Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/31/08:30:17
Daniel P Hudson <afn03257 AT freenet3 DOT afn DOT org> wrote in article
<5cp4fl$evh AT huron DOT eel DOT ufl DOT edu>...
>No, it was that harmless. It said, clear as day, your OS is not
>MS-DOS, ergo we do not guarentee windows will run as stated, you need
>to ensure it is 100% MSDOS compatable. That sums it up to a T.
>Now, guess what? Some DOS's were not 100% MS-DOS compatable even though
>they claimed it. Novell DOS was never fully MS-DOS compatable, yet it
>said it was on the box. That, IMHO, is wrong and deserved a law suit,
>but it never happened. You see while warning someone isn't against the
>law, false advertising is. How come this injustice isn't in the daily
>discussion of usenet? Justice hasn't been served yet. Hmm, seems your
>theory is a little weak Weiqi.
OK Dan, get a cut of coffee, because you need to wake up a little bit.
Take a look into the ring: Here on the left side is the heavy weight from
Seattle, MS-DOS; And on the right side, from the home town of CP/M, is DR
DOS. They both are operating systems for the IBM PC.
Now tell me, who should be compatible with whom?
An DOS application (which Windows was at the time) have no business telling
the user which DOS they should use.
--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao AT crl DOT com
- Raw text -