to check out an oldfag meme: "DOS/Windows (depending on the time frame) ain't done until Lotus won't run"

Can you give a single real example of that actually happening?

Pre-empting some of the commonly regurgitated stories, AARD code was only shipped in a beta version of Windows, and "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" is a myth with no substance whatsoever.

Remember the saying "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run"?

The one that Lotus guys themselves said was BS? Yes, I do.

If you really want to bring something up, start with AARD code - at least that actually shipped (in a beta version of Windows).

The old classic phrase from the 80's is the major example: "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run."

Read Raymond Chen's blog to see how ludicrous this idea is. Microsoft put a lot of effort into backwards compatibility, often at the expense of good design. This slogan is complete nonsense: Lotus 1-2-3 was the killer app for MS DOS and if they'd shipped a version where it didn't work then it would have been commercial suicide. Lotus was on the beta program for DOS and bugs that prevented 1-2-3 from working were considered show-stoppers for new DOS versions.

That was an epic fail.

• It's "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run". Note that it scans and rhymes (more or less).
• And it's not true anyway.

But you did get a consolation Troll mod. Well done!

Except, for once, MS is innocent. They did many nasty things, no question, but that Lotus thing is probably a myth.

Take yourself a little less seriously for 5 minutes, and try to come up with a credible scenario in which MS can fuck ARM over. Remember for those 5 minutes that TFA refers to CPU architectures. Try to resist MS-bashing just long enough to stay on topic..

In any case, let me address a bit of that garbage you spewed:

1. Regarding your point about Lotus. Read here to be disabused of this myth/dogma: http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos_aint_done_t.html Or here if you prefer: http://slashdot.org/articles/05/08/02/2219208.shtml?tid=109&tid=1
2. "Vice president of Intel, Steven McGeady..." -- whatever. It's just words..
3. You don't think Active-X was simply a plugin architecture? Why do you suppose other browsers have plugin architectures? All of them are trying to break compatibility with each other???
4. "Microsoft put pressure on AOL to make its IM networks ** interoperable ** with competing instant messaging services, an outcome that eroded AOL's market leadership." What exactly are you complaining about here???
5. Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support in Microsoft Office, citing fears of EEE." And this is proof that MS is evil? Adobe disallowed something, therefore MS is evil??
6. "A decade after the original Netscape-related antitrust suit, the web browser company Opera Software filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the European Union" Find me a 100% standards-complaint browser, I'll show you a software maker who has a right to complain. Opera and Safari do a better job than most, but nobody is 100% compliant.
7. Spreadsheet non-conformance with ODF standards" -- ODF 1.0 and 1.1 do not support formulas. The result? All ODF spreadsheet implementations are application dependant. See here for detials. Note MS's complete transparency in the implementation process.
8. "Apple Inc., Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software formed the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group to create open standards. Microsoft has so far refused to join." See here: (Chris Wilson of Microsoft was invited but did not join, citing the lack of a patent policy to ensure all specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis.) - What, again, was your objection?? Also note - WHATWG was formed to accelerate standards creation - not to avoid browser war incompatibilities as you claim.

That leaves you with 2 out 10. It's still pretty damning, but it's even more damning that 8 out of 10 of your accusations have no basis. So I repeat, stop taking yourself so seriously. Try seeing past the dogma for 5 mins, so you can respond with something related to the article itself rather than this off-topic drivel.

You're too young to remember "The job's not done 'til Lotus won't run." Microsoft apparently would make minor changes in MS-DOS and early versions of Windows so that Lotus 1-2-3 (the most popular spreadsheet of the era) wouldn't work right.

The "Lotus myth" was debunked a long time ago, and the story even made it to Slashdot.

If you actually want a real example of that, it would be the story of deliberate incompatibility of Windows (3.1 beta, specifically) with DR-DOS, due to a number of specific checks - the AARD code. Which, I agree, wasn't nice at all - especially as the associated emails clearly show it to be a deliberate anticompetitive measure - but it's a very different thing, as the issue there wasn't Microsoft OS doing something deliberate to prevent third party software from working, but rather Microsoft software doing something deliberate to prevent itself from working on a third-party OS. It should also be noted that AARD code didn't make it into the final 3.1 release.

It's also fairly ancient (1994) piece of history, so its relevance when comparing to 2009 Apple tactics is questionable.

It sounds like Apple is learning from the urban legend version of Microsoft. Except they're doing it for real.

Back in the day when Lotus was king and Excel was buggy crap (the opposite of today), MS's motto was "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run."

Stop spreading this bullshit, asshole.

You quote it wrongly, and the quote is a myth: DOS Ain't Done til Lotus Won't Run?

Apple provides an API for other developers to use, Palm chose not to use it, and Apple doesn't have to care about that.

Microsoft paid a reported $75,000 for what became DOS 1.0.

Here's a history that seems accurate: A Short History of MS-DOS. See also Origins of MS-DOS.

See Myths About Microsoft. Quote: "... Microsoft gains some of its market share by shady back-room deals and by threatening and intimidating its own customers."

I'm afraid that's just a myth.

From that link "Another Lotus veteran summed it up: "MS was cooperative and wanted to be cooperative. They wanted to sell OSs." So if anything, DOS wasn't done until Lotus DID run". This is from Mitch Kapor and other members of the Lotus 1-2-3 team.

"Windows ain't done 'till Lotus won't run!"

Link: http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos_aint_done_t.html

"Windows ain't done until Lotus don't run" was proven to be a load of bollocks years ago.

Ok, I called your bluff. I actually went and searched for it.

The VERY top link is this slashdot article which states:

"We've all heard the story of Microsoft's battle cry of "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run". Adam Barr investigates the myth, interviewing various Microsoft and Lotus old-timers (including Mitch Kapor), and finds no basis for its legitimacy or any case of 1-2-3 actually not running. Whom to blame for Lotus Notes is not discussed."

I checked the next few links and they pretty much all pointed to the same article, namely this one. One site even described it as a "complete and utter annihilation of the myth".

I actually thought you were disagreeing with me, but now I see you were pointing out that people have been claiming the same thing for years and it was just as unfounded then as it is now. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.

A cute phrase and an oft-repeated anecdote, but according to people at Lotus, it's completely false.

It's amazing how well they are papering over this-- they even say it is a slashdot thing when it was in fact said DURING Dos 3.0 period historically.

Good discussion here.
http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos_aint_done_t.html

As far as the Certification cheating API thing... a google link turns up this...

Slashdot | RTF Vs. OOXML
In fact, look up how it went down for Word95 and Windows 98. Word violated the api standards but was given the "approved" mark anyway. ...
slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/03/1347236 - 119k - Cached - Similar pages

Please read this article: DOS Ain't Done Till Lotus Won't Run. It does a good job of debunking this myth. So does common sense. Why would Microsoft make an OS where a product used by the lion's share of users won't run anymore?

In fact, until the Vista release, Microsoft has had an insane commitment toward backwards compatibility. Read some of the horror stories from Raymond Chen's blog. You'll hear about how the core Windows 95 code was modified so that a bug in SimCity could be side-stepped. You'll read about how Excel developers purposefully added buggy behavior to Excel so that it would make the same mistakes as Lotus 1-2-3!

Granted, today Microsoft appears to be less in tune with this mantra of backwards compatibility. Joel Spolsky has a passionate diatribe on this matter: How Microsoft Lost the API War. Personally, I think that Microsoft is going to be just fine long term. They make great developer products, have a huge install base, tons of cash in the bank, and some very smart people at key positions in the company.

Everybody loves to trot out that phrase, but it's a complete myth.. Let me quote the relevant part of that link:

I first asked Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus, and his quote was "I've heard the stories over the years, but I don't have any specific recollection that there was a devious silent break of the kind you mentioned. I also have a bad memory." Kapor was kind enough to put me in touch with some old Lotus people he knew. And they all corroborated the story: "It's an interesting myth, and one I've heard about in general terms, although I've never heard the specific quote before. However, I have no recollection of any instance of its actually happening with 1-2-3 or with any other product I've worked on." And, "My memory of the early days (1984-85) is that we would get early betas of DOS to test with 1-2-3 and any errors that we found were 'bugs' in DOS and fixed by Microsoft.

Since when is Windows copy/paste functionality consistent? I never, under any circumstances use drag and drop. Sometimes it copies the files, sometimes it moves them, sometimes it creates shortcuts. You never know. Whenever you copy or paste text from a website into a document or between documents, emails, etc, Office always transfers all of the fonts and formatting with the text, instead of just the text which is usually what you want. Yes, I know about paste special, but half the time it is greyed out or not available, and you have to use Notepad paste. Then, there is that annoying clipboard toolbar that is supposed to manage multiple clipboards but just gets in the way

As for installation, I once wanted to reinstall Office, but couldn't remove the old version because I didn't have the original CD used to install it. I had an Office CD, but apparently it wasn't the same one used to install it. Since when to you need the CD to remove software? Some of the Microsoft installation screens don't have an install button at all. Instead, they have cancel button where the install button would be. The actual install button is at the top of the screen with a picture of a computer or something that looks more like a billboard graphic than an install button. I have to explain to everyone (including IT professionals) where it is, it is so counterintuitive. I'll take Synaptic, YAST, or CNR any day over this.

Why on earth is this absolute rubbish modded insightful, when it is complete and utter bullshit? If you're so sure of the accuracy of your post, please back it up with some proof. I have some proof that shows that your post is a load of crap:

Please read this link: http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html

Lotus 1-2-3 was one of the main reasons people were buying MS-DOS based computers. Lotus was _the_ killer app for the PC back in the day. A more accurate quote would rather be: 'DOS aint done until Lotus 1-2-3 runs 100%'. Microsoft developers worked closely with Lotus developers to get incompatibilities and bugs fixed.

Hopefully the mods will read the link as well, so that bullshit like this doesnt get modded up in future.

God, when will people stop reciting this absolute rubbish as if it were true?

Lotus 1-2-3 was one of the main reasons people were buying MS-DOS based computers. Lotus was _the_ killer app for the PC back in the day. A more accurate quote would rather be: 'DOS aint done until Lotus 1-2-3 runs 100%'. Microsoft developers worked closely with Lotus developers to get incompatibilities and bugs fixed.

Please read this link: http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html

And for a more detailed explaination of the AARD code, you can read these links:

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/0 8/12/213681.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/0 8/13/214338.aspx

Do you actually have any proof to support your "DOS ain't done till Lotus wont run" claim? That's just about as widespread, and just as unproven as the " who would ever need more than 640KB of ram" crap that gets repeated here over and over again.

If you bothered to google your quote, you'd come up with http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html which has quotes from both microsoft and lotus dispelling that myth, and http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/0 8/12/213681.aspx explaining why windows 3 did the check for incompatible DOS installations.

As someone has already pointed out above, the "DOS aint done" myth was already exposed right here on /.

Slashdot needs a -1, Factually incorrect mod.

Actually you got it wrong - its "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus runs".

http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html

Which is really the reason why Windows is so buggy and unstable - they have/had to support all the OLD bugs and undefined behaviors exploited by other software vendors. You can't really sell another version of Windows if say, Adobe Acrobat, doesn't run anymore - even if its Adobe's fault!

Here is what I found so far...

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/microso ft/microsoft.pdf
http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/03/dis liking_micro.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/special/microsoft/
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1995.E2.80. 9399:_foray_into_the_Internet_and_other_venues
http://uk-linux.news-view.co.uk/topic-6268.html

Unfortunately, I didn't find a comprehensive timeline of Microsoft's misdeeds.

I did google it. This apparently well-researched story includes confirmation from several Lotus insiders that thethis is an urban myth. Lotus was perhaps Microsoft's most important customers. Why woudl they sabatoge their product? It just doesn't make sense. http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html

BTW, I suggest you read this. http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html

This isn't true. MS might be guilty of many things, but they've always been very serious about maintaining application compatibility across OS versions.

Microsoft Employees themselves are saying that open office formats (at least partially, or for old versions) are a good thing. Others are saying they want to quit soon. Note that this open revolt against their management is being spearheaded by the mysterious Mini-Microsoft.

Will these attitudes finally change MSFT from the bottom up, or just get these guys fired? I suspect the latter, but hey, we live in interesting times...

Microsoft, since they percieve Google to be a threat are very likely going to make this Dekstop thing break. It's happened many times before and you know it will happen again. This tried and true Microsoft Tactic(tm) could result in extra work for the Google programmers who wrote this app.

Prove it. People on Slashdot love claiming that MS has intentionally broken competitor's applications on Windows or DOS, but nobody is ever able to produce a single shred of actual evidence to support this claim. Sorry, but just because the claim is repeated thousands of times in a Google search result doesn't make it true.

In fact, it has been fairly well debunked for years now... yet people continue to cite it as proof of MS' evil empire.

Give it a rest.

If they did this, they might be able to port to other OSes and possibly provide an avenue for people to exit the Windows fold and go with a GNU/Linux/Google Desktop distribution.

When will you, and the rest of Slashdot, realize that basically nobody cares about other operating systems. Google writes applications to add value to their services and they want to expose it to the largest possible user base with the least effort. This means Windows. Period.

Most people don't WANT to exit the Windows fold, despite your self delusions. Most people are pretty happy with Windows, and the minority that aren't are probably satisfied enough to stick with it because of how widely used and supported it is.

You seem to have this idea that the millions of Windows users out there are just crying out for an escape path. Hate to break it to you, but that's just not the case.

Seems to me that you think Google is heading in the wrong direction because it's opposite to the one you've obviously chosen.

Read Lee's post or my post for more opinion.

- adam

So... a Microsoft employee talks to other Microsoft employees and finds Microsoft innocent of a long-standing allegation.

Welcome zealot! RTFP - unless you want to make sure you don't get a fact in the way of your bias...

"I first asked Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus, and his quote was "I've heard the stories over the years, but I don't have any specific recollection that there was a devious silent break of the kind you mentioned. I also have a bad memory." Kapor was kind enough to put me in touch with some old Lotus people he knew. And they all corroborated the story: "It's an interesting myth, and one I've heard about in general terms, although I've never heard the specific quote before. However, I have no recollection of any instance of its actually happening with 1-2-3 or with any other product I've worked on." And, "My memory of the early days (1984-85) is that we would get early betas of DOS to test with 1-2-3 and any errors that we found were 'bugs' in DOS and fixed by Microsoft." - quote in context

- adam

Since then I have found that same SFWA warnings that someone has posted and this article, which highlights a lot of the problems facing POD and self publishers:
1. Bookstores won't order books that they cannot return. POD's mantra is NO INVENTORY, so they will not take the books back.
2. Reviewers will not review POD or self published works, because they want a pre-release copy to review before the book comes onto the market.
3. Some distributors do strange things (like making the stores have the books on backorder) with POD books, which make the titles even more unattractive to book stores.

One POD publisher that the article mentions is Superior Books. For several years they have tried to merge the old way of publishing with the way of the future (POD). Offering free publishing, selective acceptance, delayed releases to make reviewers happy, and more. However, they have all but given up. Now they will only refer a good author to a literary agent or publish niche non-fiction (perhaps my ESL book would work here).

I will look at small presses which specialize in fantasy and adolescent literature and try to get an agent (which are all but unheard of here in Sweden for authors).

Even in Seattle you have to lie about working for Microsoft... I have lost TWO girls at parties because they asked me where I worked, and I said MS. Say what you want about the benefits or the long hours - It's the cockblocking that drives me nuts.

Now, there isn't exactly a shortage of people who don't immediately run away when they learn who you work for, but I think it's a bit like introducing yourself as an Enron exec - a large percentage of the public is pissed off at you for something. Could be antitrust, could be Clippy, could be job-envy.

If you want a pretty good insider viewpoint, read Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters , and the Microsoft Interview Page, and you'll have a pretty good idea what the experience is.

If only...

- adam

[This is an excerpt from chapter 2 of my book.]

"Waterloo is considered the premier engineering school in Canada, and is most famous for its co-op program, in which students alternate school trimesters with work trimesters for five years. By the time they graduate, students have accumulated six different four-month work assignments. Some students wind up spending three or four of these co-op terms as Microsoft interns and then hire on full-time when they graduate. "Co-op" and "intern" mean the same thing in this case--one is the Waterloo term and one is the Microsoft term--but because of how the Waterloo schedule works, Waterloo co-ops will show up for Microsoft internships not only during the summer, but also from January to April and September to December.

Waterloo students have a reputation at Microsoft for being the crème de la crème among interns. In fact, for a while Waterloo interns were given special email addresses. While interns from all other schools had email addresses that started with "t-" (to visually distinguish them from full-time employees), Waterloo interns were given the unique prefix "w-". In the world of Microsoft that was high status indeed. Having grown up in Canada and knowing many people who went to Waterloo, I will state that there is nothing particularly magical about Waterloo students. Waterloo certainly does attract some of the best engineering students from all across Canada, but the admission standards are unquestionably lower than at the Ivy League universities, MIT and other top U.S. schools. Waterloo does a fine job of educating its students, but the curriculum is the same standard engineering courses offered elsewhere.

Despite this, Microsoft will happily turn down honors graduates from top U.S. schools, while drooling over Waterloo students. Why is this? It is because of the co-op program. But what is it about the co-op program? First of all, let's separate the students who did co-op terms at Microsoft, and lump them together with students from other universities who did internships at Microsoft. Those students are treated differently from others interviewing--Microsoft does recognize previous work experience at Microsoft as a valid input to the hiring process. One of the main goals of the whole internship program is to conduct extended, real-world evaluations for future full-time employment. If you have worked as an intern at Microsoft in the past and gotten good reviews from your boss, that is considered prima facie evidence that you will do well as a full-time employee and will factor into your interview after college. In fact it may become harder and harder for others to get full-time jobs at Microsoft, because hiring former interns carries so much less uncertainty.

But what about the students who have not interned at Microsoft before? Microsoft interviewers love to hear about specific tasks that were worked on by the candidate, with clear goals and results. Waterloo co-op jobs are great for this, so they give the students much more to talk about during interviews. This gives the Waterloo students a huge advantage over those from other schools, without indicating that they are likely to do any better once they are hired. The real ability they have is the ability to interview well at Microsoft.

I once asked a former Microsoft recruiter what she thought about Waterloo. Her first instinctive reaction was "a top school for technical candidates." But after thinking about it for a bit, she commented, "Outside of Microsoft, I've never heard of Waterloo."

Microsoft used to have a very bad attitude towards universities in general, viewing them merely as (imperfect) training grounds for students. Graduate degrees, with the exception of MBAs, were viewed as a waste of time. One senior manager, discussing recruiting students who were considering graduate school instead of Microsoft, once said, "We fully know how bogus [graduate school] is." This has improved recently (Microsoft now gives grants to schools without trying to dictate exactly what the money will be used for), but the bias against theoretical work and in favor of applied work still remains. Trying to figure out the relevance of a school project during an interview is hard--it is too dissimilar from the work done at Microsoft. Much easier to discuss co-op terms with a Waterloo candidate, and much less risk to recommend "hire" on one. So the myth of Waterloo persists."

It would be more accurate to say Microsoft bought Softimage for unclear reasons, tried to Microsoftify it to some extent, decided it wasn't really worth owning, and found Avid as an exit strategy. Softimage was completely owned by Microsoft, and the decision on what to do with Softimage was made by Microsoft.

So how are things up there in the tundra...is Marche Michel still around?!?

- adam

Hence used CD shops all around the world.

What's different about software is that you agree to the EULA before you open or install the software.

The real question is whether or not that EULA is even a valid agreement, since it attempts to nullify certain rights the courts have traditionally upheld, such as First Sale doctrine.

In a similar note, I remember reading about IBM getting into Anti-Trust trouble back in the 70's because they would NEVER sell their software or hardware. You HAD to lease it from them, meaning they never transferred ownership of anything to you.

Of course, from a corporate standpoint this makes perfect sense. Economically, a firm will always maximize profits if it only leases (either rights of use or whatever) it's products and services. My question is why no one ever thought to bring this up in the Microsoft case.

IBM was forced by the courts to sell products and software if they were also going to lease them. Of course, they continue to do both, but it's interesting that this was the focus of one of the most successful anti-trust cases in our nation's history, and yet somehow the DOJ missed it in the Microsoft Case.

Anyone have any ideas on how this doctrine has held up in the courts and how it might affect the future of Software as Services???

BJ Hoffpauir
Sr. Systems Architect
Time Trend, Inc.

www.timetrend.com

PS - I read about the IBM issue in "Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters" - a great book!!!
http://www.proudlyserving.com/

Paul Boutin | professional journalist, amateur search engine optimization consultant

Funny enough I was just reading about the author and some of his columns: here's some links

columns
home page
comments posted at kur5shin.org
stories posted to kuro5hin.org. one i like is where he talked about NT's TCP/IP stack history and why it's not from BSD
He's no MS shrill he was the one a while back proposed that we use the XBox as a cheap web farm

anyway interesting stuff.

-Jon

Funny enough I was just reading about the author and some of his columns: here's some links

columns
home page
comments posted at kur5shin.org
stories posted to kuro5hin.org. one i like is where he talked about NT's TCP/IP stack history and why it's not from BSD
He's no MS shrill he was the one a while back proposed that we use the XBox as a cheap web farm

anyway interesting stuff.

-Jon

Funny enough I was just reading about the author and some of his columns: here's some links

columns
home page
comments posted at kur5shin.org
stories posted to kuro5hin.org. one i like is where he talked about NT's TCP/IP stack history and why it's not from BSD
He's no MS shrill he was the one a while back proposed that we use the XBox as a cheap web farm

anyway interesting stuff.

-Jon

I have to applaud your open-mindedness after years of Microsoft bashing...I heartily agree, since a lot of what you say in this essay is what I say in chapter 13 of my book. - adam