86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

[Rhinozz]

Hey all, I'm new here.

I'm currently researching QDOS/86-DOS, Tim Paterson's OS from 1980-1981 that later became MS-DOS. My research is currently stuck on 2 questions.

1. Did 86-DOS/QDOS 0.2 ever exist?
Context: The version number has never been named in official 86-DOS documents, to my knowledge. It seems to have been a random name some Wikipedia editor created. A version is known to exist between QDOS 0.11 and 86-DOS 0.3, but I have my doubts on that as well. 86-DOS 0.3 is known to be real (a user named BetaCollector has it), but the date given (November 15, 1980) is the date on manuals also labelled 0.3. Could version 0.3 have been this elusive version?

2. Does anyone have any other versions of 86-DOS/QDOS?
Context: I'm not asking for a dump, just asking if you have them. It's greatly beneficial to know that they exist, and that they're not just from someone's brain. The current known ones are 0.3 (as mentioned above), 0.33 and 0.34 (owned and sold by the late Barry Watzman), 1.00 (which has been dumped), and 1.14 (which has also been dumped). There's a big gap there. If you own any other versions not on that list, I beg you to tell me, it would be incredibly helpful.

Thank you in advance to anyone who answers!

[Rhinozz]

Quick correction: my theory about 86-DOS 0.3 being 0.2 is incorrect due to the below article in BYTE Magazine, in which Tim Paterson mentions the next version was made a week after 0.11, and 0.3 was released in December.

https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1983-06/1983_06_BYTE_08-06_16-Bit_Designs#page/n245/mode/2up

[Udo Munk]

I would suggest to use some common sense. No one starts with some software release
out of the blue with some funny number. If there is a release 0.3 there also was 0.2 and
0.1 of course.
If no one has them that doesn't mean they won't exist. If Paterson never gave them to
anyone, and no one broke into his place and stole on of this releases, then just no one
has them of course.

For example I can tell you something about z80pack releases, because this I know for sure.
Available are releases 1.6 - 1.37. So did releases before exists? Sure, I did not start with
some funny number, there have been 1.0 - 1.5 before.
Can I have one of those: No.
Can you tell me whats in there: No.

[Rhinozz]

Polite answer you got there.

> I would suggest to use some common sense.

Of course I have. 0.2 is a perfectly reasonable number to be that version's, but as it is with everything, *you never know*.

> No one starts with some software release out of the blue with some funny number.

The known releases between 0.3 and 0.60 are 0.33, 0.34, 0.42, and 0.56. It's possible it was at the directive of Microsoft, but from my research it does not seem that way. It's impossible to assume things like that.

> If there is a release 0.3 there also was 0.2 and 0.1 of course.

Even though there's 0.80 and 1.00, there's no 0.90.

> If no one has them that doesn't mean they won't exist.

That's not my point. If someone has something, that means that 1. the version numbering is correct and 2. that it was shipped to people. If they are able to give more information about it, that's even better.

TL;DR: You can never be sure.

[Udo Munk]

> The known releases between 0.3 and 0.60 are 0.33, 0.34, 0.42, and 0.56. It's possible it was at the directive of Microsoft, but from my research it does not seem that way. It's impossible to assume things like that.

What a surprise, not, between 0.3 and 0.6 there was 0.4 and 0.5

> > If there is a release 0.3 there also was 0.2 and 0.1 of course.
> Even though there's 0.80 and 1.00, there's no 0.90.

That is something completely else.

In the past until today for every software there always was a release 1, maybe followed by a release 2,
maybe followed by more releases. Won't happen with digital on/off machines that out of nowhere
some release 3 comes into existence.

If you make a new major version from 0.x, to 1.x because of new milestones then 0.x might stop
at 0.8 and you are done with it. We still do this all the time. So that part cannot be guessed, if
there was a 0.9 or not, if not someone shows up with it.

> TL;DR: You can never be sure.

Don't know about you, I can be sure about several things.

[John Crane]

Just adding this tidbit...
Usually, not always, but usually, version numbers less than one are
prototypes. People usually shoot for version 1.0 to be the first
'released' commercial version.

What that means is, the likelihood of anyone having a version number
less than one is far less than an officially released version.

The caveat is: hackers/hobbyists/open_source, etc. are a coding crowd,
so you see more prototypes released to these types of people than in the
commercial software realm.

-J

[Rhinozz]

You're correct. Paterson said in an email to fellow member bill_h that he considers every version before 1.00 a beta version.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.cpm/c/6jBost41zj0/m/nt-SbRolEgIJ