> Microsoft has done many questionable things but the AARD code was never enabled on a shipping version of DOS so it doesn't seem quite fair to blame them for that.
Here’s how a Microsoft executive described it at the time: “What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS"
It’s certainly true that DOS’s time was limited but people were still buying it for years after he said that in 1992. Far more importantly, however, you have to think about the situation with OEMs. Microsoft was absolutely cutthroat on licensing with PC manufacturers to prevent alternative operating systems – entire product lines had to be Microsoft-only, they demanded DOS & later Windows licenses be purchased even if the buyer didn’t want them, volume discounts depended on exclusivity or bundling other apps, etc. The hardware companies put up with that because they didn’t have much choice: there were too many business apps and games which their customers wanted to refuse Microsoft’s terms. DR-DOS offered a way out of that: everything ran, often better due to its superior memory management, and the last thing Microsoft wanted was someone doing something like selling systems with, say, OS/2 or GeoWorks Ensemble (a quite decent desktop app suite at the time) and relying on DR-DOS as the operating system choice for customers who wanted DOS compatibility to avoid Microsoft’s exclusivity requirements for that particular model. I don’t know that this would have fared better than, say, System 76 is doing now but they were keenly aware of just how much leverage they’d lose if an alternative got enough marketshare to let OEMs do more than acquiesce to Microsoft’s standard terms.
I understand the quote and 100% believe that some people within MS wanted it purely to prevent competition. But clearly someone with a cooler head looked at it and made the call not to enable it. That's the only thing that actually matters.
I get what you are saying about Dr DOS and the OEMs but it was a battle already lost - Windows 3.x was a massive blockbuster for MS. I suspect that was part of the internal argument for not shipping the AARD code: it was a liability for a battle already won. Windows 95 started development in 1992 and was intended from the start to be a single OS without requiring a separate DOS.
Not to say Microsoft didn't do bad things. The OEM licensing terms were abusive in my opinion... why not focus on that instead of some AARD code that was never enabled and wouldn't have mattered even if it was?
Here’s how a Microsoft executive described it at the time: “What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS"
https://www.wired.com/1999/05/caldera-ms-cheated-in-dos-war/
It’s certainly true that DOS’s time was limited but people were still buying it for years after he said that in 1992. Far more importantly, however, you have to think about the situation with OEMs. Microsoft was absolutely cutthroat on licensing with PC manufacturers to prevent alternative operating systems – entire product lines had to be Microsoft-only, they demanded DOS & later Windows licenses be purchased even if the buyer didn’t want them, volume discounts depended on exclusivity or bundling other apps, etc. The hardware companies put up with that because they didn’t have much choice: there were too many business apps and games which their customers wanted to refuse Microsoft’s terms. DR-DOS offered a way out of that: everything ran, often better due to its superior memory management, and the last thing Microsoft wanted was someone doing something like selling systems with, say, OS/2 or GeoWorks Ensemble (a quite decent desktop app suite at the time) and relying on DR-DOS as the operating system choice for customers who wanted DOS compatibility to avoid Microsoft’s exclusivity requirements for that particular model. I don’t know that this would have fared better than, say, System 76 is doing now but they were keenly aware of just how much leverage they’d lose if an alternative got enough marketshare to let OEMs do more than acquiesce to Microsoft’s standard terms.