MS-DOS 1.00 directory
DoN. Nichols
Kenneth Brody <kenb...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>Well, I found my old copy of MS-DOS 1.00 (160K format) in a box of old
>disks. Here's a directory listing. Just for fun, I've included a column
>with the size of the same program from MS-DOS 6.22.
>
>
> Volume in drive B has no label DOS 6.22
> Directory of B:\ filesize
> ========
>COMMAND COM 3231 08-04-81 12:00a 54,645
>FORMAT COM 2560 08-04-81 12:00a 22,974
>CHKDSK COM 1395 08-04-81 12:00a 12,241
>SYS COM 896 08-04-81 12:00a 9,432
>DISKCOPY COM 1216 08-04-81 12:00a 13,335
>DISKCOMP COM 1124 08-04-81 12:00a 10,748
>COMP COM 1620 08-04-81 12:00a 14,282
>MODE COM 860 08-04-81 12:00a 23,569
>DEBUG COM 6049 08-04-81 12:00a 15,718
Which gives a mean bloat factor of 11.62, with a standard deviation
of 6.96. Is there any evidence in the newer versions whether they were
written in a higher-level language? (We are sure that the earlier ones were
written in assembly language.)
>ART BAS 1920 08-04-81 12:00a
>SAMPLES BAS 2432 08-04-81 12:00a
>MORTGAGE BAS 6272 08-04-81 12:00a
>COLORBAR BAS 1536 08-04-81 12:00a
>BUG BAS 640 08-04-81 12:00a
>CALENDAR BAS 3840 08-04-81 12:00a
>MUSIC BAS 4224 08-04-81 12:00a
>DONKEY BAS 3584 08-04-81 12:00a
>BLUE BAS 1152 08-04-81 12:00a
>HUMOR BAS 640 08-04-81 12:00a
>POP BAS 768 08-04-81 12:00a
>FORTY BAS 768 08-04-81 12:00a
>DANDY BAS 640 08-04-81 12:00a
>MARCH BAS 768 08-04-81 12:00a
>STARS BAS 768 08-04-81 12:00a
>HAT BAS 768 08-04-81 12:00a
>SCALES BAS 640 08-04-81 12:00a
>SAKURA BAS 512 08-04-81 12:00a
>CIRCLE BAS 1664 08-04-81 12:00a
>PIECHART BAS 2304 08-04-81 12:00a
>SPACE BAS 1920 08-04-81 12:00a
>BALL BAS 2048 08-04-81 12:00a
>COMM BAS 4352 08-04-81 12:00a
Did all these BASIC programs come on the disk, or were some (or all)
added by you over time? They all show the same date and time, so I suspect
the former. (Or was the COPY command in command.com not up to maintaining
the date in a copy?) For that matter, does the current version maintain the
date through a copy? (The last version of MS-DOS which I have used is 3.3.)
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | ...!uunet!ceilidh!dnichols
Donald Nichols (DoN.) | Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Stan Salter
DN>> Volume in drive B has no label DOS 6.22
>> Directory of B:\ filesize
>> ========
>>COMMAND COM 3231 08-04-81 12:00a 54,645
DN>Which gives a mean bloat factor of 11.62, with a standard deviation
of 6.96. Is there any evidence in the newer versions whether they
were written in a higher-level language? (We are sure that the
earlier ones were written in assembly language.)
Also in MS-DOS 6.22 some of the files are compressed *.EXE files with
EXEPACK or PKLITE making the bloat even more.
DN>>ART BAS 1920 08-04-81 12:00a
>>SAMPLES BAS 2432 08-04-81 12:00a
>>BALL BAS 2048 08-04-81 12:00a
>>COMM BAS 4352 08-04-81 12:00a
DN> Did all these BASIC programs come on the disk, or were some (or
all) added by you over time? They all show the same date and
time, so I suspect the former. (Or was the COPY command in
command.com not up to maintaining the date in a copy?) For
that matter, does the current version maintain the date through
a copy? (The last version of MS-DOS which I have used is 3.3.)
On PC-Dos 1.0 there were a number of *.BAS programs. The referenced
list looks correct (I can't find my copy at the moment). PC(MS) DOS
has always maintained the date and time when copying files between
different media from Ver 1.0 to MS 6.22 and PC 6.3. That is why you
see a lot of files dated 1-01-80.
stan....@ablelink.org Fido 1:250/518
* 1st 1.11 ~ Only XT users know that 1-01-80 was a Tuesday.
Roger Hand
kenb...@cloud9.net (Kenneth Brody) writes:
>Well, I found my old copy of MS-DOS 1.00 (160K format) in a box of old
>disks. Here's a directory listing. Just for fun, I've included a column
>with the size of the same program from MS-DOS 6.22.
> Directory of B:\ filesize
> ========
>COMMAND COM 3231 08-04-81 12:00a 54,645
>CHKDSK COM 1395 08-04-81 12:00a 12,241
>SYS COM 896 08-04-81 12:00a 9,432
>DISKCOPY COM 1216 08-04-81 12:00a 13,335
>DISKCOMP COM 1124 08-04-81 12:00a 10,748
>COMP COM 1620 08-04-81 12:00a 14,282
>TIME COM 250 08-04-81 12:00a
Notice that DATE and TIME were, incredibly, _external_ files
despite their tiny size.
>MODE COM 860 08-04-81 12:00a 23,569
>EDLIN COM 2392 08-04-81 12:00a
>DEBUG COM 6049 08-04-81 12:00a 15,718
>LINK EXE 43264 08-04-81 12:00a
. . .
>DONKEY BAS 3584 08-04-81 12:00a
Did anybody else ever "play" DONKEY? It is by far the lamest
"game" imaginable. In fact, I think I'll dig it up just for
kicks. Imagine giving it to some kid who's got "Seventh Guest"
on CD-ROM . . .
I might be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that Bill Gates
himself had written DONKEY, plus one of the other .BAS programs
in the original release.
. . .
> 38 file(s) 136405 bytes
That was DOS 1.0. Well, just for amusement I saved the manuals
and disk for DOS 1.1. In includes the following "READ THIS FIRST"
section:
"Increased Memory Requirements:
First, DOS version 1.10 is about 250 bytes larger than Version 1.00
and BASCI or BASICA Versions 1.10 aree about 200 bytes larger than
their Version 1.00 counterparts. . . . Should you encounter the rare
case of having one of your applications "not fit" with Version 1.10, it
may be necessary to "trim" your program to run with Version 1.10.
Although we've made every effort to keep things from growing, some
growth was unavoidable."
And I also have a very earliest version (if not the earliest) of the
IBM Advanced Diagnostics . . . ON CASSETTE!!!!
By the way, I still remember being excited when I got DOS 2.0, because
then I could store a whopping 40k more on a floppy.
-Roger
Yeechang Lee
|Curt (my friend mentioned above) was just wondering where Tim is now.
|Does anybody know?
Tim Paterson is still a Microsoft employee, from what I understand.
-- _____________________________________________________________________
Yeechang Lee (yc...@columbia.edu)|Nevada Las Vegas Mission Jul'92-'94
Columbia University/New York City|Celestial Kingdom through Taco Bell
Still working on my juggling-while-I-play-the-harmonica routine . . .
Bill Loytty
>
>
>Curt (my friend mentioned above) was just wondering where Tim is now.
>Does anybody know?
MS hired him.... He is, like lots of the old Microsoft hands, a
zillionaire now.
Have fun,
Bill
--
* welo...@nando.net --- Run the REAL version of Windows... NT! *
Richard Plinston
>>first version of DOS.
>
>IBM and MS make their DOS's seperately. There WAS a MS-DOS 1.0,
>and there WAS a PC-DOS 1.0. There IS a PC-DOS 6.3 (and 7.0's in beta),
>and there IS a PC-DOS 6.22.
>
> PC-DOS: Add more value to your Computer
> OS/2: Operate @ a Higher Level
>
>
PC-DOS 1.0 was only minimally different from MS-DOS 1.0, being mostly
the different ways of implementing Basic.
PC-DOS 1.1 was IBM's rewrite of DOS to get rid of most of the bugs
and of any remnents od DRI code that was incorporated (alledgedly)
by SCS in the making of QDOS.
DRI had been preparing a legal suit against SCS and MS because they
alledged that converted CP/M code was used. Both SCS and MS had
distribution licences for CP/M which included having proprietry
DRI source available for modification. SCS for their S100 bus
systems, MS for their Apple ][ Z80 cards.
IBM did not want any court cases slowing down the PC, so they
forced DRI to accept a settlement, part of which may have been
to rewrite out the offending code.
This version was then given back to MS. As I understand it
MS-DOS 1.0 only has MS copyrights in it (maybe SCS too), MS-DOS
1.1 is copyrighted to both MS and IBM due to this rewrite.
Can anyone with MS-DOS 1.0 and 1.1 confirm this ?
PC-DOS 1.0 may have IBM copyright independent of the above.
Richard Plinston
>
>p> IBM and MS make their DOS's seperately. There WAS a MS-DOS 1.0,
>p> and there WAS a PC-DOS 1.0. There IS a PC-DOS 6.3 (and 7.0's in beta),
>p> and there IS a PC-DOS 6.22.
>
>Until DOS 6.x, there were only minor differences between MSDOS & PCDOS
>because IBM just made minor changes to MS code.
Or in some cases, IBM made large changes and passed the code back to
MS to be issued by them. I recall that 1.1 was done by IBM, as was
PC-DOS 2.10 (released by MS as 2.11) and at least one of the 3.x,
probably 3.2. PC-DOS 4.00 was an IBM implementation which was
released as MS-DOS 4.01.
Dave Williams
In article <329529.68...@kcbbs.gen.nz> Richard_...@kcbbs.gen.nz
writes:
From Microsoft's MSDOS Encyclopedia: (2nd edition)
(p.20): Available only for the IBM Personal Computer, MS-DOS 1.0
consisted of 4000 lines of assembly-language source
code and ran in 8KB of memory.
(p.30) After the release of PC-specific version 1.0 of MS-DOS,
Microsoft worked on an update that contained some bug fixes.
Version 1.1 was provided to IBM to run on the upgraded
PC released in 1982 and enabled MS-DOS to work with
double-sided 320KB floppy disks. This version, referred
to as 1.25 by all but IBM, was the first version of
MS-DOS shipped to other OEMs, including Compaq and
Zenith.
>
> Can anyone with MS-DOS 1.0 and 1.1 confirm this ?
>
> PC-DOS 1.0 may have IBM copyright independent of the above.
>
Don't have any of the cited MS-DOS disks, but the floppies for
3 of the early PC-DOS versions have the following copyright
info on their labels:
PC-DOS 1.0: Version 1.00 Copyright IBM Corp 1981
PC-DOS 1.1: Version 1.10 Copyright IBM Corp 1981
PC-DOS 2.1: Version 2.10 Copyright IBM Corp 1981,1982,1983
Copyright by Microsoft Corp 1981,1982,1983
In addition, the Quick Reference Cards included in the 1.1 and 2.1
manuals say "Disk Operating System by Microsoft Corp" on their
covers.
---------------------------
In article <329529.68...@kcbbs.gen.nz> Richard_...@kcbbs.gen.nz
writes:
The situation with the 2.x version of DOS is quite complex. If you
have the Encyclopedia noted above, I suggest it be checked for the
full story (from Microsoft's side, but still pretty reliable).
A short summary: (page numbers are from the Encyclopedia)
(p.30): Primary responsibility for version 2.0 fell to Paul Allen,
Mark Zbikowski, and Aaron Reynolds, who wrote (and rewrote)
most of the version 2.0 code. The major design issue
confronting the developers ... was the introduction of a
hierachical file system to handle the file-management
needs of the XT's fixed disk. ...
(p.33): By the time work began on version 2.0, the MS-DOS team knew
that the ability to install any device driver at run time
was vital. They implemented installable device drivers by
making the drivers more modular. ...
(p.33): At IBM's request, version 2.0 also possessed the undocumented
ability to perform rudimentary background processing - an
interim solution to a growing awareness of the potentials
of multitasking. ...
(p.34): Version 2.0 was released in March 1983, the product of a
surprisingly small team of six developers, including
(Chris) Peters, Mani Ulloa, and Nancy Panners, in addition
to Allen, Zbikowski, and Reynolds. ...
(p.35): When version 2.0 was released, IBM was already planning to
introduce its PCjr. The PCjr would have the ability to to
run programs from ROM cartridges and, in addition to using
half-height 5-1/4 inch drives, would employ a slightly
different disk-controller architecture. Because of these
diffrences, from the standard PC line, IBM's immediate
concern was for a version 2.1 of MS-DOS modified for the
new machine.
(p.36): Microsoft ... wanted to to internationalize MS-DOS, so the
MS-DOS team, while modifying the operating system to support
the PCjr, also added functions and a COUNTRY command
that allowed users to set the date and time formats and other
country-dependent variables in the CONFIG.SYS file.
(p.37): ... support for individual country formats and Kanji appeared
in version 2.01 of MS-DOS. IBM did not want this version,
so support for the PCjr .... appeared separately in version
2.1, which went only to IBM and did not include the
modifications for international MS-DOS.
(p.37): ... to satisfy the OEM customers, Microsoft combined versions
2.1 and 2.01 to create version 2.11. Although IBM did not
accept this because of the internationalization code,
version 2.11 became the standard version for all non-IBM
customers running any form of MS-DOS in the 2.x series.
The point of the above is clear: Microsoft did the main development
of DOS during this period. IBM informed Microsoft of its needs,
and Microsoft came up with the software. Other OEM customers
also informed Microsoft of their needs (not necessarily the same
as IBM's), and Microsoft came up with the software.
The development of DOS 3.0 and 3.1 was also Microsoft's responsibility.
IBM did enter into a joint-development agreement with Microsoft, but
that wasn't until late 1985, months after 3.1 had appeared. I don't
know how involved the IBM team was with version 3.2, but I think
it was minimal.
From the DOS Programmer's Reference (2nd edition): QUE books
(p.15): In DOS V3.3, two new user commands (NLSFUNC and FASTOPEN)
and two new functions were added, many other services
upgraded, and device support expanded to cover IBM's PS/2
line. Effective with this version, maintenance and
development support for DOS was transferred from
Microsoft to IBM, freeing Microsoft to devote it's
resources to OS/2. (As part of the trade, IBM relinquished
its own OS/2 responsibilities to Microsoft.) Both firms
continued to release and support their own unique versions
of both products, however.
(p.16): Two months after this version (4.00) was released by IBM,
an update identified _only_ on the disk labels as V4.01,
was released to fix several problems. The VER command
still identifies the version as 4.00, though ...
Microsoft delayed its own release of V4, and its V4.00
is the equivalent of IBM's 4.01. They have, however,
also released V4.01, which has additional corrections.
Dave
Alain Fauconnet
[...]
> Microsoft delayed its own release of V4, and its V4.00
> is the equivalent of IBM's 4.01. They have, however,
> also released V4.01, which has additional corrections.
I don't know if this is mentioned in the book quoted above, but
the never-released (as far as I know) MS-DOS V4.00 was first a
fully preemptive multitasking DOS which ran on 8086 computers
(hence in 640 Kb). I worked on that beast as part of a
non-dedicated MS-Network server project around 1986. The last
internal releases were rather stable. I guess the reasons why it
has never been released were that it left less than 400 Kb of
user memory available, and that so many applications broke the
kernel or were broken by it. Well, at least the *technical*
reasons...
The company I worked for at that time (Goupil) eventually decided
to abandon MS-DOS V4.00 and hack a pseudo two-task switcher in
MS-DOS V3.10 like IBM did for the first release of PC-Network.
Mutitasking MS-DOS V4.00 was a nice piece of code, though. It was
doing fully-preemptive prioritized scheduling, and if I remember
well, was even supposed to swap (not page, of course).
Alan Whitney and Larry Osterman, if you happen to read this: HI!
_Alain_
--
Alain FAUCONNET Ingenieur systeme - System Manager AP-HP/SIM
Public Health Research Labs 91 bld de l'Hopital 75013 PARIS FRANCE
Mail: a...@biomath.jussieu.fr (*no* NeXTmail please)
Tel: (+33) 1-40-77-96-19 Fax: (+33) 1-45-86-80-68
I've RTFMed. It says: "Refer to your system administrator"
But... I *am* the system administrator :-]
Richard Plinston
>I don't know if this is mentioned in the book quoted above, but
>the never-released (as far as I know) MS-DOS V4.00 was first a
>fully preemptive multitasking DOS which ran on 8086 computers
>(hence in 640 Kb). I worked on that beast as part of a
>non-dedicated MS-Network server project around 1986. The last
>internal releases were rather stable. I guess the reasons why it
>has never been released were that it left less than 400 Kb of
>user memory available, and that so many applications broke the
>kernel or were broken by it. Well, at least the *technical*
>reasons...
It was usually called MS-DOS 4.0 and there was a 4.1. This
dintinquishes it from the much later 4.00 and 4.01.
4.0 was based on 3.1, 4.1 on 3.2.
It was released by ICL on their DRS PWS range, and on (I am tols)
Siemans machines. I still have a copy of the manual here.
One story was that IBM insisted it be killed off so that OS/2
could be concentrated on.