DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005) • Hacker News Board

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#31

Post by Analemma_ » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

mrspeaker wrote: post #23

shubhamjain wrote: post #11

I recall story of leaked Win2k source code which was filled with profanity and ugly hacks. Surprising fact was how much effort was put in to make software suites work with windows [1]. Although these are ugly hacks but it is a general reminder that people who will buy the software won't see why some obscure bad pointer in MS Office is causing this but something that used to work perfectly fine in previous Windows doe…

It's so strange you mentioned the Win2K source leak - I was just thinking about this yesterday. I remember at the time there was warnings about it on Slashdot along the lines of "Don't download/read the source code, else you'll be 'tainted' and won't be able to commit code to Open Source projects!" Has it been long enough that I dare peek at it now? ;)

You're probably fine, unless you ever want to commit to ReactOS. From what I've heard, they're very serious about not letting anyone with exposure to Microsoft's code touch the project, because the clean-room implementation requirements are so strict.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#32

Post by eropple » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 4:55 PM UTC

anonbanker wrote: post #14

toast0 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's annoying, but it's not app compat. And dual-boot is pretty far outside the mainstream, I don't blame them for not building out other boot loader detection and integration. Other bootloaders change frequently, and windows install discs come out maybe every two years. It's better to have consistent behavior (windows install WILL wipe your MBR) than sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, and when it does…

it's so far out the mainstream, that people have been doing it regularly for 20 years now. Grub is old enough to attend Junior High. Lilo would be in grad school. they both have windows compatability. Microsoft not reciprocating is evidence of their intent.

FreeBSD used to (maybe still does?) clobber the boot loader too. Do they also have mustachios that they evilly twirl?

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#33

Post by WorldWideWayne » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

Looking at the submitter's background I don't see any professional experience with Microsoft tech. Maybe someone can explain it to me - I don't understand why a guy has avoided Microsoft for his entire career feels the need to dredge up a 10 year old article that talks about events from over 30 years ago.

Too much pro-Microsoft news for you? Honestly - what's your interest here?

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#34

Post by stephengillie » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

mrspeaker wrote: post #23

shubhamjain wrote: post #11

I recall story of leaked Win2k source code which was filled with profanity and ugly hacks. Surprising fact was how much effort was put in to make software suites work with windows [1]. Although these are ugly hacks but it is a general reminder that people who will buy the software won't see why some obscure bad pointer in MS Office is causing this but something that used to work perfectly fine in previous Windows doe…

It's so strange you mentioned the Win2K source leak - I was just thinking about this yesterday. I remember at the time there was warnings about it on Slashdot along the lines of "Don't download/read the source code, else you'll be 'tainted' and won't be able to commit code to Open Source projects!" Has it been long enough that I dare peek at it now? ;)

What's funny is Microsoft had some of the same ideology. The belief was nobody could look at Open Source code, or they risked applying the GPL to, like, Windows Vista. The fear was real, if unrealistic.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#35

Post by wvenable » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #28

yuhong wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't. You can still enable it in 32-bit Win10 I think.

16-bit compatibility only exists in the 32-bit version, no longer in the 64-bit one. Same as every x64 version since XP64.

This is because in 64-bit mode the CPU can no longer handle 16-bit code. It's all AMD's fault...

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#36

Post by krylon » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #32

anonbanker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's so far out the mainstream, that people have been doing it regularly for 20 years now. Grub is old enough to attend Junior High. Lilo would be in grad school. they both have windows compatability. Microsoft not reciprocating is evidence of their intent.

FreeBSD used to (maybe still does?) clobber the boot loader too. Do they also have mustachios that they evilly twirl?

On the other hand, Windows runs on 85 - 90 percent of desktop machines, whereas FreeBSD's market share on the desktop is probably below 1%. (This is not a judgement on FreeBSD's quality as a desktop system, I have used it myself for about two years and was very happy with it. But compared to Windows, its market share on the desktop is tiny.)

For better or worse, there is a difference between a system used by a tiny minority of people (again: on the desktop) and a system that practically has a monopoly on the (corporate) desktop and that is developed and sold by a company that has a history of anti-competitive behavior. (And to be fair, I get the impression that things have begun to change at Microsoft since Nadella became CEO. But that still does not erase history.)

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#37

Post by GPGPU » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

However, post-Jobs Apple is most definitely "OS X Ain't Don't 'til Microsoft Office Won't Run"

See: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2988941/software-productivity...

(It's been fixed over the past few days, with patches from both Microsoft and Apple.)

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#38

Post by krylon » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

code_sterling wrote: post #13

delonia wrote: post #3

The author of that article says "I know from personal experience that today [2005] Microsoft takes application compatibility very seriously". And if you want to install Windows on a computer that already has a Linux distribution installed (dual-boot), then Windows will replace the existing boot manager, making it really difficult to boot Linux. That thing used to happen then, and it still happens now (2015).

And it should. Seriously, there are are less than 2% of users using Linux on the Desktop. Now a fraction of these users dual boot. Microsoft is a business, and it's bad business to spend money you could be using to make your product better to ensure that you play nice with every possible bootloader out there.

Most people that are capable of installing Linux (or some other Unixoid system) are probably capable of reinstalling GRUB (at least with a little help from a search engine of their choice).

But if you try to get your parents to give Linux a try, because their laptop ends up infected with some virus every other month, this does not help.

Which makes me think: What about dual-booting two Windows installations? This is probably a very rare scenario, especially with virtualization, but what if I was developing, say, device drivers and wanted to check my driver works both on, say, Windows 7 and 8/8.1? Does the Windows installer put my other Windows installation in the boot menu automatically? (Honest question, I have never tried this and probably never will.)

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#39

Post by protomyth » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

I remember the phrase from back in the day, but never really paid attention to it. I do remember testing new PCs with Lotus 1-2-3 and Flight Simulator to prove they were actual compatibles that were going to work with all the software.

Re: DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)

#40

Post by mindcrime » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 5:41 PM UTC

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #33

Looking at the submitter's background I don't see any professional experience with Microsoft tech. Maybe someone can explain it to me - I don't understand why a guy has avoided Microsoft for his entire career feels the need to dredge up a 10 year old article that talks about events from over 30 years ago. Too much pro-Microsoft news for you? Honestly - what's your interest here?

I don't understand why a guy has avoided Microsoft for his entire career feels the need to dredge up a 10 year old article that talks about events from over 30 years ago. Too much pro-Microsoft news for you? Honestly - what's your interest here?

A comment[1] somebody made yesterday on the "Twitter apologizes" story reminded me of this. I think it's an important story regardless of your opinion on Microsoft specifically, exactly because it highlights the risk inherent in building something on top of a platform you don't control. I wanted to highlight that that particular bit of wisdom isn't exactly something new.

Looking at the submitter's background I don't see any professional experience with Microsoft tech.

FWIW, I have spent plenty of time working with Windows and DOS in my life, I just don't highlight it, because it isn't really relevant to what I do now. I also don't mention OS/2, AS/400, RPG, Visual Basic and a laundry list of other things I've worked with that now seem more or less irrelevant.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10427499