[WalterBright]

Yeah, I read your link about Microsoft v Novell, which is not the same as Microsoft v Netscape.

As for Microsoft warning people that Windows was not tested with DRDOS - so what? Why would they be obliged to test against DRDOS? Why would they be obliged to support Windows on DRDOS?

I remember in even earlier days PC clone BIOSes would contain the string: "some programs expect the string 'Copyright IBM' here". IBM was unable to stop the clones. Microsoft could not stop DRDOS from faking whatever detection mechanism their was, why didn't DRDOS do that? Why didn't DRDOS offer better deals to OEMs? Why didn't DRDOS offer their own Windows? Why didn't DRDOS offer a dos that was much better, rather than only slightly better?

And the "bullet in the head of dos extenders" was simply puffery, as I was directly involved in the dos extender business and no such thing happened. My dos extender made DOS into a viable 32 bit operating system - why didn't DRDOS come knocking and buy that? Microsoft had nothing like it.

In my not-so-humble opinion, DRDOS had many opportunities to counter, and they didn't. Microsoft didn't owe them any consideration. What Microsoft execs said isn't any more material than rah-rah locker room talk amongst a football team about them murdering the other team.