[curun1r]

> but to be blunt: you are simply incorrect.

OMG...are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? This isn't exactly controversial stuff I'm talking about. There was a lawsuit and Be is very much on the record about Microsoft's tactics.

The lawsuit: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microso...

Gassée's email: http://techrights.org/2008/08/19/oem-tactics-beos/

> ...assemble their own machines...

Do you even understand what OEM means? It has nothing to do with user-assembled machines. Yes, the minority of people who built their own systems could avoid the Windows tax. If you want to talk about a rounding error, that's basically the definition. We're talking the full systems that had Windows pre-installed. In order to not violate their OEM licenses with Microsoft, the only way those vendors could ship BoOS pre-installed was to dual boot with windows and give users absolutely no indication that BeOS was installed.

Get your facts straight before you start calling people names.

[Turing_Machine]

"Yes, the minority of people who built their own systems could avoid the Windows tax. "

Which almost exactly overlapped the number of people who wanted to run Linux, or had even heard of it.

As noted above, BeOS didn't even RUN on Intel during the time in question. Gassée bet his company on persuading Apple to adopt BeOS as the new Mac OS.

He lost.

[curun1r]

Ignores citations supporting the point he's arguing against? Check. Fails to provide citations supporting his own argument? Check. Excerpts individual lines of a comment to argue against a point that wasn't being made. Check.

Congratulation, sir, I humbly admit to being trolled. With a little improvement, you might convince me you're human and pass your eponymous test.

Anyways, I'm done arguing events and facts I experienced first hand with someone so intent on ignoring what actually happened.