[Gllug] Barbican website - accessibility issues

[Mike Brodbelt]

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:03, Jason Clifford wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2002, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> 
> > > No, actually it was IBM who did that. MS just bought an OS for the 
> > > platform and marketed it agressively.
> > 
> > IBM would never have allowed MS to retain contro of the OS if they'd
> > realised the PC was going to take off the way it did.
> 
> IBM had no choice. They were subject to heavy anti-monopoly measures.
> 
> Also they had already lost control of the platform by the time MS gained 
> total dominance over the x86 platform as IBM had already permitted other 
> companies to use the technology to create clones. It was the explosion of 
> clone PCs that reduced the hardware costs.

Yes, but the software was a driver for clone sales. Microsoft's smartest
move at the time was retaining rights to DOS so they could sell it to
clone makers separately from their deal with IBM, and agressive "per
processor" deals that made sure every clone shipped with a copy of DOS. 

This of course, hasn't changed one whit in 20 years. It was bad enough
then, but far worse now the competitors have been killed.
 
> > Indeed. Lotus would work on anything where DOS ran though, again
> > liberating the purchaser to choose from many suppliers for the hardware.
> > You didn't have to buy your PC from IBM, but you did (effectively, I do
> > know about DR DOS and similar) have to buy Microsoft's OS.
> 
> Only after DOS 3.3 or so. Up until then there were other choices. DR DOS 
> had started to take off in a big way shortly after then but MS cut the 
> spokes from their wheels by altering Windows 3.1 so that it would not work 
> with DR DOS.

The DR-DOS case was one area where I think Microsoft showed a lack of
ethics even more profound than their normal morally bankrupt business
methods. The detection code in question was known as the AARD code, and
was not present in retail or OEM version of Windows 3.1. It was present
in certain drivers, and in pre-release betas of Windows 3.1, which were
pretty widespread. Details of the AARD code's operation are at:-

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geoffch/editorial/aard/firstpublic.htm

The author of that page was called upon to testify in the then Caldera
case against Microsoft.
 
> > IBM had no option to demand licensing fees.
> 
> They had patent, design and trade secret rights. Look at every other 
> platform to see how clones were simply not allowed witbout the payment of 
> exhorbitant licensing fees..

I've always been led to believe that IBM had no such rights, and that
this was precisely what made the PC clone industry different from others
- anyone could join the party. As far as I am aware, the BIOS was the
only area where they might have had a claim, and they only had copyright
protection on it, nothing else. The architecture implemented by the BIOS
was a published standard, and Compaq spent $1 million having it reverse
engineered (by Phoenix, from what Tet says). The entire point of this
effort was to avoid any lawsuits from IBM. Had they had patent and trade
secret rights, reverse engineering the BIOS would have been pointless -
they'd have got sued anyway.

Mike.




-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug