3 ms·
> All Apple needed to do was to push an update which breaks the software. Windows 3.1 famously refused to run on top of Digital Research's DOS. > DR-DOS has p
by GeekyBear 4y ago
> All Apple needed to do was to push an update which breaks the software.
Windows 3.1 famously refused to run on top of Digital Research's DOS.
> DR-DOS has problems running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future." Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)"
https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/ https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_inc...
- Kwpolska 4y agoThe code used to enforce MS-DOS was disabled in the final release. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
- calgarymicro 4y agoTrue, but by then the damage was already done; as far as the software development community and tech-savvy public was concerned, per the beta releases, Windows 3.1 didn't run on DR-DOS. This hugely harmed sales, which is much of the reason why Microsoft eventually had to pay Caldera (the new owners) $280 million in a settlement.
- GeekyBear 4y agoAfter what they were doing was discovered, sure. > Beta testers of Windows found that if they were using DR-DOS, this was detected and false error messages were generated. Microsoft's encrypted code to disguise what it had done was unravelled by Geof Chappell in England, who commented at the time that "the only error' is that the user is running Windows with someone else's version of DOS." https://web.archive.org/web/20081005102243/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/600488.stm https://web.archive.org/web/20081005102243/http://news.bbc.c...