the DDJ article was a lot more thorough then anything else I was able to find. It doesn't randomly conclude some anti-MS crap, and instead actually explores WHAT was in the code, and also explains how it is not active in the retail.
A monopoly means that they control the market. If they did, I doubt users would have the option of running Linux.
There was nothing stopping people from continuing to use DR.DOS if it was the case that they were actually affected by a piece of code that was explicitly skipped in the retail release; they could simply return their copy of windows 3.1. The fact that they would instead work to get windows 3.1 working attests to the fact that even in the case that it was a purposeful move by MS (which it would have been, again- if the code was actually enabled) The fact is, Windows 3.1 may not have technically been a operating system, it was treated as one. So when users of DR DOS had to choose between continuing to use DR-DOS and opting for windows 3.1 (which ideally would not be a mutually exclusive decision) the fact that they chose to use windows says a lot.
I will now humour your claim that the code was "enabled" and activated for you. While this is impossible as I look at the dissassembly, I will humour you.
About what? well, consider that, at the time, Windows was NOT the only desktop environment. DesqView ran perfectly fine under DR-DOS, as did the many other similar desktop environments. If windows 3.1 refused to run on DR-DOS, why did those users not then turn to an alternate vendor?
OS/2 was released at that time as well. why did nobody turn to OS/2 rather then use windows 3.1?
If the people using DR-DOS chose a non-MS DOS, why could they not choose a Non-MS GUI?
It wasn't the "AARD" code that was the issue. It was not. it was the fact that users still had a choice to NOT use windows 3.1, and they opted to use it. How is this MS's fault?
Generally this type of restriction would be considered bad for business, as the above scenario would play out as described- people would simply use an alternative. The reason it didn't happen here is simply because while people claim to vouch for the little guy, it's the exact opposite when it comes to purchasing software. Many people I know are the type who say negative stuff about Microsoft, security related or otherwise, and yet they can't seem to put their mouse where their mouth is and actually run a Non-microsoft OS.
Sure, it's because they aren't familar with anything else. That's beside the point. Microsoft didn't force schools and businesses to use versions of windows, and many Linux alternatives can even do the job better if properly configured for free or for a small support contract if preferred. These alternatives are not obscure by any means, so why do people choose big bad microsoft? If they hate it so much, why do they use it?
It's a load of non-sense. people say one thing, and do another, make one claim, and back it up with another, and it's utterly ridiculous. If Microsoft "sucked" so badly, nobody would be using it. This has nothing to do with market penetration as it does with people being both clueless and not bothered enough to do anything. basically, if Microsoft was so awful, then that move would have bankrupted them. the fact is the users chose not to use DR-DOS and instead chose to use windows, how this is somehow all because if Microsoft's big bad tactics and not related to user choice which was the deciding factor beats me.
Consider for a moment a similar scenario.
Let's say, MS office would refuse to install if you had, say, any part of OpenOffice installed. What would happen? Well, most people have already decided to use OO instead of MSOffice when they install it, so nothing happens.
Now let's assume, say- that you couldn't install apache or MySQL on any of the windows server machines. what would happen there? It depends, people could buy and install SQL Server, or they could get a copy of Linux for free, and install apache on that. How exactly Microsoft forcing this decision on people is a bad thing beats me.
Yes. the code is not necessary. Yes it is extra stuff, and it is absolutely unnecessary, and Windows 3.1 runs fine on DR-DOS.
But heres the thing- as I said- the people who then dumped DR-DOS CHOSE to do so. it was not a forced decision. they could have, as I said, used an alternative compatible user interface. but they did not.
If people had largely done this, would Microsoft been under scrutiny? they would have done the exact same thing they had before, but punishing somebody for effect rather then cause seems a bit uninsightful to me.
An good summary:
Windows user when their PC freezes:
Stupid windows! always freezing! Microsoft is crap and sucks! Now I'll never get this report finished while I play music and burn a CD all at once!
Linux User:
Hmm, interesting, a kernel panic. must be a hardware problem. guess I shouldn't try to play music and burn CDs while I'm working on it
The difference in attitude is astounding and prolific. Something bad happens on a PC running windows? Somehow, it's Microsoft's fault. Any other PC and the cause is elsewhere.
