Comment by mmooss

Comment by mmooss 8 days ago

> IIRC that code existed, but was commented out in the final build.

I've never heard that and IIRC, DR-DOS's owners sued successfully (or DoJ sued successfully). People certainly saw the errors.

canucker2016 8 days ago

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

    Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final release of Windows 3.1, but did not remove it so it could be later reactivated by the change of a single byte.

    DR DOS publisher Digital Research released a patch named "business update" in 1992 to bypass the AARD code.

Reply View 3 replies

mmooss 7 days ago

I don't take Wikipedia as gospel, but that doesn't say what happened with earlier versions of Windows. And regardless, how did DR-DOS sue them if they weren't affected?

Reply View | 2 replies
- canucker2016 6 days ago
  
  the check for dr-dos didn't exist except in that beta version of Windows. there were no media reports of dr-dos problems with windows before then. according to the wikipedia entry, the code was disabled but still shipped in windows.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  mmooss 6 days ago
  
  I think that repeats your GP comment? I have the same response - what are your subsequent thoughts?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies