From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Aug 6 7:39: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from jake.akitanet.co.uk (jake.akitanet.co.uk [212.1.130.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3804137B405 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 07:39:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wiggy@wopr.akitanet.co.uk) Received: from dsl-212-135-208-201.dsl.easynet.co.uk ([212.135.208.201] helo=wopr.akitanet.co.uk) by jake.akitanet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 15TlV9-0000eQ-00; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:37:04 +0100 Received: from wiggy by wopr.akitanet.co.uk with local (Exim 3.21 #2) id 15TlZh-0003iu-00; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:41:45 +0100 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:41:45 +0100 From: Paul Robinson To: j mckitrick Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How did the MSFT monopoly start? Message-ID: <20010806154145.A12140@jake.akitanet.co.uk> References: <20010806142544.A64348@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010806150653.C96762@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <20010806151305.B64348@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010806151305.B64348@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>; from jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:13:05PM +0100 X-Scanner: exiscan *15TlV9-0000eQ-00*$AK$OyjX4yxazm7QuoTwUIQpG.* Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Aug 6, j mckitrick wrote: > But couldn't you also get PC-DOS, Compaq-DOS, DR-DOS, etc? I remember Only after the IBM PC BIOS had been reverse engineered and clones were becoming available. > reading that at the DOS level, software (and firmware) were simple enough to > reverse engineer without much effort in comparison to today, where Windows > has thousands of calls in the API. Why did OEMs allow themselves to be put > in that position, when other DOS clone manufacturers would have gladly > offered more favorable licensing than MSFT did? Probably with price breaks. Reverse engineering and ensuring compatability (plus, probably having to pay licensing fees for some of the tech) would make the whole process more expensive for competitors than for MS itself. That would mean that MS would have been able to compete very well with very large bulk OEMs, and where the larger suppliers go (and thereby setting the standards) the smaller ones will follow. If you were an OEM, would you sell a "clone" if it cost more than what is perceived as the de facto industry standard with all the relevant branding? Also, don't forget, reverse engineering is legally 'grey'. I seem to remember various companies getting into trouble with IBM and MS over various issues around reverse engineering. -- Paul Robinson ,--------------------------------------- Technical Director @ Akita | A computer lets you make more mistakes PO Box 604, Manchester, M60 3PR | than any other invention with the T: +44 (0) 161 228 6388 (F:6389)| possible exceptions of handguns and | Tequila - Mitch Ratcliffe `----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message