MS-DOS 1981-2002 RIP 582
Biedermann writes "This is not exactly hot news, just a quick reminder to count the last days: A table in this article tells us that MS-DOS (as well as Windows 3.x, Windows 95 and NT 3.5x) reach their "End of Life" (as defined by Microsoft) on December 31, 2002.
Come on, even if you loathed them, they were good for jokes at least."
plz read... (Score:2, Informative)
MS-DOS is dead... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:MS-Dos (Score:2, Informative)
Old products never die (Score:4, Informative)
We're still going to be asked to fix problems for Nana's computer, and we're still going to install Windows 95 on Pentium-class PCs for people who aren't quite ready for Linux on the desktop. [wlug.org.nz]
Does this mean changes in copyright restrictions on these products? I'm fairly sure that under New Zealand copyright law, you're allowed to make copies if the company doesn't make a reasonable effort to sell you the product, and if they're not supporting it I'm sure they won't be selling it any more.
(looks at framed MS-DOS 6 box on the wall) The disks come in a "You're important to us, please register" plastic bag. How ironic.
Re:dos and freedows (Score:5, Informative)
- www.freedows.org doesn't even work anymore
Gee.. maybe if you spelled the URL right!
It's http://www.freedos.org/ [freedos.org], and they appear to be doing just fine.
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? I'm pretty sure UNIX with bourne shell has been around longer than DOS and (considering it and its direct descendents) are still in wide use I would venture that is also more popular overall. Here's a link to bourne shell's history. [uni-ulm.de]. Here's another [freebsd-bg.org].
Unless, of course, you were only referring to psuedo-shell-like things that ran on Pee-Cee's.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:2, Informative)
Formally Digital Research's MS-DOS competitor.
Who needs DOS? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/dos/psm952a.
Only $50 last I checked, get them while they're hot!
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:2, Informative)
Well, DOS was hardly an OS in the first place.
Most of the stuff that is part of OSes simply do not exist in DOS: sound drivers, GUI, system services, etc.
Is there really anything DOS could do, except launch programs?
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:2, Informative)
If you write a program for DOS which needs to read from a disk, get swapped out of memory, read from the kbd or print to the screen, you don't write those services yourself. They are part of the OS. Granted, DOS is minimal. It's not even a multitasking OS, I think. But still, it did what it was called upon to do, and was stable. It is still around, in various forms, on boot disks and such. Doesn't NetWare run on it or something?
Re:Hey, don't knock DOS... (Score:3, Informative)
NT 3.5 not based on DOS (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:2, Informative)
My first PC-DOS version was 2.0. It supported fixed disks (harddisks) and directories. Also it was the first version that supported file handles (stdout, in and err, handle 0, 1 and 2 respectively). Saw another one here claim that DOS didn't support stderr, but that's wrong. Before 2.0 DOS used FCBs (like CP/M) to open files. DOS internals really showed off it's CP/M heritage.
What was good about DOS was that you had 100% hardware control... what was bad about DOS was that you had 100% hardware control. By many definitions, it wasn't even an OS, as it didn't do everything an OS should do. But it was a single-user system from the start, and as such it was good enough, with low overhead -- important in an age where 16K was the entry PC memory size... and 64K was a lot.
That reminds me... 2.0 also was the first version that supported 180K/360K floppies, with the new support for 9 sectors pr track (up from 8).
Lotus 123, MultiMate word proc (actually, and OEM version kalled WriteIT; and integrated package with CalcIT, KeepIT and several other apps), TurboPascal compiler, SideKick "PDA", Norton Utilities... later Norton Commander (still one of the best file managers).
Ah, the memories....
Re:How do you flash the BIOS without DOS? (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.asusemag.com.tw/useful_tips/ch2/ch2-1.
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. DOS does not support virtual memory. The built-in keyboard input and screen output was so poor that it was not used for all but the most trivial programs (and even trivial programs often did not use it). The only point you are right on is that filesystem access is indeed done using the interface DOS gives you.
DR-DOS download site (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:2, Informative)
This is why DOS was popular: It followed the KISS philosophy - keep it simple stupid. People like that.
Re:QEMM!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah, the good old days. Damn I was good at that. I was better than Memmaker and QEMM because I knew about "yo-yo" TSRs and such: some TSR's loaded small and then got bigger at runtime while some loaded large but got smaller at runtime, so if you determined which was which and loaded them in the correct order you could fit more into himem than the automatic products.
QEMM could try to make TSR's run above 1024k (and I couldn't), but that didn't usually work for me.
Re:Is redhat 2.0x still supported? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the world would have been worse off, not better, if a more sophisticated OS had been used on early PC's. Of course, it did outlive it's usefullness. By 1985, much superior alternatives were available that were practical even for the consumer and small business class of machines. Maybe the world would have been better off switching to a more sophisticated OS then. But by that time, it had a significant installed base. He seems knowlegeable enough. He quite likely is aware of that. But as a die-hard Microsoft basher, you apparently would rather assume otherwise. I personally loathe Microsoft. But this kind of gratituitous bashing of anyone who grants MS any credit at all, only gives the MS apologists more ammo to use against the rest of us.
Re:QEMM!!! (Score:3, Informative)
But I'm not particularly nostalgic about it.
MS-DOS passed away Thursday, October 25, 2001 (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1437/b
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:4, Informative)
MSDOS, it was fun. Bye-bye! (Come to think of it, I recently used an MSDOS install to bootstrap a Win98 install from a SBPro CDROM. Then I screamed and used that to bootstrap a Linux install. Maybe I'll keep those DOS disks handy just in case. :^)
If you want a *real* shell... (Score:3, Informative)
please try cygwin [cygwin.com]. Cygwin isn't the name of the shell, it's the name of the compatibily thingie that lets you use some GNU apps and other Free Unix apps on Windows. It mostly consists of some .dlls that act as a compatiability layer. You have your choice of shells to choose from on a Unix system. The one that's used on almost all Linux systems is bash, which is a feature-enhanced version of the classic Unix shell. That shell was called "The Bourne Shell" and was named "sh" (or should it be the other way round?). Therefore, it's only natural that the name bash stands for "The Bourne Again Shell".
The catch: In my experience, Cygwin runs much better on NT-based Windozes (NT 4.0, 2000, XP) than on DOS based Windozes (95, 98, Me). But, if you've got lots of processor power, Cygwin should still run quite nicely, even on crufty Win9x. The other catch: all of this sort of assumes that you're already somewhat familiar with the Unix Way. If you're not, it could be quite frustrating. But there are many, many help texts and HOWTos available (Google for HOWTO) and if you're adventurous and you want to know what a command line should be like, then it's out there waiting for you.
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. Another alternative is 4Dos or 4NT. It's available from these people [jpsoft.com]. It's pretty good, except that's it's shareware and therefore commercial and I've had problems with certain versions crashing frequently. Also, there's a couple points where they could've gone for compatibility with Unix but chose to ignore it. (E.g. to not match the characters a,b, or c in a filename, they use [!abc] whereas the proper Unix Way is [^abc].)
Windows 1.0 Screen shots, etc (Score:5, Informative)
Screen shots available here:
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.ht m [fortunecity.com]
http://internet.ls-la.net/ms-evolution/windows-1.0 1/ [ls-la.net]
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/software/micro soft/windows10/page_01.htm [digibarn.com]
Other good info here
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft _Windows [wikipedia.org]
Re:Say what you want.... (Score:4, Informative)
QDOS/86-DOS was designed to make it easy to translate CP/M programs written in asembler and have them run with minor tweaking. This extended to using pretty much the same API for the file control blocks, pretty much the same numbers for the function calls, pretty much the same layout for the first 256 bytes of the transient program area.
Where 86-DOS differed from CP/M, it tended to be more UNIX like, e.g. copy source destination rather than PIP destination source . More functions were included with the command interperter and the batch files were a bit nicer to use than CP/M's submit files.
'Course you've got to remember that CP/M was designed to run in 32K of memory.
The incident with DOS wasn't the only time that SCP got the shaft from M$. SCP was the outfit that designed the Z-80 card for use on the Apple II.
Re:Windows 1.0 Screen shots, etc (Score:3, Informative)
As Alien54 proved: Bzzzt. I'm sorry, that's wrong. Thank you very much for playing.
Windows versions 1 and 2 did indeed exist, but were not generally sold as separate products, but rather bundled with Excel, and later, Word for Windows.
The ONLY reason Windows was written by MS in the first place was so they could sell Excel (which was originally a Mac-only product) on the PC. Remember, this was back in the days when Lotus 1-2-3 was cleaning their clock (it was, in fact the "killer app" for the PC), and Multiplan was clearly not cutting it as a competitive strategy.
Windows was not very impressive back then. I was part of a team that evaluated PC GUIs for a large aerospace company in 1997, and Digital Research's GEM came out very clearly on top of Windows 2.0 at that time, and it became the standard. Windows 3.0, while still technically ugly, was aesthetically beautiful (by the standards of the day - only Sun 386i Roadrunner users had a better-looking environment back then), and so it was an instant hit, especially for all those that wanted Excel, but didn't want to pay Apple's then-exorbitant prices to get it.
I think the success of Win 3.0 took MS a bit by surprise, but they recovered their composure quickly and managed to capitalize on the opprtunity the market handed them...