Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rob Landley <landley@webofficenow.com>]

On Friday 29 June 2001 15:11, Clayton, Mark wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Fulghum [mailto:paulkf@microgate.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:02 PM
> > To: Pavel Machek; landley@webofficenow.com; Schilling, Richard;
> > hps@intermeta.de; Henning P. Schmiedehausen;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
> >
> > > Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> > > 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
> > > Pavel
> >
> > NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.
>
> I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement.  I remember
> impatiently waiting for its arrival.  What a disappointment it turned
> out to be.
>
> Mark


I already answered this on the comphist list, but I've gotten in the habit of 
trimming linux-kernel from the replies.

NT 3.1 was the first release version to ship, but there had been a "beta 1" 
in late 1992 and a "beta 2" in 1993.  (This is why I said I needed my 
notebook. :)

NT 3.1 was obviously numbered that due to the success of Windows 3.1.  It 
didn't fool anybody, of course.  But it DID manage to confuse things enough 
to delay the release of Windows 4.0 (nee 95) for about two years while they 
tried to shoehorn NT into the consumer space...

http://www.jwntug.or.jp/misc/japanization/history.html

The dos death march:

Dos 1.0 they didn't mean to do until the CP/M deal fell through.

DOS 2.0 was documented as being a transitional product until the PC could run 
Xenix.

Dos 4.0 was going to be replaced by OS/2.

Dos 6 was going to be replaced by NT. 
Dos 7 (in windows 95) was the absolutely last version ever, swear on a stack 
of printouts.

Windows 98 tried to avoid mentioning the word "dos".

Bill Gates' evil sidekick winnie-me (You can just see him, shaved head, 
pinkie in corner of mouth, "I shall call it...") tried very hard to hide the 
presence of dos, actively denying access to command.com wherever possible.

What kind of odds are Lloyds of London giving on the presence of DOS in 
Windows XP at this point?  Just curious...

And any FURTHER discusson of this belongs on:

http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/penguicon-comphist

Really.

Rob