Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!stevens-tech.edu!not-for-mail From: Jeff Read Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 03:50:15 +0000 Organization: Not really Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: proxy1.cc.stevens-tech.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04j2 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i686) David B. Greene wrote: > Actually, I think he never stole anything. And, IIRC, he came up with the > first working BASIC for PCs. Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Before Microsoft BASIC, the Altair was put-near useless, but that didn't stop many people from becoming endeared to it. People on this group (a.d.m) complain that Bill Gates's code wasn't very good, sort of in an effort to slam him, but remember that on the Altair, you had to *toggle* your programs in using the set of switches on the panel! Since then, I don't know how much programming Bill has done, but I'd say that most Microsoft products of significance after BASIC were written by someone else. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Read / http://genpc.home.ml.org Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft! Anime & Sonic Fan, / Use Linux/GNU! All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.gte.net!news.sprintisp.com!sprintisp!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!not-for-mail From: daveg@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:32:10 GMT Organization: U Dub Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> Reply-To: daveg@XOUT.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: cs207-18.student.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp1.u.washington.edu 890894300 35844 (None) 140.142.64.2 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 mpage@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote: >houghi wrote: >: Jen_Shien wrote >: > I can't believe this is not in the faq! I searched DejaNews, archive, and >: >faq to no avail. >: > >: >Here is my cite: Wealthy 100 by Klepper and Gunther. >: >page 129 last paragraph >: >Basically it says Bill bought MS-DOS from Seattle Computer Systems and >: >modified it then sold it to IBM as MS-DOS. >: I thought he stole it from IBM. He never 'made' anything, well besides >: the money. Actually, I think he never stole anything. And, IIRC, he came up with the first working BASIC for PCs. >: >I've also heard stories that you could hit a certain key sequence and MS-DOS >: >v1.0 would pop up and Easter egg that said Seattle Computer Systems bla bla >: >bla. Any truth to any of this? I heard that a rival copied his BASIC without knowing that a secret key sequence would pop up a Microsoft copyright notice. >This reminds me. I do keep wondering whether "houghi" is pronounced Howie, >Hooey, hoffee or huffy. >Madeleine "the rest of this thread might thrive happily in >alt.folklore.computers" Page Well let me help you out, Maddie. Newgroups reset. Dave Greene ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!nntp2.cerf.net!nntp3.cerf.net!news.sandi.net!not-for-mail From: Jeff Jones Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:47:45 -0800 Organization: myself Lines: 13 Message-ID: <351A86B1.B5820A2E@mail.sandi.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ec2-208.sdcs.k12.ca.us Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Jeff Read wrote: > > David B. Greene wrote: > > > Actually, I think he never stole anything. And, IIRC, he came up with the > > first working BASIC for PCs. > > Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the > first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Before Microsoft BASIC, the Altair > was put-near useless, but that didn't stop many people from becoming > endeared to it. Where do CP/M and DR-DOS fit into all this? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.ecrc.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: nedj@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:11:10 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6fdulk$nbj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.32.191.83 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Mar 26 16:11:10 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Opera/3.0; Windows95/WindowsNT) v3.1 daveg@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote: >>houghi wrote: >>: I thought he stole it from IBM. He never 'made' anything, well besides >>: the money. >Actually, I think he never stole anything. And, IIRC, he came up with the ^^^^^ >first working BASIC for PCs. DOS 6.0 : Had big advertising. One of its biggest selling points was the fact that that it could compress its file system. DOS 6.1 : From IBM. Functionally the same as MS-DOS 6.0, but you had to send in a coupon to get a third party compression utility. No lawsuits resulted from this perfectly legal, and agreeable-to- everybody-involved DOS. DOS 6.2 : From Microsoft. Had enhancements. 6.1 was skipped because IBM had already used the name, and this version was obviously better anyway. DOS 6.21: No disk compression. Talk to Stac. They make wonderful on-the-fly compression utilities, and there seemed to be a legal problem with Microsoft not actually owning "double space." DOS 6.22: Also from Microsoft. It has a new compression engine that is not at all compatable with "previous" versions. They even renamed it to "drive space." DOS 7.0 : Comes bundled with Windows 4.0 (now up to release 2.5). This bundle is often refered to as "Windows 95." It is still called "drive space." When you use something you don't own, and you do not have permission to use it, some people call that stealing. Jeremy -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.156.128.20!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!not-for-mail From: "Richard Fife" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:20:42 -0800 Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6fensv$k32$1@nntp2.ba.best.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: puertopollo.lucasarts.com X-Trace: 890954463 20578 firewall-user 206.86.0.12 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >DR was able to pop up a DR copyright in court from MS-DOS v1.0. Part >of the evidence that won their case. This seems extremely odd to me (CP/M is for 8 bit machines, DOS is for 16 bit machines). Is there somewhere I can look this incident up? EMail me if you could. Thanks! -- Rich Fife -- ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!WCG!uunet!in1.uu.net!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mail From: "Clockmeister" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 26 Mar 1998 15:32:28 GMT Organization: Telstra Internet Browse Server Lines: 31 Message-ID: <01bd58cc$dc1861c0$3e5e0fcb@default> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.15.94.62 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Bill Gates hasn't programmed since 1984. (His words) Jeff Read wrote in article <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com>... > David B. Greene wrote: > > > Actually, I think he never stole anything. And, IIRC, he came up with the > > first working BASIC for PCs. > > Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the > first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Before Microsoft BASIC, the Altair > was put-near useless, but that didn't stop many people from becoming > endeared to it. > > People on this group (a.d.m) complain that Bill Gates's code wasn't very > good, sort of in an effort to slam him, but remember that on the Altair, > you had to *toggle* your programs in using the set of switches on the > panel! > > Since then, I don't know how much programming Bill has done, but I'd say > that most Microsoft products of significance after BASIC were written by > someone else. > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jeff Read / http://genpc.home.ml.org > Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft! > Anime & Sonic Fan, / Use Linux/GNU! > All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ###### Message-ID: <351AE92C.19880633@ibm.net> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:47:56 -0800 From: Max Masters Reply-To: drecon@ibm.net Organization: HyperCriticallity X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.106.152 X-Trace: 26 Mar 98 23:43:21 GMT, 129.37.106.152 Lines: 14 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: or otherwise violate the IBM.NET Terms of Service X-Notice: should be forwarded in their entirety to postmaster@ibm.net Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news.linkline.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.106.152 ANDREW GRYGUS wrote: > > In <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> daveg@XOUT.u.washington.edu > (David B. Greene) writes: > > > >Actually, I think he never stole anything. > > MS-DOS/PC-DOS v1.0 was proved in court to be substantially stolen from > Digital Research. i thought ms bought that os from someone else who had copied it after ibm couldn't talk to dr because dr founder was too suspicious of ibm and wanted lawyers involved as soon as ibm came calling to dr founder's home? whew! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.idt.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: aax@ix.netcom.com(ANDREW GRYGUS ) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 26 Mar 1998 17:51:05 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 37 Message-ID: <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pas-ca13-01.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Mar 26 11:51:05 AM CST 1998 In <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> daveg@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) writes: > >Actually, I think he never stole anything. MS-DOS/PC-DOS v1.0 was proved in court to be substantially stolen from Digital Research. Most haven't heard about this because IBM got "confidentiality" on the settlement. Part of the settlement allowed DR to clone MS-DOS without being sued, something they eventually did. Ever wonder why Microsoft didn't >>sue<< DR-DOS out of existance? > And, IIRC, he came up with the >first working BASIC for PCs. Largely adapted from public domain code. Some consider using public domain code to produce a commercial product "stealing". >>: >I've also heard stories that you could hit a certain key sequence and MS-DOS >>: >v1.0 would pop up and Easter egg that said Seattle Computer Systems bla bla >>: >bla. Any truth to any of this? DR was able to pop up a DR copyright in court from MS-DOS v1.0. Part of the evidence that won their case. >I heard that a rival copied his BASIC without knowing that a secret key >sequence would pop up a Microsoft copyright notice. See above. Wonderful how stories get changed to favor the rich. Happens in all walks of life, becuause 90% of the human population seeks to be groupies of the rich/famous/powerful. Andrew Grygus - California Republic ------------------------------------- Resist Microsoft! ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!mzenier From: mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: Organization: Netcom On-Line Services References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:46:53 GMT Lines: 26 Sender: mzenier@netcom2.netcom.com In article <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com>, Jeff Read wrote: >David B. Greene wrote: > >> Actually, I think he never stole anything. And, IIRC, he came up with the >> first working BASIC for PCs. > >Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the >first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Actually, there were a number of kit computers available before the Altair: Scelbi, RGS (Real Good Stuff?), and the Mark 8 (that was a cover project in Radio-Electronics magazine about 6 months before the Popular Electronics Altair annoucement). Yes, they were all 8008 based, but that made them just as useless as the orginal Altair, since memory was the limiting factor at that point. An early focus that would provide documentation for this would be "73" in 1974 and 1975. This was the radio amateurs magazine that split off this topic in the form of "Byte" magazine, which they started to publish in late 1975. Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com mzenier@netcom.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!feeder.news.azstarnet.com!reader1.news.azstarnet.com!news From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:32:25 -0800 Organization: Starnet Lines: 10 Message-ID: <351B2BD9.9EE@azstarnet.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.197.38.217 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > * Tim recieved an unlimited license to bundle _any_ Microsoft software > with each of his machines, free of paying anything to MS ***. Unlimited license? Including UPGRADES? Gee, does that mean as long as I keep my Seattle Computer 8086 running I can get FREE UPGRADES? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!thegrendel From: thegrendel@thegrendel.theriver.com (Mendel Leo Cooper) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 26 Mar 1998 20:52:03 GMT Organization: Cartaphilus Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> Reply-To: thegrendel@theriver.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 7689@206.26.122.173 X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.3.1 UNIX) In article <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com>, Jeff Read wrote: > >Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the >first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Before Microsoft BASIC, the Altair >was put-near useless, but that didn't stop many people from becoming >endeared to it. IIRC, MS BASIC for the "Trash 80" (TRS-80, Model I), released a couple of years after Altair BASIC, had a very interesting line editor... interesting in the sense that it was a "clone" of the DEC SOS line editor. Is it possible that Gates and Allen were taking shortcuts even then? -- "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy ... neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water." =============================================== + http://personal.riverusers.com/~thegrendel/ + =============================================== ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:09:09 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 64 Message-ID: <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) ANDREW GRYGUS wrote: > > In <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> daveg@XOUT.u.washington.edu > (David B. Greene) writes: > > > > DR was able to pop up a DR copyright in court from MS-DOS v1.0. Part > of the evidence that won their case. > > >I heard that a rival copied his BASIC without knowing that a secret > key > >sequence would pop up a Microsoft copyright notice. > > See above. Wonderful how stories get changed to favor the rich. > Happens in all walks of life, becuause 90% of the human population > seeks to be groupies of the rich/famous/powerful. Wonderfull how stories get twisted to support the sympathic underdog. Sorry Andrew to have to break you the bad news: MS developed MS-DOS by extending an OS called variously 86DOS or QDOS which BG _bought_ from Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products (SCP) *. Tim had developed it as an _clone_ (not pirated source or even binary) of CP/M 80. Because he needed an OS for his 8086 hardware (SCP was an hardware manufacturer) and CP/M 86 was severly delayed **. If it had been pirated he would have had to pirate CP/M 86. That is difficult with software that does not yet exist! And of course Tim writing it kills every possibility of it containing an (C) DR easter egg. BTW MS got _source_ from Tim, they would have seen it. * Tim recieved an unlimited license to bundle _any_ Microsoft software with each of his machines, free of paying anything to MS ***. ** That is why IBM developed all its utilities for the PC under MS-DOS, so users then had as choice MS-DOS, CP/M 86 and UCSD; the first with utilities, the later two without. Guess what they took ****. *** Source: TV interview with Tim, no I am sending you a copy of the video. **** Source: Byte Article by an IBM engineer from the PC development team. Andrew: you were crossposted to a.f.c, we know our history. BTW: I am not an MS weenie, see my .sig -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!scanner.worldgate.com!news.agtac.net!not-for-mail From: "David B. Feland" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:45:40 -0700 Organization: Telus Advanced Communications Lines: 19 Message-ID: <6ffp5v$dmh$1@f02s02.tac.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.229.32.7 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote in message <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch>... >MS developed MS-DOS by extending an OS called variously 86DOS or QDOS >which BG _bought_ from Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products (SCP) >*. > >Tim had developed it as an _clone_ (not pirated source or even binary) >of CP/M 80. Because he needed an OS for his 8086 hardware (SCP was an >hardware manufacturer) and CP/M 86 was severly delayed **. Beautifully done, Neil. I was wondering when someone was going to mention Tim Patterson's name in all this... Just one addition - QDOS orignally stood for 'Quick and Dirty Operating System'. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!ais.net!newsfeed.wli.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: r.e.ballard@usa.net Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:13:37 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 32 Message-ID: <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.222.78.2 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 27 20:13:37 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT) In article , thegrendel@theriver.com wrote: > In article <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com>, Jeff Read wrote: > >Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the > >first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Before Microsoft BASIC, the Altair > >was put-near useless, but that didn't stop many people from becoming > >endeared to it. > IIRC, MS BASIC for the "Trash 80" (TRS-80, Model I), released a > couple of years after Altair BASIC, had a very interesting line > editor... interesting in the sense that it was a "clone" of the > DEC SOS line editor. Is it possible that Gates and Allen were > taking shortcuts even then? Gates started out on a PDP-11 running RT-11. In addition, he admits that he "learned programming by fishing listings out of a dumpster". Microsoft has been very generous with DEC. Perhaps DEC was prepared to press a case? DEC and Microsoft have a common enemy (UNIX). DEC lost it's dominance of the Minicomputer market to UNIX based systems. Microsoft could easily and quickly lose it's control of the PC market to Linux or FreeBSD. > -- > + http://personal.riverusers.com/~thegrendel/ + Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed1.tiac.net!posterchild1!news@tiac.net From: "Robert Schuldenfrei" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:20:17 -0500 Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc. Lines: 27 Message-ID: <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net> References: <01bd58cc$dc1861c0$3e5e0fcb@default> <329885.75401.25319@kcbbs.gen.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: sailboat.tiac.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Richard Plinston wrote in message <329885.75401.25319@kcbbs.gen.nz>... >The assembler source code for the DEC BASIC was available, I >leave it as an exercise for the reader to draw conclusions >about why MITS Basic and MS-BASIC function in a way so >similar to DEC Basic. > Just a small point but the flowcharts to the BASIC lanaguage as developed at Dartmouth College were available free for nothing for years. This is because K & K were working under an NSF grant. I am sure that is why DEC machines had BASIC in the early days. A classmate of mine from Tuck school, Jay Atlas, went on to become a DEC VP. I have no idea if that is the route that BASIC took to DEC, but it is a thought. Is anyone out there that worked for DEC in the late 1960s who could shed some light on this topic. BTW, it is my understanding that the reason Microsoft is so generous to DEC is because Windows/NT is CMS in Windows skins. Every time a quality CMS engineer was downsized out of DEC, he was upsized by Chairman Bill. By the time Palmer got in control at DEC, he threatened suit. The settlement reached out of court was that Windows/NT would run on Alpha and DEC would hold their lawyers at bay. At least that is the way I heard it. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news.linkline.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!btnet-peer!btnet-feed1!btnet!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 27 Mar 1998 20:16:02 GMT Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6fh1e2$nsg$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <6fdulk$nbj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-156.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-03-26 nedj@ix.netcom.com said: :DOS 6.0 : Had big advertising. One of its biggest selling points :was the fact that that it could compress its file system. after giggling over the rest of your post - wondered where the change occurred - it's worth noting that we are using doublespace-accompanied dos 6.0. it's a copy. if microsoft can steal it, why can't we? :> also, we suspect that doublespace is actually superior to drivespace. -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!fu-berlin.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Carl Kreider Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:33:48 -0500 Organization: gte.net Lines: 27 Message-ID: <6fhk31$nqt$1@gte1.gte.net> References: <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <329885.74558.23673@kcbbs.gen.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust58.tnt1.elkhart.in.da.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50D9A0E5AD5C19C51D48491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i586) Richard Plinston wrote: > > In message <<351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > When the 8086 was released by Intel in 1978 it had also > released source code converters from 8080 code to 8086. It > was alledged that a version of CP/M had been disassembled (these > tools were available) and then converted to produce the basis > of the first cut of QDOS (hence the name Quick and Dirty OS). Yeah, almost everybody who was at all a hacker had a disassembly of CPM. Plenty of patches and enhancements around based on them. Gary K. was too laid back to get uptight about it. But that was the story that was around at the time (disassembly -> converter) regarding the birth of QDOS. Your report of the bug (which I hadn't heard before) confirms it. -- Carl Kreider aka ckreider@acm.org ckreider@gte.net carlk@syscon-intl.com ============================================================ "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, and lines to code before I sleep. And lines to code before I sleep." Anonymous ============================================================ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 27 Mar 98 20:42:38 GMT Message-ID: <329885.74558.23673@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 65 In message <<351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > Tim had developed it as an _clone_ (not pirated source or even binary) > of CP/M 80. Because he needed an OS for his 8086 hardware (SCP was an > hardware manufacturer) and CP/M 86 was severly delayed **. > > If it had been pirated he would have had to pirate CP/M 86. That is > difficult with software that does not yet exist! SCP were OEM customers of DRI for CP/M. This means that they had access to all source code that DRI were prepared to release. While this did not include source for the BDOS of CP/M 2.2 it did include most of the utilities, such as formatting and system generation. Source for CP/M 1.3 had also been available. When the 8086 was released by Intel in 1978 it had also released source code converters from 8080 code to 8086. It was alledged that a version of CP/M had been disassembled (these tools were available) and then converted to produce the basis of the first cut of QDOS (hence the name Quick and Dirty OS). The DRI Copyright notice is most likely to have been produced from an encoded data block in a utility program. Whether it did actually produce this is unverified. There was a particular point though, that MS-DOS 1.0 had an identical bug to CP/M 1.3 in the way it handled the FCB on a file close in particular circumstances. This indicated that the code was plagurised. > > And of course Tim writing it kills every possibility of it containing an > (C) DR easter egg. BTW MS got _source_ from Tim, they would have seen > it. Only if it was plain text as part of the source. > > > * Tim recieved an unlimited license to bundle _any_ Microsoft software > with each of his machines, free of paying anything to MS ***. It was actually SCP who received unlimited licence for MS-DOS for inclusion with SCP machines. After the fire at SCP they were going to on-sell this but MS objected and eventually bought back the rights. There was one interesting sideline. The licence from SCP allowed MS to use 86-DOS on 8086 processors only. When the IBM had the 8088 this, technically, was in breach of the contract. > > ** That is why IBM developed all its utilities for the PC under MS-DOS, > so users then had as choice MS-DOS, CP/M 86 and UCSD; the first with > utilities, the later two without. Guess what they took ****. It what way did MS-DOS 1.x have 'utilities' that were not available with CP/M-86 or UCSD ? The main reason why PC-DOS (not MS-DOS) was sold with IBM-PCs was that it was only $70 or so while IBM had set the price of the others at $250 (or so). ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 27 Mar 98 20:56:41 GMT Message-ID: <329885.75401.25319@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <01bd58cc$dc1861c0$3e5e0fcb@default> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 34 > > Jeff Read wrote in article > > Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the > > first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Before Microsoft BASIC, the Altair > > was put-near useless, but that didn't stop many people from becoming > > endeared to it. The two also hired a third person (name forgotten) who actually did most of the actual programming. > > > > People on this group (a.d.m) complain that Bill Gates's code wasn't very > > good, sort of in an effort to slam him, but remember that on the Altair, > > you had to *toggle* your programs in using the set of switches on the > > panel! No. There was a paper tape reader available. The paper tape was produced on a real machine (probably a DEC 11) using 8080 cross compilers. > > > > Since then, I don't know how much programming Bill has done, but I'd say > > that most Microsoft products of significance after BASIC were written by > > someone else. Interesting Bill had been working with DEC machines prior to the MITS project and had programmed them in BASIC. It is alledged that he developed a class scheduling program for the school that put all the attractive girls in his classes. The assembler source code for the DEC BASIC was available, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to draw conclusions about why MITS Basic and MS-BASIC function in a way so similar to DEC Basic. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!newsadm From: "Joseph J. Ambrose" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:59:16 -0500 Organization: JJA & Associates Lines: 39 Message-ID: <6fht3t$75k@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> References: <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net> <1998032800041600.TAA23021@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.68.134.9 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 MadBeing wrote in message <1998032800041600.TAA23021@ladder01.news.aol.com>... >>BTW, it is my understanding that the reason Microsoft is so generous to DEC >>is because Windows/NT is CMS in Windows skins. Every time a quality CMS >>engineer was downsized out of DEC, he was upsized by Chairman Bill. > >I hope you're speaking of VMS. CMS is a IBM product which runs as a guest >operating system under their VM/{SP,XA,ESA} virtual machine product. And any >relationship between VMS and NT is probably due to the fact that Microsoft >hired one of the VMS chief designers. Thats somewhat a shame. I've put in >over 10 years working on VMS systems and while they are pretty robust, my main >complaint was that their process structure leaned toward the 'heavyweight' >process model leading to sluggish response when you had to create lots of >processes. Its a shame that MicroSoft didn't go with a more lightweight >process design similar to unix's processes. > >Anyway, this is just my .02 worth. This post isn't a troll to start a OS >flame war (if that is possible). No flames here, Dan, just thinking about how M$ is touting NT clusters. The whole thing is really very funny when you look at how tight VMSclusters are. The only thing NT is "clustering" is disks, maybe, on a good day. ..... This isn't a slam on NT. I've been working with it for a year. It beats the pants off of 95! Joseph Ambrose NT Network Administrator / Open VMS System Manager The Conference Board ambrose@conference-board.org ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!world6.bellatlantic.net!news From: "George Gray" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:23:59 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6fhqh6$7ra@world6.bellatlantic.net> References: <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <329885.74558.23673@kcbbs.gen.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: 20934011.bellatlantic.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Another interesting side to this little tale: MS offered DOS-ALL rights to it-to IBM for $70,000.00, IBM declined! Instead, IBM elected to continue paying royalties to MS for PC-DOS and why they continued to install the BASIC roms-at least until the contract ran out. I don't what the current state of affairs are, IBM still sells PC-DOS 7.1, but I am not sure if they actually ship it on new PC's. MS made the offer to appease IBM when the relationship started to sour (over OS/2 and Windows I would assume.) As for DR, Gary Kildall (may he RIP) was no genious as far as business was concerned. He just assumed that CP/M-86 would sell itself-that IBM should already know how great it was and buy it. He went on a golfing trip instead of meeting with IBM. Well, as we all know, CP/M-86 did NOT sell itself. The people buying the IBM PC were not the same people who built or bought the CP/M systems of the 70's and early 80's. Digital Research never recovered, though DR-DOS was a superior DOS (I used 5 and 6, did not like Novell Dos 7) What a shame. I was a big fan and a very late convert (to the PC.) I held on to my aging XEROX-820 Z80 system for six years, then played with Tandy stuff before diving into the PC arena. Oh, before I go, I remember the early days of microcomputing very well, but I don't recall the court case mentioned in this thread (which I did not get all of.) Can someone fill me in (and forgive me if it has already been explained) ? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: madbeing@aol.com (MadBeing) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 28 Mar 1998 00:04:16 GMT Lines: 25 Message-ID: <1998032800041600.TAA23021@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net> >BTW, it is my understanding that the reason Microsoft is so generous to DEC >is because Windows/NT is CMS in Windows skins. Every time a quality CMS >engineer was downsized out of DEC, he was upsized by Chairman Bill. I hope you're speaking of VMS. CMS is a IBM product which runs as a guest operating system under their VM/{SP,XA,ESA} virtual machine product. And any relationship between VMS and NT is probably due to the fact that Microsoft hired one of the VMS chief designers. Thats somewhat a shame. I've put in over 10 years working on VMS systems and while they are pretty robust, my main complaint was that their process structure leaned toward the 'heavyweight' process model leading to sluggish response when you had to create lots of processes. Its a shame that MicroSoft didn't go with a more lightweight process design similar to unix's processes. Anyway, this is just my .02 worth. This post isn't a troll to start a OS flame war (if that is possible). Dan Dan Smith "Old Programmers never die, They just jrst to a new address" reaper bots chew on this root@localhost ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!dpeschel From: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 28 Mar 1998 00:42:14 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 12 Message-ID: <6fhh16$1846$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> References: <01bd58cc$dc1861c0$3e5e0fcb@default> <329885.75401.25319@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: saul9.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp1.u.washington.edu 891045734 41094 (None) 140.142.64.7 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: dpeschel In article <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net>, Robert Schuldenfrei wrote: >BTW, it is my understanding that the reason Microsoft is so generous to DEC >is because Windows/NT is CMS in Windows skins. Every time a quality CMS ^^^ ^^^ You meant VMS, right? Just making sure. (CMS was produced by IBM... definitely NOT DEC.) -- Derek ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed1.tiac.net!posterchild1!news@tiac.net From: "Robert Schuldenfrei" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:34:11 -0500 Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc. Lines: 17 Message-ID: <6fiueu$3bh@news-central.tiac.net> References: <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net> <1998032800041600.TAA23021@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sailboat.tiac.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 MadBeing wrote in message <1998032800041600.TAA23021@ladder01.news.aol.com>... >>BTW, it is my understanding that the reason Microsoft is so generous to DEC >>is because Windows/NT is CMS in Windows skins. Every time a quality CMS >>engineer was downsized out of DEC, he was upsized by Chairman Bill. > >I hope you're speaking of VMS. CMS is a IBM product which runs as a guest >operating system under their VM/{SP,XA,ESA} virtual machine product. Don't you just hate it when you make a fool of yourself in public :) Ya, that is what I wanted to say... s/CMS/VMS/g Bob ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!nixon.area.com!not-for-mail From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 28 Mar 1998 09:37:03 GMT Organization: Area Systems, Mountain View, California Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6figbv$oeo$1@nixon.area.com> References: <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <329885.74558.23673@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6fhqh6$7ra@world6.bellatlantic.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: access.class-a.net X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test46 (31 Oct 96) In article <6fhqh6$7ra@world6.bellatlantic.net>, George Gray wrote: >As for DR, Gary Kildall (may he RIP) was no genious as far as business was >concerned. He just assumed that CP/M-86 would sell itself-that IBM should >already know how great it was and buy it. He went on a golfing trip instead >of meeting with IBM. Where is your proof of this? The usual myth is that he was "out flying" instead of meeting with IBM. The true story seems to be that he didn't want to sign non-disclosure agreements with IBM to even talk with them, so that's why IBM went to Microsoft. -- mattack@area.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk (Robert Billing) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 28 Mar 98 09:44:28 GMT Message-ID: <891078268snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-30.mail.demon.net X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 891164737 17242 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 14 In article <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> r.e.ballard@usa.net writes: > Microsoft could easily > and quickly lose it's control of the PC market to Linux or FreeBSD. Good. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsxfer.visi.net!feeder.news.azstarnet.com!reader1.news.azstarnet.com!news From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:39:29 -0800 Organization: Starnet Lines: 25 Message-ID: <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <6ffp5v$dmh$1@f02s02.tac.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.197.35.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) David B. Feland wrote: > Just one addition - QDOS orignally stood for 'Quick and Dirty Operating > System'. No, there never WAS anything called "QDOS". That 'story' is a later invention. So far, in about three years of rehashing this nonsense over the 'net, not even ONE person has been able to come up with anything more than references in books published well AFTER the events surrounding the earliest versions of DOS for the IBM Personal Computer. >From roughly the early spring of 1980 until the PC was announced in August, 1981 (and the first PC DOS is dated August, 1981) the operating system sold by Seattle Computer was called 86-DOS. It went through a couple revisions, the major one from 0.3 to 1.0 was absolutely NOT backward compatible. What MS sold to IBM was 86-DOS. Curiously, THAT operating system supported gigabyte hard drives. Probably, only some of the IBM folks will ever be able to tell us exactly WHY that capability was taken out. -< response to QDOS troll #: 4,706 (or something) >- ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: nedj@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 14:10:56 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 12 Message-ID: <6fjlbo$ke8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.32.191.40 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Mar 28 20:10:56 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Opera/3.0; Windows95/WindowsNT) v3.1 r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote: >DEC and Microsoft have a common enemy (UNIX). Microsoft hates Xenix (and once declared the younger sibling of OS/2 to actually *be* Unix). I am not sure that DEC hates Digital Unix though. My parents love me, but it doesn't seem to be for any good reason. Jeremy "I have no son" Burgeson -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!mzenier From: mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: Organization: Netcom On-Line Services References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:28:54 GMT Lines: 11 Sender: mzenier@netcom14.netcom.com In article <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wrote: > >Gates started out on a PDP-11 running RT-11. In addition, he admits >that he "learned programming by fishing listings out of a dumpster". PDP-10, run by some startup time sharing service. I don't think the PDP-11 existed at that point. (circa 1968?). Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com mzenier@netcom.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:51:37 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 19 Message-ID: <351D46B9.4A722EE1@ccw.ch> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <351B2BD9.9EE@azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) bill_h wrote: > Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > > * Tim recieved an unlimited license to bundle _any_ Microsoft software > > with each of his machines, free of paying anything to MS ***. > Unlimited license? Including UPGRADES? > Gee, does that mean as long as I keep my Seattle Computer 8086 running > I can get FREE UPGRADES? I would read _bundle_ as: SCP could only give you the version on sale when you got the computer from them. That would make it akin to todays OEM licenses (those cost-nothing bundles without floppies/CDs and manuals). So I would _assume_ that this does not include free upgrades. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:21:37 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 93 Message-ID: <351D4DC1.597CF879@ccw.ch> References: <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <329885.74558.23673@kcbbs.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Richard Plinston wrote: > In message <<351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > Tim had developed it as an _clone_ (not pirated source or even binary) > > of CP/M 80. Because he needed an OS for his 8086 hardware (SCP was an > > hardware manufacturer) and CP/M 86 was severly delayed **. > > SCP were OEM customers of DRI for CP/M. This means that they > had access to all source code that DRI were prepared to > release. While this did not include source for the BDOS of > CP/M 2.2 it did include most of the utilities, such as > formatting and system generation. Source for CP/M 1.3 had > also been available. > > When the 8086 was released by Intel in 1978 it had also > released source code converters from 8080 code to 8086. It > was alledged that a version of CP/M had been disassembled (these > tools were available) and then converted to produce the basis > of the first cut of QDOS (hence the name Quick and Dirty OS). An automated port of an re-sourced pirated CP/M-80 binary? That would be technically possible. But is there any proof of doing it? > There was a particular point though, that MS-DOS 1.0 had an > identical bug to CP/M 1.3 in the way it handled the FCB on a > file close in particular circumstances. This indicated that > the code was plagurised. Could be pirated or could have been a case of bug-for-bug compatible cloning. Perhaps to support some program that relied on that bug. > > And of course Tim writing it kills every possibility of it containing an > > (C) DR easter egg. BTW MS got _source_ from Tim, they would have seen > > it. > > Only if it was plain text as part of the source. And if it was in the binary it would require that neither Tim nor MS bothered to read through the reconstructed source, else they would have seen the .db statement containing that notices. IMHO possible, but unlikely as re-sourced stuff usually needs checking up. > > * Tim recieved an unlimited license to bundle _any_ Microsoft software > > with each of his machines, free of paying anything to MS ***. > > It was actually SCP who received unlimited licence for MS-DOS > for inclusion with SCP machines. After the fire at SCP they > were going to on-sell this but MS objected and eventually > bought back the rights. Possible that in the interview "I" or "we" refered to SCP. That statement of mine was from fairly old memory. ARe you sure that it was only an DOS license. AFAIK it covered all MS software (at least all they sold then, so that would include BASIC etc). What type of fire are you refering to? SCP building burning down (if so when, why should that effect licensing?) or Tim being fired (if so when, for what, really fired, not just simply left, wouldn't that make him the licensee?). > > ** That is why IBM developed all its utilities for the PC under MS-DOS, > > so users then had as choice MS-DOS, CP/M 86 and UCSD; the first with > > utilities, the later two without. Guess what they took ****. > > It what way did MS-DOS 1.x have 'utilities' that were not available > with CP/M-86 or UCSD ? That was not mentioned in the article. I would _assume_ these to be some PC hardware specific stuff. Perhaps comparing an PC-DOS 1.0 with an other vendors MS-DOS 1.0 (not an MS version for PC clones) would show this up. I have neither so we will have to refer this experienment to other a.f.c readers. > The main reason why PC-DOS (not MS-DOS) was sold with IBM-PCs > was that it was only $70 or so while IBM had set the price > of the others at $250 (or so). That certainly helped also. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!209.98.98.14!darla.visi.com!news-out.mcia.org!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! References: <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net> <1998032800041600.TAA23021@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6fht3t$75k@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 24 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:04:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: guild.plethora.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:04:36 CST In article <6fht3t$75k@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Joseph J. Ambrose wrote: >This isn't a slam on NT. I've been working with it for a year. It beats the >pants off of 95! The fact that you have to compare it to '95 to make it sound tolerable is a pretty solid slam. I actually rather like NT; it gives me something to say BSD/OS is 10-15x times as fast as on the same hardware. I used to think "well, that's the price for easy management", but now that I work with the real live end-users these things are targetted at, I find that a lot of them think Unix is easier to administer. *sigh*. -s -- Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.186.0.13!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!feeder.news.azstarnet.com!reader1.news.azstarnet.com!news From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:33:07 -0800 Organization: Starnet Lines: 14 Message-ID: <351DF933.5E10@azstarnet.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <6ffp5v$dmh$1@f02s02.tac.net> <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <352bc823.97568492@news.mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.197.32.69 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) Proteus wrote: > wrote: > > there never WAS anything called "QDOS". That 'story' is a later > > invention. > > > Where is your support for this assertion? You got something published before, say, 1984 that mentions QDOS? If it EXISTED, how come it's not MENTIONED? 86-DOS sure did, and was. Doesn't appear folks AT THE TIME were mentioning any QDOS. Why not? ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 01:46:21 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 47 Message-ID: <351D99DD.70EDED54@ccw.ch> References: <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <329885.74558.23673@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6fhqh6$7ra@world6.bellatlantic.net> <6figbv$oeo$1@nixon.area.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Matt Ackeret wrote: > In article <6fhqh6$7ra@world6.bellatlantic.net>, > George Gray wrote: > >As for DR, Gary Kildall (may he RIP) was no genious as far as business was > >concerned. He just assumed that CP/M-86 would sell itself-that IBM should > >already know how great it was and buy it. He went on a golfing trip instead > >of meeting with IBM. > > Where is your proof of this? The usual myth is that he was "out flying" > instead of meeting with IBM. > > The true story seems to be that he didn't want to sign non-disclosure > agreements with IBM to even talk with them, so that's why IBM went to > Microsoft. I second you on that one, with one small correction: It was Gary's wife, Dorothy. Gary was the techie and did the development stuff. His Dorothy did the business side of things. IBM appeard with the intent to license CP/M. They plonked down their standard NDA (secrecy about what they are doing, etc...). Dorothy looked at it. Didn't understand it (she was no hardened computer exec and apparently regarded IBM as yet annother of these many companies that come to license). Was scared by the legalese. So she took it to an befriended lawyer to have it look over. He suggested some changes. IBM was stymied about this (this was their standard NDA their law department has developed over years...). Now they had the problem of getting changes ratified. In the mean time the visit to Microsoft (to license BASIC) came. Either they mentioned the CP/M trouble or Bill had heard it in the Grapevine) and he know of Paterson. He asked IBM if they would be interested an alternative to CP/M. They said yes. So Bill went to Paterson an bought 86-DOS, modified it to MS-DOS and licensed it to IBM who called it PC-DOS. Source: TV interview with the IBM Manager (Jack Sams) involved in this episode. No, I am not sending out copies of the video :-) -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: william.hamblen@nashville.com (William Hamblen) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 02:45:20 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3523b4ad.4275509@news.nashville.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 28407@207.65.180.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:46:53 GMT, mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) wrote: >Actually, there were a number of kit computers available before the >Altair: Scelbi, RGS (Real Good Stuff?), and the Mark 8 (that was a cover >project in Radio-Electronics magazine about 6 months before the Popular >Electronics Altair annoucement). Scelbi eventually published a version of Basic that would run on either an 8008 or an 8080, depending on how you assembled the source. I've got a copy in the form of a thick, type in the code yourself, book. >Yes, they were all 8008 based, but that made them just as useless as >the orginal Altair, since memory was the limiting factor at that point. An 8008 could address as much as 16K! The subroutine return address stack was on-chip and about 8 deep. Otherwise it was similar to the 8080. >An early focus that would provide documentation for this would be >"73" in 1974 and 1975. This was the radio amateurs magazine that >split off this topic in the form of "Byte" magazine, which they >started to publish in late 1975. If Wayne Green could have stayed married to Virginia he would have been a wealthier man. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.69.200.121!news.mindspring.com!not-for-mail From: Proteus@Olympus.god (Proteus) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:02:33 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 18 Message-ID: <352bc823.97568492@news.mindspring.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <6ffp5v$dmh$1@f02s02.tac.net> <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-38ld971.dialup.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 29 Mar 1998 06:02:20 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:39:29 -0800, bill_h wrote: >David B. Feland wrote: > >> Just one addition - QDOS orignally stood for 'Quick and Dirty Operating >> System'. > >No, there never WAS anything called "QDOS". That 'story' is a later >invention. > Where is your support for this assertion? ****************************************************** "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein ****************************************************** ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news1.rmi.net!not-for-mail From: cquinn@rmi.net (Cary Quinn) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:15:28 GMT Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet - 1(800)-900-RMII Lines: 24 Message-ID: <352000ce.104528732@166.93.8.35> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <6ffp5v$dmh$1@f02s02.tac.net> <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> Reply-To: cquinn@rmi.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 166-93-76-82.rmi.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 bill_h wrote: >David B. Feland wrote: > >> Just one addition - QDOS orignally stood for 'Quick and Dirty Operating >> System'. > >No, there never WAS anything called "QDOS". That 'story' is a later >invention. > >What MS sold to IBM was 86-DOS. Curiously, THAT operating system >supported gigabyte hard drives. Probably, only some of the IBM folks >will ever be able to tell us exactly WHY that capability was taken out. > > -< response to QDOS troll #: 4,706 (or something) >- You claim that it was never called Q-DOS, and then make a statement like that without offerring some sort of proof that 86-DOS supported "gigabyte" hard drives? Am I mistaken that Tim Patterson used the FAT file system in his implementation of 86-DOS? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news1.rmi.net!not-for-mail From: cquinn@rmi.net (Cary Quinn) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:39:57 GMT Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet - 1(800)-900-RMII Lines: 15 Message-ID: <351d619e.63769872@166.93.8.35> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <351B2BD9.9EE@azstarnet.com> Reply-To: cquinn@rmi.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 166-93-76-82.rmi.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 bill_h wrote: >Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > >> * Tim recieved an unlimited license to bundle _any_ Microsoft software >> with each of his machines, free of paying anything to MS ***. > >Unlimited license? Including UPGRADES? > >Gee, does that mean as long as I keep my Seattle Computer 8086 running >I can get FREE UPGRADES? I suppose, as long as you can get Tim Patterson to bring it over.... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 29 Mar 1998 12:46:52 GMT Lines: 41 Message-ID: <6flfrs$1c8$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-008.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-03-28 bill_h@azstarnet.com said: :David B. Feland wrote: :> Just one addition - QDOS orignally stood for 'Quick and Dirty :>Operating System'. :No, there never WAS anything called "QDOS". That 'story' is a later :invention. you really have a bee in your bonnet about this one, don't you? we recall you getting really quite (umm) strident about it a couple of months back, here in a.f.c. what does it matter? the os was offered for sale as 86-dos. that's established. years after it mattered, some people you'd expect to know (or know better) said it was also known as qdos - we got the impression that qdos was a working title, qv. peanut for the pcjr. (and let's not forget the real qdos, which resides in 18k of rom in our little ql.) :From roughly the early spring of 1980 until the PC was announced :in August, 1981 (and the first PC DOS is dated August, 1981) the :operating system sold by Seattle Computer was called 86-DOS. It :went through a couple revisions, the major one from 0.3 to 1.0 :was absolutely NOT backward compatible. 1.0 was the first version to use a fat, was it not? cp/m doesn't use a fat, as far as we know, and nor did the first version of 86-dos. :What MS sold to IBM was 86-DOS. Curiously, THAT operating system :supported gigabyte hard drives. Probably, only some of the IBM folks :will ever be able to tell us exactly WHY that capability was taken :out. it could have gigabyte hard drives, perhaps, but with no directories, a cp/m-like disk structure, and a limit on the number of files on a drive that persists to this day - could it ever have *used* gigabyte drives? -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.25.34.3!skylink!not-for-mail From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:36:19 -0800 Organization: Skylink Networks, Inc. (http://www.skylink.net./) Lines: 20 Message-ID: <6fmp50$k7m$1@news.skylink.net> References: <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <6flfrs$1c8$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: jack.simconv.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote in message <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch>... > >CP/M file systems were max 2^16 * 128 bytes = 8 Mbyte. Makes the FAT >2^16 * 512 bytes = 32 Mbytes limit look very roomy. > Well, not quite. CP/M V2, CPM-86, and the first version of MP/M were limited to 8192KB, but afterwards the cluster size could be changed from 128 to, hmm, 16K I think. The maximum per logical drive capacity on MP/M II was 512MB. This was a problem when Dynabyte first shipped their Micropolis 32MB hard drive (an 8" model). They had to split it into 8MB partitions until DRI got the code patched to go to larger cluster sizes properly. I had 140MB Maxstor drives running on MP/M II (8086 version). with data files over 32MB. In fact, if you had large files you had to use DRI's MP/M or Concurrent DOS, DOS couldn't handle the drives. Jack Peacock ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 29 Mar 1998 19:37:41 GMT Message-ID: <6fm7u5$26r$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <351D4DC1.597CF879@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-035.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Lines: 20 On 1998-03-28 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch said: :> It was actually SCP who received unlimited licence for MS-DOS :> for inclusion with SCP machines. After the fire at SCP they :> were going to on-sell this but MS objected and eventually :> bought back the rights. :What type of fire are you refering to? SCP building burning down :(if so when, why should that effect licensing?) or Tim being fired :(if so when, for what, really fired, not just simply left, wouldn't :that make him the licensee?). we don't know, but we would guess that there was a fire at SCP, and this probably made the continuation of the busines untenable, so they would sell what remained and move on. if that did include an unlimited ms-dos licence, microsoft might well have had something to say about it. -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 29 Mar 98 21:57:50 GMT Message-ID: <329887.79070.4774@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <351D4DC1.597CF879@ccw.ch> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 38 In message <<351D4DC1.597CF879@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > > > * Tim recieved an unlimited license to bundle _any_ Microsoft software > > > with each of his machines, free of paying anything to MS ***. > > > > It was actually SCP who received unlimited licence for MS-DOS > > for inclusion with SCP machines. After the fire at SCP they > > were going to on-sell this but MS objected and eventually > > bought back the rights. > > Possible that in the interview "I" or "we" refered to SCP. That > statement of mine was from fairly old memory. > > ARe you sure that it was only an DOS license. AFAIK it covered all MS > software (at least all they sold then, so that would include BASIC etc). I was making the point that it was SCP received the licence, not Tim. I know that the licence was for all future versions of MS-DOS royalty free, but made no comment on the status of other products or licences. I understand it included languages, but do not know if these were for all future versions and/or royalty free. > > What type of fire are you refering to? SCP building burning down (if so > when, why should that effect licensing?) or Tim being fired (if so when, > for what, really fired, not just simply left, wouldn't that make him the > licensee?). SCP's building burnt down. The owners knew that the S100 based machines they built were obsolete and so decided not to restart the business, just collecting the insurance and raising money from the sale of intangibles, such as the licences. Tim was never the licencee, nor the owner of QDOS/86-DOS, that was always SCP. I believe that Tim went to work at MS and may still be there. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:17:24 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 59 Message-ID: <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> References: <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <6flfrs$1c8$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote: > On 1998-03-28 bill_h@azstarnet.com said: > :From roughly the early spring of 1980 until the PC was announced > :in August, 1981 (and the first PC DOS is dated August, 1981) the > :operating system sold by Seattle Computer was called 86-DOS. It > :went through a couple revisions, the major one from 0.3 to 1.0 > :was absolutely NOT backward compatible. > 1.0 was the first version to use a fat, was it not? cp/m doesn't use a > fat, as far as we know, and nor did the first version of 86-dos. FAT was new with MS-DOS, but I don't know from which version (0.x, 1.0) on it was used. CP/M uses following method: At the beginning of the disk (after the boot sector and facultative system image on boot disks) it had a fixed length (configurable option?, can't remember) table of 2^n bytes (32?) records, this is after all an non-hierarchical filesystem. Each file when opened got one record, this contained the filename, user number (0-F), access control bits and a fixed amount (10?) of 16bit pointers to data blocks (128byte logical blocks, not controller hardware blocks). If a file grew to more than 10*128 bytes it got a second record in the table given to it, with an full copy of the file name etc, but with one byte set to 1 more that in the first record, to mark this as blocks 10 higher. And so a third record after 20 blocks. IIRC there was a maximal amout of records a file could have. So large files used up the directory space that would else have been used for many small ones. As the data blocks also used up the data space this did not matter much. OTOH FAT uses following method: Each file has only 1 record in its directory file, which only has one block pointer that points to the first data block. All other data blocks are found via the FAT (file allocation table) data structure, direct after the boot sector, containing one 12/16/32 bit pointer per block on the disk, building an linked list of data blocks (NULL terminated). This saves space but slowes down random access to large files. > :What MS sold to IBM was 86-DOS. Curiously, THAT operating system > :supported gigabyte hard drives. Probably, only some of the IBM folks > :will ever be able to tell us exactly WHY that capability was taken > :out. > it could have gigabyte hard drives, perhaps, but with no directories, a > cp/m-like disk structure, and a limit on the number of files on a drive > that persists to this day - could it ever have *used* gigabyte drives? CP/M file systems were max 2^16 * 128 bytes = 8 Mbyte. Makes the FAT 2^16 * 512 bytes = 32 Mbytes limit look very roomy. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:11:06 -0600 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 23 Message-ID: <351F296A.7D304E20@plano.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Reply-To: richmond@plano.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 22929@209.44.41.213 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) To: Mark Zenier Mark Zenier wrote: > > In article <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wrote: > > > >Gates started out on a PDP-11 running RT-11. In addition, he admits > >that he "learned programming by fishing listings out of a dumpster". > > PDP-10, run by some startup time sharing service. I don't think > the PDP-11 existed at that point. (circa 1968?). > In the Steven Levy book _Hackers_, he said that the PDP-10 that Gates and Allen ueed to develop Altair BASIC was a school or government computer. Since the computer time and resources were provided by entities supported by tax money, that the BASIC developed should be in the *public domain*. There is an interview Gates had with the Smithsonian on the WEB. He discusses some details of developing Altair BASIC. I do *not* have the URL handy but your friendly search engine can probably find it. -- +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!world6.bellatlantic.net!news From: "George Gray" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:53:30 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6fn8hh$96o@world6.bellatlantic.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <3523b4ad.4275509@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 20934060.bellatlantic.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 William Hamblen wrote in message <3523b4ad.4275509@news.nashville.com>... >On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:46:53 GMT, mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) >wrote: >Scelbi eventually published a version of Basic that would run on >either an 8008 or an 8080, depending on how you assembled the source. >I've got a copy in the form of a thick, type in the code yourself, >book. Oh how I remember TYPING that code in! Three times! The first time, I get 3/4 of the way through, only to loose power-but just momentarily (enough to blow me out of the water.) The second time, I saved my progress (so I thought) every so many bytes. This time, I killed the machine myself with just a few bytes to go... The third time, however, was the charm. After finding a dozen or so mistypes, I had Scelbal working. I did not have the luxury of an assembler, I keyed in the machine code (in octal the first time, I think) byte-by-byte. Later, when we 'upgraded' to the gee-whiz 8080, we got scelbal on paper tape complete with string handling and floating point math (we considered it's 8K size to be bloatware!) At least I had an alphanumeric keyboard...the Mark computer my father built from Radio-Electronics had 16 switches you had to use. I don't recall too much of that one, the second 8008 was more 'sophisticated' with the tvt (TV Typewriter) and the keyboard (plus the trusty paper tape that hung off of the tvt...very clever stuff. As the paper tape 'read', letters magically appeared on the screen...wow!) And we complain about Windows! Puh-leeze! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 29 Mar 98 23:54:35 GMT Message-ID: <329887.86075.10157@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <6fdulk$nbj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 20 In message <<6fdulk$nbj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>> nedj@ix.netcom.com writes: > > DOS 6.0 : Had big advertising. One of its biggest selling points was the > fact that that it could compress its file system. Of course this just followed the feature list that DR-DOS 6 had set nearly a year previously when it introduced built in drive compression by incorporating SuperStor (which it PAID for). DR-DOS 6 also included DISKOPT, PCKWIK, TASKMAX, full screen editor, DELWATCH and DISKMAP deleteion recovery, and many other features that MS had copy to keep up. Many features added to MS-DOS 6 were not paid for by MS. DR-DOS started to take market share away from MS-DOS because it was offering more features and better stability. MS countered this by 'locking out' DR-DOS with the AARP code in Windows, by 'bundling', and by per machine contracts. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.231.236.10!newspeer.monmouth.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!news.microsoft.com!news From: "Richard Van Fossan" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:19:42 -0800 Organization: Microsoft Corp. Lines: 9 Message-ID: <6fonra$bq@news.microsoft.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <3523b4ad.4275509@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.54.176.134 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >If Wayne Green could have stayed married to Virginia he would have >been a wealthier man. Wayne Green was married to an entire state? I knew he was a bit strange, but I had no idea. The alimony settlement must have bankrupted him big time. ;-) Rich ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!stns.news.pipex.net!hose.news.pipex.net!grot.news.pipex.net!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.0.154.208!ais.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!news.microsoft.com!news From: "Richard Van Fossan" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:23:19 -0800 Organization: Microsoft Corp. Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.54.176.134 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >Largely adapted from public domain code. Some consider using public >domain code to produce a commercial product "stealing". And is using public domain words to produce a commercial book "stealing" also? "Public domain" means "you may make whatever use you wish of this." It is hardly "stealing to make use of a product which is provided free. Microsoft, Borland, Symantec, etc. all make C++ compilers based on the C++ proposed standard which is provided free of charge. Is this also "stealing?" Rich ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: r.e.ballard@usa.net Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:27:16 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 49 Message-ID: <6fogva$jbe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6fjlbo$ke8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.222.78.2 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 30 16:27:16 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT) In article <6fjlbo$ke8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote: > > >DEC and Microsoft have a common enemy (UNIX). > > Microsoft hates Xenix (and once declared the younger sibling of OS/2 to > actually *be* Unix). I am not sure that DEC hates Digital Unix though. My > parents love me, but it doesn't seem to be for any good reason. DEC has been a bit "two headed" about UNIX ever since it came out with Ultrix in the late 1980's. On the one hand, they don't want to lose a bid where the customer is demanding a true UNIX system, but their sales people get much larger commissions of VMS systems and VMS software, even when everything is supplied by DEC. It's the classic "Dope Pusher" syndrome. If the dealer can get you addicted to his product, you have to rely on him for supply, no matter how much he raises the price. Microsoft, IBM, and DEC are masters of this tactic. Sometimes, it backfires though. When IBM tried to get people "hooked" on Microchannel, the entire industry balked and IBM suffered for it. Microsoft has had similar problems with NT. NT 3.51 didn't support the 16 bit applications very well, and NT 4.0 even struggled to support Windows 95 applications. Most of the 3.1 applications and drivers are useless on NT. Ironically, Linux, with DOSEM and WABI, has actually done a better job of supporting the legacy base. Were it not for Microsoft's Exclusive OEM contracts (practically exclusive) from 1994-1997, it would probably have lost control of the market. As it is, Linux has made a deeper penitration than any other non-Microsoft product (estimates range anywhere from 6-22 million). The Linux base is growing at 10-20%/month depending on other events. Meanwhile, Windows 95 UPGRADE seems to be sitting on the shelves. (Much of the current sales is 95A to 95B customers). $95 for "bug fixes". > Jeremy "I have no son" Burgeson > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading Rex Ballard -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.savvis.com!opus.anet-stl.com!not-for-mail From: Jim Everman Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:04:11 -0600 Organization: Very good. Lines: 23 Message-ID: <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> Reply-To: everman@anet-stl.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp078.anet-stl.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Richard Van Fossan wrote: > > >Largely adapted from public domain code. Some consider using public > >domain code to produce a commercial product "stealing". > > And is using public domain words to produce a commercial book "stealing" > also? "Public domain" means "you may make whatever use you wish of this." Sounds like an attorney here - "If it isn't specificly illegal, then it must be OK!" I think *most* of us would agree that it's not quite fair to take someone else's work and profit from it.... Recall the ".ARC" vs ".ZIP" war? -- Jim Everman mailto:everman@Anet-STL.com http://webusers.Anet-STL.com/~everman/ Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!198.168.100.2!altitude!Ocean.CAM.ORG!blackm00 From: Michael Black Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:50:24 -0500 Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <3523b4ad.4275509@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ocean.cam.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3523b4ad.4275509@news.nashville.com> On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, William Hamblen wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:46:53 GMT, mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) > wrote: [stuff deleted] > > >An early focus that would provide documentation for this would be > >"73" in 1974 and 1975. This was the radio amateurs magazine that > >split off this topic in the form of "Byte" magazine, which they > >started to publish in late 1975. > > If Wayne Green could have stayed married to Virginia he would have > been a wealthier man. > > Actually, 73 was not a good source before 1975. There was an article in the November 1972 issue (which was the largest issue they'd published up till then) on building a home computer, but it was about using ttl and surplus core memory or memory drums. It was basic and background, not a construction article. But other than that article, there weren't articles about the early home computers in 73 until after the Altair hit the cover of Popular Electronics in January of 1975. The artciles did not show up in 73 until the spring or summer of 1975, about the time that ads showed up for Byte. Of course, after that point, computer articles were common in 73, with radio-related computer articles showing up in 73 while Byte was the computer magazine. When Wayne lost Byte, his response was to set up a computer section in 73 that was about all segements of the small computer filed, and then in 1977 he started Kilobaud. Wayne Green actually split up with Virginia in the mid-sixties. There was an editorial in the summer of '68 where he responds to some letters that he'd been receiving about problems at 73, and he talks about how he was devasted by the divorce. When Byte started up, and "Virginia Londner Green" showed up in the masthead, it always puzzled me. It was year's before Wayne said anyting about this. Apparently, they just sort of hijacked the magazine right out from under him. He did write something once about why Virginia was part of Byte when it started, I think on the advice of his accountant, but I can't remember the details. Wayne had had problems with the IRS, and putting the magazine under someone else's name protected something. It was never clear from what he wrote why Virginia was back in the picture; maybe part of the divorce settlement, or maybe things between them had recovered a bit. At the time (and still to this day) the loss of Byte reminded me of Robert Heinlein's "Door Into Summer" where somebody invents a robot, an dloses the company to his fiancee, who turned out to be in cahoots with his best friend. It seemed like perhaps Virginia had showed up at the right time, but with the purpose of stealing the magazine away, but that is just an impression. The funny bit about this is that the editor, Carl Helmers, mentioned a number of times that "Door Into Summer" was one of his favourite books. Wayne lost Byte, but he went on and started Kilobaud and a bunch of other comptuer magazines. When he sold those, he made a bundle. I've read enough of Wayne's editorials over the years to know that he's started very successful businesses a number of times over the years, and then somehow lost them or lost the money. And each time, he starts over again. Michael ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!doc.ic.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: David Wragg Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 30 Mar 1998 15:20:31 +0000 Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK. Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <6fdulk$nbj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <329887.86075.10157@kcbbs.gen.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: getsetgo.doc.ic.ac.uk X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.3 - "Vatican City" riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) writes: > DR-DOS 6 also included DISKOPT, PCKWIK, TASKMAX, full screen ^^^^^^^^^^^ > editor, DELWATCH and DISKMAP deleteion recovery, and many ^^^^^^ > other features that MS had copy to keep up. Many features > added to MS-DOS 6 were not paid for by MS. But EDIT appeared in MS-DOS 5, didn't it? (5 was the last version I used on a regular basis) -- Dave Wragg ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!cosy.sbg.ac.at!fci-se!fci!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!mzenier From: mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: Organization: Netcom On-Line Services References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <351F296A.7D304E20@plano.net> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:23:22 GMT Lines: 26 Sender: mzenier@netcom10.netcom.com In article <351F296A.7D304E20@plano.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >Mark Zenier wrote: >> >> In article <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wrote: >> > >> >Gates started out on a PDP-11 running RT-11. In addition, he admits >> >that he "learned programming by fishing listings out of a dumpster". >> >> PDP-10, run by some startup time sharing service. I don't think >> the PDP-11 existed at that point. (circa 1968?). >> >In the Steven Levy book _Hackers_, he said that the PDP-10 that Gates and >Allen ueed to develop Altair BASIC was a school or government computer. Since >the computer time and resources were provided by entities supported by tax >money, that the BASIC developed should be in the *public domain*. What does that have to do with the commercial time sharing service that Lakeside School, (the private junior high/high school that Gates and Allen attended), used 3-5 years before Altair BASIC was written? And even if it was a school computer, it probably was at Harvard, which is not a public school. Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com mzenier@netcom.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:30:48 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 26 Message-ID: <351FE4D8.9913D877@ccw.ch> References: <351D4DC1.597CF879@ccw.ch> <329887.79070.4774@kcbbs.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Richard Plinston wrote: > In message <<351D4DC1.597CF879@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch > > ARe you sure that it was only an DOS license. AFAIK it covered all MS > > software (at least all they sold then, so that would include BASIC etc). > > Tim. I know that the licence was for all future versions of > MS-DOS royalty free, but made no comment on the status of other > products or licences. I understand it included languages, but > do not know if these were for all future versions and/or > royalty free. What software would MS have had in those days, appart from DOS and Languages? AFAIK Multitool (a.k.a. Word) and Multiplan (a spreadsheet) were not yet around in 1981. > was always SCP. I believe that Tim went to work at MS and > may still be there. He joined the Visual Basic group in 1990 according to an interview in Personal Computer World. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.cs.utwente.nl!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!EU.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!venus.sun.com!sunnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!not-for-mail From: writer1@Eng.Sun.COM (Bob Morrisette) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 31 Mar 1998 20:25:11 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Lines: 21 Message-ID: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> Reply-To: writer1@Eng.Sun.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: sabu.eng.sun.com From Jeff Read >Yes, he and Paul Allen came up with the first working BASIC for *the >first* PC, the MITS Altair computer. Before Microsoft BASIC, the Altair >was put-near useless, but that didn't stop many people from becoming >endeared to it. >People on this group (a.d.m) complain that Bill Gates's code wasn't very >good, sort of in an effort to slam him, but remember that on the Altair, >you had to *toggle* your programs in using the set of switches on the >panel! ------------------------------------------------ Gates and Allen wrote the Altair BASIC on a DEC PDP-10 which contained a 8080 simulator they adapted from their Traf-O-Data 8008 simulator. Not a trivial programming task. Bob Morrisette ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.122.16.44!news.eskimo.com!cmd From: cmd@eskimo.com (Craig Dowell) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 31 Mar 1998 20:30:53 GMT Organization: Liver Donors, Inc. Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6frjpt$las$1@eskinews.eskimo.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <352bc823.97568492@news.mindspring.com> <351DF933.5E10@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eskimo.com >> > there never WAS anything called "QDOS". That 'story' is a later >> > invention. >> > >> Where is your support for this assertion? > >You got something published before, say, 1984 that mentions QDOS? > >If it EXISTED, how come it's not MENTIONED? 86-DOS sure did, and was. > >Doesn't appear folks AT THE TIME were mentioning any QDOS. Why not? QDOS was developed in 1982 in conjunction with the Bavarian Illuminati specifically for the purpose of world domination. It was quite secret at the time. The development was done in what would now be building seven of the Microsoft main campus in Redmond, Washington. Through their connections with the Freemasons, Microsoft has taken over the site and constructed an underground bunker where all evidence of the crimes against humanity which cannot be destroyed are interred. This bunker also contains the FTL communications equipment that Microsoft uses to report progress to the gray aliens and their blancmange masters on the planet Skyron in the galaxy of Andromeda. Hope this helps. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!ais.net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 31 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:52:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: guild.plethora.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:52:43 CST In article <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com>, Jim Everman wrote: > Sounds like an attorney here - "If it isn't specificly illegal, then > it must be OK!" I think *most* of us would agree that it's not quite > fair to take someone else's work and profit from it.... No. I give out a fair amount of code under *copyright* even, and if people can profit from it, that's great! If something is in the public domain, *BY DEFINITION*, anyone can use it for anything, including profit-generating activity. This is *good*. This works for us. This means that, instead of PD code being dead unless you feel like maintaining it, PD code is able to find new homes and new support staffs. > Recall the ".ARC" vs ".ZIP" war? And was the "stolen" code placed in the public domain, or was it merely copied? Copying something without permission does not make it public domain. ;) -s -- Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.maz.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 From: "billwg" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:56:12 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 12 Message-ID: <6fsa9p$rrq@news1.newsguy.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <3523b4ad.4275509@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-918.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3026.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3026.0 Michael Black wrote in message ... > > >I've read enough of Wayne's editorials over the years to know that >he's started very successful businesses a number of times over the years, >and then somehow lost them or lost the money. And each time, he starts >over again. > Never Say Die ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mindspring.com!usenet From: Proteus@Olympus.god (Proteus) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:58:53 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 27 Message-ID: <35217384.1702617@news.mindspring.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-38ld8uu.dialup.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 31 Mar 1998 22:58:53 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:04:11 -0600, Jim Everman wrote: > Sounds like an attorney here - "If it isn't specificly illegal, then > it must be OK!" I think *most* of us would agree that it's not quite > fair to take someone else's work and profit from it.... I don't know of any businesses that haven't used at least one idea that wasn't original. In fact, true innovation is extremely rare. I think it would be incredibly foolish not to use the work of others. For example, was it unethical for Burger King to create a fast-food burger franchise after McDonald's did it? Not in my opinion. Is it unethical for Toyota to use the process of internal combustion in their engines? After all, they are using someone else's work! Using other people's work increases competition. If someone wants to reduce competition, then let them use patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. to protect themselves. ****************************************************** "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein ****************************************************** ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!stns.news.pipex.net!hose.news.pipex.net!grot.news.pipex.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.69.200.121!news.mindspring.com!usenet From: Proteus@Olympus.god (Proteus) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:01:34 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3522758f.2225793@news.mindspring.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <351AC3F5.FC6E0740@ccw.ch> <6ffp5v$dmh$1@f02s02.tac.net> <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <352bc823.97568492@news.mindspring.com> <351DF933.5E10@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-38ld8uu.dialup.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 31 Mar 1998 23:01:37 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:33:07 -0800, bill_h wrote: >Proteus wrote: >> wrote: >> > there never WAS anything called "QDOS". That 'story' is a later >> > invention. >> > >> Where is your support for this assertion? > >You got something published before, say, 1984 that mentions QDOS? > >If it EXISTED, how come it's not MENTIONED? 86-DOS sure did, and was. > >Doesn't appear folks AT THE TIME were mentioning any QDOS. Why not? > People used to call me Marcus Aurelius or Marcus Welby. I bet you can't find that written down anywhere either. ****************************************************** "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein ****************************************************** ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!stevens-tech.edu!not-for-mail From: Jeff Read Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:16:49 +0000 Organization: Not really Lines: 15 Message-ID: <35217961.F5E142FF@geocities.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com> <35217384.1702617@news.mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: jread.u99.stevens-tech.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04j2 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.33 i686) Proteus wrote: > Using other people's work increases competition. If someone > wants to reduce competition, then let them use patents, copyrights, > trademarks, etc. to protect themselves. And they do! Microsoft copies others' work, then turns around and threatens to sue anyone who copies their copy! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Read / http://genpc.home.ml.org Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft! Anime & Sonic Fan, / Use Linux/GNU! All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!198.6.0.5!uunet!in3.uu.net!news.microsoft.com!news From: "Richard Van Fossan" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:18:02 -0800 Organization: Microsoft Corp. Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6ftsvt$ru7@news.microsoft.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.54.176.134 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > Sounds like an attorney here - "If it isn't specificly illegal, then > it must be OK!" I think *most* of us would agree that it's not quite > fair to take someone else's work and profit from it.... When someone places something into the public domain, they are specifically giving people the right to make use of it. If they did not want that, they could make it freely available, but retain the copyright and include limits to its use in the distribution license. It's not "unfair" to make use of someone's free gift to other professionals. Netscape should be giving their source code away shortly. They expect people to make commercial use of it. Is everyone who takes them up on their offer being "unfair?" I'm no attorney. And, if it isn't illegal, it's legal, by definition under our legal system. How is making use of something that someone else has provided free of charge "unfair?" If a contractor downloads Linux and installs it on several commercial systems and gets paid for it (and that's happening all over), is he indulging in "unfair" behavior? He's making money from someone else's work. Rich ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!158.43.192.17!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!sun4nl!bullseye.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!xs4all!xs4all!not-for-mail From: rjn@pobox.com (Fidelio) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 1 Apr 1998 22:07:10 +0200 Organization: Fidelio Internet Services Message-ID: <6fu6pe$3s8$1@xs2.xs4all.nl> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: xs2.xs4all.nl X-XS4ALL-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 22:07:13 CEST X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #4 Lines: 22 r.e.ballard@usa.net writes: >Microsoft has been very generous with DEC. Perhaps DEC was prepared >to press a case? >DEC and Microsoft have a common enemy (UNIX). DEC lost it's dominance >of the Minicomputer market to UNIX based systems. Microsoft could easily >and quickly lose it's control of the PC market to Linux or FreeBSD. You're confusing some issues. Digital (DEC) was the leading player in mini systems with the PDP-11 and VAX systems, but CP/M and CP/M 86 were by Digital Research, which was a totally different company. Novell later bought Digital Research, while Digital was purchased by Compaq lately, I think. Rob -- -=*=- | ... ... ... ... Rob J. Nauta | ... ... ... ... rjn@pobox.com | ... ... ... ... -=*=- | http://www.xs4all.nl/~rob/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: r.e.ballard@usa.net Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 13:06:11 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 60 Message-ID: <6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6fu6pe$3s8$1@xs2.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.222.78.2 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Apr 02 19:06:11 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT) In article <6fu6pe$3s8$1@xs2.xs4all.nl>, rjn@pobox.com (Fidelio) wrote: > r.e.ballard@usa.net writes: [alluding to the possibility that Microsoft BASIC may have been "inspired" by DEC BASIC (and listings of it found in dumpsters] > >Microsoft has been very generous with DEC. Perhaps DEC was prepared > >to press a case? Bill Gates and Paul Allen had made a deal with a timeshare company to report bugs in exchange for time on a PDP-10. Gates may have been "inspired" by DEC BASIC to the point of raising questions about originality. > >DEC and Microsoft have a common enemy (UNIX). DEC lost it's dominance > >of the Minicomputer market to UNIX based systems. Microsoft could easily > >and quickly lose it's control of the PC market to Linux or FreeBSD. > > You're confusing some issues. Digital (DEC) was the leading player in > mini systems with the PDP-11 and VAX systems, DEC was also using BASIC on it's PDP-8, PDP-10, and PDP-11 computers. > but CP/M and CP/M 86 were > by Digital Research, which was a totally different company. Digital Research sold limited rights to Seattle Computer Company. Microsoft paid SCC $100,000 for the right to sell it to an undisclosed customer (IBM). After Digital realized that SCC was virtually bankrupt, it settled out of court. Later, Microsoft paid $987,000 for ALL rights to the SCC DOS. Within a month of this purchase, the president of SCC joined Microsoft. > Novell later bought Digital Research, Actually, Ray Noorda left Novell and formed Caldera. Caldara purchased DRI. Caldera also was a major Linux vendor. By obtaining the rights to DRI and creating the antitrust suit, Caldera may be able to nullify the contracts Microsoft currently holds with the major vendors and prevent Microsoft from renegotiating a de-facto monopoly on the OEM installed OS. Microsoft has been extra protective of it's OEM base, fearing a defection to Linux or FreeBSD would be further accelerated by public offerings by companies such as Compaq, Dell, Micron, and HP. > while Digital was purchased by Compaq lately, I think. Is the merger complete? I thought they were still awaiting FTC approvals. > Rob > -=*=- | ... ... ... ... > Rob J. Nauta | ... ... ... ... > rjn@pobox.com | ... ... ... ... > -=*=- | http://www.xs4all.nl/~rob/ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.232.20.2!malgudi.oar.net!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!opus.anet-stl.com!not-for-mail From: Jim Everman Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 13:27:39 -0600 Organization: Very good. Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3523E6AB.2878@anet-stl.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3519D077.B4FE55B1@geocities.com> <6fh180$ffe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6fu6pe$3s8$1@xs2.xs4all.nl> <6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Reply-To: everman@anet-stl.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp188.anet-stl.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote: > DEC was also using BASIC on it's PDP-8, PDP-10, and PDP-11 computers. To say nothing of FOCAL on the PDP-12 (didn't the PDP-12 come before the PDP-11?), but this doesn't really belong in urban legends guys. -- Jim Everman mailto:everman@Anet-STL.com http://webusers.Anet-STL.com/~everman/ Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!ivie From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: Date: 2 Apr 98 16:18:50 MDT References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Utah State University Lines: 46 In article <6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, r.e.ballard@usa.net writes: > In article <6fu6pe$3s8$1@xs2.xs4all.nl>, > rjn@pobox.com (Fidelio) wrote: >> r.e.ballard@usa.net writes: > > > [alluding to the possibility that Microsoft BASIC may have been "inspired" > by DEC BASIC (and listings of it found in dumpsters] > Bill Gates and Paul Allen had made a deal with a timeshare company to report > bugs in exchange for time on a PDP-10. Gates may have been "inspired" > by DEC BASIC to the point of raising questions about originality. [[[ snip ]]] > DEC was also using BASIC on it's PDP-8, PDP-10, and PDP-11 computers. DEC BASIC is compiled. Microsoft BASIC is interpreted. Microsoft BASIC is not a clone of DEC BASIC. >> Novell later bought Digital Research, > > Actually, Ray Noorda left Novell and formed Caldera. Caldara purchased > DRI. Novell bought DRI. Caldera bought DRI from Novell. > Caldera also was a major Linux vendor. Still is. > By obtaining the rights to > DRI and creating the antitrust suit, Caldera essentially just breathed life into a suit that Novell had long ago brought against Microsoft. The out-of-court settlement of Novell's suit entailed the death of Novell DOS, which was DR DOS. Caldera is also attempting to breathe life back into DR DOS. >> while Digital was purchased by Compaq lately, I think. > > Is the merger complete? I thought they were still awaiting FTC approvals. They are awaiting both FTC approval and shareholder approval, AFAIK. -- -------------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Roger Ivie | "You got advice for me. Well I'm telling you, ivie@cc.usu.edu | I know nothing and I like it that way" http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ | -- Eggplant ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!dpeschel From: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 3 Apr 1998 00:03:00 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 10 Message-ID: <6g18vk$18p2$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fu6pe$3s8$1@xs2.xs4all.nl> <6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3523E6AB.2878@anet-stl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: saul2.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp1.u.washington.edu 891561780 41762 (None) 140.142.64.7 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: dpeschel In article <3523E6AB.2878@anet-stl.com>, Jim Everman wrote: > To say nothing of FOCAL on the PDP-12 (didn't the PDP-12 come before > the PDP-11?), but this doesn't really belong in urban legends guys. Returning to the subject of Microsoft: I'm glad they never copied this idea. Can you imagine Visual FOCAL? Yow! -- Derek ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 3 Apr 98 06:30:27 GMT Message-ID: <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 21 In message <<6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>> writer1@Eng.Sun.COM writes: > > ------------------------------------------------ > Gates and Allen wrote the Altair BASIC on a DEC PDP-10 which contained a > 8080 simulator they adapted from their Traf-O-Data 8008 simulator. > Not a trivial programming task. Actually Intel provided DEC based development tools for the 8008 and 8080 as they expected all develpment to be cross compiled. When Gary Kildall developed a system that allowed development on the 8080 based machine and offered it to Intel they turned it down, so he produced it as CP/M. I don't think that Gates or Allen developed any tools for the DEC to do cross development, they just used existing simulators. And, it is alledged, Bill had the source code for a DEC Basic interpretor. It seems that the Altair Basic operated in a very similar way to that interpreter. Hmmmm. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 3 Apr 98 06:47:00 GMT Message-ID: <329892.24420.25409@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 41 In message <<6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>> r.e.ballard@usa.net writes: > > Digital Research sold limited rights to Seattle Computer Company. Microsoft SCP (not SCC) were OEM customers of DRI for CP/M to use with their Z80 based S100 boxes. They had all CP/M source and tools that DRI would release, but had no rights to break the copyrights on that code in producing their own OS. > paid SCC $100,000 for the right to sell it to an undisclosed customer (IBM). > After Digital realized that SCC was virtually bankrupt, it settled out of > court. Later, Microsoft paid $987,000 for ALL rights to the SCC DOS. Within > a month of this purchase, the president of SCC joined Microsoft. > > > Novell later bought Digital Research, > > Actually, Ray Noorda left Novell and formed Caldera. Caldara purchased > DRI. Caldera also was a major Linux vendor. By obtaining the rights to > DRI and creating the antitrust suit, Caldera may be able to nullify the > contracts Microsoft currently holds with the major vendors and prevent Novell bought DRI several years ago and recently sold it to Caldera. Novell decided to buy DRI when Gates announced that 'the next version of DOS may not support NetWare'. He wanted to panic Netware sites to buy LAN Manager. Novell then wanted DR-DOS 6 to ensure that their customers could continue to use their systems and could get client OS that would support it. They were going to bundle NW-DOS 7 with NetWare licences so that a 25 user NetWare system received 25 NW-DOS 7 licences. Bill thought that this was using their server market share as leverage to lock out the client OS market and had a few words with the top management to make sure that there was a free market in which all could operate without this type of unfair practice. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 3 Apr 98 06:54:36 GMT Message-ID: <329892.24876.25636@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 10 In message <<351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > 1.0 was the first version to use a fat, was it not? cp/m doesn't use a > > fat, as far as we know, and nor did the first version of 86-dos. > > FAT was new with MS-DOS, but I don't know from which version (0.x, 1.0) > on it was used. The FAT mechanism first appeared in MS's DEC Stand-Alone BASIC whichcame out in the late 70s. (I wonder which DEC it ran on ?). ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 3 Apr 98 07:07:15 GMT Message-ID: <329892.25635.26406@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 44 In message <<351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > CP/M uses following method: > At the beginning of the disk (after the boot sector and facultative > system image on boot disks) it had a fixed length (configurable option?, > can't remember) table of 2^n bytes (32?) records, this is after all an > non-hierarchical filesystem. > Each file when opened got one record, this contained the filename, user > number (0-F), access control bits and a fixed amount (10?) of 16bit > pointers to data blocks (128byte logical blocks, not controller hardware > blocks). Depending on configuration it could have 16 8bit pointers to 1kb blocks (clusters) giving a max 254 clusters on a SSSD 8" disk, or it could be 8 16bit pointers to a configurable sized block (say 16Kb). > If a file grew to more than 10*128 bytes it got a second record in the > table given to it, with an full copy of the file name etc, but with one > byte set to 1 more that in the first record, to mark this as blocks 10 > higher. And so a third record after 20 blocks. IIRC there was a maximal > amout of records a file could have. The pointers were to blocks of configurable size. Each entry was to an extent, there could be (IIRC) 64 extents in a file. However the file size was also restricted by the number of 'records' of 128bytes that could be accessed by the FCB. > So large files used up the directory space that would else have been > used for many small ones. As the data blocks also used up the data space > this did not matter much. > > > CP/M file systems were max 2^16 * 128 bytes = 8 Mbyte. Makes the FAT > 2^16 * 512 bytes = 32 Mbytes limit look very roomy. A file could only be 8MByte, but I have used CP/M file systems (with Concurrent-CP/M) of 160 MByte. CP/M 2.2 was, I believe limited to 8MByte drives, but MP/M and CP/M 3 did not have this limit - I have an MP/M system with a 20 Mb drive (plus several CCP/M and CDOS etc machines with various drives up to 80MByte using CP/M file system). ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!cosy.sbg.ac.at!fci-se!fci!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 3 Apr 98 07:53:09 GMT Message-ID: <329892.28389.28895@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <351FE4D8.9913D877@ccw.ch> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 19 In message <<351FE4D8.9913D877@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > > > Tim. I know that the licence was for all future versions of > > MS-DOS royalty free, but made no comment on the status of other > > products or licences. I understand it included languages, but > > do not know if these were for all future versions and/or > > royalty free. > > What software would MS have had in those days, appart from DOS and > Languages? AFAIK Multitool (a.k.a. Word) and Multiplan (a spreadsheet) > were not yet around in 1981. Multiplan was available in a CP/M version, and an Apple II version, around 1981. In the August 1981 Byte the MS ad is for Softcard (CP/M card for Apple II), and mentions MS Basic, Cobol, Fortran, Basic Compiler, Assembler. MS was primarily a language shop. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.0.154.208!ais.net!newshub.tc.umn.edu!skypoint.com!not-for-mail From: "George R. Gonzalez" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 08:48:37 -0600 Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Lines: 41 Message-ID: <6g2ujk$r9k$1@shadow.skypoint.net> References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial032.skypoint.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Richard Plinston wrote in message <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz>... >In message <<6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>> writer1@Eng.Sun.COM writes: >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Gates and Allen wrote the Altair BASIC on a DEC PDP-10 which contained a >> 8080 simulator they adapted from their Traf-O-Data 8008 simulator. >> Not a trivial programming task. > >Actually Intel provided DEC based development tools for the 8008 >and 8080 Not Exactly. The Intel tools (PL/ASM and PL/M) were written in a mostly portable dialect of good old FORTRAN. >And, it is alledged, Bill had the source code for a DEC Basic >interpretor. It seems that the Altair Basic operated in a >very similar way to that interpreter. Hmmmm. Not even remotely true. I've seen the DEC BASIC source code for RSTS and RT-11, and it's nothing like Microsoft BASIC. DEC BASIC stored the source code in a tokenized form, Microsoft doesnt. The DEC code was cleverly written to be used both single-user, and multi-user; overlaid or all resident. None of this carried over to Microsoft BASIC. If anything, DEC BASIC was a counterexample, how NOT to write code for a 8K microcomputer. In 8K of linear memory, you don't have the luxury of doing things the same way as when you have 128k and a (weak) MMU. Regards, George ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!ais.net!newshub.tc.umn.edu!skypoint.com!not-for-mail From: "George R. Gonzalez" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 10:51:36 -0600 Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Lines: 41 Message-ID: <6g341r$t6v$1@shadow.skypoint.net> References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6g2ujk$r9k$1@shadow.skypoint.net> <3524ff2f.2935623@Rockyd> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial032.skypoint.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Alexandre Pechtchanski wrote in message <3524ff2f.2935623@Rockyd>... >I think you're talking wrong BASIC here. The one Gates might have access to at >the time was BASIC for PDP-1 or PDP-10 (a.k.a. DECSYSTEM-10), which predates >both RT-11 and RSTS-E by quite a few years. I don't know about PDP-10 BASIC, altho I would assume like much PDP-10 code, it was written to take maximum advantage of the PDP-10's bizarre instruction set. You're unlikely to be able to steal much from there, except the general idea that clever people can do very clever things when you have lots of instructions and 32-bit registers. Not a lot of help when you have few instructions and a few 8-bit registers. >Moreover, DEC later had a >multi-user BASIC [1] for PDP-8 with 4 k words (12 bit) which was pretty compact, >I'd say. I think it barely supported one user in 4k. Multi-user required at least 8k and a small but unbelievably expensive 32k word swapping disk. Here again, you'd not be simply porting PDP-8 code to the 8080. The machines are so wildly different that porting is not an option. But it would be a big help to see that it *was* possible to manage a symbol table, line editor, and heap in 4k of code. They could have learned from the general architecture, but it would be a bit harsh to consider that "stealing". Regards, George ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!wesley.videotron.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!rockyd.rockefeller.edu!not-for-mail From: alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Alexandre Pechtchanski) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Organization: Rockefeller University Hospital (GCRC), New York Message-ID: <3524ff2f.2935623@Rockyd> References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6g2ujk$r9k$1@shadow.skypoint.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 15:31:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: hospc6.rockefeller.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 10:31:03 EST On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 08:48:37 -0600, "George R. Gonzalez" wrote: [ Courtesy cc'ed through e-mail to the quoted author ] > >Richard Plinston wrote in message <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz>... [ snip ] >>And, it is alledged, Bill had the source code for a DEC Basic >>interpretor. It seems that the Altair Basic operated in a >>very similar way to that interpreter. Hmmmm. > >Not even remotely true. I've seen the DEC BASIC source code for RSTS >and RT-11, and it's nothing like Microsoft BASIC. DEC BASIC stored the >source code in a tokenized form, Microsoft doesnt. The DEC code was >cleverly written to be used both single-user, and multi-user; overlaid >or all resident. None of this carried over to Microsoft BASIC. > >If anything, DEC BASIC was a counterexample, how NOT to write code for a >8K microcomputer. In 8K of linear memory, you don't have the luxury of >doing things the same way as when you have 128k and a (weak) MMU. I think you're talking wrong BASIC here. The one Gates might have access to at the time was BASIC for PDP-1 or PDP-10 (a.k.a. DECSYSTEM-10), which predates both RT-11 and RSTS-E by quite a few years. Moreover, DEC later had a multi-user BASIC [1] for PDP-8 with 4 k words (12 bit) which was pretty compact, I'd say. [1] IIRC it was called EduSystem-5 meaning 5 users (the lowest member in the EduSystem family; high end was EduSystem PDP-11 based which promised to be able to run simultaneously a terminal class for students and all school's bookkeeping operations. Knowing what PDP-11 with RSTS-E or RSX-11 was capable of, I don't really doubt it). [ When replying, remove *'s from address ] Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 00:43:31 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 30 Message-ID: <35256613.E65A431E@ccw.ch> References: <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> <329892.25635.26406@kcbbs.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Richard Plinston wrote: > > In message <<351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > CP/M file systems were max 2^16 * 128 bytes = 8 Mbyte. Makes the FAT > > 2^16 * 512 bytes = 32 Mbytes limit look very roomy. > > A file could only be 8MByte, but I have used CP/M file systems > (with Concurrent-CP/M) of 160 MByte. > > CP/M 2.2 was, I believe limited to 8MByte drives, but MP/M > and CP/M 3 did not have this limit - I have an MP/M system > with a 20 Mb drive (plus several CCP/M and CDOS etc machines > with various drives up to 80MByte using CP/M file system). I was refering to CP/M 2.2 (which is when I still used it, and which I still consider the "real" CP/M, the same as MS-DOS 3.3 being "real", the later being bastardisations). I have never met enyone with an CP/M 3 or MP/M or CCP/M system (non of them were popular around here, I and most others were using MS/PC-DOS 2.11 or 3.3 by then). So the later improvements under the hood went unnoticed. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 00:43:31 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 30 Message-ID: <35256613.E65A431E@ccw.ch> References: <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> <329892.25635.26406@kcbbs.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Richard Plinston wrote: > > In message <<351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch>> Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > > CP/M file systems were max 2^16 * 128 bytes = 8 Mbyte. Makes the FAT > > 2^16 * 512 bytes = 32 Mbytes limit look very roomy. > > A file could only be 8MByte, but I have used CP/M file systems > (with Concurrent-CP/M) of 160 MByte. > > CP/M 2.2 was, I believe limited to 8MByte drives, but MP/M > and CP/M 3 did not have this limit - I have an MP/M system > with a 20 Mb drive (plus several CCP/M and CDOS etc machines > with various drives up to 80MByte using CP/M file system). I was refering to CP/M 2.2 (which is when I still used it, and which I still consider the "real" CP/M, the same as MS-DOS 3.3 being "real", the later being bastardisations). I have never met enyone with an CP/M 3 or MP/M or CCP/M system (non of them were popular around here, I and most others were using MS/PC-DOS 2.11 or 3.3 by then). So the later improvements under the hood went unnoticed. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ais.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!bulb.garlic.com!not-for-mail From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 04 Apr 1998 21:24:51 -0700 Organization: South Valley Internet Lines: 7 Message-ID: References: <6fh8ps$o2l@news-central.tiac.net> Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler NNTP-Posting-Host: lynn-18.garlic.com X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.4/Emacs 19.34 actually some number of the people that worked on CMS (545 tech sq & burlington mall) moved to DEC in the mid-70s and worked on VMS. -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com, finger for pgp key http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 04:11:08 -0600 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 63 Message-ID: <352766CC.66FAEC46@plano.net> References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> Reply-To: richmond@plano.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 20890@209.44.41.244 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) To: Richard Plinston Richard Plinston wrote: > > In message <<6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>> writer1@Eng.Sun.COM writes: > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Gates and Allen wrote the Altair BASIC on a DEC PDP-10 which contained a > > 8080 simulator they adapted from their Traf-O-Data 8008 simulator. > > Not a trivial programming task. > > Actually Intel provided DEC based development tools for the 8008 > and 8080 as they expected all develpment to be cross compiled. > When Gary Kildall developed a system that allowed development > on the 8080 based machine and offered it to Intel they > turned it down, so he produced it as CP/M. > > I don't think that Gates or Allen developed any tools for the > DEC to do cross development, they just used existing > simulators. > *Not* according to a Bill Gates interview with the Smithsonian. This interview can be found at: http://innovate.si.edu/history/gates/gatestoc.htm If you look under a link about the writing of BASIC, this is part of what you will find: > People had done 8K BASICs on the PDP-8. But this was a much better > instruction set. I had some ideas on how to do things a little bit > in a new way. There was no doubt in my mind we could write a BASIC. > I was fairly self-confident in those days. We didn't know how long > it would take us. And it was kind of funny because we were sort of > acting like we had it already. We went to work day and night. Paul > first worked on the simulation software. He took the Macro 10 > Assembler and defined macro, so we could just type in sort of a form > of 8080 code. Then he modified the DDT-10, the symbolic debugger that > was on the 10, to understand these instructions. He then wrote a > simulator to simulate these instructions. > > It was a reasonably simple instruction set. Paul was very good with > the PDP-10 Assembler. I, in the meantime, laid out the design and > charged off coding the BASIC. Paul later came in and helped out with > that. A third person, Monte Davidoff, sat down for lunch with us and > said he knew floating point packages. So, we had him write some of the > math routines. And then we just kept squeezing it. So, we wrote without > ever seeing this machine[pats the Altair], except in this picture, and > the simulator and got the BASIC running. And then we called them back > and said, "By the way, what's the sub-routines for reading a character > from the Teletype and writing to the Teletype -- how do you do that?" > And we got Bill Yates on the phone, who was the co-author of this > article. And he said, "Well, that is pretty interesting. All these > other guys call us up and say they are going to do things. But nobody > ever asked us how you get data in and out of the machine. You guys > sound pretty serious. You ought to come out and show it to us." And, > because we'd never had the chip, just the book from Intel, if we had > made any mistake in terms of how the instructions worked, the thing > never would have run. > -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!newshub.tc.umn.edu!skypoint.com!not-for-mail From: "George R. Gonzalez" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:02:25 -0500 Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6g89tl$s2u$1@shadow.skypoint.net> References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6g2ujk$r9k$1@shadow.skypoint.net> <3524ff2f.2935623@Rockyd> <6g341r$t6v$1@shadow.skypoint.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial036.skypoint.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sean Case wrote in message ... >In article <6g341r$t6v$1@shadow.skypoint.net>, >"George R. Gonzalez" wrote: > >>I don't know about PDP-10 BASIC, altho I would assume like much PDP-10 >>code, >>it was written to take maximum advantage of the PDP-10's bizarre >>instruction set. > >Bizarre? _Bizarre?_ I shudda said: "A very interesting instruction set, with a very wide variety of instructions, a legend in its own time, a genre of its own. Unfortunately, not much emulated or copied." >>You're unlikely to be able to steal much from there, except the general idea that >>clever people can do very clever things when you have lots of instructions and >>32-bit registers. > >You misspelt 36. > >Sean Case No, my mind has a hard time remembering that it was possible to do useful work on non 8-bit machines! I spent about a decade on 12-bit and 60-bit machines, with 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 23 bits of address space, so this shouldnt be so hard to remember! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!203.23.1.164!news.interact.net.au!user From: gscase@interact.net.au (Sean Case) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 14:06:40 +1000 Organization: Not very Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6g2ujk$r9k$1@shadow.skypoint.net> <3524ff2f.2935623@Rockyd> <6g341r$t6v$1@shadow.skypoint.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: as5-19.interact.net.au In article <6g341r$t6v$1@shadow.skypoint.net>, "George R. Gonzalez" wrote: >I don't know about PDP-10 BASIC, altho I would assume like much PDP-10 >code, >it was written to take maximum advantage of the PDP-10's bizarre >instruction set. Bizarre? _Bizarre?_ >You're unlikely to be able to steal much from there, except the general >idea that >clever people can do very clever things when you have lots of >instructions and >32-bit registers. You misspelt 36. Sean Case ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!130.185.14.35!torn!nott!cunews!freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ad201 From: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 5 Apr 1998 14:11:45 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6g83f1$ii3@freenet-news.carleton.ca> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com> <35217384.1702617@news.mindspring.com> <35217961.F5E142FF@geocities.com> Reply-To: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.carleton.ca X-Given-Sender: ad201@freenet3.carleton.ca (Donald Phillipson) Jeff Read (bitwize@geocities.com) writes: > And they do! Microsoft copies others' work, then turns around and > threatens to sue anyone who copies their copy! This has been standard business practice in the USA since Thomas A. Edison was quite young (cf. early lawsuits concerning telephones.) -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: r.e.ballard@usa.net Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:46:22 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 82 Message-ID: <6g8qiu$9c5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <329892.24420.25409@kcbbs.gen.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.222.78.2 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Apr 05 20:46:22 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT) In article <329892.24420.25409@kcbbs.gen.nz>, riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) wrote: > In message <<6g0ndj$bpt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>> r.e.ballard@usa.net writes: > > > > Digital Research sold limited rights to > > Seattle Computer Company. Microsoft > > SCP (not SCC) were OEM customers of DRI for CP/M to use with > their Z80 based S100 boxes. They had all CP/M source and > tools that DRI would release, but had no rights to break > the copyrights on that code in producing their own OS. My understanding, from the Caldera Filing, was that DRI knew that SCP had assembled CP/M for the 8080 to run on the 8088 and 8086. SCP primarily catered to a very small niche market. > > paid SCC $100,000 for the right to sell it to an undisclosed customer (IBM). > > After Digital realized that SCC was virtually bankrupt, it settled out of > > court. Later, Microsoft paid $987,000 for ALL rights to the SCC DOS. Within > > a month of this purchase, the president of SCC joined Microsoft. > > > > > Novell later bought Digital Research, Here is a good timeline - I should have checked it BEFORE I posted :-). http://www.ssd.sscc.ru/library/cpu/comphist/comp1991.htm http://www.ssd.sscc.ru/library/cpu/comphist/comp1994.htm > Novell bought DRI several years ago and recently sold it to > Caldera. > Novell decided to buy DRI when Gates announced that 'the next > version of DOS may not support NetWare'. He wanted to panic > Netware sites to buy LAN Manager. Novell then wanted DR-DOS 6 > to ensure that their customers could continue to use their > systems and could get client OS that would support it. That was in 1991, just prior to the release of MS-DOS 5.0. The funny thing was that MS-DOS 6.0 and Windows 3.11 included Netware Client software. Was this just a ploy to keep Novell from deploying the UNIX operating system it purchased a year later (December 1992). > They were going to bundle NW-DOS 7 with NetWare licences so > that a 25 user NetWare system received 25 NW-DOS 7 licences. This was 1994, at almost the same time that Microsoft was losing in the courts. Of course, by this time Windows 3.11 was shipping with Netware client drivers. Meanwhile, TCP/IP was exploding as the Internet shifted from e-mail users to PPP and SLIP users using Trumpet. > Bill thought that this was using their server market share > as leverage to lock out the client OS market and had a few > words with the top management to make sure that there was > a free market in which all could operate without this type > of unfair practice. I would love to see the transcript of THAT meeting. My guess is that he "negotiated" with the equivalent a "loaded UZI" tucked under his arm. At that time, Microsoft had negotiated "lock out" licensing with OEMs responsible for 95% of all PC production. > Unfortunately, Novell shot themselves in the foot in 1994. They had UNIX and DR-DOS, the combination of which could have given them a huge portion of the PC OS market. Unfortunately, the doggedly bundled IPX with the systems and charged rediculous prices for TCP/IP. Had they conceeded to TCP/IP and supported NDS support for DNS, they could have done well. The entire UNIX community cheered the release of UNIX and UNIXware, but turned a cold shoulder when Novell refused to release TCP/IP as part of the $200 release. Meanwhile, Linux, particularly SLS and Slackware, were offering "UNIX Compatibility" with embedded TCP/IP. The SLS CD was about $150. Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!209.150.160.22!newsfeed.wli.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!ivie From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: Date: 6 Apr 98 12:15:39 MDT References: <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <6flfrs$1c8$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> Organization: Utah State University Lines: 59 In article <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: > FAT was new with MS-DOS, but I don't know from which version (0.x, 1.0) > on it was used. Rumor has it that FAT actually came from Microsoft's disk BASIC products. I don't know enough about the internals of those to say whether this is true or not. > > CP/M uses following method: > At the beginning of the disk (after the boot sector and facultative > system image on boot disks) it had a fixed length (configurable option?, > can't remember) table of 2^n bytes (32?) records, this is after all an > non-hierarchical filesystem. > Each file when opened got one record, this contained the filename, user > number (0-F), access control bits and a fixed amount (10?) of 16bit > pointers to data blocks (128byte logical blocks, not controller hardware > blocks). That's fairly close. The pointers are to clusters, not to 128-byte blocks. The pointers may be 8-bit pointers if the medium contains fewer than 256 clusters. Clusters may range in size from 2K bytes to 32K bytes. The lower limit is because a file control block must be able to describe at least 16KB of data; a CP/M file is essentially a number of 16KB files all with the same filename. The directory may occupy at most 16 clusters. > So large files used up the directory space that would else have been > used for many small ones. As the data blocks also used up the data space > this did not matter much. Picking a cluster size for a CP/M disk is an interesting tradeoff. With small clusters, you can't make very many files; you may have more clusters on the disk than it is possible to contain in the directory. CP/M also keeps a bitmap of allocated space on the disk, which it uses to find holes into which to stick new data block. Using a small cluster size also makes the bitmap larger; this can be painful in a small system. > OTOH FAT uses following method: > Each file has only 1 record in its directory file, which only has one > block pointer that points to the first data block. FAT pointers are also pointers to clusters, not to data blocks. > CP/M file systems were max 2^16 * 128 bytes = 8 Mbyte. Makes the FAT > 2^16 * 512 bytes = 32 Mbytes limit look very roomy. CP/M actually uses a three-byte field to report file positions; the third byte usually contains either 0 or 1. Some third-party BDOS replacements allow the use of the entire third byte, allowing 2^24*128 bytes in a file. For the record, the CP/M 2 documentation is online in HTML at the unofficial CP/M webpage http://cdl.uta.edu/cpm/. -- -------------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Roger Ivie | "You got advice for me. Well I'm telling you, ivie@cc.usu.edu | I know nothing and I like it that way" http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ | -- Eggplant ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.uow.edu.au!metro!unsw.edu.au!khchung From: khchung@maths.unsw.EDU.AU (Kin Hoong CHUNG) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Date: 7 Apr 1998 06:25:12 GMT Organization: University of New South Wales Lines: 16 Message-ID: <6gcgs8$gt6$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> References: <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <6flfrs$1c8$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: alpha.maths.unsw.edu.au X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Roger Ivie (ivie@cc.usu.edu) wrote: : In article <351EAC54.25344278@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: : > FAT was new with MS-DOS, but I don't know from which version (0.x, 1.0) : > on it was used. : Rumor has it that FAT actually came from Microsoft's disk BASIC products. : I don't know enough about the internals of those to say whether this is : true or not. Sounds reasonable to me (who used to have a CoCo... with Disk Basic), only it was called the granule allocation table (each "granule" being 9 sectors), and woe betide those who allow the GAT sector to become corrupted. Cheers, Kin Hoong ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: nedj@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:08:03 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 24 Message-ID: <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.32.191.34 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Apr 07 15:08:03 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Opera/3.0; Windows95/WindowsNT) v3.1 evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote: >It is my understanding that, unlike MS-DOS, 86-DOS could use a full >1 Mb of memory for applications. IBM insisted on allocating 384 Kb for >video, leaving only 640 Kb for applications in MS-DOS, a legacy that >survives to this day in Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, both of which >avoid the limitation through the memory swapping. (You didn't >really think that Windows 95 didn't still run under DOS, did you?) How did 86-DOS display video? I am actually curious about that. Small nit: IBM put 4K (not 384K) of video memory in the DOS address space of 1M. You could either address it directly or talk to BIOS (which was at the other end of the 384K of reserved memory). Putting the BIOS and video inside the processor's address range[1] was a pretty darn good idea, if you ask me, although they could have made the reserved area smaller. Jeremy [1]I would like to see a troll mentioning 1088K. Thank you. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: mdevlin@eltrax.com (T. Max Devlin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 15:50:17 GMT Organization: Eltrax Systems/Hi-TECH Connections Lines: 49 Message-ID: <353ab001.16009200@news.supernews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352a969e.10464692@news.ping.be> <6fc7gd$fod@panix2.panix.com> <6fct4s$1304$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <6fe4i9$6at@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <6foo24$57a@news.microsoft.com> <351FECAB.216D@anet-stl.com> <6ftsvt$ru7@news.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 891964644 EIYPDL16T15D526F5 usenet41.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 "Richard Van Fossan" , on Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:18:02 -0800, >> Sounds like an attorney here - "If it isn't specificly illegal, then >> it must be OK!" I think *most* of us would agree that it's not quite >> fair to take someone else's work and profit from it.... > > >When someone places something into the public domain, they are specifically >giving people the right to make use of it. If they did not want that, they >could make it freely available, but retain the copyright and include limits >to its use in the distribution license. > >It's not "unfair" to make use of someone's free gift to other professionals. >Netscape should be giving their source code away shortly. They expect people >to make commercial use of it. Is everyone who takes them up on their offer >being "unfair?" > >I'm no attorney. And, if it isn't illegal, it's legal, by definition under >our legal system. How is making use of something that someone else has >provided free of charge "unfair?" The obvious and important distinction you fail to make is between copying CODE and copying IDEAS. It is illegal to copy CODE that is not PD. It is legal to copy CODE that is PD. It is legal to copy IDEAS that aren't protected by patent or copyright, and unethical to "copy" ideas that are PD. Which is to say, if you are using someone else's ideas, it is wrong to ignore their contribution and pretend (that is, market) that you have some great advantage or resource that other's don't. In other words, every person that thinks that Microsoft invented the Internet, or email, or even including a mailer with a browser, is a reason for Microsoft to be held in contempt. > >If a contractor downloads Linux and installs it on several commercial >systems and gets paid for it (and that's happening all over), is he >indulging in "unfair" behavior? He's making money from someone else's work. I think it is safe to say that if Microsoft "copied" Linux, or even just learned something about how to make a descent operating system from it, nobody would complain. Even if Microsoft insisted it was all their idea. -- T. Max Devlin Hi-TECH Connections/Eltrax Systems ***************************************************** - Opinions expressed are my own. Anyone else may use them only in accordance with licensing agreements. - ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.idt.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news.rdc1.sfba.home.net!cypher.cagent.com!user From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 19:00:20 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: alfred.cagent.com Cache-Post-Path: alfred.cagent.com!unknown@cypher.cagent.com In article <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: > evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote: > > >It is my understanding that, unlike MS-DOS, 86-DOS could use a full > >1 Mb of memory for applications. IBM insisted on allocating 384 Kb for > >video, leaving only 640 Kb for applications in MS-DOS, a legacy that > >survives to this day in Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, both of which > >avoid the limitation through the memory swapping. (You didn't > >really think that Windows 95 didn't still run under DOS, did you?) > > How did 86-DOS display video? I am actually curious about that. > > Small nit: > IBM put 4K (not 384K) of video memory in the DOS address space > of 1M. You could either address it directly or talk to BIOS > (which was at the other end of the 384K of reserved memory). > Putting the BIOS and video inside the processor's address range[1] > was a pretty darn good idea, if you ask me, although they could > have made the reserved area smaller. > > Jeremy > [1]I would like to see a troll mentioning 1088K. Thank you. > The problem with DOS was not that it took a chunk of the 1 meg address space and used it for the monochrome video buffer. The real "crime" was that the BIOS slapped together and burned into the IBM PC was so terribly inefficient at taking characters (or whatever) and getting them into the display buffer. Had there been an efficient method for programs to "write" to the screen thru the BIOS (or using some DOS function), it would have been UNNECESSARY for every silly application program to do it. Then when a new platform comes out (like say, a '286 and lots more address space) they could have modified the BIOS, relocated the video buffer, and all the programs would have run "just fine". But alas, the nice fellows at IBM in 1980/1 didn't see why things like that would be necessary, so the BIOS wasn't the most efficient thing. The people at Lotus Development (now part of IBM for irony) needed nice speedy video character routines for their 1-2-3 product (speed on an 4.47 MHz 8088 being the operative word) and decided to go "direct to video memory". We now are saddled with drivers that need to know the minutia about video cards, and video cards that emulate original CGA cards upon reset. Moral: If you don't think about the future, it will bite you back. Y2K is a good example as well. [[outta here]] -- tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!world6.bellatlantic.net!news From: "George Gray" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 23:04:32 -0400 Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Lines: 18 Message-ID: <6gepgq$278@world6.bellatlantic.net> References: <6frjf7$k4c$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <329892.23427.24991@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6g2ujk$r9k$1@shadow.skypoint.net> <3524ff2f.2935623@Rockyd> NNTP-Posting-Host: client-209-3-240-65.bellatlantic.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >>Not even remotely true. I've seen the DEC BASIC source code for RSTS >>and RT-11, and it's nothing like Microsoft BASIC. DEC BASIC stored the >>source code in a tokenized form, Microsoft doesnt. The DEC code was >>cleverly written to be used both single-user, and multi-user; overlaid >>or all resident. None of this carried over to Microsoft BASIC. Not true. Microsoft Basic did, in fact, tokenize the source code. I recall MANY articles and books dissecting MS Basic (AKA Altair Basic, RS Level II Basic, Tandy Extended Color Basic, AppleSoft Basic, etc. Altair being the first publicly available version) I also remember buying a book that had a complete and well documented disassembly of the TRS-80 Level II Basic Rom (illegal? Maybe, but it was available at most book stores and, get this, at some Radio Shacks!) It also featured a complete list of TOKENS and the meanings of them. This method dated back to the earlier versions of MS Basic. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: nedj@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 15:10:26 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 25 Message-ID: <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.32.191.43 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Apr 08 20:10:26 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Opera/3.0; Windows95/WindowsNT) v3.1 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: >nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: >>How did 86-DOS display video? I am actually curious about that. >AFAIK the same way as MS-DOS. Expect an CON: driver in IO.SYS or its >equivalent. CON: may simply be an RS232 port with an TTY or VT100 on it. I should have realized that. In the context of DOS, I forgot about S-100 bus machines (someone else reminded me in this thread). Those are the ones where you needed a power regulator on each card? Way more expensive than a single skanky 63 Watt power supply, which is "suitable" for a machine that runs an OS that can only handle one user at a time. It's more profitable to charge a little less for a significantly cheaper product. Next question: Why the hell would anyone write DOS for an expensive machine? Replace your 8086 card with a 68000 card with an MPU and run Version 7 if you're going to spend the money. Maybe some people like having a con in every directory. Maybe it is -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 15:27:21 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 77 Message-ID: <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote: > > >It is my understanding that, unlike MS-DOS, 86-DOS could use a full > >1 Mb of memory for applications. MS-DOS could/can also address 1024k of _memory_. > > IBM insisted on allocating 384 Kb for > >video, leaving only 640 Kb for applications in MS-DOS, Actually 640k applications, 128k video _and_ 256k ROMs. And this was set in the hardware spec of the PC, not in DOS (which is from MS anyway, not IBM). > > a legacy that > >survives to this day in Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, both of which > >avoid the limitation through the memory swapping. Actually Windows (and DOS) use the "end of memory" pointer in the BIOS data block at the bottom of RAM (indirectly via an BIOS call). If you equiped an 8088 computer _without_ an CGA/EGA/VGA compatible video adapter (something IO space mapped?), had only the BIOS ROM, then used the address space freed for an RAM expansion card, adjusted the pointer and gave Windows an driver for your video card. DOS and Windows would offer you full 1024k (ev. minus BIOS 8-64k if you don't do an Z80 like ROM unmapping). Actually with an CGA (urgh!) and an 96k RAM board for A000-B7FF DOS and Windows on a standard 8088 PC could use 736k RAM. Standard PC hardware simply lacked that RAM card. > How did 86-DOS display video? I am actually curious about that. AFAIK the same way as MS-DOS. Expect an CON: driver in IO.SYS or its equivalent. CON: may simply be an RS232 port with an TTY or VT100 on it. > Small nit: > IBM put 4K (not 384K) of video memory in the DOS address space > of 1M. You could either address it directly or talk to BIOS > (which was at the other end of the 384K of reserved memory). Actually 4k (MDA, B000) and 32k (CGA, B800) and 64k (reserved, later EGA/VGA, A000). Plus then the 256k for ROMs (C000-F000). > Putting the BIOS and video inside the processor's address range[1] > was a pretty darn good idea, if you ask me, although they could > have made the reserved area smaller. That was a good idea for speed. Beat RS232 hands down. But an FD/HD controller like interface (as used in the 7220 chip) would have not been that much slower. Also decoding the IO address space fully and inserting the video adapter into 4-32k of that would definitely have been wqually fast. > [1]I would like to see a troll mentioning 1088K. Thank you. No troll here, just a nitpicker :-) On an 8088: no, only 1024. On an 286 with that stupid A20 thingy switched off: nearly, actually 1088k-16byte. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!agate!islay.ssl.berkeley.edu!korpela From: korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 8 Apr 1998 15:54:29 GMT Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab Lines: 20 Message-ID: <6gg6jl$26h$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: islay.ssl.berkeley.edu In article <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wrote: > >How did 86-DOS display video? I am actually curious about that. Given that 86-DOS was for S-100 bus machines, the default output was probably through a serial port to a terminal. One could probably use any of a number of S-100 bus based graphics boards for true video and (depending upon the board) the graphics would either be mapped through I/O ports, mapped or bank switched into a selectable section of the lowest 64K of memory, mapped or bank switched into a selectable section of every 64K (i.e. at 48K, and 112K, and 176K ....) or any of a number of other methods. Much programming was no-doubt required to use a graphics board. Eric -- Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. Click for home page. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news.linkline.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!fox.almaden.ibm.com!mdnews.btv.ibm.com!rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail From: glass2@glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 8 Apr 1998 21:06:49 GMT Organization: IBM Austin Lines: 87 Message-ID: <6ggot9$1jja$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> Reply-To: wa4qal@vnet.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 In <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes: >nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: >> >> evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote: >> >> >It is my understanding that, unlike MS-DOS, 86-DOS could use a full >> >1 Mb of memory for applications. > >MS-DOS could/can also address 1024k of _memory_. > > >> > IBM insisted on allocating 384 Kb for >> >video, leaving only 640 Kb for applications in MS-DOS, > >Actually 640k applications, 128k video _and_ 256k ROMs. And this was set >in the hardware spec of the PC, not in DOS (which is from MS anyway, not >IBM). > > >> > a legacy that >> >survives to this day in Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, both of which >> >avoid the limitation through the memory swapping. > >Actually Windows (and DOS) use the "end of memory" pointer in the BIOS >data block at the bottom of RAM (indirectly via an BIOS call). If you >equiped an 8088 computer _without_ an CGA/EGA/VGA compatible video >adapter (something IO space mapped?), had only the BIOS ROM, then used >the address space freed for an RAM expansion card, adjusted the pointer >and gave Windows an driver for your video card. DOS and Windows would >offer you full 1024k (ev. minus BIOS 8-64k if you don't do an Z80 like >ROM unmapping). > >Actually with an CGA (urgh!) and an 96k RAM board for A000-B7FF DOS and >Windows on a standard 8088 PC could use 736k RAM. Standard PC hardware >simply lacked that RAM card. > > >> How did 86-DOS display video? I am actually curious about that. > >AFAIK the same way as MS-DOS. Expect an CON: driver in IO.SYS or its >equivalent. CON: may simply be an RS232 port with an TTY or VT100 on it. > > >> Small nit: >> IBM put 4K (not 384K) of video memory in the DOS address space >> of 1M. You could either address it directly or talk to BIOS >> (which was at the other end of the 384K of reserved memory). > >Actually 4k (MDA, B000) and 32k (CGA, B800) and 64k (reserved, later >EGA/VGA, A000). Plus then the 256k for ROMs (C000-F000). > > >> Putting the BIOS and video inside the processor's address range[1] >> was a pretty darn good idea, if you ask me, although they could >> have made the reserved area smaller. > >That was a good idea for speed. Beat RS232 hands down. > >But an FD/HD controller like interface (as used in the 7220 chip) would >have not been that much slower. Also decoding the IO address space fully >and inserting the video adapter into 4-32k of that would definitely have >been wqually fast. > > >> [1]I would like to see a troll mentioning 1088K. Thank you. > >No troll here, just a nitpicker :-) > >On an 8088: no, only 1024. On an 286 with that stupid A20 thingy >switched off: nearly, actually 1088k-16byte. > > >-- >private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch > http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ >office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch > http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ >Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? Under OS/2, you can configure a DOS box to take advantage of that extra address space. I've had 736K of RAM defined in an OS/2 DOS session. Dave P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.uow.edu.au!metro!unsw.edu.au!khchung From: khchung@maths.unsw.EDU.AU (Kin Hoong CHUNG) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Date: 9 Apr 1998 03:36:58 GMT Organization: University of New South Wales Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6ghfoq$1g3$2@mirv.unsw.edu.au> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: alpha.maths.unsw.edu.au X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Tom Watson (tsw@cagent.com) wrote: : Moral: If you don't think about the future, it will bite you back. Y2K : is a good example as well. Yes, but even if you do think about the future, since prediction is never accurate enough, it will still bite you, and the Y2K example is perfect for this---who would have expected that their very very customised code in 1970 would survive 30 years of new architectures? Cheers, Kin Hoong ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: Robert Billing Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 09 Apr 98 07:14:39 GMT Message-ID: <892106079snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-10.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net!tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 892110649 11160 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 19 In article tsw@cagent.com "Tom Watson" writes: > Moral: If you don't think about the future, it will bite you back. Y2K > is a good example as well. Since we'd previously had the same performance with the early PDP-11, where silly things like the 32Mb disk drive limit had happened, and been fixed long before the PC came on the scene, I would generalise your remark to say that people who know no history are condemned to repeat it. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 9 Apr 1998 19:34:32 GMT Lines: 21 Message-ID: <6gj7s8$l4i$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-023.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-04-08 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch said: :That was a good idea for speed. Beat RS232 hands down. :But an FD/HD controller like interface (as used in the 7220 chip) :would have not been that much slower. Also decoding the IO address :space fully and inserting the video adapter into 4-32k of that :would definitely have been wqually fast. for text, maybe - in fact, quite possibly. or at least, fast enough that you couldn't see the join. but for graphics, you really need memory mapping, especially if you want to do fancy things like BitBlt. an instruction set that allows you to have memory as an alu destination helps too. also, sensible memory mapping schemes are easier to program, which in turn adds speed. -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-feed5.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.tufts.edu!allegro!kisrael From: kisrael@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk Is) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Date: 9 Apr 1998 20:36:02 GMT Organization: Tufts University Lines: 14 Message-ID: <6gjbfi$8ks$1@news3.tufts.edu> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <892106079snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: allegro.eecs.tufts.edu X-Trace: news3.tufts.edu 892154162 8860 (None) 192.138.177.97 X-Complaints-To: news@news.tufts.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Robert Billing (unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote: : Since we'd previously had the same performance with the early PDP-11, : where silly things like the 32Mb disk drive limit had happened, and : been fixed long before the PC came on the scene, I would generalise : your remark to say that people who know no history are condemned to : repeat it. Don't be so self-righteous-- it's not enough to know history, but to know how and when it applies. Sometimes design choices are compromises, and a compromise that made sense 10 years ago becomes the wrong decision later. -- Kirk Israel - kisrael@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com ...and when she looks up and asks you "what?" you say "nothing," when you really mean, "I love you." --abryant@cs.tufts.edu ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 21:29:49 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 55 Message-ID: <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > I should have realized that. In the context of DOS, I forgot about > S-100 bus machines (someone else reminded me in this thread). Those > are the ones where you needed a power regulator on each card? Yes, them. > Way > more expensive than a single skanky 63 Watt power supply, which is > "suitable" for a machine that runs an OS that can only handle one > user at a time. It's more profitable to charge a little less for a > significantly cheaper product. Don't forget that S100 comes from the mid-70s. The technology to build the affordable switching power supplies in todays computers was not available then. That meant using linear regulators, essentially large transistors such as 2N3055 (?) wired as variable resistors that burned away the excess voltage. That made them warm even at low power. So having each board designer make a regulator with just enough power for that board was sensible. The case only contained an multiple output voltage transformer. > Next question: > Why the hell would anyone write DOS for an expensive machine? Replace > your 8086 card with a 68000 card with an MPU and run Version 7 if you're > going to spend the money. Maybe some people like having a con in every > directory. Maybe it is The IBM PC developers: 1) knew the 8085 (predecessor of 8086/88) and its support chips 2) thought they were designing for lab market of 250'000 units 3) wanted something "just a little better" than the existing 4) had little time (1 year of weekends) 5) looked at the price difference 8088<<68000 6) knew the present market to be Z80 and CP/M (even less) There were no Macs or Unix workstations arounf in 1980 when they started. An the few Xerox and MIT/Lisp workstations were next to unknown niche systems. Neil "replaced dead SGI Indigo power supply today" Franklin -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 9 Apr 1998 21:51:56 GMT Lines: 24 Message-ID: <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-153.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-04-08 nedj@ix.netcom.com said: :Why the hell would anyone write DOS for an expensive machine? lack of anything else available, and ease of porting all the cp/m software you've already written. "quick hack" covers it. maybe tim paterson just couldn't afford to get miniForth for it? ;> :Replace your 8086 card with a 68000 card with an MPU and run :Version 7 if you're going to spend the money. Maybe some people lots of things here. (a) MPU? didn't you mean MMU? the 68000 is already an MPU. (b) the 68k can't use an MMU - at least not for paging - because it can't restart some instructions. (c) version 7 didn't need an MMU, which is why minix was based on it. :like having a con in every directory. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't - we'll never know now... -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!dpeschel From: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 10 Apr 1998 05:38:13 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6gkb85$qgs$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <892106079snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: saul4.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp1.u.washington.edu 892186693 27164 (None) 140.142.64.7 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: dpeschel In article <892106079snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>, Robert Billing wrote: > Since we'd previously had the same performance with the early PDP-11, >where silly things like the 32Mb disk drive limit had happened, and >been fixed long before the PC came on the scene, The question that comes to mind is: How well did DEC manage to fix the limits they had created? ("well" = "with as little stress as possible to the system, making sure that old programs could run on a new system") Somehow I suspect they did a better job than IBM/MS. If they were working with better-behaved programs, that probably helped them immensely. There were address-space limits as well -- any other limits? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!stns.news.pipex.net!hose.news.pipex.net!grot.news.pipex.net!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!btnet-peer!btnet!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: nedj@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:31:18 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 30 Message-ID: <6glhgn$kui$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.32.191.56 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Apr 10 16:31:18 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Opera/3.0; Windows95/WindowsNT) v3.1 lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote: > :Replace your 8086 card with a 68000 card with an MPU and run > :Version 7 if you're going to spend the money. Maybe some people > lots of things here. (a) MPU? didn't you mean MMU? the 68000 is already > an MPU. (b) the 68k can't use an MMU - at least not for paging - because > it can't restart some instructions. (c) version 7 didn't need an MMU, > which is why minix was based on it. Sorry about all those. (a)I noticed the MPU/MMU typo when I was looking at how swell my post was, and figured that I could hope nobody would notice, or the claim could be made that a 68K card is not very useful without the MPU. (b)I'm going to have to look at a Dual System's S-100 machine with version 7 and a 68K, then demand to know what that big chip that isn't a 68K is. (c)Thanks. > :like having a con in every directory. Maybe it is >and maybe it isn't - we'll never know now... Don't know what happened there. It looked good in the preview, and let me tell you, it was very clever and witty. Jeremy -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.25.34.3!skylink!not-for-mail From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:02:21 -0700 Organization: Skylink Networks, Inc. (http://www.skylink.net./) Lines: 22 Message-ID: <6gm13l$jeg$1@news.skylink.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: jack.simconv.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >> Neil Franklin told us >> > The IBM PC developers: >> > 1) knew the 8085 (predecessor of 8086/88) and its support chips >> > 2) thought they were designing for lab market of 250'000 units >> > 3) wanted something "just a little better" than the existing >> > 4) had little time (1 year of weekends) >> > 5) looked at the price difference 8088<<68000 >> Let us not forget Motorola did the same thing with the 68008, an 8-bit data bus (IIRC a 20-bit address bus) version of the 68000, no MMU support. Same design reasons as the 8088, reduce the on-board logic with a smaller data and address path. I still have a few 68008s left in the junk box, left over from a killed-off project to do an S-100 68K board (Godbout did it better and cheaper). Jack Peacock ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!24.128.1.125!chnws03.mediaone.net!24.131.1.12!denws01.mw.mediaone.net!news.gmi.edu!nova.kettering.edu!lee1089 From: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:24:00 -0400 Organization: Kettering University (formerly GMI E&MI) - Flint MI Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: nova.kettering.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Luc Van der Veken wrote: > Neil Franklin told us > > > nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > Next question: > > > Why the hell would anyone write DOS for an expensive machine? Replace > > > your 8086 card with a 68000 card with an MPU and run Version 7 if you're > > > going to spend the money. Maybe some people like having a con in every > > > directory. Maybe it is > > > > The IBM PC developers: > > 1) knew the 8085 (predecessor of 8086/88) and its support chips > > 2) thought they were designing for lab market of 250'000 units > > 3) wanted something "just a little better" than the existing > > 4) had little time (1 year of weekends) > > 5) looked at the price difference 8088<<68000 > > Not only the difference in price of the processors themselves, > but especially board layout and pheripherals. > Intel made a 16 bit processor with an 8 bit bus, sliding every 16 > bits out in two steps, so the cheap 8085 pheripherals could be > used. > Motorola did exactly the opposite: they made a processor with a > 32 bit bus and a 16 bit ALU, where the ALU did everything in two > stages. The M68000 had a 16 bit data bus and 32 bit ALU with a 24 bit address bus. It also included instructions for interfacing with 8bit periphs. It had 32 bit instructions that accessed memory in 2 clock cycles. This made it very easy to write software for the 68k and have it's performance improved greatly by changing to an '020. Most software written for Macs was written for a 68000 chip even in the era of '040-based Quadras. One of the reasons a Mac Plus (1986 vintage) can run System 7.5 (1996 vintage) if given enough memory. > > 6) knew the present market to be Z80 and CP/M (even less) > > > > There were no Macs or Unix workstations arounf in 1980 when they > > started. An the few Xerox and MIT/Lisp workstations were next to unknown > > niche systems. > > My memory is fading, but I thought there were (unix?) > workstations: performance and price two classes above IBM. > Or, at least, the LSI-11 is older than the PC. > > Wasn't that also about the era of the Lisa, or did that come > later? sooner? (my memory is *really* fading). Looking at that > one's price, IBM was cheap afair. > IIRC the Lisa came out in 1983, a year before the Macintosh. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!stns.news.pipex.net!hose.news.pipex.net!grot.news.pipex.net!bore.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!netnews.jhuapl.edu!usenet From: hlm Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:31:47 -0400 Organization: apl Lines: 14 Message-ID: <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> Reply-To: hlm@aplcore.jhuapl.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: fp3-hlm.jhuapl.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Luc Van der Veken wrote: > Wasn't [when IBM PC developed] also about the era of the Lisa, or > did that come later? sooner? (my memory is *really* fading). Looking > at that one's price, IBM was cheap afair. The Lisa came before the Mac (Jan 84) and after the original Apple (ca '78-79?). My recollection is around '82-83, whereas I think the IBM PC was '81-82. Pretty close, but I think the PC was earlier. I don't recall when Apple brough out the II series, but I'd guess the IIc around '82 and the IIe around '83. Of course, there's probably a history FAQ around somewhere. Harry ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!mzenier From: mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: Organization: Netcom On-Line Services References: <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:41:57 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: mzenier@netcom2.netcom.com In article <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk>, wrote: >On 1998-04-08 nedj@ix.netcom.com said: > :Why the hell would anyone write DOS for an expensive machine? > >lack of anything else available, and ease of porting all the cp/m >software you've already written. "quick hack" covers it. > >maybe tim paterson just couldn't afford to get miniForth for it? ;> > > :Replace your 8086 card with a 68000 card with an MPU and run > :Version 7 if you're going to spend the money. Maybe some people > >lots of things here. (a) MPU? didn't you mean MMU? the 68000 is already >an MPU. (b) the 68k can't use an MMU - at least not for paging - because >it can't restart some instructions. (c) version 7 didn't need an MMU, >which is why minix was based on it. The SCP 8086 card was an early design. I could dig my old Northwest Computer Society newsletters out to see when they had the lecture on the card, but I remember it was just after the 8088 was announced, by which time the card was already designed. The 8086 had a two year head start on the 68000. Although S-100 68000 (and more commonly Multibus I) cards (and Unix systems using them) were common, they were about 3 years later than that. Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com mzenier@netcom.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:07:15 GMT Organization: . Lines: 39 Message-ID: <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02a-194-7-46-227.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Neil Franklin told us > nedj@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Next question: > > Why the hell would anyone write DOS for an expensive machine? Replace > > your 8086 card with a 68000 card with an MPU and run Version 7 if you're > > going to spend the money. Maybe some people like having a con in every > > directory. Maybe it is > > The IBM PC developers: > 1) knew the 8085 (predecessor of 8086/88) and its support chips > 2) thought they were designing for lab market of 250'000 units > 3) wanted something "just a little better" than the existing > 4) had little time (1 year of weekends) > 5) looked at the price difference 8088<<68000 Not only the difference in price of the processors themselves, but especially board layout and pheripherals. Intel made a 16 bit processor with an 8 bit bus, sliding every 16 bits out in two steps, so the cheap 8085 pheripherals could be used. Motorola did exactly the opposite: they made a processor with a 32 bit bus and a 16 bit ALU, where the ALU did everything in two stages. > 6) knew the present market to be Z80 and CP/M (even less) > > There were no Macs or Unix workstations arounf in 1980 when they > started. An the few Xerox and MIT/Lisp workstations were next to unknown > niche systems. My memory is fading, but I thought there were (unix?) workstations: performance and price two classes above IBM. Or, at least, the LSI-11 is older than the PC. Wasn't that also about the era of the Lisa, or did that come later? sooner? (my memory is *really* fading). Looking at that one's price, IBM was cheap afair. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:54:33 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 76 Message-ID: <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > Neil Franklin told us > > > 5) looked at the price difference 8088<<68000 > > Not only the difference in price of the processors themselves, > but especially board layout and pheripherals. Yes, that is processor, peripherals and board that were cheaper. > Intel made a 16 bit processor with an 8 bit bus, sliding every 16 > bits out in two steps, so the cheap 8085 pheripherals could be > used. > Motorola did exactly the opposite: they made a processor with a > 32 bit bus and a 16 bit ALU, where the ALU did everything in two > stages. No. The 68000 and 68010 were 16 bit data paths throughout. They used an 32 bit architecture (instruction set), but all data transfers (internal and external) and calculations were done 16 bit at a time. Address transfers with 24 bit were the only exception. BTW: Motorola also made an 8 bit extenal version (the 68008, used in the Sinclair QL) but only after the PC had been introduced. I wrote my BSc diploma program on one of them (68008, not QL). > > 6) knew the present market to be Z80 and CP/M (even less) > > > > There were no Macs or Unix workstations arounf in 1980 when they > > started. An the few Xerox and MIT/Lisp workstations were next to unknown > > niche systems. > > My memory is fading, but I thought there were (unix?) > workstations: performance and price two classes above IBM. IIRC the original SUN (Stanford University Network) board was 1980/81. Sun, Appollo, HP etc came out in the 1981..83 range. The PC was developed in 1980/81, so Unix workstations would have not yet been out. And yes, the Unix boxes were a lot more expensive (intended for university/engineering work, not offices). Actually there were Z8000 based Unix boxes out in 1980, but these were of the bank-of-RS232-with-terminals variety. > Or, at least, the LSI-11 is older than the PC. LSI-11 is 197x, but only 16 bit wide, 2*64k address space per process, max 512k or 2M RAM on processor, in the 2..5MHz range. IMHO similar to the 8086/88 in its parameters. Of course a _lot_ superior instruction set (orthogonal, on 8*16 bit registers). > Wasn't that also about the era of the Lisa, or did that come > later? sooner? (my memory is *really* fading). Looking at that > one's price, IBM was cheap afair. Lisa was 1982/83. And also massively expensive (5-digit dollar number). For its days and its aimed market the PC definitely was not a dud. Just it didn't grow gracefully. And then there is the issue with OSes taking 10 years to catch up with the processor (IIRC 386-16 was 1985, mine has 1989 stamped on it). -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk (Robert Billing) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 98 08:30:23 GMT Message-ID: <892283423snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <892106079snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> <6gkb85$qgs$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-31.mail.demon.net X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 892369242 5967 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 24 In article <6gkb85$qgs$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> dpeschel@u.washington.edu "D. Peschel" writes: > The question that comes to mind is: How well did DEC manage to fix the limits > they had created? ("well" = "with as little stress as possible to the system, > making sure that old programs could run on a new system") Somehow I suspect > they did a better job than IBM/MS. If they were working with better-behaved > programs, that probably helped them immensely. IIRC (and it's a long time ago) the old style system request, with a 16 bit block offset in the file still worked, but a new 32 bit request appeared along side it. In general DEC's record on backwards compatibility has been very good, I don't think I've ever come across a program that broke because we went to a later revision of the OS, although there have been cases of old programs not correctly connecting to new features. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!24.128.1.125!chnws03.mediaone.net!24.131.1.12!denws01.mw.mediaone.net!news.gmi.edu!nova.kettering.edu!lee1089 From: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:35:34 -0400 Organization: Kettering University (formerly GMI E&MI) - Flint MI Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: nova.kettering.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Luc Van der Veken wrote: > Neil Franklin told us > > > Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > > Intel made a 16 bit processor with an 8 bit bus, sliding every 16 > > > bits out in two steps, so the cheap 8085 pheripherals could be > > > used. > > > Motorola did exactly the opposite: they made a processor with a > > > 32 bit bus and a 16 bit ALU, where the ALU did everything in two > > > stages. > > > > No. The 68000 and 68010 were 16 bit data paths throughout. They used an > > 32 bit architecture (instruction set), but all data transfers (internal > > and external) and calculations were done 16 bit at a time. Address > > transfers with 24 bit were the only exception. > > You're right. > > But I do remember reading a discussion about 16/32 bit in the 68K > somewhere (can't find it again). > > Could it be that it had 32 bit registers, and a 16 bit ALU that > did every operation in two steps (but completely transparent)? > Yep. When the 020 came out and had 32 bit everything it was binary compatible with the 68000 and worked just about the same except the 32 bit instructions could complete in 1 cycle. Things worked pretty well as long as programs didn't use the upper 8 bits or memory adresses which were ignored in the 68000. Motorola actually thought through some stuff when they designed the 68000. It's a shame that the Intel x86 arch. took over, there were many good computer systems built on the 680x0 chips. Damn wintel! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:33:52 GMT Organization: . Lines: 23 Message-ID: <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02a-194-7-47-104.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Neil Franklin told us > Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > Intel made a 16 bit processor with an 8 bit bus, sliding every 16 > > bits out in two steps, so the cheap 8085 pheripherals could be > > used. > > Motorola did exactly the opposite: they made a processor with a > > 32 bit bus and a 16 bit ALU, where the ALU did everything in two > > stages. > > No. The 68000 and 68010 were 16 bit data paths throughout. They used an > 32 bit architecture (instruction set), but all data transfers (internal > and external) and calculations were done 16 bit at a time. Address > transfers with 24 bit were the only exception. You're right. But I do remember reading a discussion about 16/32 bit in the 68K somewhere (can't find it again). Could it be that it had 32 bit registers, and a 16 bit ALU that did every operation in two steps (but completely transparent)? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.cs.utwente.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!xs4all!xs4all!not-for-mail From: rjn@pobox.com (Fidelio) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 11 Apr 1998 14:19:53 +0200 Organization: Fidelio Internet Services Lines: 32 Message-ID: <6gnn59$s0c$1@xs2.xs4all.nl> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: xs2.xs4all.nl X-XS4ALL-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:19:56 CEST X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #4 nedj@ix.netcom.com writes: >evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote: ->It is my understanding that, unlike MS-DOS, 86-DOS could use a full ->1 Mb of memory for applications. IBM insisted on allocating 384 Kb for ->video, leaving only 640 Kb for applications in MS-DOS, a legacy that ->survives to this day in Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, both of which ->avoid the limitation through the memory swapping. (You didn't ->really think that Windows 95 didn't still run under DOS, did you?) >How did 86-DOS display video? I am actually curious about that. >Small nit: >IBM put 4K (not 384K) of video memory in the DOS address space >of 1M. You could either address it directly or talk to BIOS >(which was at the other end of the 384K of reserved memory). >Putting the BIOS and video inside the processor's address range[1] >was a pretty darn good idea, if you ask me, although they could >have made the reserved area smaller. IBM put 4K of monochrome at B800, then 16 K of CGA at B000. Then it made the EGA card which had 64K at A000. Before that, there was no 640K limit. And MS-DOS could still use more, if you had the memory there and didn't use EGA/VGA modes. R -- -=*=- | ... ... ... ... Rob J. Nauta | ... ... ... ... rjn@pobox.com | ... ... ... ... -=*=- | http://www.xs4all.nl/~rob/ ###### Date: 11 Apr 1998 16:29:00 +0200 X-Newsreader: CrossPoint v3.11 R/C435 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. From: kaih=6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.ruhrgebiet.individual.net!nntp.ruhr.de!ruhr.de!news.khms.westfalen.de!khms.westfalen.de!kaih Message-ID: <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> Lines: 30 hlm@aplcore.jhuapl.edu (hlm) wrote on 10.04.98 in <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu>: > Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > > Wasn't [when IBM PC developed] also about the era of the Lisa, or > > did that come later? sooner? (my memory is *really* fading). Looking > > at that one's price, IBM was cheap afair. > > The Lisa came before the Mac (Jan 84) and after the original Apple (ca > '78-79?). My recollection is around '82-83, whereas I think the IBM PC > was '81-82. Pretty close, but I think the PC was earlier. I don't > recall when Apple brough out the II series, but I'd guess the IIc around > '82 and the IIe around '83. Of course, there's probably a history FAQ > around somewhere. I bought my ][+ in '80, and it was several board layouts after the first one. (It was also already modified for Europe use, 50 Hz and stuff.) Further, it's not only very obvious to anybody who has seen both that IBM PC was a rip-off of the Apple ][ (at first glance, it's hard to tell the motherboards apart), it's also a documented fact that at least one of the chief developers had an Apple ][ at home. And the IBM 640 KB debacle sure reminds me of the Apple 48 KB debacle. Kai -- http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/ "... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it." - Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) ###### Date: 11 Apr 1998 16:33:00 +0200 X-Newsreader: CrossPoint v3.11 R/C435 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. From: kaih=6reTrIg1w-B@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.ruhrgebiet.individual.net!nntp.ruhr.de!ruhr.de!news.khms.westfalen.de!khms.westfalen.de!kaih Message-ID: <6reTrIg1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> Lines: 15 lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote on 09.04.98 in <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk>: > (c) version 7 didn't need an MMU, > which is why minix was based on it. Minix was no more based on V7 than QDOS was based on CP/M - i.e., they just looked similar to applications, internally they were completely different. Kai -- http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/ "... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it." - Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: die.spam@hell.org.us (Evandro Menezes) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 18:37:06 GMT Organization: E&R Lines: 31 Message-ID: <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> Reply-To: evandro@geocities.com (Evandro Menezes) NNTP-Posting-Host: 19648@208.6.184.136 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 In , wrote: >On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Luc Van der Veken wrote: > >> Could it be that it had 32 bit registers, and a 16 bit ALU that >> did every operation in two steps (but completely transparent)? >> >Yep. When the 020 came out and had 32 bit everything it was binary >compatible with the 68000 and worked just about the same except the >32 bit instructions could complete in 1 cycle. Things worked pretty >well as long as programs didn't use the upper 8 bits or memory >adresses which were ignored in the 68000. Motorola actually thought >through some stuff when they designed the 68000. It's a shame that >the Intel x86 arch. took over, there were many good computer systems >built on the 680x0 chips. Actually, the upper 8 bits of address were stored in the address registers, only they didn't have a path to the outside world. I remember reading about the 68012 which output 26 address bits, I guess. The 68K architecture was designed from the ground up to be 32 bits. From a generation to another the software remained 100% compatible. Pity it didn't make mainstream. But it was also Motorola's fault too, or maybe just its response to a not so successful product. ____________________________________________________________ Evandro Menezes Austin, TX USA Tel:+1-512-502-9199 ICQ:7957253 mailto:evandro@geocities.com http://over.to/evandro ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: die.spam@hell.org.us (Evandro Menezes) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 18:43:45 GMT Organization: E&R Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3530b91a.10278051@news.nabi.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6gnn59$s0c$1@xs2.xs4all.nl> Reply-To: evandro@geocities.com (Evandro Menezes) NNTP-Posting-Host: 19939@208.6.184.136 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 In <6gnn59$s0c$1@xs2.xs4all.nl>, rjn@pobox.com (Fidelio) wrote: >IBM put 4K of monochrome at B800, then 16 K of CGA at B000. Then it >made the EGA card which had 64K at A000. Before that, there was no >640K limit. And MS-DOS could still use more, if you had the memory >there and didn't use EGA/VGA modes. Oops, it's the other way round: CGA at B800 and MDA at B000. These areas were defined by IBM, not MS. DOS relied on BIOS information about the top of memory. Before VGA, several clones had 704KB and ran DOS out of the shelf. HTH ____________________________________________________________ Evandro Menezes Austin, TX USA Tel:+1-512-502-9199 ICQ:7957253 mailto:evandro@geocities.com http://over.to/evandro ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.ecrc.net!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news1.isdnet.net!usenet From: Arnould Nazarian Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:24:57 +0200 Lines: 13 Message-ID: <352FD199.7056@hol.fr> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: tcparis2-62.hol.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) > > The 68K architecture was designed from the ground up to be 32 bits. > From a generation to another the software remained 100% compatible. > Pity it didn't make mainstream. But it was also Motorola's fault too, > or maybe just its response to a not so successful product. But I believe that 80 million microcontrollers based on 68k for embedded applications were sold in 1997. And that the first Coldfire RISC processors are software compatible with the 68k. Isn't this a huge success? Sincerely. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: Ben Hutchings Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 11 Apr 1998 23:51:27 +0100 Organization: Not organised Lines: 56 Sender: womble@max61.public.ox.ac.uk Message-ID: <6gos5f$1r9$1@max61.public.ox.ac.uk> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: max61.public.ox.ac.uk In article , wrote: >On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Luc Van der Veken wrote: > >> Neil Franklin told us >> >> > Luc Van der Veken wrote: >> > > Intel made a 16 bit processor with an 8 bit bus, sliding every 16 >> > > bits out in two steps, so the cheap 8085 pheripherals could be >> > > used. >> > > Motorola did exactly the opposite: they made a processor with a >> > > 32 bit bus and a 16 bit ALU, where the ALU did everything in two >> > > stages. >> > >> > No. The 68000 and 68010 were 16 bit data paths throughout. They used an >> > 32 bit architecture (instruction set), but all data transfers (internal >> > and external) and calculations were done 16 bit at a time. Address >> > transfers with 24 bit were the only exception. >> >> You're right. >> >> But I do remember reading a discussion about 16/32 bit in the 68K >> somewhere (can't find it again). >> >> Could it be that it had 32 bit registers, and a 16 bit ALU that >> did every operation in two steps (but completely transparent)? >> >Yep. When the 020 came out and had 32 bit everything it was binary >compatible with the 68000 and worked just about the same except the >32 bit instructions could complete in 1 cycle. Things worked pretty >well as long as programs didn't use the upper 8 bits or memory >adresses which were ignored in the 68000. Motorola actually thought >through some stuff when they designed the 68000. It's a shame that >the Intel x86 arch. took over, there were many good computer systems >built on the 680x0 chips. Actually, there was another problem. The 68000 and its successors have a processor Status Register (SR), the lower byte of which contains condition flags and is called the Condition Code Register (CCR) and the upper byte of which contains flags for the processor's privilege state, priority (w.r.t interrupts), etc. The upper byte is only writable while in supervisor state, of course. However, on the 68000, it was possible to read the whole of the SR in user state. This is not a good thing if you want the processor to be able to support virtual machines and things like that, so from the 68010 onwards the SR was made readable only in supervisor state, and another instruction was added which would read just the CCR. There is no instruction that will work on the 68000 *and* it successors, in user state, to read the CCR. (Unless the OS traps and simulates the missing/privileged instruction, which is slow.) -- Ben Hutchings | ICOA User Rep election 1998: http://www.jms.org/election/ email/finger: m95bwh@ecs.ox.ac.uk | web: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/ The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: Ben Hutchings Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 11 Apr 1998 23:53:24 +0100 Organization: Not organised Lines: 20 Sender: womble@max61.public.ox.ac.uk Message-ID: <6gos94$1ru$1@max61.public.ox.ac.uk> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> <352FD199.7056@hol.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: max61.public.ox.ac.uk In article <352FD199.7056@hol.fr>, Arnould Nazarian wrote: >> >> The 68K architecture was designed from the ground up to be 32 bits. >> From a generation to another the software remained 100% compatible. >> Pity it didn't make mainstream. But it was also Motorola's fault too, >> or maybe just its response to a not so successful product. > >But I believe that 80 million microcontrollers based on 68k for embedded >applications were sold in 1997. And that the first Coldfire RISC >processors are software compatible with the 68k. Isn't this a huge >success? It's not RISC. And the last time I pointed that out to someone, a fairly senior Motorola employee e-mailed me to back me up. -- Ben Hutchings | ICOA User Rep election 1998: http://www.jms.org/election/ email/finger: m95bwh@ecs.ox.ac.uk | web: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/ The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!nntp.upenn.edu!msunews!news.gmi.edu!nova.kettering.edu!lee1089 From: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:18:49 -0400 Organization: Kettering University (formerly GMI E&MI) - Flint MI Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nova.kettering.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Evandro Menezes wrote: > In , > wrote: > > >On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > > >> Could it be that it had 32 bit registers, and a 16 bit ALU that > >> did every operation in two steps (but completely transparent)? > >> > >Yep. When the 020 came out and had 32 bit everything it was binary > >compatible with the 68000 and worked just about the same except the > >32 bit instructions could complete in 1 cycle. Things worked pretty > >well as long as programs didn't use the upper 8 bits or memory > >adresses which were ignored in the 68000. Motorola actually thought > >through some stuff when they designed the 68000. It's a shame that > >the Intel x86 arch. took over, there were many good computer systems > >built on the 680x0 chips. > > Actually, the upper 8 bits of address were stored in the address > registers, only they didn't have a path to the outside world. I > remember reading about the 68012 which output 26 address bits, I > guess. That's what I was referring to. I guess I just didn't make myself very clear. Software written for a 68000 would work just fine on an 020 as long as you didn't use the upper 8 bits assuming they were meaningless. Apple did this and so did many Mac programs. Later (on the 020 and up under 32 bit addressing) those upper 8 bits became meaningful. So if your program stored an address of say 0x8337 when you wanted 0x0337 and using the 8 as a flag or whatever you would access 0x0337 on a 68000 but 0x8337 on an 020 or higher. This was the entire reason for the "Mode 32" extension on some Macs. The ROMs used the upper 8 bits as flag bits and couldn't run in 32 bit mode without crashing. Funny thing was, Apple told everyone "Don't use the upper 8 bits" but Apple did anyway. > The 68K architecture was designed from the ground up to be 32 bits. > From a generation to another the software remained 100% compatible. > Pity it didn't make mainstream. But it was also Motorola's fault too, > or maybe just its response to a not so successful product. The only problem was that 3 (?) instruction were removed from the 020 when the 030 was introduced. Otherwise it was a very well planned architecture. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!139.130.250.2!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!comp.vuw.ac.nz!news.wlg.netlink.net.nz!news.telstra.net.nz!newshost.comnet.co.nz!inca01!gmiller From: gmiller@inca.co.nz (Gaven Miller) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k Date: 12 Apr 1998 08:11:47 GMT Organization: Comnet Technologies Ltd, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND Lines: 12 Message-ID: <6gpt03$m24$2@newshost.comnet.co.nz> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.36.226.1 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] lee1089@kettering.edu wrote in alt.folklore.computers: > The only problem was that 3 (?) instruction were removed from the 020 when > the 030 was introduced. Otherwise it was a very well planned architecture. CALLM, RTM and ??? -- All email sent to my inca address will fail, however I can now be contacted via an intermediary : gem at tos pl net. I would like to apologise to the genuine respondents that this may inconvenience. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!news1.radix.net!not-for-mail From: johnl@Radix.Net (John A. Limpert) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.sys.m68k Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 13:03:20 GMT Organization: RadixNet Internet Services Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3530bade.91390375@news1.Radix.Net> References: <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> <6gpt03$m24$2@newshost.comnet.co.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: port19.annex1.radix.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On 12 Apr 1998 08:11:47 GMT, gmiller@inca.co.nz (Gaven Miller) wrote: >lee1089@kettering.edu wrote in alt.folklore.computers: >> The only problem was that 3 (?) instruction were removed from the 020 when >> the 030 was introduced. Otherwise it was a very well planned architecture. > >CALLM, RTM and ??? I was told by a Motorola engineer that they had surveyed their customers and found that nobody was using these instructions. They were a pain to implement so they were deleted. -- John A. Limpert There Is No Lumber Cartel johnl@Radix.Net ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!world6.bellatlantic.net!news From: "George Gray" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 22:36:45 -0400 Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Lines: 32 Message-ID: <6grtq9$34v@world6.bellatlantic.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net><6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch><35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: client-209-3-240-80.bellatlantic.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >Further, it's not only very obvious to anybody who has seen both that IBM >PC was a rip-off of the Apple ][ (at first glance, it's hard to tell the >motherboards apart), it's also a documented fact that at least one of the >chief developers had an Apple ][ at home. > >And the IBM 640 KB debacle sure reminds me of the Apple 48 KB debacle. Although similar in appearance, the PC was actually born of a Z-80 based design. While a developer may have owned an Apple 2, the basic motherboard design was becoming rather generic. There were several designs that were similar to the Apple //. I think you make more out of coincidence here. Also, there are MAJOR differences between the Apple 2 and the PC. Among them: Apple 2 had BUILT-IN video ('hi-res' graphics (right) and text) whereas the the PC required an add-on card (monochrome, CGA or Hercules); the PC was able to directly address upto a 1mb of RAM (forgetting the whole 640k thing, the 8088 COULD directly address 1mb) while the Apple's 6502 could only go upto 64k (sure, there 128k add on cards, but they used a really strange bank swap scheme-well, they were all bizarre then); Apple 2 was more compact, they keyboard was built in while the PC has a detachable keyboard. Of course, they were similar in that both were highly customizable, both had an open architecture (here's a good reason why Apple rotted over the years with the closed Mac) and were rugged. You could not kill the Apple 2. (Not even fire...remember that now famous ad? I had a friend who had his // burned beyond recognition, yet the mommy board worked perfectly.) If Apple had continued to build such a fine machine with the same marketing savvy, who knows, maybe I would be responding on my shiny new Mac instead of my shiny Wintel machine. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: madbeing@aol.com (MadBeing) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Lines: 26 Message-ID: <1998041223473201.TAA12638@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 12 Apr 1998 23:47:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6glhgn$kui$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> >(b)I'm going to have to look at a Dual System's S-100 machine with >version 7 and a 68K, then demand to know what that big chip that isn't a 68K is. If its anything like the Dual S-100 machine I had, it is a 68450(?) MMU unit. I'm not positive about the chip # but it was the MMU (loosely named) that Mot developed for the 68000. It didn't support pages only regions. The version of unix only swapped. Paging wasn't possible since the (so called) MMU wasn't quite up to supporting paging. That machine and a PDP-11/45 running v6 were my early unix training. I succeeded in getting a uemacs built on it and did lots of useful work with the system. The 14" SA4000 hard drive was unfortunately very very slow and woe be to whomever filled up the swap area. unix would panic and it took forever to dump/reboot and fsck the disk. I still remember doing goofy things like setting up uemacs as my login shell just to save some time (and memory). As someone else mentioned.. "Ahh the smell of nostalgia" Dan Smith "Old Programmers never die, They just jrst to a new address" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: die.spam@hell.org.us (Evandro Menezes) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 05:27:56 GMT Organization: E&R Lines: 23 Message-ID: <3531a140.7479904@news.nabi.net> References: <6glhgn$kui$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998041223473201.TAA12638@ladder01.news.aol.com> Reply-To: evandro@geocities.com (Evandro Menezes) NNTP-Posting-Host: 11353@208.6.184.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 In <1998041223473201.TAA12638@ladder01.news.aol.com>, madbeing@aol.com (MadBeing) wrote: >If its anything like the Dual S-100 machine I had, it is a 68450(?) MMU unit. >I'm not positive about the chip # but it was the MMU (loosely named) that Mot >developed for the 68000. It didn't support pages only regions. The version of >unix only swapped. Paging wasn't possible since the (so called) MMU wasn't >quite up to supporting paging. I worked in a project about 15 years ago which all the segments described in the 68451 MMU were of a fixed size - 4KB -, thereby a kind of paging. It did work well with the 010 and the 020. But as the requirements toughened and the memory installed mushroomed, it penalized the system a lot. Then it was replaced by 68452 PMMU, which supported plain paging. Lots of fun at that time! ____________________________________________________________ Evandro Menezes Austin, TX USA Tel:+1-512-502-9199 ICQ:7957253 mailto:evandro@geocities.com http://over.to/evandro ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!blackbush.xlink.net!ganesha.ganesha.com!shorter!combo.ganesha.com!peterk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:20:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: peterk@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Reply-To: peterk @ combo.ganesha.com References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E8709.58E45ED4@ccw.ch> <352f66b1.1390445@news.innet.be> <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> X-Newsreader: rn7.bas Lines: 22 Organization: Private In article <352fb3c9.8916920@news.nabi.net> die.spam@hell.org.us (Evandro Menezes) writes: > >The 68K architecture was designed from the ground up to be 32 bits. Yep. >From a generation to another the software remained 100% compatible. Well, not 100 %. Some low-level details changed. The access to the status register became privileged in the 020, which broke many 68000 programs. Also the stack frames for exceptions (including interrupts) did change in layout and size, so that OSes had to be adapted. >Pity it didn't make mainstream. But it was also Motorola's fault too, >or maybe just its response to a not so successful product. Yes, they are just too shy. And history repeats itself with the PPC. -- Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: peterk @ pios.de ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!ibfs.demon.co.uk!nojay From: nojay@ibfs.demon.co.uk (Robert Sneddon) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 23:02:42 GMT Organization: Disorganisation Message-ID: <892681362snz@ibfs.demon.co.uk> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> Reply-To: nojay@nospam.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: nojay@ibfs.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: ibfs.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 892686976 18279 nojay ibfs.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.30 Lines: 25 In article <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> kaih=6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de "Kai Henningsen" writes: > Further, it's not only very obvious to anybody who has seen both that IBM > PC was a rip-off of the Apple ][ (at first glance, it's hard to tell the > motherboards apart), it's also a documented fact that at least one of the > chief developers had an Apple ][ at home. Let's see... The IBM PC was based on the 8088, with Intel 8000 series chips used extensively - the 8284 bus controller, the 8259 interrupt controller etc. The Apple ][ was based on the 6502 chip, with mostly TTL glue logic making it work. The IBM used the expansion bus for all I/O except the keyboard and the cassette port. The Apple ][ had an integrated keyboard and video on the motherboard. They were similar? How, exactly? The colour of the PCB material? The first IBM PC prototype was wire-wrapped - they showed a pic of it in Byte back in the early 80's. How this was a "rip-off" of the Apple ][ escapes me. -- To reply via email, remove the string "hormel" from my address. Web pages at http://members.xoom.com/nojay/ - con reports and links Robert (nojay) Sneddon ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc From: stevenss@freenet.msp.mn.us (Scott Stevens) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #0 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 98 01:15:17 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: usr-401-1-190.isd.net Message-ID: <35355b9c.0@aedes.isd.net> Lines: 24 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in4.uu.net!aedes.isd.net!msp00006 In article <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu>, hlm@aplcore.jhuapl.edu wrote: >Luc Van der Veken wrote: > >> Wasn't [when IBM PC developed] also about the era of the Lisa, or >> did that come later? sooner? (my memory is *really* fading). Looking >> at that one's price, IBM was cheap afair. > >The Lisa came before the Mac (Jan 84) and after the original Apple (ca >'78-79?). My recollection is around '82-83, whereas I think the IBM PC >was '81-82. Pretty close, but I think the PC was earlier. I don't the date on the copyright notice (back of title page) in my IBM PC-DOS 1.0 manual reads January 1982. (but it's also labelled "First Revision Revised" and the copyright is 1981). The date stamps on the original boot diskette: ibmbio.sys 7-23-81 ibmdos.sys 8-13-81 command.com 8-4-81 >recall when Apple brough out the II series, but I'd guess the IIc around >'82 and the IIe around '83. Of course, there's probably a history FAQ >around somewhere. > > Harry ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!193.174.75.126!news-was.dfn.de!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news1.rmi.net!not-for-mail From: hisys@shell.rmi.net (HI Systems) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 16 Apr 1998 03:46:29 GMT Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Lines: 60 Message-ID: <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.rmi.net X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test60 (5 October 1997) In article <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de>, Kai Henningsen wrote: >Further, it's not only very obvious to anybody who has seen both that IBM >PC was a rip-off of the Apple ][ Sounds like UL material to me. The similarities and differences don't make those two architectures especially close cousins within the population of machines available at the time. That is, ALL the machines of that era had similarities, not surprisingly; but the PC and the Apple II were not highly similar. Processor family, video structure and layout, BIOS functions, keyboard, keyboard controller, bus, interrupt structures, memory layout, disk controller and philosophy, RAM technology, std vs proprietary component philosophy... it doesn't match. >And the IBM 640 KB debacle sure reminds me of the Apple 48 KB debacle. Hmmm. I don't recall what debacle you are referring to. One of the major reasons the PC killed the CPM/S-100 and Apple II markets is that it provided 16 times the native addressing space. That included over 10 times the RAM space, in addition to a generous reserved space for video extensions, ROM, and memory mapped devices. This was just what the market needed, and the PC took off like a rocket. Naturally, the 10+ times memory expansion only kept ahead of demand for a few years, and eventually the market was ready for more RAM and a larger address space - which it got. Did the market look to the S-100 or the Apple II to provide the more than 640K next step? No, that "debacle" computer the PC had killed them off by then. In 2010, some folks will figure that the original IBM PC should have been designed to handle at least 5 gigabytes of memory, not a mere 640K, so its designers must have been a little dense. Of course, they would think the same if it had been designed for 4 MBytes or 32 MBytes. But in practice, it was a good design for the time, and it succeeded. The more expensive or longer delayed 5 GB computer would have failed. It's no failure to hit the market squarely, take over the world, and survive for several years before you run out of steam and a descendant takes the lead. Was it an obvious error to reserve so much of the 8088's address space for video, ROM and memory mapped devices? I don't think so. The PC expanded RAM from about 60K (not counting ROM) max under S-100 machines to 640K, a factor of almost 11, and that kept up with demand for several years. If they had allowed, say, 960K (limiting the BIOS ROM size, eliminating the option of memory mapped devices, and putting Video through a narrower window in the IO space, for example), that would have given it another factor of 1.5. On the exponential growth timescale, that would have bought it only a few more months over what the 11 fold increase did, hardly dramatic. OTOH, the fast memory mapped video spawned a whole new generation of programs, moving decisively from linear to 2D space, and gaining at least half of what the later and much more expensive GUI interfaces provided. That was far more valuable to the PC's success than a few more months of RAM breathing room a few years in the future would have been. Zhahai ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!btnet-peer!btnet-feed1!btnet!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 16 Apr 1998 18:32:39 GMT Lines: 18 Message-ID: <6h5is7$k52$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <6reTrIg1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-042.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-04-11 kaih=6reTrIg1w-B@khms.westfalen.de(KaiHenningsen) said: :lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote on 09.04.98 in <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet. :co.uk>: :> (c) version 7 didn't need an MMU, :> which is why minix was based on it. :Minix was no more based on V7 than QDOS was based on CP/M - i.e., :they just looked similar to applications, internally they were :completely different. yes, and we'd say ms-dos *was* based on cp/m... *puzzled look* -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom!alderson From: alderson@netcom.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! In-Reply-To: stevenss@freenet.msp.mn.us's message of Thu, 16 Apr 98 01:15:17 GMT Message-ID: Sender: alderson@netcom.netcom.com Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com Organization: NETCOM On-line services References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdfgj$bt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352B7B39.F15FE0E4@ccw.ch> <6gglji$rl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <352D21AD.F7785EB6@ccw.ch> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> <35355b9c.0@aedes.isd.net> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:26:32 GMT Lines: 25 >In article <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu>, hlm@aplcore.jhuapl.edu wrote: >>Luc Van der Veken wrote: >>>Wasn't [when IBM PC developed] also about the era of the Lisa, or did that >>>come later? sooner? (my memory is *really* fading). Looking at that one's >>>price, IBM was cheap afair. >>The Lisa came before the Mac (Jan 84) and after the original Apple (ca >>'78-79?). My recollection is around '82-83, whereas I think the IBM PC was >>'81-82. Pretty close, but I think the PC was earlier. I don't The IBM Personal Computer (TM) was introduced in August, 1981 (I still have the issue of _BYTE_ with a picture on the cover, as well as Vol. 1 No. 1 of _PC Magazine_); one of the venues in which it was shown off was the SHARE meeting in Chicago, in a room over its 1000-person capacity by about 50%. Good thing there were no fire marshalls in the hotel... I really wanted an IBM PC--thought the 8086 architecture was cool, would let me do a good Lisp implementation. Then a friend explained to me how segment registers *really* worked. I guess Gold Hill wasn't as easily discouraged, but by then I wanted a 3600! -- Rich Alderson Last LOTS Tops-20 Systems Programmer, 1984-1991 last name @ XKL dot COM Current maintainer, MIT TECO EMACS (v. 170) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: xmikex@eyrie.org (XmikeX) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 17 Apr 1998 23:01:09 -0700 Organization: The Eyrie Lines: 20 Message-ID: <6h9fj5$q2a@eyrie.org> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: eyrie.stanford.edu root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) said: >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available >technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car >engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of >balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. Natural extension to the horse-and-buggy, oxen-and-plow orientation. :) Besides, imagine how noisy the engine would be smack in the middle of the interior cabin :). Anyone want to address the "maintenance-access" issues for engine placements that break the paradigm (of the "average consumer" automobile)? > WIN95 -a 32bit GUI on a 16 bit patch of an 8 bit OS from a 2 bit cracker. Nice .sig Another variant I have seen is "...from a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition". -Author(s) unknown XmX ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:21:46 GMT Organization: . Lines: 36 Message-ID: <35387988.1825862@news.innet.be> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> <6h9fj5$q2a@eyrie.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02a-194-7-46-214.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes xmikex@eyrie.org (XmikeX) told us > root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) said: > > >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available > >technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car > >engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of > >balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. > > Natural extension to the horse-and-buggy, oxen-and-plow orientation. :) Which is why early Volkswagens had, and Porsches still have the engine at the rear end. Germans tend to have their horses *push* the buggy, so they don't have to look at its rear end all the time. > Besides, imagine how noisy the engine would be smack in the middle of > the interior cabin :). Anyone want to address the "maintenance-access" So *that's* why a Lamborghini is so noisy. > issues for engine placements that break the paradigm (of the "average > consumer" automobile)? > > > WIN95 -a 32bit GUI on a 16 bit patch of an 8 bit OS from a 2 bit cracker. > > Nice .sig Another variant I have seen is "...from a 2-bit company > that can't stand 1-bit of competition". -Author(s) unknown You're probably referring to Trevor N.'s sig: Win*ows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. -Rev. Pee Kitty ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: bobward@gte.net (Bob Ward) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 17:07:49 GMT Organization: gte.net Lines: 19 Message-ID: <6ham2f$1q2$4@gte2.gte.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust25.tnt1.san-bernardino.ca.da.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D487839A5314401151920414 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 X-No-Archive: yes On 18 Apr 98 17:42:21 GMT, root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) wrote: >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available >technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car >engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of >balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. > >Terry Do they place arrowheads in the middle of the arrow in Austria? (Or spearheads?) I'll agree... you can induce a much more stable spin with the engine amidship... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!139.130.250.2!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.unimelb.edu.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!nsw1.news.telstra.net!sa.news.telstra.net!chuckie.apana.org.au!gastro!root* From: root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) Date: 18 Apr 98 17:42:21 GMT Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> X-FTN-To: hisys@shell.rmi.net Organization: Fidonet:3:800/846.23 Lines: 29 > From: hisys@shell.rmi.net (HI Systems) > Date: 16 Apr 1998 03:46:29 GMT > In article <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de>, > Kai Henningsen wrote: >Further, it's not only very obvious to anybody who has seen both that IBM >PC was a rip-off of the Apple ][ > In 2010, some folks will figure that the original IBM PC should have > been designed to handle at least 5 gigabytes of memory, not a mere > 640K, so its designers must have been a little dense. Of course, I bought my first second-hand XT for A$700, and spent A$130 to upgrade from 512k to 640k. A 1Meg system would hardly have achieved any great market penetration. I had though of buying a Mac, but recoiled when I realised I would need to buy monitors, drives, memory and printers at monopoly prices from one supplier. Later, at the same time I could buy 270Meg drives for ~$300, you needed the same cach to buy a 40Meg Amiga drive. [Windows 98 anyone?] Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. Terry -- |WIN95 -a 32bit GUI on a 16 bit patch of an 8 bit OS from a 2 bit cracker. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 18 Apr 1998 20:31:40 GMT Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6hb2jc$1qh$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: man-016.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-04-17 alderson@netcom.com said: :I really wanted an IBM PC--thought the 8086 architecture was cool, :would let me do a good Lisp implementation. Then a friend :explained to me how segment registers *really* worked. hmm. you know it could be done... particularly if you don't want to use more than 256k... CS: code primitve space. ES: cons-cell space. DS: atom space. SS: stack space. ES has cons-cells, which will have to take up 4 bytes - but only has 16384 of them, aligned on 4-byte bounds (14-bit address). so if you align atoms on 4-byte bounds, code on 4-byte bounds, and smallints which are only 14 bits wide, you can potentially not use tag words anywhere, and have quite an efficient implementation into the bargain. atoms are anything which aren't lists, in this instance. how does that sound? ;> -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 02:02:53 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 35 Message-ID: <35393F2C.CF9FF3E@ccw.ch> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> <6h9fj5$q2a@eyrie.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) XmikeX wrote: > > root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) said: > > >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available > >technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car > >engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of > >balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. > > Natural extension to the horse-and-buggy, oxen-and-plow orientation. :) > Besides, imagine how noisy the engine would be smack in the middle of > the interior cabin :). Anyone want to address the "maintenance-access" > issues for engine placements that break the paradigm (of the "average > consumer" automobile)? Looks like you need some brushing up on your automotive history. The first cars* (1880s/90s) often had the engine** in the middle (between the 2 benches) or at the back (beneath back bench). When the idea of putting it in the front (late 1900s) cape up this was hailed as an great advance, immediately adopted by all manufacturers in a few months. * O.K., motorised horse carriages ** usually some 1 cylinder, 2" bore, 5" stroke, 100 rpm, 1 hp thing Neil "history buff" Franklin -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: genew@vip.net (Gene Wirchenko) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 06:38:05 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: <353992da.4192903@news.vip.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> <6h9fj5$q2a@eyrie.org> <35387988.1825862@news.innet.be> Reply-To: genew@vip.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 16598@204.209.212.59 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote: >xmikex@eyrie.org (XmikeX) told us > >> root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) said: >> >> >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available >> >technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car >> >engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of >> >balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. >> >> Natural extension to the horse-and-buggy, oxen-and-plow orientation. :) > >Which is why early Volkswagens had, and Porsches still have the >engine at the rear end. Germans tend to have their horses *push* >the buggy, so they don't have to look at its rear end all the >time. Ah, it's a user interface issue then. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko C Pronunciation Guide: y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon" x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!blackbush.xlink.net!ganesha.ganesha.com!shorter!combo.ganesha.com!peterk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 16:30:10 +0200 Message-ID: From: peterk@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Reply-To: peterk @ combo.ganesha.com References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <35346742.4884500@news.innet.be> <352E7380.1329@aplcore.jhuapl.edu> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> X-Newsreader: rn7.bas Lines: 11 Organization: Private In article <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) writes: > >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available >technology, Nah, in the contrary, it's condemned by comparing it to contemporary technology, which offered far superior (and cheaper) alternatives. -- Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: peterk @ pios.de ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom!alderson From: alderson@netcom.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! In-Reply-To: lisard@zetnet.co.uk's message of 18 Apr 1998 20:31:40 GMT Message-ID: Sender: alderson@netcom.netcom.com Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com Organization: NETCOM On-line services References: <6hb2jc$1qh$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:18:29 GMT Lines: 14 In article <6hb2jc$1qh$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> lisard@zetnet.co.uk writes: >ES has cons-cells, which will have to take up 4 bytes - but only has >16384 of them, aligned on 4-byte bounds (14-bit address). [snip remainder of small Lisp implementation] >how does that sound? ;> Really small compared to what I could already do on a DEC-20 at the time. I was looking for *bigger*, you see. ;-> -- Rich Alderson Last LOTS Tops-20 Systems Programmer, 1984-1991 last name @ XKL dot COM Current maintainer, MIT TECO EMACS (v. 170) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!202.14.100.1!status.gen.nz!kcbbs!riplin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! From: riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) Date: 21 Apr 98 00:36:09 GMT Message-ID: <3298110.2169.14945@kcbbs.gen.nz> References: <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand Lines: 9 In message <<151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au>> root*@gastro.apana.org.au writes: > > Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available > technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car > engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of > balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. Do you think they should be at both ends or in the middle ? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!rockyd.rockefeller.edu!not-for-mail From: alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Alexandre Pechtchanski) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Organization: Rockefeller University Hospital (GCRC), New York Message-ID: <353deb3c.18965695@Rockyd> References: <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> <3298110.2169.14945@kcbbs.gen.nz> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 18:56:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: hospc6.rockefeller.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:56:06 EDT On 21 Apr 98 00:36:09 GMT, riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) wrote: >In message <<151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au>> root*@gastro.apana.org.au writes: >> >> Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available >> technology, would care to comment on the bizzare idea of placing car >> engines at one end of the vehicle, greatly increasing the complexity of >> balance and control of the vehicle at any decent speed. > >Do you think they should be at both ends or in the middle ? Which reminds me: Beasts in the woods decided to build a bridge. They called a meeting on how to do this best. Rabbit said: "Our bridge should be slim and elegant". Elephant ventured: "The bridge should first of all be sturdy". Then Ass asked: "Aren't we too hasty? We haven't decided yet whether it should go across the river or along". [ When replying, remove *'s from address ] Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 21 Apr 1998 18:59:55 GMT Lines: 17 Message-ID: <6hiqbb$jaj$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: man-131.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-04-20 alderson@netcom.com said: :>how does that sound? ;> :Really small compared to what I could already do on a DEC-20 at the :time. I was looking for *bigger*, you see. ;-> *hangs head* oh, ok. we never worked on (saw, hell) a dec-20... but why did you think the 8086 would let you go bigger? *brightens* anyway, we like "tiny". we want to do a lisp like that. :> did you ever find the way to go bigger? -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!btnet-peer!btnet-feed2!btnet!carbon.eu.sun.com!uk-usenet.uk.sun.com!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!not-for-mail From: writer1@Eng.Sun.COM Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: 21 Apr 1998 19:18:29 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Lines: 28 Message-ID: <6hire5$dba$3@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <6h5is7$k52$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> Reply-To: writer1@Eng.Sun.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: sabu.eng.sun.com In article 3@irk.zetnet.co.uk, lisard@zetnet.co.uk writes: > > > On 1998-04-11 kaih=6reTrIg1w-B@khms.westfalen.de(KaiHenningsen) said: > :lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote on 09.04.98 in <6gjfts$lgs$4@irk.zetnet. > :co.uk>: > :> (c) version 7 didn't need an MMU, > :> which is why minix was based on it. > > :Minix was no more based on V7 than QDOS was based on CP/M - i.e., > :they just looked similar to applications, internally they were > :completely different. > > yes, and we'd say ms-dos *was* based on cp/m... > > *puzzled look* > -- > Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling > you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ----------------------------------- I've seen Kildall point out sections of code identical in QDOS and CP/M. Sabu ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!209.90.0.8!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!newshub.nosc.mil!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!ivie From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Message-ID: Date: 22 Apr 98 10:03:16 MDT References: <6h5is7$k52$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <6hire5$dba$3@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> Organization: Utah State University Lines: 12 In article <6hire5$dba$3@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, writer1@Eng.Sun.COM writes: > I've seen Kildall point out sections of code identical in QDOS > and CP/M. One of the legends has it that Kildall remarked soemthing like "the MS-DOS people don't even know _why_ $ is the string terminator", which has made me wonder: why is the CP/M string terminator $? Anyone know? -- -------------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Roger Ivie | "You got advice for me. Well I'm telling you, ivie@cc.usu.edu | I know nothing and I like it that way" http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ | -- Eggplant ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!209.150.160.22!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!203.12.176.153.MISMATCH!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.eisa.net.au!news From: mjwilly@eisa.net.au (Terry Smith) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Followup-To: poster Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 09:33:25 GMT Organization: Gastropodal Systems Lines: 21 Message-ID: <354ab56b.3154380@news.eisa.net.au> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> <6h9fj5$q2a@eyrie.org> <35393F2C.CF9FF3E@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: pppa1-32.eisa.net.au X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 02:02:53 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >XmikeX wrote: >> >> root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) said: >> >> >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available You were doing fine until... >> Natural extension to the horse-and-buggy, oxen-and-plow orientation. :) >> Besides, imagine how noisy the engine would be smack in the middle of >> the interior cabin :). Anyone want to address the "maintenance-access" >> issues for engine placements that break the paradigm (of the "average >> consumer" automobile)? > >Looks like you need some brushing up on your automotive history. > Thanks. Could I offer you some on quoting protocol? My my ignorance is bliss. (Earl Gordon Curely) ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 23:58:48 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 48 Message-ID: <354CE898.EA448280@ccw.ch.remove> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6reTqf21w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <6h3uul$vh$1@news1.rmi.net> <151_9804181336@gastro.apana.org.au> <6h9fj5$q2a@eyrie.org> <35393F2C.CF9FF3E@ccw.ch> <354ab56b.3154380@news.eisa.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Terry Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 02:02:53 +0200, Neil Franklin > wrote: > > >XmikeX wrote: > >> > >> root*@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) said: > >> > >> >Perhaps the children condemming the PC, based on today's available > > You were doing fine until... > > >> Natural extension to the horse-and-buggy, oxen-and-plow orientation. :) > >> Besides, imagine how noisy the engine would be smack in the middle of > >> the interior cabin :). Anyone want to address the "maintenance-access" > >> issues for engine placements that break the paradigm (of the "average > >> consumer" automobile)? > > > >Looks like you need some brushing up on your automotive history. > > > Thanks. Could I offer you some on quoting protocol? Hello Terry. Here comes the egg for your face. Yes quoting is tricky. Thanks to this threaded newsreader, that does it automatically. Reading is also tricky, some users just don't get it. We have here: from Terry (with "> >> >") Perhaps the children... from XmikeX (with "> >> ") Natural extension to... from me (with "> >") Looks like... (aimed at XmikeX, not Terry, obviously) from Terry (with "> ") Thanks. Could you... Perhaps _you_ need to brush up on reading quotes? :-) > My my ignorance is bliss. (Earl Gordon Curely) Oh, you have also meat him? BTW, it is E G Curley. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Lawyers are killing society, perhaps we should return the favour.