DOS was Digital Research's CPM if I remember correctly. And so
M/S renamed it to DOS. Then eventually they had to make changes
for sub directories (originally it was a single directly level
file system). I think it was Tandy that at their DOS 2.11 they
had sub-directories (I was using the Tandy copy of DOS in those
days).
Steve Thompson
On 8/14/2023 6:14 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/14/23 3:16 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:
I sort of agree, but I think underneath we still disagree. I
agree that IBM didn't think the PC software was worth
developing. And if they had held onto MS-DOS and approached
its development in the same way that Microsoft did, sure,
they'd probably be worth bazillions.
My hang up is that -- as I understand it -- DOS was /never/
IBM's to start with.
DOS was /Microsoft's/.
Or are you suggesting that IBM should have purchased exclusive
rights to use / distribute / etc DOS from Microsoft?
Grant. . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
IBM-MAIN
--
Regards,
Steve Thompson
VS Strategies LLC
Westfield IN
972-983-9430 cell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
