Forgot your password?

+ - Microsoft posts source code for MS-DOS and Word for Windows->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft, along with the Computer History Museum, has released the source code for MS-DOS 1.1 and 2.0, and Word for Windows 1.1a. Th DOS 2.0 was released for IBM PCs in 1983, and Word for Windows 1.1a came out in 1990. The museum has made the code available for non-commercial use with Microsoft's consent. They've also posted some historical information about the development of this software: '[In August, 1980], IBM had already contracted with Microsoft to provide a BASIC interpreter for the PC, so they asked them to investigate also providing the operating system. Microsoft proposed licensing “86-DOS”, which had been written by Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) for their 8086-based computer kit because the 16-bit version of CP/M was late. When SCP signed the licensing deal [7] with Microsoft, they didn’t know for sure who the computer manufacturer was. Paterson said “We all had our suspicions that it was IBM that Microsoft was dealing with, but we didn’t know for sure.” [1] He left SCP to work for Microsoft in 1981. “The first day on the job I walk through the door and ‘Hey! It’s IBM.’” Microsoft originally licensed 86-DOS in December 1980 for a flat fee of $25,000. By the next summer they recognized the importance of owning it and being able to license it to other companies making IBM-PC clones, so they purchased all rights for an additional $50,000.'"
Link to Original Source

Comment: A wage slave at Blue Coat used SmartFilter... (Score 1) 119

by RealGene (#46545255) Attached to: Some Sites That Blue Coat Blocks Under "Pornography"
If he had the mind-numbing and soul-crushing job of checking sites for porn, a low-paid employee might find it easier to just type the URL into SmartFilter's check page, and copy what he found there. That would explain the more-than-chance overlap of mistakenly blocked sites.

Comment: Pay them. (Score 3, Insightful) 324

Really, it's the only way. Pay them to do the work. It will cost you at least $3-5K per household.
The only alternative is to go to your locality's cable commission, and find out if/when the cable provider's license is up for renewal. Make 100% coverage a non-negotiable requirement for renewal.

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 1146

by RealGene (#45701399) Attached to: US Light Bulb Phase-Out's Next Step Begins Next Month
I take issue with the simpledollar analysis, as it seems the author went out of his way to find a non-competitive LED bulb.
I have several Philips '60-watt equivalent' bulbs. I paid $14 for them at the Big Orange Box store, and they consume 11W. They are rated at 25,000 hours lifetime.
In keeping with the math above, I would have to buy 1.2 of these bulbs to attain 30K hours, so the bulb 'cost' would be ~$16.80.
The electricity cost would be $33.00, for a total of $49.80, or ~1/4 the cost of operating the incandescent bulb(s).

My utility also offers subsidized purchases of these and similar bulbs; I bought a bunch of Philips BR30 LED floods for $5 each. And unlike the CFLs they replaced, these are dimmable. With the subsidy, these would have a total cost to me of $39.00, or 1/5 the cost of the incandescent.

1: No code table for op: ++post