"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>I don't remember any DOS v1.0

DOS is a generic term. There were many variations of DOS. MS-DOS, PC
DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS, JM-OS, and several others.
There was a V1.0 for MS-DOS which is probably what the author intended
to say.

>Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
>Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan
>of any OS before or after it. <grin>

Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
your XP window... 8-O

In news:cj3f451hj8qirkc51t1hu27qfkuo7jggs7@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:22:02 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I don't remember any DOS v1.0
>
> DOS is a generic term. There were many variations of DOS. MS-DOS, PC
> DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS, JM-OS, and several others.
> There was a V1.0 for MS-DOS which is probably what the author intended
> to say.

PC-DOS v1.0 was the same as QDOS v1.0. I don't believe there was a
MS-DOS v1.0 ever. And I don't believe PC-DOS v1.0 was ever released. As
IBM reworked much of the original and I don't believe they called the
reworked version 1.0.

The first MS-DOS version I used was v2.11. I was using DEC RT-11 and
CP/M before that. I can't recall the earliest version of PC-DOS I used,
but I know I had PC-DOS v3.3 and I liked MS-DOS v2.21 much better.

>> Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
>> Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan
>> of any OS before or after it. <grin>
>
> Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
> your XP window... 8-O

Naw... DOS was great but it never had the followers that XP did. Not
even close. And XP is the standard that will haunt Microsoft for many
years to come. And which all OS now and in the future will be measured
against.

--
Bill
Windows XP Pro SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

I do not agree with your views on the wisdom of waiting for "SP1"

There was nothing "Horrible" about Vista (SP0 ... original).

There was nothing "Horrible" about XP (SP0 ... original).

Sure, there were a few issues; there will ALWAYS be issues.

Sure, there WAS a service pack; there will almost always be service
packs (although I'm not sure that there was a service pack for ME).

Windows 7 is really not much more than a service pack of Vista. For
that reason, I expect far less issues with Win 7 than there have been
with other OS'; and I don't necessarily accept the common (but not
necessarily correct) Wisdom that one should wait for SP1. Although I
can accept the wisdom to wait for a few weeks to a month or two for web
reports of experiences .... there is certainly nothing wrong with
letting other people be the "guinea pigs". But in the past few
operating systems ... indeed I'd go back all the way to 95 ... the
changes from SP0 to SP1 have not been SO great that waiting was really
justified, for most people (ME was just plain bad, period; and was never
fixed, the SP for ME was XP).

Also, we have a tendency to judge OS' not in terms of the environments
in which they were developed and released, but in terms of today's
environment, or, looking at older discussions, the environment(s) (still
subsequent to release) in which they were discussed. That is wrong and
is not fair or appropriate. If one operated in that manner, we would
all wait for the "next" version ... forever.


Larry wrote:
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h24d45$ipe$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Some of us ... like probably most of the computer users in the world ...
>> actually LIKE Windows and have as much distaste for Linux as you do for
>> Windows.
>>
>>
>
> I don't distaste Windows. I've been using Micro$oft's products since DOS
> 1.0 was released on 8086 hardware! I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message
> because it's convenient and familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>
> I'm sorry you got that impression that my post placing the 1GB limit on
> Micro$oft was simply reporting all the thousands of articles written on the
> subject.
>
> One of my friends wants to install Win7 on his box. I've asked him to wait
> until 2010 for SP2 or 3 until a significant number of major bugs users find
> are ironed out. He failed to listen and upgraded to Vista 1.0 on day one,
> paying dearly for his transgression.....(c;]
>
> I missed several horrible "upgrades" like ME, Vista, some NT flavors here.
> I've never been much of a "retail beta tester" for any software.....
>
> WinXPSP3 is a very stable product. I just wish its company wasn't so hell
> bent on destroying it.
>
>
>

No, Bill, there was MS-DOS version 1. It shipped with the original
IBM-PC (version 2 shipped with the PC-XT, and introduced support for
hard drives and folders).

Re: XP SP2 vs. SP3; there is almost no OBVIOUS difference. But there
are a lot of internal differences, almost all of them related to
security. SP3 is simply the collection of all of the security updates
that occurred over a roughly 3 year period. It plugs a lot of holes,
but makes very few outward changes. If you had run "windows upgrade"
religiously, you have most of it. But are you SURE that you didn't miss
anything?

Microsoft has imposed some limits on the "power" of a system for it to
be eligible for a "netbook" OS. I don't think that 1GB max memory is
one of those limits; I recall that a 12" or smaller screen size was one
of them. I have seen the list, and it's available online but I don't
remember all of it's items.


BillW50 wrote:
> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>> I don't distaste Windows. I've been using Micro$oft's products since
>> DOS 1.0 was released on 8086 hardware!
>
> I don't remember any DOS v1.0 except QDOS v1.0. And Tim Patterson wrote
> it because Gary Kildall failed to write CP/M-86 like he promised he
> would. Gary did what he wanted, not what others wanted. Which later
> destroyed him.
>
>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient and
>> familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>
> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
> haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2 and
> SP3.
>
>> I'm sorry you got that impression that my post placing the 1GB limit
>> on Micro$oft was simply reporting all the thousands of articles
>> written on the subject.
>
> It is truly rare for any of my XP machines to ever need 900MB of more of
> memory for the OS and all of my running applications. Windows 2000 uses
> half of this figure.
>
> And I have a hard time believing that Microsoft made such a rule. As
> what would stop manufactures from taking Vista laptops and dropping the
> RAM down to 1GB and then asking Microsoft for XP licenses so they could
> sell more computers because people wanted XP instead of Vista?
>
>> One of my friends wants to install Win7 on his box. I've asked him
>> to wait until 2010 for SP2 or 3 until a significant number of major
>> bugs users find are ironed out. He failed to listen and upgraded to
>> Vista 1.0 on day one, paying dearly for his transgression.....(c;]
>
> That is always the smart move on your main machine anyway. Spare
> machines you can do whatever you want to since it doesn't matter if they
> work or not.
>
>> I missed several horrible "upgrades" like ME, Vista, some NT flavors
>> here. I've never been much of a "retail beta tester" for any
>> software.....
>
> I used to in the 80's, but it got old very quickly. Now I let the young
> kids to be the guinea pigs. <grin>
>
>> WinXPSP3 is a very stable product. I just wish its company wasn't so
>> hell bent on destroying it.
>
> It doesn't matter what Microsoft wants to do with it. They are still
> licensing new copies today because they didn't have a choice. It isn't
> because they want too. Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
> Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan of any OS
> before or after it. <grin>
>

The Win7 XP Mode is Virtual PC with a bundled copy of XP (you could
obtain Virtual PC and then install a copy of XP under it and you would
have essentially the same thing, but that would "blow" a valuable ($100
to $300) XP product key; XP mode essentially gives you the copy of XP free).

XP mode will not work under Windows 7 Home premium; it requires Business
or Ultimate.

XP mode also requires a CPU with [I want to say "Intel"; but some AMD
CPUs have it also] "virtualization technology"; amazingly, some Intel
CPUs have this and some don't, and no one ever paid any attention to it
until now, so now it's a real "surprise" when it's missing, since it is
a feature whose implementation was so "hit or miss" that in some cases
more expensive CPUs lack it and less expensive CPUs have it. I have a
Core 2 Duo laptop that does not have it.

AJL wrote:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I don't remember any DOS v1.0
>
> DOS is a generic term. There were many variations of DOS. MS-DOS, PC
> DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS, JM-OS, and several others.
> There was a V1.0 for MS-DOS which is probably what the author intended
> to say.
>
>> Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
>> Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan
>> of any OS before or after it. <grin>
>
> Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
> your XP window... 8-O

Yes there was an MS-DOS 1.0; I have it, because I bought [NOT "Q-DOS"
but rather] "86-DOS" from SCP and I was sent MS-DOS 1.0 as an update (on
8-inch diskettes !!] And, anyway, MS-DOS and PC-DOS are the same thing
except for the basic interpreter that was included (PC-DOS' basic
required the IBM-PC's basic-in-ROM).

There were versions much earlier than you used.



BillW50 wrote:
> In news:cj3f451hj8qirkc51t1hu27qfkuo7jggs7@4ax.com,
> AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:22:02 -0700:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't remember any DOS v1.0
>> DOS is a generic term. There were many variations of DOS. MS-DOS, PC
>> DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS, JM-OS, and several others.
>> There was a V1.0 for MS-DOS which is probably what the author intended
>> to say.
>
> PC-DOS v1.0 was the same as QDOS v1.0. I don't believe there was a
> MS-DOS v1.0 ever. And I don't believe PC-DOS v1.0 was ever released. As
> IBM reworked much of the original and I don't believe they called the
> reworked version 1.0.
>
> The first MS-DOS version I used was v2.11. I was using DEC RT-11 and
> CP/M before that. I can't recall the earliest version of PC-DOS I used,
> but I know I had PC-DOS v3.3 and I liked MS-DOS v2.21 much better.
>
>>> Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
>>> Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan
>>> of any OS before or after it. <grin>
>> Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
>> your XP window... 8-O
>
> Naw... DOS was great but it never had the followers that XP did. Not
> even close. And XP is the standard that will haunt Microsoft for many
> years to come. And which all OS now and in the future will be measured
> against.
>

In news:h28bva$fcj$2@news.motzarella.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:14:49 -0400:
> Yes there was an MS-DOS 1.0; I have it, because I bought [NOT "Q-DOS"
> but rather] "86-DOS" from SCP and I was sent MS-DOS 1.0 as an update
> (on 8-inch diskettes !!] And, anyway, MS-DOS and PC-DOS are the same
> thing except for the basic interpreter that was included (PC-DOS'
> basic required the IBM-PC's basic-in-ROM).

For starters, the first IBM-PC came with PC-DOS and not MS-DOS. As IBM
bought the rights to it for $80,000 and they could make and sell as many
copies as they wanted. They was no reason for a MS-DOS v1, since there
was no other computers that it would run on, besides the ones that came
with PC-DOS and you already have that.

Yes Tim Patterson did work for SCP when he created QDOS. Which Bill
Gates bought from SCP for $50,000. And later Microsoft hired Tim
himself.

And no, the version numbers were different between PC-DOS and MS-DOS.
They did this on purpose so you wouldn't get the two confused. For
example, any DOS version (meaning MS-DOS or PC-DOS) v3.30 was just
PC-DOS and no MS-DOS version by that name.

Yes the early PC-DOS did not include Basic, while MS-DOS did and it was
called GWBasic. That reason was the real IBM-PC had Basic in ROM built
into the computer. As the BIOS tried to boot up from floppy first and if
that failed, booted Basic from ROM. MS-DOS didn't have this feature. But
it still had Basic on boot floppy.

I never heard of 86-DOS.

> There were versions much earlier than you used.

You mean earlier than I remember. Which is a big difference. As I
remember the first IBM-PC and it was a dog. It came with PC-DOS and not
MS-DOS. And it had no idea what a folder (aka subdirectory) was.

--
Bill
Gateway Celeron M 370 (1.5GHZ)
MX6124 (laptop) w/2GB
Windows XP Home SP2 (60GB HD)
Intel(r) 910GML (64MB shared)

In news:h28bda$dik$1@news.motzarella.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:05:12 -0400:
> No, Bill, there was MS-DOS version 1. It shipped with the original
> IBM-PC (version 2 shipped with the PC-XT, and introduced support for
> hard drives and folders).

Nope the original IBM-PC came with PC-DOS and not MS-DOS. As there was
no reason for MS-DOS anything since the IBM-PCs already came with
PC-DOS. That is until Compaq first reversed engineered the first IBM
clone by reverse engineering the only proprietary part called the IBM
BIOS. Then the whole clone market opened up and Bill Gates finally got
rich by selling MS-DOS versions.

> Re: XP SP2 vs. SP3; there is almost no OBVIOUS difference. But there
> are a lot of internal differences, almost all of them related to
> security. SP3 is simply the collection of all of the security updates
> that occurred over a roughly 3 year period. It plugs a lot of holes,
> but makes very few outward changes. If you had run "windows upgrade"
> religiously, you have most of it. But are you SURE that you didn't
> miss anything?

Well an updated SP2 doesn't break OE6 auto-compress mode for starters.
While SP3 does for one. And at least two of my SP2 systems has never
missed an update (well they skipped the SP3, IE7 and 8 and the .Net
updates). Neither has my SP3 system missed an update come to think about
it (just the .Net and IE updates).

> Microsoft has imposed some limits on the "power" of a system for it to
> be eligible for a "netbook" OS. I don't think that 1GB max memory is
> one of those limits; I recall that a 12" or smaller screen size was
> one of them. I have seen the list, and it's available online but I
> don't remember all of it's items.

Yeah well... I serious doubt Larry's claim that 1GB was one of them. As
if that is all it takes, I would be building 1GB machines and getting XP
licenses myself. <grin>

--
Bill
Windows XP Pro SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

"AJL" <55@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:kss945p94v9ibdf996quhfe4vgetuu4gm4@4ax.com...
> "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>you match the computer system to the job and the
>>netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for .
>
> More AJL predictions:
>
> Current netbooks will continue to morph into cheap tiny powerful full
> service laptops. (The horsepower race.)
>
> But the *real* 'net' books are coming soon. They will be much cheaper
> than current netbooks. They will be instant on, wireless, and have a
> simple non-MS OS. They will have basic applications but rely more on
> cloud computing. They will have no separate drives but rather use a
> working and flash RAM. And perhaps one proprietary port with dongle
> adaptors for current peripherals.
>
> Something like my Palm TX on steroids.... ;)

Then I will not be buying one thats for sure. To be able to run normal
mainstream software is a must for me.

Pete

In news:4a47cbac$0$2610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au,
Pete D typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:59:38 +1000:
> Then I will not be buying one thats for sure. To be able to run normal
> mainstream software is a must for me.

But Pete, they do this right now. At least the XP ones anyway. Those
Linux ones are a totally different story.

--
Bill
Windows XP Pro SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

"AJL" <55@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:lp6e45trgbjesh6qe9nhvlln7pncaa8m4t@4ax.com...
> "PeteD" <no@email.thanks_doug.biz> wrote:
>
>>Those that are having a reasonable enough experience [with Windows]
>>are hardly likely to feel a need to tell everyone about it now are they.
>
> Barry felt the need. That's what started this silly exchange... ;)
>


Doh!!!!

Actually my ASUS 1000H took about 12 seconds to install a 2Gb stick of RAM,
I am guessing he is buying the wrong product, I checked first and made sure
it also had a nice matte screen.

Pete

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:44:11 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > I have not heard that one (about the 1GB being a MS imposed limit)
> > although it might be true. But I'm more inclined to believe it's just a
> > cost issue. 512MB gives MUCH worse performance but, for XP, going up
> > from 1GB doesn't provide that much of a benefit.
> >
>
> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_hobbles_..._ram_limit.htm
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/31996-m...-ram-limit-on-
> netbooks.html
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/mic...book-hardware-
> limits,7889.html
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...49044840.shtml
>
> It's time to move on to Ubuntu and leave DOS 7 to die a natural death....

Actually for all practical purposes (MS-)DOS 7 died with Win9x - in
this specific case recommending Ubuntu or any other Linux-Distro is
like giving an answer to a question you couldn't know 'cause it hasn't
been asked... as long as you don't have much of clue what the OP plans
to do with his hardware, it doesn't make much sense to recommend the
software, for it might very well be that the OP has certain demands
that are better met by Windows (maybe he's used to MS-Office, loves to
play Diablo II, uses printer XYZ not supported by Linux yet) - an
unconditional recommendation like that is doing the more serious Linux
advocates a disservice...
....and before you jump to conclusions: my main OS is XP Pro (for
pragmatic reasons) but I have installations of Vista and Ubuntu in use
too and thanks to VBox superficially sampled Windows 7 RC, Kubuntu,
OpenSUSE, Fedora, Debian too...

>
> Ubuntu's current release runs like a scalded dog on a Samsung NC10
> netbook....(c;]

Maybe, but would the applications the OP might wish to use run under
Ubuntu too?

T.C.

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>I don't believe there was a MS-DOS v1.0 ever.

http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.shtml

http://www.linfo.org/ms-dos.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS#...ote-paterson-1

In news:qnkf45hr4j89u2i0gbjln7b333creeccv2@4ax.com,
AJL typed on :
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I don't believe there was a MS-DOS v1.0 ever.
>
> http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.shtml
>
> http://www.linfo.org/ms-dos.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS#...ote-paterson-1

First of all, show me a picture of MS-DOS v1.0. They called QDOS as
MS-DOS 1.0, but I never seen any MS-DOS v1.0 copies ever and I don't
know what good they were for anyway if they did exists. As they were
only good on the original IBM-PC anyway and they already had PC-DOS
anyway.

I and others wanted Gary Kildall to get off his butt to write CPM-86 for
the Intel 8086 chipset. Gary didn't care and luckily Tim Patterson did
so instead. Gary didn't care until the PC had taken off and then Gary
cared. Then he finally wrote CPM-86 and sold it for over 200 bucks a
piece. Almost nobody bought it of course since PC-DOS was far cheaper
and easier to use. Later CPM-86 became DR-DOS.

And I don't recall any versions of MS-DOS at least commercially before
Compaq created the first IBM clone. And that didn't happen until DOS v2
something from what I recall. Also I don't know if I would trust those
links. As some of them are wrong. I know, since I was there.

--
Bill
Windows XP Pro SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

BillW50 wrote:

> First of all, show me a picture of MS-DOS v1.0.

Ok here's the picture: 111000011000011000100... ;)