> -----Original Message----- > From: David Wise via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:01 AM > To: Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Cc: David Wise <d44617...@hotmail.com> > Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS > > I think Windows 2000 is NT-based. >
Yes it started life as NT5 but at some point in got renamed to 2000 and DEC Alpha support was dropped. I may have some NT5 Beta CDs in the loft. Dave > Dave Wise > ________________________________ > From: Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 5:21 PM > To: Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Cc: Fred Cisin <ci...@xenosoft.com> > Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > > I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for > > $50,000 - US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM's > > version thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, > > moreso than what 8-bit machines could do! > > Ah, but there is so much more to the story, which deserves an entire chapter in > the history. > > More than you wanted to know? : (but even more details available if you really > want them) > > Tim Paterson, of Seattle Computer Products was developing 8086 hardware, but > CP/M-86 was delayed. So, he wrote a temporary place-holder to use instead of > CP/M-86 until CP/M-86 became available. That was called "QDOS", "Quick and > Dirty Operating System". Later it became known as "SCP-DOS" and/or "86-DOS" > > Then came the "culture clash" between IBM and Digital Research (previously > known as "Intergalctic digital Research"). That has been documented > elsewhere; some claim that there was not a culture clash, nor an error. > > So, Microsoft (possibly Bill Gates personally) went down the street to Seattle > Computer Products, and bought an unlimited license for 86-DOS "that we can > sell to our [un-named] client" > > Tim Paterson, who later opened "Falcon Technologies" and Seattle Computer > Products both also retained licenes to be able to sell "the operating system". > Note that the version was not specified, as to whether such license would > include rights to sell updated versions; that error (failure to specify whether > future/derivative products were included) has been repeated elsewhere (cf. > Apple/Microsoft) > > Microsoft also hired Tim Paterson to maintain and update "MS-DOS". > > Microsoft sold a license to IBM, where it became PC-DOS. > And, it was available through Lifeboat as "86-DOS" > > In August 1981, when the PC (5150) was released, IBM started selling PC-DOS. > But digital Research was not happy with IBM selling a copy of their operating > system. > In those days, selling a copy was legal, if the internal code was not copied. > (hence the development of "clean-room reverse engineering") It wasn't until the > Lotus/Paperback Software (Adam Osborne) lawsuit that "look and feel" became > copyrightable. > > So, IBM agreed to also sell CP/M-86 IN ADDITION to selling PC-DOS. > . . . and sold UCSD P-System. > > But CP/M-86 was STILL not ready, so everybody bought PC-DOS, many of whom > planned to switch to CP/M-86 when it became available. > But, when CP/M-86 was finally ready, the price was $240 vs $40 for PC-DOS. > There are arguments about whether IBM or Digital Research set that price. > Although, if that price was IBM's idea, then why did Digital Research charge > $240 for copies sold through other sources (such as Lifeboat)? > > > Initially MS-DOS and PC-DOS differed only in name and trivial items, such as > "IO.SYS" and "MSDOS.SYS" being renamed "IBMBIO.COM" and "IBMDOS.COM" > When changes were made, Microsoft's and IBM's version numbers were > separated. > Thus 1.00 was the same for both > IBM released PC-DOS 1.10, and Microsoft released MS-DOS 1.25 > 2.00 was the same for both > 2.10 VS 2.11 (IBM needed trivial changes to 2.00 to deal with the excessively > slow Qumetrak 142 disk drives in the PC-Junior and "portable" > 3.00 was the same > 3.10, adding network support and the "network redirector for CD-ROMs > 3.20 VS 3.21, adding "720K" 3.5" drive support > 3.30 VS 3.31, BUT 3.31 was the first to support larger than 32Mebibyte drives! > 4.00 and 4.01 IBM/Microsoft did not provide third party vendors enough > advanced warning, so Norton Utilities, etc. did not work on 4.00 (NOT > 4.00 did not work with Norton Utilities!) > 5.00 > In 6.00 each company bundled a whole bunch of third party stuff (such as disk > compression) and each got them from different sources. > When Microsoft's disk compression was blamed for serious problems caused by > SMARTDRV, Microsoft released 6.20 (repaired and reliability improved from > 6.00). > Then 6.21 and 6.22 as a result of Microsoft's legal case with Stac Electronics. > > > Please note that MS-DOS/PC-DOS ALWAYS had a version number, a period, and > then a TWO DIGIT DECIMAL sub-version number. THAT is what is stored > internally. Thus, 1.10 is stored as ONE.TEN (01h.0Ah), 3.31 is actually > THREE.Thirty-ONE (03h.1Fh), etc. > If there had ever actually been a "1.1" or "3.2", those would have been 01h.01h > (1.01) and 03h.02h (3.02), etc. > "1.1" was NOT the same as "1.10", nor "3.2" the same as "3.20", otherwise VERY > minor changes would be confused with serious changes, as happened when > some people called 4.01 "four point one". > > > Later still, Seattle Computer Products was on the rocks. There was some > speculation that AT&T might buy it, to get the DOS license (and not have to pay > royalties per copy!). After some legal animosity, Microsoft did the right and > smart thing, and bought Seattle Computer Products, thus closing that > vulnerability. > > Windows originally started as an add-on command processor and user interface > on top of DOS. Windows95 made that invisibly seamless, so the user never saw > a DOS prompt without explicitly asking for it. Windows 95 still contained DOS > (7.00), but the user never saw it. > > > Gordon Letwin at Microsoft developed OS/2. But Microsoft sold it off to IBM, > and it became known as an IBM product. > Microsoft used some key technology from it in developing WindowsNT. > Within Microsoft's offerings, NT competed with non-NT windows, such as > Windows95, Windows98, and Windows2000. > Windows[NT] Vista, XP, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 continued, and the old Windows was > "deprecated'. > > > Naming a version after the year it is released is great for sales in the first year, > and a serious liability in subsequent years, unless there is actually going to be a > new version every year (as automobiles do) > > -- > Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
