Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!europa.clark.net!144.212.95.13!nntprelay.mathworks.com!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net.nz!newshost.comnet.co.nz!inca01!gmiller From: gmiller@inca.co.nz (Gaven Miller) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.cpm Subject: MS DOs was derived from CP/M v?.?? Date: 7 May 1998 23:10:32 GMT Organization: Comnet Technologies Ltd, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND Lines: 14 Message-ID: <6itf19$pm2$1@newshost.comnet.co.nz> References: <6ikr71$87$1@void.agames.com> <3298125.5525.9071@kcbbs.gen.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.36.226.1 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Richard Plinston (riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz) wrote in alt.folklore.computers: > In fact MS-DOS was a retrograde step from CP/M because it > derived from CP/M 1.4 and not from CP/M 2.2, let alone > from MP/M or CP/M 3.0. What version of CP/M was current when MS-DOS 1.0 was originally being "developed"? (From the above text, it appears to be CP/M 3.0) -- All email sent to my inca address will fail, however I can now be contacted via an intermediary : gem at tos pl net. I would like to apologise to the genuine respondents that this may inconvenience. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!ja207030 From: Stephen Edwards Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.cpm Subject: Re: MS DOs was derived from CP/M v?.?? Date: 8 May 1998 08:37:02 -0700 Organization: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. Lines: 17 Message-ID: <6iv8qu$dp3@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <6ikr71$87$1@void.agames.com> <3298125.5525.9071@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6itf19$pm2$1@newshost.comnet.co.nz> X-Posted-By: rakmount@206.165.6.208 (rakmount) Gaven Miller wrote: : Richard Plinston (riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz) wrote in alt.folklore.computers: : > In fact MS-DOS was a retrograde step from CP/M because it : > derived from CP/M 1.4 and not from CP/M 2.2, let alone : > from MP/M or CP/M 3.0. : What version of CP/M was current when MS-DOS 1.0 was originally being : "developed"? (From the above text, it appears to be CP/M 3.0) Keep in mind, that Tim Patterson developed QDOS from a CP/M 'manual', not the OS itself really. -- Stephen S. Edwards II -- Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy. http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount -- r a k m o u n t @primenet.remove.com If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy. -- Jack Handey ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!Cabal.CESspool!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!feeder.news.azstarnet.com!reader1.news.azstarnet.com!news From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.cpm Subject: Re: MS DOs was derived from CP/M v?.?? Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:33:59 -0700 Organization: Starnet Lines: 15 Message-ID: <35537A47.8E0@azstarnet.com> References: <6ikr71$87$1@void.agames.com> <3298125.5525.9071@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6itf19$pm2$1@newshost.comnet.co.nz> <6iv8qu$dp3@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.197.38.134 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) Stephen Edwards wrote: ..... > Keep in mind, that Tim Patterson developed QDOS from a CP/M 'manual', not > the OS itself really. "really"? were you there? if not, what would you expect him to say? I'll tell you what the problem is at the moment...... getting our hands on the very earliest version of 86-DOS so's we can take this discussion to the next level! Any help out there? Bill ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!howland.erols.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!netaxs.com!usenet From: editor@juno.com (Bruce Morgen) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.cpm Subject: Re: MS DOs was derived from CP/M v?.?? Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 16:57:56 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service Lines: 22 Message-ID: <35533920.1430521@news.pond.com> References: <6ikr71$87$1@void.agames.com> <3298125.5525.9071@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6itf19$pm2$1@newshost.comnet.co.nz> <6iv8qu$dp3@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: editor@juno.com NNTP-Posting-Host: arctic-2.vf.pond.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Stephen Edwards wrote: >Gaven Miller wrote: >: Richard Plinston (riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz) wrote in alt.folklore.computers: >: > In fact MS-DOS was a retrograde step from CP/M because it >: > derived from CP/M 1.4 and not from CP/M 2.2, let alone >: > from MP/M or CP/M 3.0. > >: What version of CP/M was current when MS-DOS 1.0 was originally being >: "developed"? (From the above text, it appears to be CP/M 3.0) > >Keep in mind, that Tim Patterson developed QDOS from a CP/M 'manual', not >the OS itself really. >-- That makes sense -- Kildall once stated that most of the system call differences between CP/M and early MS-DOS were due to misinterpretations of statements in the CP/M documentation by DOS developers. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.181.164.14!news.seanet.com!news From: klaw@seanet.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.cpm Subject: Re: MS DOs was derived from CP/M v?.?? Date: 8 May 1998 20:56:12 GMT Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6ivrhc$21p@q.seanet.com> References: <35533920.1430521@news.pond.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: m12.dialup.seanet.com X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-05-08 editor@juno.com said: >Stephen Edwards wrote: >>Gaven Miller wrote: >>: Richard Plinston (riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz) wrote: >>: > In fact MS-DOS was a retrograde step from CP/M because it >>: > derived from CP/M 1.4 and not from CP/M 2.2, let alone >>: > from MP/M or CP/M 3.0. >>: What version of CP/M was current when MS-DOS 1.0 was originally >>: being "developed"? (From the above text, it appears to be CP/M 3.0. >>Keep in mind, that Tim Patterson developed QDOS from a CP/M >>'manual', not the OS itself really. >That makes sense -- Kildall once >stated that most of the system >call differences between CP/M >and early MS-DOS were due to >misinterpretations of statements >in the CP/M documentation by DOS >developers. Hmmm. Maybe the ol' memory banks have become corrupted, but I seem to recall an early '80s lawsuit in which DRI was awarded -- or settled for -- compensation, because IBM PC-DOS was found to contain whole chunks of code lifted directly from CP/M...a copyrighted intellectual property. Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.251.127.50!newsfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: A R Ogden Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.cpm Subject: Re: MS DOs was derived from CP/M v?.?? Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 03:29:30 -0700 Organization: AR Ogden and Assoc Lines: 46 Message-ID: <6jmdrg$hj6$2@gte1.gte.net> References: <6ikr71$87$1@void.agames.com> <3298125.5525.9071@kcbbs.gen.nz> <6itf19$pm2$1@newshost.comnet.co.nz> <6iv8qu$dp3@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: arog@gte.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust46.tnt1.san-fernando.ca.da.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: 5718828352C704C84A160412 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; U) As I have been told the story on this (and would *Love* to have the fellow that was at Seattle Computing when this 'went down' send me a note), it runs this.a.way.... Seattle Computing had a 'source' license for CP/m 80. It ran that source through a translator program to generate an i86 source file. Then they hacked on it to make it into Seattle-Dos/QDos. I have *NO* second source on this. I repeat ONLY what I recall being told in mail. I have also been told by Dr. Prournelle that when Gary was at Chaos Mannor, Gary did the required keystrokes as MS-Dos 1.x booted and that a Digital Research copyright notice was displayed. This clearly pre-dates CP/m 3.x [aka CP/m Plus]. Alan Ogden arog @ bix. com arog @ gte. net Stephen Edwards wrote: > > Gaven Miller wrote: > : Richard Plinston (riplin@kcbbs.gen.nz) wrote in alt.folklore.computers: > : > In fact MS-DOS was a retrograde step from CP/M because it > : > derived from CP/M 1.4 and not from CP/M 2.2, let alone > : > from MP/M or CP/M 3.0. > > : What version of CP/M was current when MS-DOS 1.0 was originally being > : "developed"? (From the above text, it appears to be CP/M 3.0) > > Keep in mind, that Tim Patterson developed QDOS from a CP/M 'manual', not > the OS itself really. > -- > Stephen S. Edwards II -- Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy. > http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount -- r a k m o u n t @primenet.remove.com > If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe > you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, > free dummy. -- Jack Handey