I'm the injured bystander here. If what you say is true, than
IBM is the one who needs the interface information and statement
from you that attempts to place the ball in their court. You
might note that the issue of DOS and such is a shared technology
issue between they and Microsoft, yet, as I understand it.
Thus what I need is all of the things I will have to have to see,
if quietly, without fan-fare, I can get it in front of a few key
people at IBM to FIX the problem, if it is in their house.
Having been through a couple rounds of this for real, where the
vendor is at arm's length in these sort of issues, what will likely
happen is that they will ask me, for example, for the applicable
DUMP failure I have here, plus your statement given here. I have no
idea if I can raise enough attention to get the issue examined. If I
were the program source, that's a different story; I'm not.
The key issue is simple. If IBM *IS* at fault with the issue and
their code is genuinely broken, as you claim, in respect to EMM, then
they, I think, will want to fix it. And .. contrary to what you
offer, the issue is not one of M/S compliance at all, in that, in this
case they have to think about that as well, even for WIN 3.1. In the
case of WIN 3.1, even it is compliant to the standard and Y2K certified
from IBM. It has to be, to the extent that everything else like it
can be. They have to stand on the heritage compliance for certain
issues even if others do not, so said to me. As I gather all this,
they have to even if MS thinks they do not or does not.
I'll see if anyone will look at it. No guarantees. I'm just the
mule who is being bashed by the runnaway plow.
Again, I'm *NOT* claiming anything is wrong with PB. I only want to
quit getting rammed from behind with the Go-Devil!

------------------
Mike Luther
[email protected]
Leave a comment: