Do you really think that Windows 95's memory management was a "rip-off" of QEMM? And do you think that MS was offering non-OS software for free in its OS in order to cut the competition? If so, didn't they do it in DOS 6.22 (when the BOUGHT a memory manager)? Or did they just make a better mouse trap? So do you really think that it was *just* political clout (or lack thereof) that stopped QEMM?
I'm curious as to your thinking, so I'm trying to draw parallels to Netscape's case, which has turned out to have nothing to do with what the DOJ actually has gone after MS for. There are A LOT of people - some of them don't even work for MS - that don't think there's any case to be made here in the first place. Today's litigious society is what got MS into it's current crisis (along with Bill's insistence NOT to play politics). This environment didn't exist in '94. On the current case: I agree that MS didn't do this quite right - which is to say predatory. They could have quietly added Internet/WWW functionality into their OS's with out anyone noticing, including the DOJ. And they still could have sold Internet Explorer for $20 for other OS's. On it's face, there sounds like a parallel between the current situation & the memory management scenario you draw up. But not looking deeper gets something on YOUR face, & not a true "scandal." just my .02 ... At 09:34 AM 5/29/2002, Wes Owen wrote: >Qemm did not have the political clout to get the politicians involved or yes >I believe they would be. If any politician thinks he can gain a few votes >or dollars he would pick it up and talk about evil corporate America. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:30 AM >To: NT 2000 Discussions >Subject: RE: NT grrrrr backup > > >Joe, > >I like your point about Microsoft bundling software into the product would >encounter DOJ review. I wonder how far you can take this argument after all >do you remember all the memory management companies that were alive when >Windows 3.1 was around like Qemm, then in Windows 95 memory management was >included with the OS. In this day and age do you think MS would be in court >for doing such a thing? > >Paul > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Pochedley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 29 May 2002 13:23 >To: NT 2000 Discussions >Subject: RE: NT grrrrr backup > > >A robocopy script won't copy files that are in use. It'll work fine as long >as you're not trying to back up the OS and no users or applications have any >of the files open that you want to back up. > >Vanessa: NTBackup is a very basic utility. It does backups with limited >options as to where and how. If you want better functionality you're going >to need to spend some money. Take a look at the other various backup >programs available, many of them will allow you to back up to a remote disk. >If MS included a utility that did "everything" then the other backup vendors >would be out of business (at least out of the backup business) and the DOJ >would have another sword to hold over Microsoft's head.... > >Joe Pochedley >"I like deadlines," >cartoonist Scott Adams once said. >"I especially like the whooshing >sound they make as they fly by." === <Original thread omitted> === Todd C. Haugland === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Warning: dates in calendar are closer than they appear. ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
