Talk:DR-DOS: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:25, 17 June 2004

"In the fall of 1991 Microsoft announced Windows 3.1 and made it clear that it would not run on DR-DOS. They also refused to give copies of the beta of 3.1 to Novell, who now owned DR-DOS. ~~At the same time they changed their licensing on DOS to charge for it on every machine companies sold, whether or not it was installed.~~"

Quite right, JulianD The above (which I have struck out) is nonsense. Tannin 07:25, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to check this, but I am pretty sure that the every-machine licencing scheme came a long time earlier than this, in fact I think it was there right from the start. Anyone have confirmation handy?

In 2002, DR-DOS was sold to a little company called DeviceLogics... DR-DOS was eventually sold to Lineo...

So which is it... I looked at drdos.com and it's a DeviceLogics page. -- JulianD 2004-06-17 1:09 am

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-''"In the fall of 1991 Microsoft announced Windows 3.1 and made it clear that it would not run on DR-DOS. They also refused to give copies of the beta of 3.1 to Novell, who now owned DR-DOS. At the same time they changed their licensing on DOS to charge for it on every machine companies sold, whether or not it was installed."''
+''"In the fall of 1991 Microsoft announced Windows 3.1 and made it clear that it would not run on DR-DOS. They also refused to give copies of the beta of 3.1 to Novell, who now owned DR-DOS. <strike>At the same time they changed their licensing on DOS to charge for it on every machine companies sold, whether or not it was installed.</strike>"''
+: Quite right, JulianD The above (which I have struck out) is nonsense. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 07:25, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 I'd have to check this, but I am pretty sure that the every-machine licencing scheme came a long time earlier than this, in fact I think it was there right from the start. Anyone have confirmation handy?