which is first, Intel or Microsoft
lezawang
which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
Chris Fischer
Intel announced the 8086/8088 in 1978, before Gates
even considered buying Q-DOS from Seattle Computer
Works.
--
Chris Fischer cfis...@ieee.org
Coda Software, Limited
Spehro Pefhany
> hi
> which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
> Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
> vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
> Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
If I recall the events correctly, this is what happened:
The 16-bit NMOS Intel 8086 (which modern x86 processor are still
compatible with) came into existence before Microsoft had an OS of any
kind. IBM chose the scrunched down 8-bit bus version of the 8086, called
the 8088 (which was software compatible with the i8086) for their PC.
Microsoft purchased the rights to an existing O/S (a cloned version of
the late Gary Kildall's CPM/86) that ran on the 8086/8088 and sold IBM on
using it. It was called MS/DOS or just DOS (IBM had a name for it too).
This was ca. 1981.
Since then, the two products have grown and mutuated together.
Note that "Windows" didn't come along until many years later, MS-DOS did
not use true graphics.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Spehro Pefhany "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com
Fax:(905) 271-9838 (small micro system devt hw/sw + mfg)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Keith R. Brafford
--
--Keith Brafford
just one character in your life...
Lennart <len...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:80dap4$o2f$1...@cubacola.tninet.se...
>
> Chris Fischer wrote:
> >Intel announced the 8086/8088 in 1978, before Gates
> >even considered buying Q-DOS from Seattle Computer
> >Works.
>
>
> I heard that it was "QD-DOS" where QD = Quick and Dirty.
> Is that a rumor then ?
>
> Lennart
>
>
>
Douglas Beattie Jr.
in the first "personal computers," long before there was 8088/8086.
Paul Allen and Bill Gates developed BASIC on a 8080 simulator, running
on a DEC PDP-8, since the 8080 was too expensive for them to buy and
design with. They punched it all onto paper tape, and demo'd it for
the MITS Altair 8800. (un)fortunately, the BASIC for the 8080
worked right the very first time it ran on an 8080, even though it was
developed entirely on the simulator. They won the contract for the MITS
Altair 8800, and formed Microsoft.. The success of Microsoft's BASIC
led to increased popularity, and eventually a contract with IBM for its
first PC disk operating system. A strong rumor says that the first
MS-DOS was really a pirated, and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital
Research; was the de facto OS for Intel 8080 and Z80). Some history
about Digital Research, Microsoft, and how they "stole" MSDOS, is found
at http://www.maxframe.com/DR.HTM
Incidentally, Digital Research Inc. came before Microsoft. DRI developed
PL/M (Programming Language / Microcomputers ), which ran on the 8080,
and later the 8086/286/386 Intel processors. What's left of DRI was
bought by Novell; now belongs to Caldera/Lineo http://www.lineo.com/
Caldera is also suing Microsoft for stifling DR-DOS, a superior and
embeddable DOS which belongs to them now. (See http://www.drdos.com/ )
read more about DR-DOS, the worlds most popular embeddable x86 DOS at
http://www.lineo.com/products/drdos.html ...
--
Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Guy Macon
>If I recall the events correctly, this is what happened:
>
>The 16-bit NMOS Intel 8086 (which modern x86 processor are still
>compatible with) came into existence before Microsoft had an OS of any
>kind. IBM chose the scrunched down 8-bit bus version of the 8086, called
>the 8088 (which was software compatible with the i8086) for their PC.
>Microsoft purchased the rights to an existing O/S (a cloned version of
>the late Gary Kildall's CPM/86) that ran on the 8086/8088 and sold IBM on
>using it. It was called MS/DOS or just DOS (IBM had a name for it too).
>This was ca. 1981.
>
>Since then, the two products have grown and mutuated together.
>
>Note that "Windows" didn't come along until many years later, MS-DOS did
>not use true graphics.
Ah, but is this the right place to draw the line? The 8086 was a
continuation of a long line of processors such as the 8080, 4004,
etc. At what point do you say "this is new. We start counting
on this day."? MS-DOS has a lot of CP/M and a bit of Unix in it.
The starting points are fuzzy.
M.
>hi
>which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
>Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
>vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
>Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
Intel is older than Microsoft. A company named MITS made the "Altair"
computer, that used Intel's 8080 chip. Bill Gates and Paul Allen read about
the Altair in a magazine, and they decided to make software for it.
In the early 1980s, IBM designed their PC. They used IBM's 8086 chip (or
8088?). Microsoft was approximately five years old, but it did not make
operating systems then. IBM could not make a deal with an operating system
company named Digital Research, so they asked Microsoft to develop an
operating system for the PC. Microsoft found someone at a computer company
who already had an operating system for the 8086. Microsoft bought this
operating system for $100,000[*], changed it to work on the IBM PC, and sold
it as MS-DOS.
* $100,000 included $50,000 to the programmer and $50,000 to the computer
company.
M.
Lennart
Georgi Lathbury
Intel microprocessor. Pity they never got around to fixing it. ;^}
Chris Fischer wrote:
>
> lezawang wrote:
>
> > hi
> > which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
> > Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
> > vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
> > Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
>
> Intel announced the 8086/8088 in 1978, before Gates
> even considered buying Q-DOS from Seattle Computer
> Works.
>
Chris Quayle
>
> Ah, but is this the right place to draw the line? The 8086 was a
> continuation of a long line of processors such as the 8080, 4004,
> etc. At what point do you say "this is new. We start counting
> on this day."? MS-DOS has a lot of CP/M and a bit of Unix in it.
> The starting points are fuzzy.
Digital (DEC) had a lot of influence on micro design, both for cpu and
operating systems. If you look at cpu architectures like 6800, 68K,
6502, you find many of the instruction mnemonics were a direct crib from
the PDP11 instruction set, as were the addressing modes. The first PDP11
appeared in 1969, btw. The 6502 designers at MOS Technology were
actually quoted as saying 'as much PDP11 style instructions and
addressing modes as possible on a small die'.
As for operating systems, compare the system design and commands (PIP
for example) between DEC's RT11 or RSX11 and Digital Research CPM/80 and
CPM/86.
Not hard to see where they got all their ideas from...
Rgrds, Chris
--
------------------------------------------------
CQ Associates Ltd
Electronic Design & Embedded Systems Development
Oxford, England
Email: ligh...@aerosys.co.uk
Tel: 01865 750681
------------------------------------------------
Spehro Pefhany
> first PC disk operating system. A strong rumor says that the first
> MS-DOS was really a pirated, and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital
Are you suggesting that Seattle Computer Products didn't write Q-DOS
(the CP/M clone) from scratch? Do you have any evidence to support this?
Doug listed a URL that has a good overall chronology, which is at:
http://www.maxframe.com/HISZCOMP.HTM
Dennis Clark
: hi
: which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
: Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
: vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
: Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
Not too hip on high-tech huh? Intel predates M$ by a
very good margin. IBM probably rescued Intel from bankruptcy
by choosing their processor for the first DOS machine.
DLC
--
------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Clark email d...@verinet.com |
| Be well, Do good work, stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor |
------------------------- CUT HERE -------------------------
Chris Fischer
Lennart wrote:
> Chris Fischer wrote:
> >Intel announced the 8086/8088 in 1978, before Gates
> >even considered buying Q-DOS from Seattle Computer
> >Works.
>
> I heard that it was "QD-DOS" where QD = Quick and Dirty.
> Is that a rumor then ?
>
It is not a rumor. Quick-and-Dirty-Operating-System.
Only 1 "d".
>
> Lennart
Jesper Hansen
> <snip>
> A strong rumor says that the first
> MS-DOS was really a pirated, and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital
> about Digital Research, Microsoft, and how they "stole" MSDOS, is found
> at http://www.maxframe.com/DR.HTM
On the other hand, someone stole Bill's tape with the BASIC code when
they demo'ed it at a computer club meeting, if im not mistaken.
/Jesper
Evandro Menezes
>
>> which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
>> Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
>> vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
>> Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
First came Intel with the 4004 uP who made the 8088 in the late 70's,
which was used by IBM to build the PC a couple of years later, that
needed an OS to run, that Microsoft happily produced (MS-DOS), after a
couple of years making the Basic interpreter for the Altair, an Intel
8080-based microcomputer.
HTH
______________________________________________________
Evandro Menezes Austin, TX ICQ:7957253
eva...@geocities.com www.geocities.com/evandro
Georgi Lathbury
(and clearly cut corners).
I sure wish Motorola had won. Give me a linear over a segmented arch.
anytime!
Georgi
Dennis Clark wrote:
>
> lezawang (leza...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : hi
> : which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
> : Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
> : vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
> : Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
>
Jim Williams
yes? No?
M. wrote in message <8rpW3.382$4D5.2...@ratbert.tds.net>...
>lezawang wrote in message <3829F420...@hotmail.com>...
>>hi
>>which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
>>Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
>>vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
>>Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
>
Grant Edwards
>A strong rumor says that the first MS-DOS was really a pirated,
>and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital Research; was the de
>facto OS for Intel 8080 and Z80).
I don't know about "pirated" but it was definitely a CP/M
clone. All you had to do was look at the .com file format, the
FCB structure, the system call conventions, etc. to see that
PC-DOS was a CP/M clone.
Of course much of CP/M (FCBs, PIP, etc.) was cloned off of DEC
stuff (RSX and RSTS). Didn't Gary Kildall work at DEC before
he wrote CP/M and founded Digital Research?
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! RELATIVES!!
at
visi.com
Grant Edwards
>lezawang (leza...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
>: Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
>: vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
>: Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
>
>very good margin. IBM probably rescued Intel from bankruptcy
And sentenced the rest of us to eternal suffering with one of
the world's crappiest microprocessor architectures.
>by choosing their processor for the first DOS machine.
Motorola was too big to push around (IBM doesn't like dealing
with vendors it doesn't own), and there were also schedule issues
with the 68000.
At the time Zilog was owned by Exxon (making them harder to
push around), and I don't remember if they had anything any
newer than the Z80 anyway.
Intel, however was small enough that IBM could buy up a large
chunk of the stock, becoming simultaneously Intel's largest
customer and a large stockholder. That's the type of control
IBM likes to have.
I was working at IBM when the PC was introduced, and was very
shocked that the design was open (bus specs, published BIOS,
the processor was from an outside vendor, and the software was
also from an outside vendor).
IBM had several in-house 16-bit microprocessors they could have
used, and they were very fond of trying to keep all of the
hardware and interface specs for everything secret.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Now I'm telling MISS
at PIGGY about MONEY MARKET
visi.com FUNDS!
mel
> It was a race, you know, between them and Motorola. Intel finished
> first
> (and clearly cut corners).
>
> I sure wish Motorola had won. Give me a linear over a segmented arch.
> anytime!
From what I recall the main reason given by the IBM design team for
their choice was that Intel had a more complete peripheral range. Also,
they weren't really taking the project seriously as no-one expected it
to take off in the way that it did.
--
/Mel/ (at work)
Chris Fischer
Also they already had licensing deals with Intel from some previous
project using Intel micro-controllers in a terminal.
>
> --
>
> /Mel/ (at work)
Mike Albaugh
of MSDOS origins has to do with comp.realtime. OTOH, it doesn't have
a heckuva lot to do with comp.arch.embedded, either, but I _do_ read
this group, and know it has a long tradition of blathering threads :-)
Grant Edwards (grant@nowhere.) wrote:
: In article <382A69...@whidbey.net>, Douglas Beattie Jr. wrote:
: >A strong rumor says that the first MS-DOS was really a pirated,
: >and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital Research; was the de
: >facto OS for Intel 8080 and Z80).
: I don't know about "pirated" but it was definitely a CP/M
: clone. All you had to do was look at the .com file format, the
: FCB structure, the system call conventions, etc. to see that
: PC-DOS was a CP/M clone.
It copied the API, but that was so folks could (for the
most part) automatically translate their 8080 CP/M code to
8086 code that would run on QDOS. We would all be arguably better
off if it _had_ copied, e.g. the CP/M extent-based disk structure,
instead of adopting the FAT structure from Disk Basic, under which
much of the world suffers today. Not sure about the timing, but
around about that time DRI added the notion of "users" to CP/M.
What a concept! Even if only one person at a time could use the
computer, _several_ people (like, say, multiple family members)
could have files on it. How long did it take DOS to catch up to
that? Have they yet? :-)
: Of course much of CP/M (FCBs, PIP, etc.) was cloned off of DEC
: stuff (RSX and RSTS).
More like OS-8, IIRC, but it's been quite a while.
Mike
| alb...@agames.com, speaking only for myself
William Craig
Jesper Hansen wrote:
>
> "Douglas Beattie Jr." wrote:
> > <snip>
> > A strong rumor says that the first
> > MS-DOS was really a pirated, and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital
> > Research; was the de facto OS for Intel 8080 and Z80). Some history
> > about Digital Research, Microsoft, and how they "stole" MSDOS, is found
> > at http://www.maxframe.com/DR.HTM
>
> On the other hand, someone stole Bill's tape with the BASIC code when
> they demo'ed it at a computer club meeting, if im not mistaken.
>
Which was a questionable reselling of Tom Pittman's public domain Tiny
BASIC.
> /Jesper
Mike Albaugh
I don't recall a time when Tiny Basic was PD. He did not even deliver
the complete source in his zip-loc, at the time I bought it. I dis-assembled
the "hidden" parts, of course. So in a sense I have seen both sources, and
I am pretty sure that Microsoft BASIC and Tiny-BASIC are not the same. Among
other things, M$BASIC does not use the double-interpretation trick. Unless
the tape that was allegedly stolen was _not_ the BASIC on which M$'s claims
to fame are based...
And I still don't get what this has to do with either embedded or
realtime. :-)
Guy Macon
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah, but is this the right place to draw the line? The 8086 was a
>> continuation of a long line of processors such as the 8080, 4004,
>> etc. At what point do you say "this is new. We start counting
>> on this day."? MS-DOS has a lot of CP/M and a bit of Unix in it.
>> The starting points are fuzzy.
>
>Digital (DEC) had a lot of influence on micro design, both for cpu and
>operating systems. If you look at cpu architectures like 6800, 68K,
>6502, you find many of the instruction mnemonics were a direct crib from
>the PDP11 instruction set, as were the addressing modes. The first PDP11
>appeared in 1969, btw. The 6502 designers at MOS Technology were
>actually quoted as saying 'as much PDP11 style instructions and
>addressing modes as possible on a small die'.
>
>As for operating systems, compare the system design and commands (PIP
>for example) between DEC's RT11 or RSX11 and Digital Research CPM/80 and
>CPM/86.
>
>Not hard to see where they got all their ideas from...
Charles Babbage and Augusta Ada Byron King, Countess of Lovelace?
Guy Macon
>Are you suggesting that Seattle Computer Products didn't write Q-DOS
>(the CP/M clone) from scratch? Do you have any evidence to support this?
Copying code is one thing. Copying design philosophy is another.
The very nature of making a softwarte clone is to do the latter
while avoiding the former.
Grant Edwards
> It copied the API, but that was so folks could (for the
>most part) automatically translate their 8080 CP/M code to
>8086 code that would run on QDOS.
And much of the f*cked up architecture of the 8086 was so that
people could supposedly automatically translate assembly
language source from 8080 to 8086. I don't know if anybody
ever really tried that. I never knew anybody who did. That
sort of compatibility is like designing a general-purpose,
universal widget. It always sounds like a great idea -- it
just never works.
>_several_ people (like, say, multiple family members)
>could have files on it. How long did it take DOS to catch up to
>that? Have they yet?
Nope, not that I know of.
>: Of course much of CP/M (FCBs, PIP, etc.) was cloned off of DEC
>: stuff (RSX and RSTS).
>
> More like OS-8, IIRC, but it's been quite a while.
Could be, I never saw OS-8. What I saw of RSX and RSTS sure
looked familiar to this CP/M user.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Well, O.K. I'll
at compromise with my
visi.com principles because of
EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR!
Chris Quayle
>
> From what I recall the main reason given by the IBM design team for
> their choice was that Intel had a more complete peripheral range.
I thought it was because there was no OS for 68k at the time. All the
6800 peripherals can driven from 68k, it even has a VPA line.
The first affordable small computer using 68k was the Stride, around '83
or 84 (forget the original name) running UCSD P system or cpm68k. Nice
liitle box, but terminal only, no graphics.
Rgrds, Chris
Chris Quayle
>
> Charles Babbage and Augusta Ada Byron King, Countess of Lovelace?
Might be stretching it a bit...
Michael Huang
> I was working at IBM when the PC was introduced, and was very
> shocked that the design was open (bus specs, published BIOS,
> the processor was from an outside vendor, and the software was
> also from an outside vendor).
IBM probably didn't expect the open design to allow so many clone makers
to mushroom and prosper. If not for these clones, PCs might not have
proliferated the way they did. Guess that means IBM was also guilty for
having helped M$ build its empire. 8-)
bowman
M. <m...@home.xx> wrote in message
news:sajX3.639$4D5.4...@ratbert.tds.net...
> Of course the fact that Microsoft was already a well-known PC software
> provider,
They were?
>and that MS-DOS was ready while CP/M was a year away,
It was?
Of course, if IBM wasn't in a pissing contest wth Exxon, we'd all probably
be running a real operating system on a real processor instead of a patched
together OS on a chip Intel saw as a stopgap until they got the 432
together.
M.
Jim Williams wrote in message ...
>How did DRDOS come into being, and when? That was Digitial Research's DOS,
>yes? No?
Obviously.
So what?
M.
M.
M. wrote in message ...
>Jim Williams wrote in message ...
>>How did DRDOS come into being, and when? That was Digitial Research's DOS,
>>yes? No?
>
>Obviously.
Oh, the answers to your first two questions are, it was a clone of MS-DOS;
and I don't know when.
IBM never made a deal with Digital Research to put DR-DOS on the PC, if
that's what you are suggesting. IBM didn't need to, since they had a
perpetual license for MS-DOS.
M.
mel
> > From what I recall the main reason given by the IBM design team for
> > their choice was that Intel had a more complete peripheral range.
>
> I thought it was because there was no OS for 68k at the time. All the
> 6800 peripherals can driven from 68k, it even has a VPA line.
You're quite right that the 68K could use 6800 peripherals, and I'm sure
that the IBM design team were aware of this... but it didn't stop them
from giving the reason mentioned above as the reason why they went with
Intel. =;-)
My information, *admittedly from memory*, comes from the Byte '10 year
anniversary' feature on the PC, which contained interviews with some of
the original design team.
> The first affordable small computer using 68k was the Stride, around
> '83
> or 84 (forget the original name) running UCSD P system or cpm68k. Nice
> liitle box, but terminal only, no graphics.
Oh yes, I remember lusting after that!
--
/Mel/ (at work)
Kai Ruottu
<qtx...@tn.etx.ericsson.se> wrote:
>"Douglas Beattie Jr." wrote:
>> <snip>
>> A strong rumor says that the first
>> MS-DOS was really a pirated, and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital
>> Research; was the de facto OS for Intel 8080 and Z80). Some history
>> about Digital Research, Microsoft, and how they "stole" MSDOS, is found
>> at http://www.maxframe.com/DR.HTM
>
>On the other hand, someone stole Bill's tape with the BASIC code when
>they demo'ed it at a computer club meeting, if im not mistaken.
I was quite near getting the 8k-MS-BASIC sources from a guy, to whom
I gave the PD Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL-) BASIC sources in
'78 or '79... BTW, LLLBASIC was written originally for 8008 and the
Ver.2.0 could use the AMD9511 floating point processor...
------------------ clip --------------------------------------
;
; LLLBASIC2 - BASIC INTERPRETER FOR INTEL 8080/8085,
; ZILOG Z80 AND NATIONAL NSC 800 MICRO-
; PROCESSORS
;
; VERSION 1.2 3/07/78 CHANGES FROM IDAHO
; VERSION 1.3 4/20/78 CHANGES FROM IDAHO
; VERSION 1.4 5/09/78 CORRECT BUG IN 'CALLP'
; VERSION 1.5 5/25/78 CORRECT BUGS IN 'FORMT'
; 1. NEGATIVE NUMBERS NOT
; ROUNDED PROPERLY
; 2. SMALL NEGATIVE NUMBERS
; PRINTED AS POSITIVE
; VERSION 2.0 4/09/82 Revised,much shorter.PRINT-and proceed
; & input operations implemented with
; interrupt-driven input/output queues
; and service routines and task
; switching scheduler
;
;
; WRITTEN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO BY:
;
; JOHN W. DICKINSON, JOHN A. TEETER, AND KAREN VAN HOUTEN
; DEPT. OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
; UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
; MOSCOW, IDAHO
;
; GERALD R. BARBER
; DEPT. OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
; MASSACHUSETTES INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
; CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUTTES
;
; REVISED AND CORRECTED BY :
;
; K.RUOTTU
; TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND
; CONCRETE AND SILICATE LABORATORY
; ESPOO, FINLAND
;
------------------ clip --------------------------------------
Unfortunately the guy found out that it wasn't Public Domain, as the
one I sent to him... There were so many BASICs for 8080 at that time,
some PD, some not, that anybody could get even the MS-BASIC sources by
accident... (Who remembers still MW's XYBASIC for 'hardhats'?)
Sigh... Porting BASIC to 8080-systems in late 70's didn't necessarily
make one rich...
Hans Bus
> > MS-DOS was really a pirated, and slightly revised CP/M (from Digital
>
> (the CP/M clone) from scratch? Do you have any evidence to support this?
>
>
> http://www.maxframe.com/HISZCOMP.HTM
>
> --
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Spehro Pefhany "The Journey is the reward"
> sp...@interlog.com
> Fax:(905) 271-9838 (small micro system devt hw/sw + mfg)
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Did you read the page you are referring to ???
literal quote :
- QDOS v0.10 (Quick and Dirty Operating System) is shipped by Seattle
Computer Products.
Even though it had been created in only two man-months as a quick copy
of Digital
Research CP/M, QDOS worked but had many serious bugs and was an
imperfect copy of CP/M.
A week later, the EDLIN line editor was created. EDLIN was supposed to
last only six
months, before being replaced. [2]
- Seattle Computer Products renames QDOS to 86-DOS Version 0.3.
Microsoft then bought
non-exclusive rights to market 86-DOS, which was a clone of Digital
Research CP/M in
virtually every respect. [2]
As I understood it, digital research forced ibm to sell cp/m-86 with
it's pc's
as well as msdos by either suing them or threatening to sue them over
ms-dos
being a copy of cp/m.
ibm did so (unwillingly), but at 4 to 5 times the price for ms-dos. Bye
bye cp/m-86 !
There are several articles about this, unfortunately I cannot locate
them right now.
Perhaps someone in comp.os.cpm can produce (a pointer to) an article. I
searched
my cp/m links, but cannot find one.
regards,
Hans Bus
bill_h
Microsoft Z80 card that was used to put CP/M capability onto
the Apple II would have *some* serious *intimate* knowledge
of the operating systems involved?
In the book ''Hard Drive'', it says Paul Allen hired Timothy
Paterson to work on that card. And that when he was unable to
complete the project another group was assigned the task.
Since this was AT LEAST two years before the IBM/DOS/CP/M
fiasco, clearly Bill Gates was telling a major LIE when he
said, in 'Triumph Of The Nerds', that Paterson was just 'some
guy that Paul knew' who just happened to have ''written''
this operating system so Microsoft could buy it.
This episode is layer upon layer of LIES. Once we get to SEE
the actual source codes involved, hopefully we'll find out what
really went on. Or, Paterson/Microsoft will be manufacturing
a piece of evidence that can land them all in prison.
Bear in mind that Paterson didn't actually rip off CP/M by copying
OBJECT CODE, he had access to the SOURCE. That means he could read
Kildall's comments about what needed to be done, and how it was done.
This is a level of theft that's almost unprecedented, since source
code is usually carefully guarded under lock and key (except Linux!).
In 1984 I worked at a software publishing house, and one of our
conditions for handling a product was to be given the SOURCE for
whatever we were publishing. And from personal experience I can
tell you authors would HOWL at that requirement. We kept their
source code in a safe. UNTIL the company went bankrupt and everything
was just dumped into a big pile and sold at a warehouse sale.
For those interested, that was Software Strategies, Inc (SSI).
In case you're wondering what ever happened to your program(s).
Bill
Tucson
Tim Shoppa
>
> Don't you suppose a person who worked on development of the
> Microsoft Z80 card that was used to put CP/M capability onto
> the Apple II would have *some* serious *intimate* knowledge
> of the operating systems involved?
In fact, all you need to know about CP/M to do this is to read
the _CP/M 2 Customization Guide_. Everyone who bought a full-blown
copy of CP/M got this booklet.
> Bear in mind that Paterson didn't actually rip off CP/M by copying
> OBJECT CODE, he had access to the SOURCE. That means he could read
> Kildall's comments about what needed to be done, and how it was done.
Sure, there's sample BIOS source code in Appendix C of the _CP/M 2
Customization Guide_. But again, *everyone* who bought a full-blown
(as opposed to dumbed-down) official copy of CP/M got this booklet
along with the 8" distribution floppy and a license signed by
Gary Kildall.
Writing a new BIOS for CP/M isn't the hardest thing in the world -
after all, everyone who didn't get it prepackaged onto their system
had to make their own BIOS from scratch - and doing
it for a coprocessor is indeed a bit more work, but you certainly
don't need the sources to the OS and CP/M utilities to do it. All
you need to know is right there in the _Customization Guide_.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: sho...@trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Evandro Menezes
in <80f08b$r09$1...@null.agames.com>:
>We would all be arguably better
>off if it _had_ copied, e.g. the CP/M extent-based disk structure,
>instead of adopting the FAT structure from Disk Basic, under which
>much of the world suffers today.
I think that FAT is much better than using directory entries for extra
clusters allocation...
>Not sure about the timing, but
>around about that time DRI added the notion of "users" to CP/M.
>What a concept! Even if only one person at a time could use the
>computer, _several_ people
I always thought it was a quick and dirty solution. I'm not sure
whether it was in CP/M since the beginning or was added later when
they started MP/M. The problem was sharing file between users, as the
system calls didn't provide any means to access another user's files.
It would have made much more sense adding a mask field to control
access to a file instead of an owner number...
Evandro Menezes
(mel) wrote in <memo.19991112...@mel.cix.co.uk>:
>i...@aerosys.co.uk (Chris Quayle) wrote:
>
>> > From what I recall the main reason given by the IBM design team for
>> > their choice was that Intel had a more complete peripheral range.
>>
>> I thought it was because there was no OS for 68k at the time. All the
>> 6800 peripherals can driven from 68k, it even has a VPA line.
>
>You're quite right that the 68K could use 6800 peripherals, and I'm sure
>that the IBM design team were aware of this... but it didn't stop them
>from giving the reason mentioned above as the reason why they went with
>Intel. =;-)
One of their concerns was that the venerable 68K had a 16-bit data bus
and thus would require twice as many buffers and a wider memory. It
would drive the cost up. The same reason that the 8088 was chose in
detriment of the 8086, although this one was more mature and
developed.
Everett M. Greene
> lezawang (leza...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : hi
> : which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
> : Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
> : vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
> : Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
>
> Not too hip on high-tech huh? Intel predates M$ by a
> very good margin. IBM probably rescued Intel from bankruptcy
Regretful, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everett M. Greene (The Mojave Greene, crotalus scutulatus scutulatus)
Ridgecrest, Ca. 93555 Path: moj...@IWVISP.com
Everett M. Greene
> lath...@home.com (Georgi Lathbury) wrote:
>
> > It was a race, you know, between them and Motorola. Intel finished
> > first
> > (and clearly cut corners).
> >
> > I sure wish Motorola had won. Give me a linear over a segmented arch.
> > anytime!
>
> their choice was that Intel had a more complete peripheral range.
So they used Moto peripheral chips (6845) in the design.
> Also, they weren't really taking the project seriously as no-one
> expected it to take off in the way that it did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
dls2
Derrick Shearer
dl...@Lehigh.EDU
Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:382BE89...@trailing-edge.com...
lcsy...@lcc.net
guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
> In article <K3nW3.10319$Ul.2...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
sp...@interlog.com (Spehro Pefhany) wrote:
>
> >If I recall the events correctly, this is what happened:
> >
> >The 16-bit NMOS Intel 8086 (which modern x86 processor are still
> >compatible with) came into existence before Microsoft had an OS of
any
> >kind. IBM chose the scrunched down 8-bit bus version of the 8086,
called
> >the 8088 (which was software compatible with the i8086) for their PC.
> >Microsoft purchased the rights to an existing O/S (a cloned version
of
> >the late Gary Kildall's CPM/86) that ran on the 8086/8088 and sold
IBM on
> >using it. It was called MS/DOS or just DOS (IBM had a name for it
too).
> >This was ca. 1981.
> >
> >Since then, the two products have grown and mutuated together.
> >
> >Note that "Windows" didn't come along until many years later, MS-DOS
did
> >not use true graphics.
>
> Ah, but is this the right place to draw the line? The 8086 was a
> continuation of a long line of processors such as the 8080, 4004,
> etc. At what point do you say "this is new. We start counting
> on this day."? MS-DOS has a lot of CP/M and a bit of Unix in it.
> The starting points are fuzzy.
>
port of CP/M 2.2 (or there abouts). It aliased a few of the memory
resident commands (ERA and DEL both worked, for example, PIP had
mutated), but it was very CP/M like, complete with a flat file system.
At 2.2 (or so), the subdirectories and disk resident commands to deal
with them were added. This made sense, because Microsoft had purchased
SCO and the growth path for DOS was projected to merge with Unix at some
ill-defined point in the future, much like the code trees for NT and
Win9x...
John Kocurek
Discussions like this really make me feel old...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Covington
news:3829F420...@hotmail.com...
> hi
> which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
> Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
> vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
> Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
It's more complicated than that, but basically...
Intel and then Zilog came out with 8-bit microprocessors... so did
Motorola...
Microsoft developed software for some of them...
IBM introduced the PC with an Intel 8088...
IBM wanted to buy an OS from Microsoft, so Microsoft quickly bought DOS from
Seattle Computer and resold it to them...
My favorite trick question: "What did Bill Gates invent?"
The answer: "Basically nothing." But many people think he invented
computers!
Roger Ivie
>So, has the copyright run out on the _CP/M 2 Customization Guide_?
No, but Tim Olmstead was able to convince Caldera (the current
owner of CP/M) to release the old CP/M stuff under a free-for-personal-use
license. The documentation is available from the Unofficial CP/M Web Site,
which may be found at http://cpm.interfun.net/. The documentation
available there includes the CP/M 2 Customization Guide.
--
Roger Ivie
TeraGlobal Communications Corporation
1770 North Research Park Way Suite 100
Logan, UT 84341
mailto:ri...@teraglobal.com
phoneto:(435)787-0555
faxto:(435)787-0516
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Chip Zempel
"CP/M Operating System" manual is called "CP/M Alteration." This may be
similar to what Tim was talking about. The ownership of the manual itself
isn't clear, but the owners of the source code have posted the manual on
the web. It's at:
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~cfs/cpm/
Appendix A of this guide is about modifying the BIOS and Appendix B has a
"skeletal" BIOS to start from. I think this might be the manual that Tim
spoke of - I don't recall seeing a "Customization Guide" and I don't see
one at the site above - but I could be wrong. Either way, there's a lot of
info at the link above. (Lot's of the old DR source code, too!)
In article <80hjan$16...@fidoii.cc.Lehigh.EDU>, "dls2" <dl...@Lehigh.EDU> wrote:
>So, has the copyright run out on the _CP/M 2 Customization Guide_?
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chip Zempel
cze...@ns.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind,
then what does an empty desk signify?
George Neuner
IBM was more likely afraid of lending ammunition to the anti-trust
suit that was going on [or had just finished - don't have the
chronology handy] at the time. That lawsuit, IMO, is the reason IBM
didn't annex Microsoft outright.
I also think IBM didn't expect the "low cost" micros to proliferate so
quickly and so designed their entry very cheaply. They already had a
high end micro based on 68000s [the "S9000" I believe]. According to
rumor, the design team considered using 68000s again, but went instead
with the 8088 because it needed one less support chip.
George Neuner
Dynamic Resolutions, Inc.
===================================================
The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
===================================================
Pat Ford
Previously, Michael Covington wrote in comp.arch.embedded, comp.realtime:
{
{
{ My favorite trick question: "What did Bill Gates invent?"
{
{ The answer: "Basically nothing." But many people think he invented
{ computers!
{
{
{
{
--
Pat Ford email: pf...@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com
(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 1999-11-12 bil...@sunsouthwest.com said:
>Don't you suppose a person who worked on development of the
>Microsoft Z80 card that was used to put CP/M capability onto
>the Apple II would have *some* serious *intimate* knowledge
>of the operating systems involved?
>
>In the book ''Hard Drive'', it says Paul Allen hired Timothy
>Paterson to work on that card. And that when he was unable to
>complete the project another group was assigned the task.
>
>Since this was AT LEAST two years before the IBM/DOS/CP/M
>fiasco, clearly Bill Gates was telling a major LIE when he
>said, in 'Triumph Of The Nerds', that Paterson was just 'some
>guy that Paul knew' who just happened to have ''written''
>this operating system so Microsoft could buy it.
>
>This episode is layer upon layer of LIES. Once we get to SEE
>the actual source codes involved, hopefully we'll find out what
>really went on. Or, Paterson/Microsoft will be manufacturing
>a piece of evidence that can land them all in prison.
[...snip...]
>Bill
>Tucson
Well, there you go AGAIN, Bill! <g> This was all =settled= years ago,
and you know it perfectly well.
Digital Research agreed NOT to sue over the theft of CP/M source code,
in return for IBM's agreement to make CP/M-86 available as an alternative
O.S. for the IBM PC.
IBM did this, even though they broke the =spirit= of the agreement by
essentially giving away PC-DOS for 'free' with the PC...while CP/M-86
cost the potential buyer an additional $US 495.00.
Digital Research got snookered; pure and simple. It's a doggone shame,
yes...but the reality is, nobody will ever go to prison over it.
While I share your animosity toward Mikro$loth and its Il Duce, this
is =not= the path by which they'll eventually be brought to account.
Get USED to it! :)
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 1999-11-12 sho...@trailing-edge.com said:
>bill_h wrote:
> > Bear in mind that Paterson didn't actually rip off CP/M by copying
> > OBJECT CODE, he had access to the SOURCE. That means he could read
> > Kildall's comments about what needed to be done, and how it was
> > done.
>
>Sure, there's sample BIOS source code in Appendix C of the _CP/M 2
>Customization Guide_. But again, *everyone* who bought a full-blown
>(as opposed to dumbed-down) official copy of CP/M got this booklet
>along with the 8" distribution floppy and a license signed by
>Gary Kildall.
You might have misunderstood, Tim; this wasn't just BIOS source code.
Seattle Computer Products, where Tim Paterson was ensconced, was an
=authorized= Digital Research reseller/developer...and as such, had
access to the original and full CP/M source code.
Back in those days, D.R.I. made the source for CP/M available to its
authorized outlets. A serious mistake, as it turned out.
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 1999-11-12 dl...@Lehigh.EDU said:
>So, has the copyright run out on the _CP/M 2 Customization Guide_?
Nope. It has over three more decades to run.
Limey
says...
>
> Back in those days, D.R.I. made the source for CP/M available to its
> authorized outlets. A serious mistake, as it turned out.
>
Well not really - the BDOS and CCP were not large pieces of code and were
quite easy to figure out - I'm sitting here looking at some line printer
output dated 1-dec-84 that I wrote and I have another copy by Clark
Calkins that's dated 1983... this isn't Rocket Science...
The ironic thing is that if you disassembled Windows today and then tried
to resell the code then you'd probably end up in court.
It's worth remembering that prior to the introduction of MSDOS most
utilities came with source code...
Limey
Barry Watzman
Bill Gates at the time, and I bought the Seattle Computer Products hardware
computer system, which I still have, including the 8" disks of 86-DOS version 0.3,
which I also still have, as well as all of the later versions through version 2.0
(which was, by then, simply SCP's licensed copy of the by-then-Microsoft MS-DOS
2.0).
DR threatened to sue IBM, but never actually did sue, I think.
I think that MS actually bought 86-DOS itself (e.g. SOLE ownership of the actual
copyright), and not a license, non-exclusive or otherwise. However, SCP was then
itself issued a special non-exclusive license by Microsoft, a license that was, I
think, quite unique in it's terms and not duplicated by any other licensee.
Barry Watzman
Barry Watzman
source code -- and by that, I mean to the operating system itself, not a
BIOS. But, to be honest about it, CP/M is a simple, almost trivial
operating system. And EVERYONE who was writing software in those days
knew, or had access to, the data structures and API used by CP/M -- they
were not proprietary information. And any programmer of Tim's caliber
could have created a CP/M clone from scratch in a relatively short time
(weeks, perhaps a month or two). Again, here, I am talking about the
operating system itself, e.g. the CCP and BDOS. Remember, both of these
combined don't amount to 6k of code.
If you look at the CP/M operating system, MOST of the code is in the
utilities, not the actual operating system. ASM is bigger, I think, than
the CCP and BDOS. Then there is DDT, STAT, ED, PIP, MOVCPM and so on.
These obviously were not copied in 86-DOS, as the functionality is
completely different, and the processor is also totally different (e.g. the
assembler in 86-dos MUST be a very different animal than the one in CP/M
due to the differences in the 8080 and the 8086 architecture -- and this
goes for DDT and DEBUG also). So the suggestion that Tim copied the SOURCE
code, to me, does not hold much water. In fact, he didn't copy the object
code either, rather, what he did was to copy the data structures and, to
some extent, the user interface (which was neither very sophisticated nor
very original anyway).
Barry Watzman
Tim Shoppa wrote:
> bill_h wrote:
> >
> > Don't you suppose a person who worked on development of the
> > Microsoft Z80 card that was used to put CP/M capability onto
> > the Apple II would have *some* serious *intimate* knowledge
> > of the operating systems involved?
>
> In fact, all you need to know about CP/M to do this is to read
> the _CP/M 2 Customization Guide_. Everyone who bought a full-blown
> copy of CP/M got this booklet.
>
> > Bear in mind that Paterson didn't actually rip off CP/M by copying
> > OBJECT CODE, he had access to the SOURCE. That means he could read
> > Kildall's comments about what needed to be done, and how it was done.
>
> Sure, there's sample BIOS source code in Appendix C of the _CP/M 2
> Customization Guide_. But again, *everyone* who bought a full-blown
> (as opposed to dumbed-down) official copy of CP/M got this booklet
> along with the 8" distribution floppy and a license signed by
> Gary Kildall.
>
bill_h
> Well, there you go AGAIN, Bill! <g> This was all =settled= years ago,
> and you know it perfectly well.
I don't think so. This is probably wishful thinking on Microsoft's part.
> Digital Research agreed NOT to sue over the theft of CP/M source code,
> in return for IBM's agreement to make CP/M-86 available as an alternative
> O.S. for the IBM PC.
The 'agreement' was with IBM. It didn't mention Microsoft. You have
something else to offer? Kildall was well aware of the difference.
> IBM did this, even though they broke the =spirit= of the agreement by
> essentially giving away PC-DOS for 'free' with the PC...while CP/M-86
> cost the potential buyer an additional $US 495.00.
At law, this is called ''failure of consideration''. It makes the
agreement
VOIDABLE. And is generally a very stupid thing to do. And which is why I
was asking about LOGO, as sold by IBM - perhaps there was further
agreement,
to satisfy Kildall, that involved offering LOGO in the IBM livery. Well
for whatever reason he failed to do much about it, except complain.
> Digital Research got snookered; pure and simple. It's a doggone shame,
> yes...but the reality is, nobody will ever go to prison over it.
Manufacturing evidence is a potential ticket to prison.
Differences of opinion make for horse races and lawsuits. It's FAR from
over yet. MS has chosen to make many many enemies in this business.
We'll
have to wait and see what happens in a couple months.....
> While I share your animosity toward Mikro$loth and its Il Duce, this
> is =not= the path by which they'll eventually be brought to account.
Animosity is the wrong word. I don't hate sharks. I just don't want one
in my backyard pool. Gates is a natural preditor. Sixty years ago we saw
a political Hitler. Gates is an ECONOMIC Hitler. Until recently he was
more or less free to conquer through uncivilized tactics. And accumulate
wealth beyond any possible constructive use. Now he's moving into
content.
He threatens to become a force in shaping opinion and influencing
politics.
The more traditional power structure, the one bought and paid for with
OLD
money, has decided it's time to rein this upstart in.
His choices are, back down and accept an attenuated role in his
remaining
years, or try to bluff and bully his way, as he appears hell bent on
doing,
and find his company carved up and out from under him.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
2000 should be a very interesting year.
Allison
>You might have misunderstood, Tim; this wasn't just BIOS source code.
>Seattle Computer Products, where Tim Paterson was ensconced, was an
>=authorized= Digital Research reseller/developer...and as such, had
>access to the original and full CP/M source code.
TIM P. reverse enginerred it from a copy of CPM-1.4 by dissassembly.
The BDOS is only 3.5k of 8080 code and it's not rocket science to
dissassemble it (Try the L option in DDT!).
>Back in those days, D.R.I. made the source for CP/M available to its
>authorized outlets. A serious mistake, as it turned out.
It was available but copying is still copying and he (Tim P) used the
8080->8086 code converter on it leading to the story that Q-dos
and early PCdos had the DRI copyright statement as it was passed
through.
Allison
Real address is: Allisonp @ world DOT std DOT com
++++BULK Email severely not wanted+++
Allison
>"skeletal" BIOS to start from. I think this might be the manual that Tim
>spoke of - I don't recall seeing a "Customization Guide" and I don't see
>one at the site above - but I could be wrong. Either way, there's a lot of
>info at the link above. (Lot's of the old DR source code, too!)
You're wrong. the Alteration Guide was orignally a seperate book and
later editions it was unchanged but bound in with the rest of the set.
I have the orginal 1.4 set, 2.0 set and the kaypro, morrow and DEC
bound version of the exact same information.
Tim is right. You don't need source for the CCP or BDOS to move it
from one platform to another, just the willingness to write the BIOS
which is very well documented by DRI and Several other authors
(Andy Johnson-Laird did a really fine job). I'll go further to say
the only part of CPM you cant easily hack is the BDOS (I know about
the improved clones like P2dos and ZRdos) as the CCP is a special
transient (gets loaded by warm and coldbooters). That made ZCPR
(a common improved CCP) a easily inserted mod due to CPM modulatory.
(MS)DOS was also portable in the same way at one time. You could get
the info to write your own BIOS and that lead to the PC-DOS on S100
systems we don't hear much about anymore.
Guy Macon
>
>So, has the copyright run out on the _CP/M 2 Customization Guide_?
Here is a list of when copyrights run out.
**************************************************
DATE OF WORK: Published before 1923
PROTECTED FROM: In public domain
TERM: None
**************************************************
DATE OF WORK: Published from 1923 - 63
PROTECTED FROM: When published with notice [3]
TERM: 28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended
by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so
renewed, now in public domain
**************************************************
DATE OF WORK: Published from 1964 - 77
PROTECTED FROM: When published with notice 28 years for first term;
TERM: now automatic extension of 67 years for second term
**************************************************
DATE OF WORK: Created before 1-1-78 but not published
PROTECTED FROM: 1-1-78 (Effective date of 1976 Copyright Act)
TERM: Life + 70 years or 12-31-2002, whichever is greater
**************************************************
DATE OF WORK: Created before 1-1-78 but published
between then and 12-31-2002
PROTECTED FROM: 1-1-78, (Effective date of 1976 Copyright Act)
TERM: Life + 70 years or 12-31-2047 whichever is greater
**************************************************
DATE OF WORK: Created 1-1-78 or after
PROTECTED FROM: When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression
TERM: Life + 70 years [1] (or if work of corporate authorship, the
shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation [2]
**************************************************
[1] Term of joint works is measured by life of the longest-lived author.
[2] Works for hire, anonymous and pseudonymous works also have this term.
17 U.S.C. § 302(c).
[3] Under the 1909 Act, works published without notice went into the
public domain upon publication. Works published without notice
between 1-1-78 and 3-1-89, effective date of the Berne Convention
Implementation Act, retained copyright only if, e.g., registration
was made within five years. 17 U.S.C. § 405.
Source: Tom Field / Lolly Gasaway. Last updated 11-5-98
mel
> > From what I recall the main reason given by the IBM design team for
> > their choice was that Intel had a more complete peripheral range.
>
> So they used Moto peripheral chips (6845) in the design.
Er, one. Against all all the others. Did Intel have any display
peripherals at the time (I can't recall)?
--
/Mel/ (at work)
D
Chris Quayle wrote:
> Might be stretching it a bit...
D
Michael Covington wrote:
> lezawang <leza...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3829F420...@hotmail.com...
> > hi
> > which one come first, Intel manufacture the chip, then
> > Microsoft develop operating system for that chip or
> > vise versa, I mean microsoft develop the s/w first then
> > Intel develop the chip to work with window. thanks
>
> It's more complicated than that, but basically...
>
> Intel and then Zilog came out with 8-bit microprocessors... so did
> Motorola...
>
> Microsoft developed software for some of them...
Microsoft wanted to sell IBM their interpretter andcompiler...
>
>
> IBM introduced the PC with an Intel 8088...
>
> IBM wanted to buy an OS from Microsoft,
wanted to license an OS which Microsoft didn't haveso they forwarded IBM to one
company who had one
but IBM scared off with legalese. IBM didn't
want to own the software (their own development
process way to slow to quickly create/maintain software)
so, Bill, not wanting to lose his compiler/interpretter
customer...
> so Microsoft quickly bought DOS from
> Seattle Computer
> and resold it to them...
and then licensed it to IBM who did not want to own it.
> My favorite trick question: "What did Bill Gates invent?"
A Basic interpretter and a Fortran compiler. He justwas lucky enough to have
his mother on a board of
a charity with a big cheese from IBM. IBM big cheese
said they wanted to make pcs. Mom Gates says hey!
my little sonny makes pc software...
> The answer: "Basically nothing."
The answer: one hell of an interest in astrologyas a whole hell of a lot of
stars had to be in alignment
for DOS to end up in his hands.
Charles E. Bortle, Jr.
Barry Watzman wrote in message <382CD337...@neo.rr.com>...
>I have never seen any evidence that Tim Patterson had access to the CP/M
>source code -- and by that, I mean to the operating system itself, not a
>BIOS. But, to be honest about it, CP/M is a simple, almost trivial
>operating system. And EVERYONE who was writing software in those days
>knew, or had access to, the data structures and API used by CP/M -- they
>were not proprietary information. And any programmer of Tim's caliber
>could have created a CP/M clone from scratch in a relatively short time
>(weeks, perhaps a month or two). Again, here, I am talking about the
>operating system itself, e.g. the CCP and BDOS. Remember, both of these
>combined don't amount to 6k of code.
This was also my take on it as I have followed this thread. FWIW
--
Charles cbr...@ix.netcom.com
"For God So Loved The World, That He Gave His
Only Begotten Son, That Whosoever Believeth
In Him Should Not Perish, But Have Everlasting
Life"John3:16 * http://pw2.netcom.com/~cbrtjr/wrdthing.html *
M.
>> My favorite trick question: "What did Bill Gates invent?"
>
>A Basic interpretter and a Fortran compiler. He justwas lucky enough to
have
>his mother on a board of
>a charity with a big cheese from IBM. IBM big cheese
>said they wanted to make pcs. Mom Gates says hey!
>my little sonny makes pc software...
Of course the fact that Microsoft was already a well-known PC software
provider, and that MS-DOS was ready while CP/M was a year away, and that
Gates offered IBM a perpetual license to ship and develop MS-DOS, and that
Gates dealt with IBM and didn't threaten to sue them . . .
those are all side issues, right?
M.
bill_h
It's worth noting that where Seattle Computer appears to have
registered nothing, and Microsoft very very little, DRI
in fact filed over a hundred copyright registrations.
And something people generally seem to be unaware of, in this
thread, is the FACT that Microsoft had signed a licensing agreement
for CP/M that quite explicitly forbade reverse engineering and
disassembly of CP/M, which was the only means POSSIBLE for Paterson
to 'discover' the internals of CP/M so that it COULD be cloned.
Put that fact; together with the fact that Paterson worked on the
softcard in 1978 (+/-); and the fact that Paul Allen hired him for
that work; and the fact that Paterson 'developed' 86-DOS which later
became PC- and MS- DOS; there's omly so much leeway before some
pretty inescapable conclusions begin to emerge.
A close inspection of known facts, as I've been trying to point
out, make clear both Microsoft's violation of their own signed
agreement, AND the clear theft of intellectual property that
represents.
Microsoft, and Paterson in particular, have been trying to spin
this story away for almost twenty years.
It IS NOT going to go away, because it is true.
What amazes me is that not one of those people charged with 'theft'
of Microsoft products, in particular DOS and/or Windows, has (as far
as I know) raised the defense that those products are based on the
prior work of someone else, challenging MS' right to recovery on
something they don't actually own.
A skilled defendant could pick apart such a claim, and actually get the
case dismissed if MS did NOT clearly exclude certain things in their
claim. Since (again, as far as I know) MS has NEVER limited it's claims
to any part of DOS or Windows, we can assume they're not about to start.
bill_h
> Barry Watzman wrote in message <382CD337...@neo.rr.com>...
> >I have never seen any evidence that Tim Patterson had access to the CP/M
> >source code -- and by that, I mean to the operating system itself, not a
> >BIOS. But, to be honest about it, CP/M is a simple, almost trivial
> >operating system. And EVERYONE who was writing software in those days
> >knew, or had access to, the data structures and API used by CP/M -- they
> >were not proprietary information........
IBM published the source code listing for the BIOS of their machines.
Can't hardly get any more 'open and accessable' than that!
Seems to me IBM sued a bunch of folks who tried to CLONE it,
though......
You are confusing ability to purchase and use something, with the
right to copy it, including look and feel, and sell copies for profit.
Have you ever taken a real good look at the Microsoft card? And at
the documentation, including the early stuff? There was a lot more
involved than simply re-writing the CBIOS that DRI normally supplied.
And Tim Paterson was unsuccessful in the task, remember. What does that
tell you about his so-called 'abilities'? You can't have it both ways.
And you also can't credit HIM with everything included with DOS,
including
the use of the FAT, because the official MS story is that this was
something
Tim 'borrowed' from M-DOS, after being shown that operating system.
Clearly then, there WAS some direct MS involvement in the writing of
PC-DOS, and THAT would be a CLEAR VIOLATION of the written DRI
agreement.
The successful 'cloning' of the IBM BIOS required those taking the
propritary product being 'cloned' apart have absolutely nothing to
do with producing the clone product itself; they only wrote the
'specifications' for it from examining the original.
Paterson was in BOTH camps, working on BOTH sides. That's the problem.
Robert McConnell
Yes, there was an 8200 series display controller, but I can't remember
the number right now. NCR used it in a couple of dumb terminals, then
switched over to 6809 based designs with custom controllers. IIRC,
none of the VLSI controllers could handle the script style extended
connections they needed for Farsi and some other character sets.
Bob McConnell
N2SPP
Ed Porter
>
> ... Sixty years ago we saw a political Hitler. Gates is an ECONOMIC Hitler.
Bzzzt! Godwin's Law says this thread is over, and bill_h loses. Shame really,
I was tending to agree with him.
-ed
--
"No, `Eureka' is Greek for `This bath is too hot.'" -- Dr. Who
Guy Macon
>And something people generally seem to be unaware of, in this
>thread, is the FACT that Microsoft had signed a licensing agreement
>for CP/M that quite explicitly forbade reverse engineering and
>disassembly of CP/M, which was the only means POSSIBLE for Paterson
>to 'discover' the internals of CP/M so that it COULD be cloned.
Not so. Pheonix cloned the IBM PC BIOS with another technique
known as "cleanroom coding" that involved no reverse engineering
or disassembly by the programming team that wrote the code.
I offer no opinion as to whether Paterson used such a technique
or on the validity of the case you are making. I only wish to
correct a slight error on an obscure technical point.
Guy Macon
>
>Of course, if IBM wasn't in a pissing contest wth Exxon, we'd all probably
>be running a real operating system on a real processor instead of a patched
>together OS on a chip Intel saw as a stopgap until they got the 432
>together.
And we all know what a raging sucess the Intel iAPX423 was....
Grant Edwards
>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:35:12 -0500, Michael Huang
><NOSPAMs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> I was working at IBM when the PC was introduced, and was very
>>> shocked that the design was open (bus specs, published BIOS,
>>> the processor was from an outside vendor, and the software was
>>> also from an outside vendor).
>>
>>IBM probably didn't expect the open design to allow so many clone makers
>>to mushroom and prosper. If not for these clones, PCs might not have
>>proliferated the way they did. Guess that means IBM was also guilty for
>>having helped M$ build its empire. 8-)
>
>IBM was more likely afraid of lending ammunition to the anti-trust
>suit that was going on [or had just finished - don't have the
>chronology handy] at the time. That lawsuit, IMO, is the reason IBM
>didn't annex Microsoft outright.
>
>I also think IBM didn't expect the "low cost" micros to proliferate so
>quickly and so designed their entry very cheaply. They already had a
>high end micro based on 68000s [the "S9000" I believe]. According to
>rumor, the design team considered using 68000s again, but went instead
>with the 8088 because it needed one less support chip.
IIRC, the 8-bit bus version of the 68000 (the 68008) wasn't
available, but Intel had an 8-bit bus version of the 8086 (the
8088). Doubling the width of the data bus was probably even
more of a cost increase than the additional support chip.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! GOOD-NIGHT,
at everybody... Now I have to
visi.com go administer FIRST-AID to
mypet LEISURE SUIT!!
Grant Edwards
>In article <80i62d$5sr$2...@q.seanet.com>, anonymous@bogus_address.con
>says...
>>
>> authorized outlets. A serious mistake, as it turned out.
>
>quite easy to figure out - I'm sitting here looking at some line printer
>output dated 1-dec-84 that I wrote and I have another copy by Clark
>Calkins that's dated 1983... this isn't Rocket Science...
Not at all. I can think of a couple people who reverse
engineered CP/M (without access to DRI source code) enough to
allow them to impliment a CP/M emulator that would run CP/M
applications under other OSes: (RSX-11, and Unix). Not to take
anything away from their efforts, but the CP/M part wasn't hard
at all -- writing the Z80 CPU emulator took a lot more work.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! What's the MATTER
at Sid?... Is your BEVERAGE
visi.com unsatisfactory?
Mark Statzer
> In 1984 I worked at a software publishing house, and one of our
> conditions for handling a product was to be given the SOURCE for
> whatever we were publishing. And from personal experience I can
> tell you authors would HOWL at that requirement. We kept their
> source code in a safe. UNTIL the company went bankrupt and everything
> was just dumped into a big pile and sold at a warehouse sale.
>
> For those interested, that was Software Strategies, Inc (SSI).
>
> In case you're wondering what ever happened to your program(s).
So it's safe to make a backup copy of my TRS-80 cassette B-1 Bomber?
Mark "waiting for the Win9x port" Statzer
--
*NOTE* I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.
Jesper Hansen
>
> The ironic thing is that if you disassembled Windows today and then tried
> to resell the code then you'd probably end up in court.
>
If you tried to disassemble the 40 million lines of code in Windows
2000,
you'd more likely end up in the loonie house !
/Jesper
Holm Tiffe
mel@cix...co...uk (mel) writes:
> moj...@mojaveg.iwvisp.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
>
>> > From what I recall the main reason given by the IBM design team for
>> > their choice was that Intel had a more complete peripheral range.
>>
>> So they used Moto peripheral chips (6845) in the design.
>
> Er, one. Against all all the others. Did Intel have any display
> peripherals at the time (I can't recall)?
Hmm, do you remember the MC 14681 ? The AT RTC ?
Intel CRTC was the 8275 this time, but only with an half of the
features from the 6845 (no graphics at all)
Holm
--
FreibergNet Systemhaus GbR Holm Tiffe * Administration, Development
Systemhaus für Daten- und Netzwerktechnik phone +49 3731 781279
Unternehmensgruppe Liebscher & Partner fax +49 3731 781377
D-09599 Freiberg * Am St. Niclas Schacht 13 http://www.freibergnet.de/
Dave Mundt
And, even if you DID disassemble it, you would still not have
anything really useful, because, unless you had a VERY good sourcer,
you would have only millions of lines of assembler code. no symbolic
references...No Labels...NO DOCUMENTATION as to what the programmers
really intended it to do.
Truely, therein lies madness.
Dave Mundt
Jesper Hansen <qtx...@tn.etx.ericsson.se> wrote:
Remove the mapson. from the email address to get to me...
I hate Cullers who gather from newsgroups
Visit my home page at http://www.esper.com/xvart/index.html
Chris Fischer
> Greetings and Salutations...
> And, even if you DID disassemble it, you would still not have
> anything really useful, because, unless you had a VERY good sourcer,
> you would have only millions of lines of assembler code. no symbolic
> references...No Labels...NO DOCUMENTATION as to what the programmers
> really intended it to do.
So if I was in that situation, and suddenly had lots of money from
selling V1.0, my next step would be to re-write in V2.0.
But this is all hypothetical.
>
> Truely, therein lies madness.
> Dave Mundt
>
> Jesper Hansen <qtx...@tn.etx.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> >Limey wrote:
> >>
> >> The ironic thing is that if you disassembled Windows today and then tried
> >> to resell the code then you'd probably end up in court.
> >>
> >
> >If you tried to disassemble the 40 million lines of code in Windows
> >2000,
> >you'd more likely end up in the loonie house !
> >
> >/Jesper
>
> Remove the mapson. from the email address to get to me...
> I hate Cullers who gather from newsgroups
>
> Visit my home page at http://www.esper.com/xvart/index.html
--
Chris Fischer cfis...@ieee.org
Coda Software, Limited
George Neuner
wrote:
>
>IIRC, the 8-bit bus version of the 68000 (the 68008) wasn't
>available, but Intel had an 8-bit bus version of the 8086 (the
>8088). Doubling the width of the data bus was probably even
>more of a cost increase than the additional support chip.
>
My memory from that time is a little hazy, but I am fairly certain the
68008 was available. It did require one more memory glue chip than
the 8088. The other issure was that neither chip was cached, but the
8088 had the multiple instruction prefetch mechanism that the 68xxx
lacked giving it a slight edge with equivalent clocks.
George Neuner
Dynamic Resolutions, Inc.
===================================================
The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
===================================================
Grant Edwards
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 21:43:38 GMT, grant@nowhere. (Grant Edwards)
>wrote:
>
>>IIRC, the 8-bit bus version of the 68000 (the 68008) wasn't
>>available, but Intel had an 8-bit bus version of the 8086 (the
>>8088). Doubling the width of the data bus was probably even
>>more of a cost increase than the additional support chip.
>
>My memory from that time is a little hazy, but I am fairly certain the
>68008 was available.
Could be -- my recollection is that the 68000 (16 bit bus) came
out before the 68008 (8 bit bus), but I don't know when the
guys in Boca made the decision, so that may not have been a
problem for them.
>It did require one more memory glue chip than
>the 8088. The other issure was that neither chip was cached, but the
>8088 had the multiple instruction prefetch mechanism that the 68xxx
>lacked giving it a slight edge with equivalent clocks.
And we've all been in purgatory ever since...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! How's the wife? Is
at she at home enjoying
visi.com capitalism?
Roland van Straten
Roland
Dave Mundt <RemoveThis...@esper.com> wrote in message
news:38303a41...@news.esper.com...
> Greetings and Salutations...
> And, even if you DID disassemble it, you would still not have
> anything really useful, because, unless you had a VERY good sourcer,
> you would have only millions of lines of assembler code. no symbolic
> references...No Labels...NO DOCUMENTATION as to what the programmers
> really intended it to do.
Roland van Straten
massive annoyances in the years to come......
- 8088 over 68000 just to save on a few chips.
- having that insane 640kByte limit
- Windows
- Windows 3
- Windows 9x
- Windows NT
- Windows 2000 (with added bug count? or times million lines of de-bug-
code )
Grant Edwards <grant@nowhere.> wrote in message
news:slrn830uj...@grante.comtrol.com...
Average Torvaldsian
> > In 1984 I worked at a software publishing house, and one of our
> >
<stupid question = yes>
Is this "SSI" the same company that put out the original WordPerfect, before
WordPerfect Corp was formed? I dimly remember an advert in one of the computing
magazines from the mid eighies for WP 3.?, and was struck by the company name
-not- being WPCorp, but iirc SSI.
</stupid question>
Max.
Barry Watzman
not the same company as Software Strategies, Inc.
Barry Watzman
bill_h
>
> > bill_h wrote:
> > > In 1984 I worked at a software publishing house, and one of our
> > >
> > > For those interested, that was Software Strategies, Inc (SSI).
> Is this "SSI" the same company that put out the original WordPerfect, before
> WordPerfect Corp was formed? I dimly remember an advert in one of the computing
> magazines from the mid eighies for WP 3.?, and was struck by the company name
> -not- being WPCorp, but iirc SSI.
Nope, not the Wordperfect people. I think THAT SSI sold softwares mostly
for the Data General Nova computers. (At least, I think I read that some
where). They were located in Utah. Wordperfect was written for the Nova
and later got 'moved' onto the IBM PC. I think the earliest WordPerfect
packages came from SSI, but they changed the name after a while.
The SSI I was 'affiliated' with was in a suburb of Minneapolis. It had
been
started by one Gerald Van Diver, who put out a book listing all the
softwares
(suppposedly) available for (mostly) the IBM PC, but seems to me
included
Apples and some others.
This SSI (Software Strategies, Inc.) 'packaged' software from all sorts
of people. Sort of maroon binders in light gray slipcases. Mostly very
poor quality printing job inside. Basically went belly up in late 1984.
All of this was more or less a scam to get free software - which wasn't
as
easy in those days. They spent several millions of dollars producing
3-ring
bindered softwares, I think about 100,000 packages, out of which they
sold
(well, were paid for ...) about 350 packages. Maybe 375.
It's almost hard to believe, years later, how badly the operation was
run.
Bill
Tucson
rei...@my-deja.com
> provider, and that MS-DOS was ready while CP/M was a year away, and
that
> Gates offered IBM a perpetual license to ship and develop MS-DOS, and
that
> Gates dealt with IBM and didn't threaten to sue them . . .
>
> those are all side issues, right?
>
> M.
scratch, (if I remember it correctly the IBM debugging theam found 304
errors within MS-DOS 1) this is the reason the original PC-DOS was
copyrhited by IBM.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D
knocking at Microsoft and the DOS that was out there
was not owned or developed by Microsoft. If you're
trying to imply Microsoft was business savvy because
they bought and licensed it to IBM, it was offered for
sale to IBM, they didn't want to own it. I don't see how
this make Gates a genius. Relative to IBM, DEC, Apple,
the only thing he wasn't was smug. But I have heard
an certain amount of fear greatly increases one's chance
of survival.
As for being well-known back then, I'm well-known to
my mother too.
M. wrote:
> D wrote in message <382D6234...@nospam.net>...
> >> My favorite trick question: "What did Bill Gates invent?"
> >
> >A Basic interpretter and a Fortran compiler. He justwas lucky enough to
> have
> >his mother on a board of
> >a charity with a big cheese from IBM. IBM big cheese
> >said they wanted to make pcs. Mom Gates says hey!
> >my little sonny makes pc software...
>
M.
>There was no such thing as MSDOS when IBM came
>knocking at Microsoft and the DOS that was out there
>was not owned or developed by Microsoft.
That's exactly what I told the original poster in this thread.
>If you're
>trying to imply Microsoft was business savvy because
>they bought and licensed it to IBM, it was offered for
>sale to IBM, they didn't want to own it.
They didn't have to buy it. They got a perpetual license to ship and
develop.
>I don't see how this make Gates a genius.
I didn't say that it made Gates a genius. I said that he did a number of
things right in dealing with IBM that DRI did not. Therefore, attributing
the deal to the Mary Gates connection is rather naive.
>As for being well-known back then, I'm well-known to
>my mother too.
Let's put the sarcastic nonsense aside, OK? Microsoft was already known in
PC circles as the maker of a popular 8-bit BASIC interpreter. IBM came to
Microsoft for a BASIC interpreter. IBM raised the subject of OS vendors.
Gates referred them to DRI. DRI dropped the ball. IBM told Gates what
happened. Gates took matters into his own hands.
Gary Helbig
>
> I talked to a guy in Seattly once who mentioned that you could read Gary
> K. comment lines in the source for DOS 1.1.
>
> If somebody had the time, effort and teh money, it would be
> interesting...
>
> -don
Urban legend. Just ain't true.
I was a Seattle-DOS OEM; had access to the entire distribution.
I did a text search for 'Gary', 'Kildall', 'Digital' ad naseum and it
turned up NOTHING.
SC-DOS was a 'from the ground-up' project. They reverse engineered SOME
of the commands, but not a lot.
And it was written _entirely_ in ASM, where CP/M had some parts written
in PL/M.
Gosh, I wish that myth would die.
Gary.
Donato B. Masaoy III
>
> Differences of opinion make for horse races and lawsuits. It's FAR from
> over yet. MS has chosen to make many many enemies in this business.
> We'll
> have to wait and see what happens in a couple months.....
>
I don't know the ins and outs, and I practice family and criminal law,
not intellectual property. But it seems that if there really was
something (but the settlement with IBM wasn't just that -- a settlement)
that Caldera would have added that to their suit against M$. Although
that suit is under the antitrust laws for intentionally and wrongfully
undermining DR-DOS essentially through FUD. Goes to trial in January.
anon...@bogus_address.com
On 1999-11-21 "ghelbig"@mailcity(.)com said:
>Donato B. Masaoy III wrote:
> > I talked to a guy in Seattle once who mentioned that you could
> > read Gary K. comment lines in the source for DOS 1.1.
> [...snip...]
> > -don
>
>Urban legend. Just ain't true.
>I was a Seattle-DOS OEM; had access to the entire distribution.
>I did a text search for 'Gary', 'Kildall', 'Digital' ad naseum and
>it turned up NOTHING.
>SC-DOS was a 'from the ground-up' project. They reverse engineered
>SOME of the commands, but not a lot.
>And it was written _entirely_ in ASM, where CP/M had some parts
>written in PL/M.
>Gosh, I wish that myth would die.
Whether or not there were comments by Kildall in the QDOS or the M$-DOS
source code is pretty much immaterial. If someone were going to steal
code, he'd have to be a complete idiot to leave in such obvious evidence
of his theft.
The more cogent question is whether or not code was indeed "lifted" from
CP/M, and used in those other O.S.es.
From the public record, we could very well come to a personal conclusion
that it was.
After all, why else would mega-million-dollar giant IBM, in 1981, enter
into an agreement with Digital Research which specified that IBM would
make CP/M-86 available to buyers of the IBM PC as an alternative operating
system to DOS...in return for which Digital Research explicitly agreed
not to sue IBM for theft of intellectual property?
That's a precedent-setting, and rather convincing, bit of evidence.
But then, I suppose there are a few folks out there who still believe that
Billy-Bob Clinton "...never had sex with that woman."
Ian St. John
<anonymous@bogus_address.com> wrote in message
news:81d4o6$o0i$1...@q.seanet.com...
I have a copy of the "MS-DOS Bible" which goes in to some detail on
the history. Nothing is said about source code, but 86-DOS was
deliberately designed to mimic CPM/80 data structures and layout such
as executable files, file control blocks, etc. This was a deliberate
move to allow automatic translation from 8080 CPM code to the new OS.
There is an image of a SCP advertisement to back this up.
DR probably used this as a basis for the 'theft'. Not the code, but
the layout of the supporting storage areas. I can't say where Paterson
would have gotten the layout, but I suspect that technical references
documented most or all of it.
Guy Macon
>> But then, I suppose there are a few folks out there who
>> still believe that Billy-Bob Clinton "...never had sex
>> with that woman."
That depend on your definition of "had" and "that"...
Barry Smith
Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:81docc$r...@chronicle.concentric.net...
then I could believe that! :)
bill_h
> I have a copy of the "MS-DOS Bible" which goes in to some detail on
> the history. Nothing is said about source code, but 86-DOS was
> deliberately designed to mimic CPM/80 data structures and layout such
> as executable files, file control blocks, etc. This was a deliberate
> move to allow automatic translation from 8080 CPM code to the new OS.
> There is an image of a SCP advertisement to back this up.
>
> DR probably used this as a basis for the 'theft'. Not the code, but
> the layout of the supporting storage areas. I can't say where Paterson
> would have gotten the layout, but I suspect that technical references
> documented most or all of it.
The answer to this is easy. Paterson was hired by Paul Allen to work on
the Z80 Apple II add-in board (the Microsoft board), some one to two
years prior to the genesis of the IBM PC. Paterson was not able to do
the work, so it was given over to others to finish. This is mentioned in
the book 'Hard Drive' by James Wallace and Jim Erickson (Page 158).
Since the Microsoft Board was designed and built to run CP/M, that is to
allow Apple II's to run CP/M programs, we might assume Paterson had more
than passing exposure to, and knowledge of, CP/M, inside and out.
The LEGAL PROBELM for Microsoft is EXACTLY this: in order to have
access as a developer working on a CP/M application, MICROSOFT
SIGNED A LICENSING AGREEMENT THAT EXPLICITLY FORBADE REVERSE
ENGINEERING OR DECOMPILING CP/M.
Paterson's work might have passed un-noticed, EXCEPT that in
''developing'' 86-DOS, he was 'contaminated' by prior exposure
to LICENSED DRI MATERIAL.
For some reason, the personal computer press has ignored or
overlooked this story, this monumental theft, for almost
twenty years. There is no Q-DOS, if you see that name you're
seeing a part of the later 'cover story'. It's an attempt to
minimize what really happened, to more or less blow the whole
thing off as insignificant. But it created such a pile of
wealth there's simply no way to hide it. In this morning's paper
it said MS has SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS CASH on hand to fight
ANY CONCEIVABLE LAWSUITS.
I think intelligent people, given the facts, are capable of
determining what's significant and what isn't. And, what's
right and what isn't.
Bill
Tucson, AZ
Grant Edwards
>
>On 1999-11-21 "ghelbig"@mailcity(.)com said:
>
> >Donato B. Masaoy III wrote:
> > > I talked to a guy in Seattle once who mentioned that you could
> > > read Gary K. comment lines in the source for DOS 1.1.
> > [...snip...]
> > > -don
> >
> >Urban legend. Just ain't true.
> >I was a Seattle-DOS OEM; had access to the entire distribution.
> >I did a text search for 'Gary', 'Kildall', 'Digital' ad naseum and
> >it turned up NOTHING.
> >SC-DOS was a 'from the ground-up' project. They reverse engineered
> >SOME of the commands, but not a lot.
> >And it was written _entirely_ in ASM, where CP/M had some parts
> >written in PL/M.
> >Gosh, I wish that myth would die.
>
>Whether or not there were comments by Kildall in the QDOS or
>the M$-DOS source code is pretty much immaterial. If someone
>were going to steal code, he'd have to be a complete idiot to
>leave in such obvious evidence of his theft.
It happens. I worked at company who caught a competitor
stealing source code for the embedded software in one of our
products (land-mobile fleet radios). During the copyright
infringement trial, the defendants were forced to bring in the
source code for their product. After searching through some
hardcopy listings, several of our comments (including copyright
notices) were found.
There are plenty of complete idiots out there...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I hope the
at "Eurythmics" practice birth
visi.com control...
Paul E. Bennett
bil...@sunsouthwest.com "bill_h" writes:
> For some reason, the personal computer press has ignored or
> overlooked this story, this monumental theft, for almost
> twenty years.
Doesn't the USA have a "Statute of Limitations" which prevents lawsuits being
brought after a certain period of time? How long is that period?
--
Paul E. Bennett ................... <p...@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .... <www.amleth.demon.co.uk>
Tel: +44 (0)7971-620145
Going Forth Safely
phil
wrote:
>In article <81d4o6$o0i$1...@q.seanet.com>, anonymous@bogus_address.com wrote:
<snip>
>
>It happens. I worked at company who caught a competitor
>stealing source code for the embedded software in one of our
>products (land-mobile fleet radios). During the copyright
>infringement trial, the defendants were forced to bring in the
>source code for their product. After searching through some
>hardcopy listings, several of our comments (including copyright
>notices) were found.
There was an article a while ago in ESJ by PJP describing a copyright
suit where he used white space to help indicate theft. Still, showing
source copyright notifications to the judge must have been quite
bizarre.
phil.
--
The world is divided into two sorts of people: those that think the
world is divided into two sorts of people and those that don't.
George Neuner
wrote:
>The LEGAL PROBELM for Microsoft is EXACTLY this: in order to have
>access as a developer working on a CP/M application, MICROSOFT
>SIGNED A LICENSING AGREEMENT THAT EXPLICITLY FORBADE REVERSE
>ENGINEERING OR DECOMPILING CP/M.
>
>Paterson's work might have passed un-noticed, EXCEPT that in
>''developing'' 86-DOS, he was 'contaminated' by prior exposure
>to LICENSED DRI MATERIAL.
>
>For some reason, the personal computer press has ignored or
>overlooked this story, this monumental theft, for almost
>twenty years. There is no Q-DOS, if you see that name you're
>seeing a part of the later 'cover story'. It's an attempt to
>minimize what really happened, to more or less blow the whole
>thing off as insignificant. But it created such a pile of
>wealth there's simply no way to hide it. In this morning's paper
>it said MS has SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS CASH on hand to fight
>ANY CONCEIVABLE LAWSUITS.
Being 'contaminated' by prior exposure does not an infringement suit
make. Ideas are not protected under either patent or copyright law
law - patent law protects physical derivation of the idea and
copyright law protects expression of the idea.
Having been exposed to DRI's source, Paterson certainly may have
devloped ideas or preconceptions about how a new OS should [or could]
be structured. However, whatever he may have seen while legally
exposed to it is immaterial. To sue for infringement, DRI would have
to prove that either 1) Paterson illegally retained access to
non-public source and/or documentation (possibly by copying it) and
used it as a basis for his own work, or 2) that he deliberately
reverse engineered their product with the intent of producing a
work-alike. If he used personal notes taken while legally exposed to
the source, there may also be a contractual issue depending upon the
license agreement - but that would be separate from the infringement.
Based on everything I have heard, I don't think DRI could prove either
of those points. IBM's settlement with them could have simply been to
divert the bad publicity of a trial. Remember that, at the time, IBM
was still embroiled in the Justice Department's anti-trust suit and
didn't need more legal trouble of any kind.
bill_h
>
> In article <383AC6...@sunsouthwest.com>
> bil...@sunsouthwest.com "bill_h" writes:
>
> > overlooked this story, this monumental theft, for almost
> > twenty years.
>
> brought after a certain period of time? How long is that period?
The copyrights will run out in about fifty years. Give or take a few.
Curiously, they're designed to run many years beyond the death of an
author.
Richard Plinston
: The answer to this is easy. Paterson was hired by Paul Allen to work on
: the Z80 Apple II add-in board (the Microsoft board), some one to two
: years prior to the genesis of the IBM PC. Paterson was not able to do
: the work, so it was given over to others to finish. This is mentioned in
: the book 'Hard Drive' by James Wallace and Jim Erickson (Page 158).
: Since the Microsoft Board was designed and built to run CP/M, that is to
: allow Apple II's to run CP/M programs, we might assume Paterson had more
: than passing exposure to, and knowledge of, CP/M, inside and out.
Not only that, but SCP were themselves CP/M OEMs with access to all
source code and other material that DRI would provide. They
built Z80 based boxes (Zebra?). I have some ads somewhere in
my collection of old Bytes and Interfcae Age.
--