OpenEuphoria

Re: Another IDE Bug!

• Posted by freeplay at mailandnews.com Aug 17, 2001
• 566 views

Hi Euman,

I know that MS made dozens of OEM'ed versions (Other Equipment
Manufacturer) of DOS and Windows 3.X (I have some ancient Dell OEM'ed
diskettes somewhere) but I thought (but I'm probably wrong) that Windows NT
4.0 was just a standard CD burn.  I've put Windows NT 4.0 on my (non-IBM)
PC from a CD with the following printed on the CD:

  Microsoft Windows NT Workstation
  Operating System Version 4.0
  For Distribution Only with a New PC
  Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Disc
  1-2 Processor Edition
  (c) 1985-1996 Microsoft
  Corporation.  All rights reserved.
  1096 Part No. 000-48303

I guess the important info is the Part Number stuff.  If your Win NT 4.0 CD
ROM is the same as mine then I can't explain why you can't install it on
your non-IBM system.  If your CD has different info on it them maybe you
have a "vendor locked" version which seems rather unfair.

Regards,

FP.  

At 16:57 16/08/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Interesting, I have an IBM and tried to use the Win NT 4
>installation CD on another non-IBM machine and because
>it's setup to read the BIOS the O/S wont install.
>
>Me thinks IBM's been burned meybe more than once.... 
>
>I personally have an issue with this because I bought the
>damn CD when I purchased my IBM Machine..
>
>Euman
>euman at bellsouth.net
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "George Walters" <gwalters at sc.rr.com>
>To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 14:08
>Subject: Re: Another IDE Bug!
>
>
>> 
>> That is quite interesting. Back in those days the Theos OS was around ( a
>> competitor to CP/M called OASIS) and Tim Wms also had a back door secret
>> code on OASIS. Do you think they expected ripoff's?? The story goes that
>> when IBM went looking for an OS for their PC they set up meetings with 3 of
>> the GRU's of the time, Bill, Tim, and one other I can't remember.  Bill was
>> the only one with the business sense to show up for the meeting. The
other's
>> did not. What a big mistake.....
>> 
>> ...george
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Irv Mullins" <irvm at ellijay.com>
>> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: Another IDE Bug!
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > On Friday 17 August 2001 11:01, president at insight-concepts.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >  C. K. Lester wrote:
>> > > >I think I'll switch to OS X on a PowerMac G4 (dual processor).
>> > > >Apparently
>> > > >those guys are not only fast, but they do the dishes and laundry.
>> > > >They also
>> > > >do Windows...
>> > >
>> > > A few years ago I would of agreed with you, but PC computers have
>> > > surpassed the MAC. If you wait a few more months, Windows XP will
>> > > finally be released. XP is th best thing Microsoft has developed
>> > > since DOS or Win95.
>> >
>> > Microsoft "developed" DOS?
>> > I don't think so.
>> > If someone wanted to be very diplomatic about it, one might use the
>> > word "appropriated".
>> >
>> > See http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html#dr
>> >
>> > Quote:
>> > 1982 - Digital Research sues Microsoft and IBM - Wins - . It was obvious
>> > MS-DOS and its PC-DOS variant were simply rip- offs of Digital Research's
>> > CP/M operating system. It remained only to prove it contained DR code.
>> DR's
>> > Gary Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret
>> code,
>> > got it to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice.
>> >
>> > It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the
>> right
>> > to clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but
used
>> > every other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non-
>> > disclosure agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.
>> >
>> > End Quote.
>> >
>> > This is just one of a long list of cases where Microsoft has been sued
for
>> > "appropriating" someone else's work (and lost). We don't often hear of
>> > these cases, because MS standard operating procedure is to pay off the
>> > loss and demand a gag order regarding the settlement terms.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Irv
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>