In news:c4ednfWkgbIhbtrXnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com ,
AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:50:34 -0600:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> First of all, show me a picture of MS-DOS v1.0.
>
> Ok here's the picture: 111000011000011000100... ;)

1,847,492 (dec)? lol

I actually did a search for images on Google for MS-DOS v1.0 and it
didn't have anything doing with MS-DOS v1.0. Tried the new Bing.com by
Microsoft and I didn't see any images either. You would think if it
really existed, somebody would have at least a picture of the floppies.
Seems kind of like little green men, eh?

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

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

>You would think if it [MS-DOS V1.0] really existed,
>somebody would have at least a picture of the floppies.

So a picture is the only thing that will make you believe?

>Seems kind of like little green men, eh?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/...25a878d3b0.jpg

So now do you believe in little green men? ;)

AJL <55@fakeaddress.com> wrote in news:cj3f451hj8qirkc51t1hu27qfkuo7jggs7@
4ax.com:

> "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
>

Remember DoubleDOS that let you run two programs at once on an 8088?....
(c;]

That's pretty radical since iPhone doesn't support multitasking....hee hee.



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in news:4a47cbac$0$2610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-
newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

> To be able to run normal
> mainstream software is a must for me.
>

Precisely the reason I usually carry my Samsung NC10, even if I'm pocketing
the Nokia N800 Linux tablet, too.



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

Barry Watzman wrote:
> I do not agree with your views on the wisdom of waiting for "SP1"
>
> There was nothing "Horrible" about Vista (SP0 ... original).

Piece of crap that should have never gone to market. Period. Name me one
single corp that is running it internally. The networking and playing
well with others is atrocious. Besides a resource intensive cartoon GUI,
it shows me no improvement on what was already offered by XP.
Vista did not enhance my experience, but it sure made me a lot of money
downgrading it.

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

This is correct for the most part.

>
> 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).

ME was serviceable if you knew what to turn off. This was another Vista
moment. The so called enhancements from WIN95 weren't enough to make it
the next sliced white bread.
>
> 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.

Development is development. Technology inherently begs for the next
version. The problem is, a lot of of what is advertised as an
enhancement or improvement is just the same old **** in a different
wrapper. That's just the way it is.

That said, I love XP for what is, and what it has become, a sturdy
workhorse. W2K as well. It works plain and simple.

Vista has shown me what bloat is. I don't need most of what it contains
and the extra resources needed to run it could be used for more
productive applications.

Linux has shown me both innovation on the tiny and useful scale and what
is possible when innovation isn't strictly precipitated buy making a buck.

Perhaps, just maybe W7 get's it right. Where the trade off between
resources and utility make it addition to the toolshed, otherwise I'll
stick with my old shovel.
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Barry Watzman wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, it seems that only the 'premium' C2Ds have it. Oddly my home-built
desktop CPU doesn't (E7300) but my ThinkPad T60 does (T7400) even though the
desktop CPU is a a couple of years newer than the laptop CPU and is a
die-shrink (45nm) of the original C2D. <shrug>

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
[snipped]

> Micro$oft's products
>
> Micro$oft

Eeek! The sign of the OS warrior! The inability to spell Microsoft without
prejudice.

After years of usenetting in general and in comp groups in particular I've
learned to ignore everything written about OSes by such a person. All you
get is one-eyed biggotry.
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>> 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.
>
> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6 auto-compacing
> mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And Microsoft doesn't support
> OE at all anymore, so there will never be a Microsoft fix for it.
> Which might be one reason to stick with SP2. <grin>

Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.

Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just fine.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

In news:h2950g$jim$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6 auto-compacing
>> mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And Microsoft doesn't
>> support OE at all anymore, so there will never be a Microsoft fix
>> for it. Which might be one reason to stick with SP2. <grin>
>
> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
> stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>
> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
> fine.

Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed anyway.
And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is much smaller.
Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even install SP3 on my 4G
SSD machines because there isn't even enough room. Even if I use the
recovery disc to start over, that only leaves 400MB worth of room. SP3
claims it needs at least 450MB. Although I believe it actually needs at
least double this amount when I installed it on one of my 8G machines.

I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE newsgroup.

Want to see something odd? My machines report:

SP2 v5.1.2600
SP3 v5.1.2600

SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange to
you?

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

In news:8r3g45tpluvs2qfvb1nvpgud1p8bbnm761@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:16:06 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> You would think if it [MS-DOS V1.0] really existed,
>> somebody would have at least a picture of the floppies.
>
> So a picture is the only thing that will make you believe?
>
>> Seems kind of like little green men, eh?
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/...25a878d3b0.jpg
>
> So now do you believe in little green men? ;)

A picture would help a great deal. As I have no idea what one would use
MS-DOS v1.0 for, since the only machines it would run on was IBM-PCs
anyway. And they already have PC-DOS. So who would want to buy MS-DOS
v1.0? See my point? There is no reason for MS-DOS v1.0 at all. There was
no market for it. Not until Compaq created the first clone anyway.

Also thanks for the fake picture of a green alien. I was actually
expecting a fake picture of MS-DOS v1.0 on a CD or a 3.5 inch floppy.
lol

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

Re: "There was no reason for a MS-DOS v1, since there was no other
computers (besides the IBM-PC) that it would run on"

Not correct; MS-DOS was running on the S-100 hardware sold by SCP
(Seattle Computer Products; the authors of 86-DOS). They sold hardware
(computers and boards) as well as the OS. Orderable versions also ran
on other systems; there was a version for a complete CompuPro (Godbout)
system, and for generally almost any S-100 system with an 8086 (or 8088)
CPU and either a Tarbell or a Cromemco disk controller.

Also, I still have a retail boxed copy of MS-DOS 3.30 right here. So
the statement that there was no such creature is incorrect (if anyone
wants a photo of the box, contact me by E-Mail).

Both PC-DOS and MS-DOS included Basic, but they were different Basics.
The PC-DOS basic made calls to the Basic in ROM of the IBM-PC, and thus
would not run on non-IBM hardware.

86-DOS is the preferred name for what you call Q-DOS; it is the name on
the diskettes and all of the documentation. Q-DOS (or is it QDOS?) was
only used internally during development. It had been abandoned even by
version 0.33, and possibly by version 0.10 or earlier.

BillW50 wrote:
> 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.
>

A lot of what you are posting is simply wrong.

From 1978 to 1983 I was with Heathkit and Zenith Data Systems and was
the product line director for all computers and their operating systems.
We had contracts with both Digitial Research and Microsoft for all of
their products, the same contracts that other OEMs had, and I personally
knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates. And, as a
hobbyist, on my own, I bought 86-DOS and the hardware to run it on
directly from Seattle Computer Products (this was a personal purchase,
not directly related to my employment, and I still have both that
hardware and the software).

In all of that, I had NEVER heard of QDOS until recently. The product
was always referred to as 86-DOS. QDOS (Q-DOS?) (Quick and Dirty
Operating System, I believe) was the initial name that was used
internally, but that name was abandoned early ... before I bought the
product (from an ad in BYTE magazine), and I have version 0.33 and
possibly version 0.10 (up through version 2.0 .... all supplied on
8-inch diskettes). There was a version 1.0 of the product, although it
might have still been called 86-DOS and not MS-DOS. I know that I have
an MS-DOS version 1.25 which was supplied as the "crossover" to SCP
customers to transition them to being "Microsoft" customers.

Digital Research had CP/M-86 out at approximately the same time if not
earlier (my recollection is that CP/M-86 was available in 1980 or,
absolutely definitely by 1981). However, DR did not initially offer
CP/M-86 preconfigured for the IBM-PC, in order to not be competing with
IBM. But when IBM refused to price CP/M-86 and PC-DOS the same, that
eventually forced DR to release a boxed retail CP/M-86 preconfigured for
the IBM-PC at a reasonable price (I don't recall the exact price, but it
was something like $40; I still have a couple of those here).

I was there also. And probably closer to the situation and the
principals then you were.


BillW50 wrote:
> 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.
>

Standard IBM 8-inch SSSD diskettes, the kind the whole world was using
at the time, the kind commonly used by CP/M. Soft sector, 77 tracks of
26 sectors per track (128-byte sectors).


Larry wrote:
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h28bva$fcj$2
> @news.motzarella.org:
>
>> 8-inch diskettes !!]
>
> Hard or soft sectored??
>

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h2950g$jim$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@74.209.131.13,
>>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>>> 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.
>>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6 auto-compacing
>>> mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And Microsoft doesn't
>>> support OE at all anymore, so there will never be a Microsoft fix
>>> for it. Which might be one reason to stick with SP2. <grin>
>> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
>> stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>>
>> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
>> fine.
>
> Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed anyway.
> And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is much smaller.
> Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even install SP3 on my 4G
> SSD machines because there isn't even enough room. Even if I use the
> recovery disc to start over, that only leaves 400MB worth of room. SP3
> claims it needs at least 450MB. Although I believe it actually needs at
> least double this amount when I installed it on one of my 8G machines.
>
> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
> experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE newsgroup.
>
> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>
> SP2 v5.1.2600
> SP3 v5.1.2600
>
> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange to
> you?
>
your original Windows build is the same as it ever was = v5.1.2600

SP3 is just a benchmark position that identifies it has the been applied
as far a security patches as concerned.

You used on an Intel MDS development system with an 8086 CPU.

OR ...

You used it on a CompuPro (Godbout) system with either an 8086 CPU or
with the CompuPro 85/88 CPU card (which was extremely popular at the time).

OR ...

You used it in an S-100 system with the SCP 8086 board set (available as
individual S-100 cards or sold as a complete system called the "Gazelle")

I have version 1.0, but I do think that it's still labeled 86-DOS; I
think that the first version labeled as MS-DOS was 1.25 (this is from
memory, I'd have to hunt up the diskettes to be sure).



BillW50 wrote:
> In news:8r3g45tpluvs2qfvb1nvpgud1p8bbnm761@4ax.com,
> AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:16:06 -0700:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> You would think if it [MS-DOS V1.0] really existed,
>>> somebody would have at least a picture of the floppies.
>> So a picture is the only thing that will make you believe?
>>
>>> Seems kind of like little green men, eh?
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/...25a878d3b0.jpg
>>
>> So now do you believe in little green men? ;)
>
> A picture would help a great deal. As I have no idea what one would use
> MS-DOS v1.0 for, since the only machines it would run on was IBM-PCs
> anyway. And they already have PC-DOS. So who would want to buy MS-DOS
> v1.0? See my point? There is no reason for MS-DOS v1.0 at all. There was
> no market for it. Not until Compaq created the first clone anyway.
>
> Also thanks for the fake picture of a green alien. I was actually
> expecting a fake picture of MS-DOS v1.0 on a CD or a 3.5 inch floppy.
> lol
>