4 ms·
Actually it was shipped. “Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final release of Windows 3.1, but did not remove it, so that it could have become reactivated
by duckqlz 3y ago
Actually it was shipped. “Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final release of Windows 3.1, but did not remove it, so that it could have become reactivated later by the change of a single byte in an installed system.” [1]
[1] Schulman, Andrew; Brown, Ralf D.; Maxey, David; Michels, Raymond J.; Kyle, Jim (1994) [November 1993]. Undocumented DOS: A programmer's guide to reserved MS-DOS functions and data structures - expanded to include MS-DOS 6, Novell DOS and Windows 3.1 (2 ed.). Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-63287-X.
- gavaw 3y agoIs it shipped if it cannot execute under any conditions? Philosophical question I'm afraid.
- codnee 3y agoThe code? Yes The feature? No
- zorked 3y agoThe company that makes GTA was sued for content that was not accessible in the game.
- saagarjha 3y agoThey probably shouldn't have?
- brookst 3y agoAnybody can sue anyone for anything. I could sue Rockstar for not having enough nudity in GTA; that does not imply guilt or lawbreaking on their part. The suit you mentioned was settled out of court for a tiny amount, basically nuisance value, with no finding or admission of wrongdoing.
- jen20 3y ago> could have become reactivated later by the change of a single byte in an installed system. Is that not a condition under which it could be executed?
- Uvix 3y agoOnly if the application has code to change that byte. “It could be changed by a patch” doesn’t count as a condition under which it could be executed, because a patch can make any change it wants to. You wouldn’t say “there’s a condition under which Windows will wipe your hard drive and every visible network share” just because someone can write code to do that.