Text 15781, 184 rader
Skriven 2007-01-31 18:55:58 av mike (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Content protection
==============================
From: mike <mike@barkto.com>



http://www.barkto.com/canopus/oct1995/512261.txt

-+-
Here's the most recent instance that I could find in my archives:

==========================


 #: 15693 S15/Open Forum
    04-Aug-91  04:54:35
 Sb: #Win undocumented calls
 Fm: Jerry Parrish/Microsoft 70473,2536
 To: Brian Jongekryg 76327,1433

Brian,

Several weeks ago, we had a discussion about MS apps' use of undocumented OS
APIs.  I stated that MS apps do not use these calls, and you provided a couple
of examples where they do.  I promised to talk to the folks over in the Apps
group about this and get back to you (and anyone else who is interested).  Here
is the story...

I was wrong.  MS apps do use a few undoc'd calls.  The position of the apps
group is that their mission is to create great apps. They will do what it
takes, within limits of legality and good business sense, to do that.  If that
means using undoc'd calls, just like other ISVs, they will do that.

I made a concerted effort to point out that even though there is nothing
illegal about MS apps using undoc'd calls, it is probably not a good business
practice because it suggests that our apps receive some sort of favorable
tratement, but I wasn't able to convince them.  They pointed out some instances
where MS changed OS/2 to help Lotus with 123/G, but that is somewhat tangential
in my mind.  Like everyone at MS, they are very focused on our own products,
sometimes to the detriment of other MS products.  And they feel that if other
apps are using undoc'd calls, they will be at a disadvantage if they don't.

Anyway, I apologize for speaking out of school and for being wrong.

I'm sure this posting will generate some responses.  I will be out of town much
of next week, but will try to respond when I return.


========================

I do not know which version of Windows it applies to.

 /m
-+-


  /m



On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:30:58 +0000, Adam
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"@the field.near the bridge"> wrote:

>Don Hills wrote:
>> In article <45ba323e@w3.nls.net>, "Rich" <@> wrote:
>>>   If you read it you didn't understand it or are purposely pretending
>>> not to.  Oh well.  Believe what you want.  The rest of the world isn't
>>> affected by what you want to believe.
>>
>> The rest of the world is indeed not affected by the Microsoft FAQ.
>> They prefer to listen to people like Peter. Feel free to say that Microsoft
>> is right and everyone else is wrong. We'll lend that just as much credence
>> as we have to every other time Microsoft has said that.
>>
>
>I'm sure the truth will out in a few years as the result of some law
>suit or other e.g. the early/mid nineties stuff such as:
>
>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070127202224445
>
>e.g.
>
>"Dennis Adler to bradsi and davidcol:
>
>    You never address the issues Schulman raised in his mail. You
>continue to say, "There was no advantage to MS in using these APIs." Get
>real. You mean to tell me that the Word & Excel teams put in a bunch of
>API calls that they do not think would help them in a particular area? I
>hope not!
>
>    There is even one case (QCWin) where the "documented" use for the
>API SetMessageQueue enables QCWin to wait until the app it is debugging
>has a msg queue in place before sending it messages; this is clearly
>advantageous....
>
>    Stop trying to pretend that we did not do this to gain a competitive
>advantage, however slight. If that is not why these programmers used the
>undoc'd APIs in there [sic] code, then give me a plausable explanation
>for why they did.... truthful would be nice too. "
>
>& then
>
>"71. During the development of Windows 95, Microsoft's executives
>schemed to integrate the browsing functions into Windows 95 in a manner
>designed to cause the maximum possible damage to competitors. ... For
>instance, Microsoft intentionally made the use of any browsing
>technology other than Microsoft's browser a "jolting experience" for its
>own Windows customers, solely to create the false impression that other
>browsers were not effective. ...
>
>72. As a result of Microsoft's integration of the browsing functions
>into Windows, ISVs needed documentation of the browsing extensions to
>design their applications to perform the most basic file management
>functions. Microsoft initially documented the browsing extensions in the
>beta releases of Windows 95 and otherwise appeared to cooperate with
>ISVs in developing applications for release with Windows 95....
>
>73. Microsoft "evangelized" the benefits of using the browsing
>extensions. In the early stages of developing WordPerfect for Windows
>95, Novell thus devoted significant resources to ensuring compatibility
>with and otherwise exploiting the benefits of Windows' integrated
>browsing functions. Further, as encouraged by Microsoft, Novell expended
>additional resources to expand upon the extensions, providing still
>greater functionality for its own customers and potentially for other
>ISVs and their customers. ....
>
>74. In an e-mail dated October 3, 1994, however, Bill Gates ordered his
>top executives to retract the documentation of the browsing extensions,
>but only until Microsoft's own developers of the Office suite of
>applications had sufficient time to work with the hidden extensions to
>build an insurmountable advantage over competitors such as WordPerfect.
>Gates further explained that without this advantage, Office could not
>compete with the major ISVs.
>
>75. In public test versions of Windows 95 released a few months before
>the final product shipped to consumers, ripped out these programming
>interfaces without warning to Novell. After Microsoft withdrew the
>documentation of the browsing extensions, Novell was suddenly unable to
>provide basic file management functions in WordPerfect; in many
>instances, a user literally could not open a document he previously
>created and saved. Indeed, WordPerfect could no longer use the functions
>that Novell had innovated atop the extensions, while Microsoft Word
>could still take advantage of such innovations.
>
>76. When Novell asked Microsoft why it removed the Explorer interfaces
>and browsing extensions, Microsoft claimed that it did not have the time
>and resources to complete their development. But in fact, the Explorer
>interfaces and browsing extensions had been complete and functional
>before Microsoft removed them. ...
>
>77. Thereafter, when Microsoft released Windows 95 and Office 95, at
>virtually the same time, Microsoft suddenly reversed course and
>documented the programming interfaces. Doing so voided the alternatives
>that Microsoft previously forced Novell to expend an entire year
>developing and, at the precise moment when WordPerfect needed to enter
>the market, forced Novell to spend additional time designing basic
>functions of WordPerfect all over again. . . .
>
>83. In addition to withholding technical information, Microsoft created
>and controlled new "industry" standards and established unjustified
>certification requirements to delay the release of Novell's applications
>and to impair their performance for Novell's customers.
>
>"
>
>"88. Seeing that Microsoft's anticompetitive acts would ensure the
>demise of OpenDoc, ISVs were left with no choice but to adopt
>Microsoft's proprietary OLE protocol as the de facto industry standard
>for linking and embedding. Even after making OLE the industry standard,
>however, Microsoft still withheld specifications and final, debugged
>versions of OLE until after Microsoft released its competing
>applications. Microsoft's anticompetitive acts concerning OLE further
>increased the "time-to-market" lead that Microsoft's office productivity
>applications unlawfully achieved over Novell's applications."
>
>
>etc.etc
>
>most of which was dismissed By MS & it's spokespeople....now.....
>
>So MS telling the world one thing while doing another is SOP.
>
>Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)