
DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005) - mindcrime
http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos_aint_done_t.html
======
mmahemoff
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 Windows 95 that looks for SimCity. If it finds SimCity running, it
runs the memory allocator in a special mode that doesn't free memory right
away. That's the kind of obsession with backward compatibility that made
people willing to upgrade to Windows 95."

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000054.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000054.html)

~~~
rbanffy
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 Windows and Excel.

In all fairness, that Microsoft (they seem to have somewhat improved, as their
power diminished) was known for not playing fair (something later demonstrated
in court):

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_in...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/)

So, forgive me if I take this piece of history with a grain of salt. I started
in this business at a time Microsoft made a BASIC interpreter and little more
and I have observed a lot myself.

~~~
digi_owl
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.

------
rilindo
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.

~~~
fineman
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.

------
mmastrac
While this article is dated, a more appropriate reference would be the
Windows/DR-DOS kerfuffle:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code)

~~~
berkeleynerd
This. It's damning. I was an attentive nerd when this and the Stacker scandal
went down and I was outraged. I've been a staunch open source advocate ever
since.

Microsoft's willingness to sabotage competitor's software is an established
fact.

"The AARD code was a segment of code in a beta release of Microsoft Windows
3.1 that would determine whether Windows was running on MS-DOS or PC DOS,
rather than a competing workalike such as DR-DOS, and would result in a
cryptic error message in the latter case."

"The rationale for the AARD code came to light when internal memos were
released during the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case in 1999.
Internal memos released by Microsoft revealed that the specific focus of these
tests was DR-DOS. At one point, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates sent a memo to a
number of employees, reading "You never sent me a response on the question of
what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run with
DR-DOS. Is there feature [sic] they have that might get in our way?"

~~~
yuhong
Yea, there was a reason why I mentioned DR-DOS when I was discussing the OS/2
2.0 fiasco.

------
shubhamjain
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 doesn't work in the current.

[1]:
[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795](http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795)

~~~
mrspeaker
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? ;)

~~~
Analemma_
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.

~~~
MichaelGG
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.

------
pjc50
See also the "Halloween Memos":
[http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070127202224...](http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070127202224445)

~~~
digi_owl
Deity i miss Gorklaw.

------
delonia
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).

~~~
toast0
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 doesn't work everyone says it
worked for me, etc.

~~~
anonbanker
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.

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

~~~
krylon
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.)

~~~
eropple
That other hand and its callbacks to anti-competitive behavior and whispers of
monopolies don't have much bearing on anything unless you are prepared to
substantiate exactly how this behavior impacts the market share of other
competitors. (I wish you luck on that very, very long row to hoe.)

Meanwhile, even that "good behaving" Linux distro will happily remove
Windows's boot record in favor of GRUB's, rendering the system reliant on a
component that breaks if you want to remove Linux (and most people are way
more likely to want to remove Linux than to remove Windows!). Hardly
neighborly behavior in and of itself. And yet, I'm still not seeing a reason
to cast aspersions on GRUB or Linux distros, nor am I seeing those twirly
mustachios on _their_ faces.

No OS gives much of a damn about anything else running on the computer. Claims
to the contrary are literally farcical and the pseudo-damages it could
theoretically cause to the easily bruised are silly.

~~~
krylon
> No OS gives much of a damn about anything else running on the computer.

Most Linux distros (the ones I have used, at least) will detect an existing
Windows installation and put a corresponding entry into GRUB's menu. Linux has
been able to access data on Windows partitions for many, many years.

I agree that the boot loader issue probably has at most negligible impact on
the adoption of Linux (or any other OS for that matter). I am just saying that
in light of Microsoft's history one may feel inclined to judge them
differently.

------
protomyth
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.

------
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.

~~~
oblio
You mean:

> Then along came smartphones.

Wasn't ARM a relative minor player before smartphones took over?

------
JadeNB
Is the "Well Known Microsoft Blogger" maybe Raymond Chen
([http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing))?
I can't seem to get to the archives on that site, so I don't know how long
it's been around, but he published a compilation in 2007, so might already
have been blogging in 2005.

------
chris_wot
Oh man, Andrew Orlowski? I remember that IE7 story, it was absolutely a beat-
up and it just confirmed for me he wasn't much of a reporter!

------
dalke
If this were true, then it should be easy to reproduce. It's not like the
software has disappeared.

Which versions of DOS broke compatibility with which versions of Lotus?

------
digi_owl
Ugh, first time i have really experienced what others have complained about.
the text really needs more contrast.

------
WorldWideWayne
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?

~~~
mindcrime
_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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10427499)

~~~
mgkimsal
you should highlight some grails. :)

------
wnevets
No one is going to let facts get in their way of an anti-microsoft circle
jerk.

