Yeah, I read your link about Microsoft v Novell, which is not the same as Microsoft v Netscape.<p>As for Microsoft warning people that Windows was not tested with DRDOS - so what? Why would they be obliged to test against DRDOS? Why would they be obliged to support Windows on DRDOS?<p>I remember in even earlier days PC clone BIOSes would contain the string: &quot;some programs expect the string &#x27;Copyright IBM&#x27; here&quot;. IBM was unable to stop the clones. Microsoft could not stop DRDOS from faking whatever detection mechanism their was, why didn&#x27;t DRDOS do that? Why didn&#x27;t DRDOS offer better deals to OEMs? Why didn&#x27;t DRDOS offer their own Windows? Why didn&#x27;t DRDOS offer a dos that was much better, rather than only slightly better?<p>And the &quot;bullet in the head of dos extenders&quot; was simply puffery, as I was directly involved in the dos extender business and no such thing happened. My dos extender made DOS into a viable 32 bit operating system - why didn&#x27;t DRDOS come knocking and buy that? Microsoft had nothing like it.<p>In my not-so-humble opinion, DRDOS had many opportunities to counter, and they didn&#x27;t. Microsoft didn&#x27;t owe them any consideration. What Microsoft execs said isn&#x27;t any more material than rah-rah locker room talk amongst a football team about them murdering the other team.