Lukas Beeler wrote:
There's a difference between "i think it should work" and "we tested it".
Yes there is. But I see no reason why we would not be able to test our
products on V6 long before any of our customers need V6 compatibility.
As I recall, one or two fellow List members offered to assist us with
exactly that.
And as to "judging a company by what they did a long time ago," well, a
long time ago, Microsoft had the best implementations of BASIC available
anywhere at any price, and they put out a nice little operating system
for boxes using 8086-compatible processors. Their business model was
anything BUT "engulf-and-devour." Conversely, about that same time,
Apple was continuing to sell their 6502-based Apple II series (which
they'd marketed as being superior to Radio Shack's less expensive TRS-80
series, in spite of the fact that the Apple II was in fact inferior by
every measure of performance, as well as full of hacks), and they were
artificially inflating the prices of their new Macintosh systems (and
making things as difficult as possible for third-party developers
wanting to write Mac software) in order to keep the Apple IIs moving.
I own 2 Macintoshes. As well as 2 DOS notebooks, and what was (until the
hard drive crapped out) a DOS/Linux dual boot. And I just bought a new
built-to-order box that, once delivered, will also be configured as a
DOS/Linux dual boot. I don't own so much as a single WinDoze box of any
kind.
What Microsloth did at the beginning of the Win32 era wasn't an isolated
incident. It was part of a pattern of bloatware, attempts to drive
competitors with superior products out of business, and FUD, that had
begun before WinDoze 3.0 hit the market, and has continued ever since.
midrange.com
