Oh my. rudedog, you've put another hole in the current revisionist history, but in the wrong direction! How confusing. Going back to the press, we have:
Although the Shumway retreat [April '94] marked the inception of Microsoft's browser development, Gates said the company supported Internet technologies compatible with the Web as early as 1991. J. Allard, a recruit fresh from Boston University, was assigned to develop a key Internet technology for a Microsoft product.
Shortly thereafter, efforts began to develop Winsock, a technology that made it easier to develop Windows applications for the Internet. Winsock was vital to the development of Windows browsers by a variety of early vendors.
"You can go back to 1991 and say we were doing really good stuff for the Internet," Gates said. "You can't criticize us on (Internet) transport (technology)." (from seattletimes.com )
Do you know the mysterious J. Allard? Why's he getting credit here? Was the stuff you talk about all behind Bill's back?
And if you want to wax historical a little more, maybe you could tell us something of what you know about OS/2 vs. Windows 3x development. I've been pushing the usual sardonic take that Microsoft botched OS/2 good, and by the time IBM straightened it out it was too late. I'll admit that may be unfair, but what's the real story? On line I heard was that the "DOS compatibility box" in OS/2 was out of control, over 1/2 the code or something like that. Windows was built directly on top of DOS, thus avoiding that problem, right? Any other big issues? Then, there's my other old question about why Windows 3x was pure 16 bit. (The Windows code, not the DOS code. With a lot of assembler in it too?) Was it really supposed to run on 286's, but way late? I know the 286 was supposed to have some botch going between real and protected mode, but that was fixed in the 386 wasn't it?
Oops, a lot of questions again, maybe you have a ref? To the other participants, rudedog has been (contrary to handle) politely answering many a barbed question from me in the other forum. By all indications a well informed guy. With interesting posts there and Tim Warren Hooker here, I was beginning to find the How High ... thread more enjoyable than this one, perish the though. I hope rudedog can stick around or pop in from time to time here, he seems to have good sources too. For the record, I'll point out his take on the "Netscape contractually banned from Compaq" line I've been abusing, in www2.techstocks.com . I got to pay more attention to Compaq, they're not just another box maker.
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. on the National Dyslexia Association, that reminds me of my old favorite, the agnostic dyslexic insomniac, but I will spare everyone a repeat of that. |
