Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

proudlyserving.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

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

#51

Post by rbanffy »

toast0 wrote: post #9
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).

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…

> I don't blame them for not building out other boot loader detection and integration.

It's not that they even try. Not even a little. Last time I installed Windows on real metal, it didn't even warn the other operating system would no longer boot. Microsoft probably has an internal policy to consider installing Windows is an upgrade.

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

#52

Post by digi_owl »

rbanffy wrote: post #49
mmahemoff wrote: post #45

The obligatory Joel post ... "Jon Ross, who wrote the original version of SimCity for Windows 3.x, told me that he accidentally left a bug in SimCity where he read memory that he had just freed. Yep. It worked fine on Windows 3.x, because the memory never went anywhere. Here's the amazing part: On beta versions of Windows 95, SimCity wasn't working in testing. Microsoft tracked down the bug and added specific code to…

Changing Windows to work with legacy software is easy to do when you are the unchallenged market leader. That wasn't the case when Lotus running on DOS was something Microsoft (and Lotus) would care about. In that era, Microsoft faced competition from multiple directions. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a decision to sabotage Lotus 123 on some version of DOS, specially if that sabotage could drive the move to Wi…

I think what MS did to take on Lotus was to outdo them by being able to read the file formats perfectly.

I seem to recall that after the MS Office file formats was documented as part of a MS-EU settlment, Joel pointed out how the Excel format carried at least two ways to do dates. One of them a replica of how Lotus 123 did it.

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

#53

Post by vram22 »

rilindo wrote: post #24

I been around IT long enough to know that this statement: "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" Was never a common saying. It is actually: "DOS ain't done till Lotus runs" I am not sure how it devolved to the current usage. I suspect it is probably started after the Microsoft-DOJ trials.

The test could work both ways, if you really think about it:

1. I vaguely remember hearing stuff like that long ago - e.g. "Lotus 1-2-3 used such low-level features of the OS (MS-DOS) and the hardware (PC) - for performance, that it would not work on PC clones that are close but not 100% compatible.

2. It could also have meant: MS-DOS clones and PC clones were different enough (even if just slightly, but in crucial ways) that Lotus would not work on clones.

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

#54

Post by fineman »

rilindo wrote: post #24

I been around IT long enough to know that this statement: "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" Was never a common saying. It is actually: "DOS ain't done till Lotus runs" I am not sure how it devolved to the current usage. I suspect it is probably started after the Microsoft-DOJ trials.

That's wrong. I started in that era and the saying was "till Lotus won't run" even back when it was fresh.

Microsoft also put misleading error messages in Win3.1 to sabotage DRI's DR DOS product. There are email snippets of the execs planning their strategy.

It's their standard operating procedure.

They fixed around SimCity because it didn't compete with any of their offerings.

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

#55

Post by code_sterling »

krylon wrote: post #38
code_sterling wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wouldn't recommend linux if your parents keep getting malware. Wipe the PC, and set yourself up as the admin. Create a base user account for your parents, and RDP in to their machine to install programs for them. Or get them to use a tablet. The other option is to set them up with a mac. If they stay within the App Store, they're pretty safe.

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

#56

Post by bluedino »

Retrospect is fun;

  When Transmeta unveiled their new CPU, it was the first
  time in a long time that a company that was not Intel
  finally admitted that if you're a CPU, and you want a
  zillion people to buy you, you gotta run x86 code. This
  after Hitachi, Motorola, IBM, MIPS, National
  Semiconductor, and who knows how many other companies
  deceived themselves into thinking that they had the
  right to invent a new instruction set.
Then along came ARM.

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

#58

Post by JadeNB »

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?

Can one only submit articles on topics in which one has professional experience?

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

#60

Post by MichaelGG »

Analemma_ wrote: post #31
mrspeaker wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never contributed to Mono because they didn't allow it if you had MS source code access. That was probably prudent, though should be OK now I'd guess.
Post reply on HN