Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!jobone!dailyplanet.srl.ford.com!eccws1.dearborn.ford.com!news From: cpierce1@cp500.fsic.ford.com (Clinton Pierce) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: 30 Mar 1998 20:46:02 GMT Organization: Ford Motor Company Lines: 119 Message-ID: <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> References: <6fc33c$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: cp500.fsic.ford.com X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.3 In-Reply-To: <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> To: bill_h In article <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com>, bill_h writes: >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. > Ok, here ya go. From an authoritative source (or claimed to be), from a reputable publication (at the time), in a reasonable time-frame: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "An Inside Look at MS-DOS" Tim Paterson, Seattle Computer Products Published in BYTE Magazine June 1983, Vol 8 No. 6 Synopsis: Tech-oriented article about the low-level stuff of MS-DOS 1.x. Where the FAT is, why only a 1-sector buffer was used, etc...etc.. From that issue (NOT a reprint), as a box within the article Page 246, "A Short History of MS-DOS", without permission: "Known variously as Seattle Computer 86-DOS, IBM Personal Computer DOS, and Zenith Z-DOS, MS-DOS was developed by Seattle Computer Products for its 8086-based computer system. The MS-DOS history is intertwined with the general development of software for 8086-based computers. "In May 1979, Seattle Computer made the first prototype of its 8086 microprocessor bard for the S-100 bus. There were brief discussions with Digital Research about using one of Seattle Computer's prototypes to aid in developing CP/M-86, which was to be ready 'soon'. Although Seattle Computer was considering using CP/M-96 when it became available (expected no later than the end of 1979), there were only two working prototypes of the 8086 processor card, and it was felt that both were needed in house. Therefore, there wasn't one free for Digital Research. "Microsoft had already started a strong 8086 software-development program. The firm was ready to try the 8086 version of Stand-Alone Disk BASIC, which is a version of its BASIC interpreter with a built-in operating system. During the last two weeks of May 1979, this BASIC was made completely functional using the hardware that Seattle Computer provided for Microsoft. Seattly Computer Products displayed the complete package (8086 running disk BASIC) in New York the first week of June at the 1979 National Computer COnference. (This was the first-ever public display of an 8086 BASIC and of an 8086 processor card for the S-100 bus.) "Seattle Computer shipped its first 8086 cards in Nov 1979, with Stand-Alone Disk BASIC as the only software to run on it. The months rolled by, and CP/M-86 was nowhere in sight. Finally, in April 1980, Seattle decided to create its own DOS. This decition resulted just as much from concern about CP/M's shortcomings as from the urgent need for a general-purpose Operating System. "The first versions of the operating system, called QDOS 0.10, were shipped in August 1980. QDOS stood for Quick and Dirty Operating System because it was thrown together in such a hurry (two man-months), but it worked suprisingly well. It had all the basic utilities for assembly-language development except an editor. One week later, Seattle Computer had created an operating system with an editor, as absurdity known as EDLIN (editor of lines). A primitive line-oriented system, it was supposed to last less than six months. (Unfortunately, it has lasted much longer than that as a part of MS-DOS.) "In the last few days of 1980, a new version of the DOS was released, now know as 86-DOS version 0.3. Seattle Computer passed this new version on to Microsoft, which had bought non-exclusive rights to market 86-DOS and had one customer for it at the time. Also about this time, Digital Research released the first copies of CP/M-86. In April 1981, Seattle Computer Products released 86-DOS version 1.00, which was very similar to the versions of MS-DOS that are widely distributed today. "In July 1981, Microsoft bought all rights to the DOS from Seattle Computer, and the name MS-DOS was adopted. Shortly afterward, IBM announced the Personal Computer, using as its Operating System what was essentially Seattle Computer's 86-DOS 1.14. Microsoft has been continuously improving the DOS, providing version 1.24 to IBM (as IBM's version 1.1) with MS-DOS version 1.25 as the general release to all MS-DOS customers in March 1982. Now version 2.0, released in February 1983, has just been announced with IBM's new XT computer." (from "About the Author") - Tim Paterson worked for Seattle Computer Products on the design of its 8086 computer system and the operating system now called MS-DOS. He then worked for Microsoft for about a year. Since returning to Seattle Computer Products as director of engineering, he has been primarily involved with new hardware development. [any typos are mine--I retyped it from the magazine open on my desk. No corrections (editorial or letters) were published in subsequent months--Clinton] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- So apparently, there WAS a Q-DOS, it WAS the basis for MS-DOS. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Clinton A. Pierce | "If you rush a Miracle Man, | http://www. | | cpierce1@ford.com | you get rotten miracles" | dcicorp.com/ | | fubar@ameritech.net |--Miracle Max, The Princess Bride| ~clintp | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ GCSd-s+:+a-C++UALIS++++P+++L++E---t++X+b+++DI++++G++e+>++h----r+++y+++>y* ###### 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!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!rockyd.rockefeller.edu!not-for-mail From: alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Alexandre Pechtchanski) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Organization: Rockefeller University Hospital (GCRC), New York Message-ID: <35236e31.8231168@Rockyd> 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$1@f02s02.tac.net> <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 16:40:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: hospc6.rockefeller.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 11:40:49 EST On 30 Mar 1998 20:46:02 GMT, cpierce1@cp500.fsic.ford.com (Clinton Pierce) wrote: >In article <351D43E1.44AF@azstarnet.com>, > bill_h writes: >>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. >> > >Ok, here ya go. From an authoritative source (or claimed to be), from >a reputable publication (at the time), in a reasonable time-frame: Am I the only one waiting in vain for Mr. bill_h public apology? [ 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!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!serv.hinet.net!spring.edu.tw!feeder.seed.net.tw!news.seed.net.tw!!dski From: Dan Strychalski Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: 1 Apr 1998 22:29:08 GMT Organization: Cameo Communications, Inc. Lines: 18 Message-ID: <6fuf3k$gmj@news.seed.net.tw> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.72.104.4 Originator: dski@ Alexandre Pechtchanski (*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu) wrote -- > Am I the only one waiting in vain for Mr. bill_h > public apology? I do not believe bill_h owes anyone an apology. The name QDOS was used briefly, during part of the period preceding the 1.00 release -- and the product was called 86-DOS when Microsoft purchased the version MS-DOS was based on. References contemporary with that BYTE piece mention only the name 86-DOS. With most 1980s sources calling it only 86-DOS and Microsoft calling it only QDOS, suspicion is more than justified. Let's go on to another one. Microsoft calls its corruption of ISO 8859-1 "the ANSI character set." What is the ANSI number for this character set? What are those East European characters doing in the extension at code points 128-159? Dan Strychalski dski at cameonet, cameo, com, tw (no _x_) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!netaxs.com!usenet From: evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: 7 Apr 1998 05:21:35 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service Lines: 19 Message-ID: <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> Reply-To: evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) NNTP-Posting-Host: chestnut1-12.slip.netaxs.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.09 In <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>, cpierce1@cp500.fsic.ford.com (Clinton Pierce) writes: > In April 1981, Seattle Computer Products released > 86-DOS version 1.00, which was very similar to the versions of > MS-DOS that are widely distributed today. 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?) Dan Evans ********************** *This is not legal advice unless *you agreed to pay for it. *http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb ###### 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!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.25.34.3!skylink!not-for-mail From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:29:02 -0700 Organization: Skylink Networks, Inc. (http://www.skylink.net./) Lines: 27 Message-ID: <6gdr0d$96q$1@news.skylink.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: jack.simconv.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Dan Evans wrote in message +ADw-6gcd4v+ACQ-dbk+AEA-netaxs.com+AD4-... +AD4-It is my understanding that, unlike MS-DOS, 86-DOS could use a full +AD4-1 Mb of memory for applications. IBM insisted on allocating 384 Kb for +AD4-video, leaving only 640 Kb for applications in MS-DOS, a legacy that +AD4-survives to this day in Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, both of which +AD4-avoid the limitation through the memory swapping. (You didn't +AD4-really think that Windows 95 didn't still run under DOS, did you?) Actually, on some S-100 machines with a 286 you could run CPM-86 in +ACo-more+ACo- that 1024KB. Since there was no A20 gate, you could access the first 64KB after the 1MB limit. This was a difference between 286 and 8086 processors, the 286 did not wrap addresses if they exceeded 20 bits in real mode (I.e load FFFF into the segment register, then you can access all but the last 16 bytes in the 64K above 0100000H). I used that trick to set up bootstrap ROMS that copied themselves to RAM above 1MB, then disabled the ROM, so CP/M-86 (and Concurrent DOS) could access the full 1MB and not even have a memory hole where the boot ROM was. Jack Peacock ###### From: t92etr@student.tdb.uu.se (Erik Trulsson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: 8 Apr 1998 14:38:50 GMT Organization: Uppsala Universitet Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6gg25q$lvj$1@Zeke.Update.UU.SE> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zubenelgenubi.tdb.uu.se User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980226 (UNIX) (SunOS/5.6 (sun4m)) Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!genius.dat.hk-r.se!news.ifm.liu.se!Zeke.Update.UU.SE!zubenelgenubi.tdb.uu.se!t92etr In alt.folklore.computers Dan Evans wrote: > In <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>, cpierce1@cp500.fsic.ford.com (Clinton Pierce) writes: >> In April 1981, Seattle Computer Products released >> 86-DOS version 1.00, which was very similar to the versions of >> MS-DOS that are widely distributed today. > It is my understanding that, unlike MS-DOS, 86-DOS could use a full > 1 Mb of memory for applications. IBM insisted on allocating 384 Kb for > video, leaving only 640 Kb for applications in MS-DOS, a legacy that > survives to this day in Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, both of which > avoid the limitation through the memory swapping. (You didn't > really think that Windows 95 didn't still run under DOS, did you?) MS-DOS has actually always been able to use a full 1MB of memory for applications. It is just that on the IBM PC some of that memory was allocated for video as you note, leaving only 640K available. -- Erik Trulsson t92etr@student.tdb.uu.se ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: die.spam@hell.org.us (Evandro Menezes) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 18:50:11 GMT Organization: E&R Lines: 27 Message-ID: <352bc5ae.3514108@news.nabi.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gdr0d$96q$1@news.skylink.net> Reply-To: evandro@geocities.com (Evandro Menezes) NNTP-Posting-Host: 21126@208.6.184.163 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 In <6gdr0d$96q$1@news.skylink.net>, "Jack Peacock" wrote: >Actually, on some S-100 machines with a 286 you could run CPM-86 >in +ACo-more+ACo- that 1024KB. Since there was no A20 gate, you could >access the first 64KB after the 1MB limit. This was a >difference between 286 and 8086 processors, the 286 did not wrap >addresses if they exceeded 20 bits in real mode (I.e load FFFF >into the segment register, then you can access all but the last >16 bytes in the 64K above 0100000H). I used that trick to set >up bootstrap ROMS that copied themselves to RAM above 1MB, then >disabled the ROM, so CP/M-86 (and Concurrent DOS) could access >the full 1MB and not even have a memory hole where the boot ROM >was. It was a bug in the 286 which made it different from the 8086 and was later incorporated in the 386 and later. In the 486 the infamous GATEA20 became part of the chip. Funny how things have been happening in the computer world since Intel and Microsoft became players in it. ____________________________________________________________ Evandro Menezes Austin, TX USA Tel:+1-512-502-9199 ICQ:7957253 mailto:evandro@geocities.com http://over.to/evandro ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.nyu.edu!wesley.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!colt.net!easynet-uk!easynet-apple!not-for-mail From: "Nick Cole" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers,seattle.general,comp.misc,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:35:38 +0100 Organization: [posted via] Easynet UK Lines: 28 Message-ID: <6gll8c$k9k$2@apple.news.easynet.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gg25q$lvj$1@Zeke.Update.UU.SE> NNTP-Posting-Host: cole4.easynet.co.uk X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Erik Trulsson wrote in message <6gg25q$lvj$1@Zeke.Update.UU.SE>... >In alt.folklore.computers Dan Evans wrote: >> In <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>, cpierce1@cp500.fsic.ford.com (Clinton Pierce) writes: > >>> In April 1981, Seattle Computer Products released >>> 86-DOS version 1.00, which was very similar to the versions of >>> MS-DOS that are widely distributed today. > >> 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?) > >MS-DOS has actually always been able to use a full 1MB of memory for >applications. It is just that on the IBM PC some of that memory was >allocated for video as you note, leaving only 640K available. I thought that the rest of the 1 meg (excluding the 640k for programs and drivers) was reserved for the dos it's self.... James ###### 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!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ix.netcom.com!wb8foz From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Message-ID: Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV) References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6gg25q$lvj$1@Zeke.Update.UU.SE> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 21:44:02 GMT Lines: 14 Sender: wb8foz@netcom19.netcom.com t92etr@student.tdb.uu.se (Erik Trulsson) writes: >MS-DOS has actually always been able to use a full 1MB of memory for >applications. It is just that on the IBM PC some of that memory was >allocated for video as you note, leaving only 640K available. On the DEC Rainbow, for example...... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ###### Date: 11 Apr 1998 16:43:00 +0200 X-Newsreader: CrossPoint v3.11 R/C435 Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban,seattle.general X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. From: kaih=6reTtZ-Hw-B@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.ruhrgebiet.individual.net!nntp.ruhr.de!ruhr.de!news.khms.westfalen.de!khms.westfalen.de!kaih Message-ID: <6reTtZ-Hw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Lines: 21 evansdb@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote on 07.04.98 in <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com>: > 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 MS-DOS has absolutely no problems using a full 1 MB, when you give it the necessary hardware to do that (1 MB RAM, that is). The rest is correct. > 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?) It's MS-DOS 7.0, of course. I expect '98 will probably be 8.0. 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!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!wnfeed!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!newsadm From: me@here.com (Dan) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: DOS is Stolen! (Long, contains references) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 03:33:38 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 11 Message-ID: <6gs14k$cbt@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <6fc33c$rga@argentina.earthlink.net> <6fp0aa$s781@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <6gcd4v$dbk@netaxs.com> <6reTtZ-Hw-B@khms.westfalen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.70.33.168 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.450 On 11 Apr 1998 16:43:00 +0200, kaih=6reTtZ-Hw-B@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote: > >It's MS-DOS 7.0, of course. I expect '98 will probably be 8.0. > Actually, Win98 is Windows 4.10 and DOS 7.10. Dan