Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Secure Boot, No ThanksSecure Boot, No ThanksPosted Jan 7, 2013 19:58 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Secure Boot, No Thanks by Wol Parent article: The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs
> Don't forget, it was PROVEN in court that Microsoft put a load of code into Windows ?98 whose sole purpose was to cause Netscape to crash.
That's a serious accusation. Can you prove it?
As far as I remember, it was proven that MS has put special hooks to make their applications work faster.
(Log in to post comments)
Secure Boot, No Thanks Posted Jan 7, 2013 20:57 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
In a different case, it was proven that Microsoft put in hooks to make windows not work when running on DR-DOS
These weren't 'hooks to make it work better on pure microsoft systems' they were tests to detect DR-DOS and fail.
Secure Boot, No Thanks Posted Jan 8, 2013 18:19 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
No, they were (insanely specific) tests to detect {MS|IBM}-DOS and fail if not found. It just so happens that there was only one DOS-compatible competitor to the {MS|IBM}-DOS hegemony... how convenient.
|
|||||||||||||