GW> As Mary was actually working on the source, I'll go with what she wrote.
  > It's just that, so far, I can't track down the archive to check it out
  > :-(.

LA>   I suspect what you will come up with is that HPFS was written by
LA>   MS, and the 386 extensions were started at MS and rewritten
LA>   entirely at IBM.

GW> What you say here doesn't tally with the explicit statement you first
  > gave (in the first paragraph) that HPFS386 was totally developed by IBM.

   I don't always make the exactly correct choice of words, but the 
   basic thrust was that MS no longer has any financial interest in 
   it, and I thought that was what would get across. If you took it 
   as a statement of historical fact, my apologies.

   My guess is when you find your quote, we will see that the 
   original MS attempt was so bug infested as to be unusable (like 
   so much of what they produce...).


LA>   If I get the chance, (and still have em), I'll post you some of
LA>   the messages from that thread...

LA>   In any case, even if it was a re-write job, the effect is still
LA>   the same: MS has no rights to 386, which explains why they don't
LA>   support it. It also probably explains why it works so well.

GW> Yes indeed, the re-write was (I believe) primarily to add some features,
  > fix some bugs, and allow easier maintenance and as a side effect
  > removed any MS ownership of the code.

   Viva la Side-Effect!

                                       LRA


 -- SPEED 2.01 #2720: Clones are people two.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0