if they allowed it, then they had to support it... It was easier to prevent it then deal with the untold support calls because people didn't know what they were doing. Connecting machines by RS232 was never easy in the early days. I worked for Applied Microsystems and had to connect emulators to a variety of computer systems in the 80s and every one was a pain. Imagine IBM tech support dealing with that too.
As for Traveling Software, seeing how I worked for them for five years, I don't recall any buyout attempts from Microsoft. Traveling did go through hard times and it still around but not as they were back in the 90s. They could never get the LapLink name associated with Traveling Software and they finally changed the company name to LapLink. They made a great remote control product that was more reliable that PC Anywhere, but LapLink was a file transfer utility and the recognition as another form of product was never successful.
As for the last topic, my comment stands. I really don't care where MS gets stuff. They have unfortunately destroyed a lot of companies along the way by assimilation or outright destruction.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vintage Computer Festival <vcf_at_siconic.com>
Sent: Jan 6, 2005 3:05 PM
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Importing binary files without removable storage nor non-bundled software (was: TKermitFTP
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Steve Thatcher wrote:
> the only reason Microsoft would not add binary transfer capability as an
> integral part of early DOS is that the people that needed it were in a
> small minority. It made no business sense to include features that they
> believed that most people really didn't need. Later in DOS, they did
What? It seems to me they had to do more programming work to prevent
binary copying to the serial port.
> include a basic file transfer capability over a cable. Probably more out
> of pressure because people used products like LapLink and complained
> that they had to buy something instead of having it built in. It was
Actually, it was because Laplink showed there was a market for such a
product, and in true MS style they probably tried to buy LL, were
rebuffed, and then came up with their own (inferior) built-in version to
try to suck the life out of Traveling Software and make them go bankrupt.
It didn't work in this (rare) case.
> I have long held the concept that Microsoft has always been a 90%
> solution and the remaining 10% are the opportunities for outside
> companies.
More like 10% original work and 90% acquisitions/destruction-by-co-optation
of other companies.
(I sense the possibility of another thread of MS bashing coming on...)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
Received on Thu Jan 06 2005 - 14:45:37 GMT