Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] New destructive virus (Win)'
Eric Smith wrote:
> Q-DOS, 86-DOS, and MS-DOS 1.x were inspired by various operating
> systems on DEC computers, such as TOPS-10, OS-8, and RT-11. MS-DOS
> 1.x had essentially no similarity to Unix whatsoever.
I was basing that on one of the "hooks" in MS-DOS which I understand
resembled a Unix-style scheduler call. This was a bit of orphan code as
the necessary scheduler data structures were missing, but as it was
described wherever I read it, suggested that someone had at least read
the basic Unix operating systems course lecture material. I certainly
can't quote my source as it was rather long ago and far away...
I'm not at all sure this was version 1.x either, but then version 1.x
appears to have had no influence on the PC beyond proof-of-concept
anyway? How many people have even seen a version 2.x?
> When they needed hierarchical directory support for hard drives, they
> did a disgusting job of sort of kludging it so that it has some
> trivial superficial similarities to Unix. However, this similarity
> was never more than skin deep.
Sure. It's hierarchical, and there ends all similarity. FAT instead
of Inodes, like TRS-DOS and presumably, CP/M (of which I know very
> MS Windows has no similiarity to the X window system to speak of.
> There is no sign that the developers had ever even seen X. X may not
> be perfect, but MS didn't even copy its good features.
I have a distinct feeling you're *not* defending M$-Win.
> If anything, Windows started as a poor attempt to clone the Macintosh,
> with some of Apple's less brilliant features omitted.
Are you asserting that they carefully left out the bad bits, or they
didn't manage to include *even* the bad bits?
Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
> anyway? How many people have even seen a version 2.x?
I have, on multiple machines <G> I like Compaq Dos 3.31 better,
though. I think I may have V1.1 or some such here someplace on floppy?
> > When they needed hierarchical directory support for hard drives, they
> > did a disgusting job of sort of kludging it so that it has some
> > trivial superficial similarities to Unix. However, this similarity
> > was never more than skin deep.
> Sure. It's hierarchical, and there ends all similarity. FAT instead
> of Inodes, like TRS-DOS and presumably, CP/M (of which I know very
Dos is not much like CP/M, really, IMHO.
|GRAEME SMITH email: freenet.edmonton.ab.cagrysmith
Address has changed with little warning!
(I moved across the hall! :) )
Email will remain constant... at least for now.
On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Mark Willis wrote:
> Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
> > <snipped>
> > anyway? How many people have even seen a version 2.x?
> I have, on multiple machines <G> I like Compaq Dos 3.31 better,
> though. I think I may have V1.1 or some such here someplace on floppy?
> Ick, though...
Me too.... Toshiba comes to mind... the ROM version was 2. something
> Dos is not much like CP/M, really, IMHO.
Actually, the CPM86 stuff, is only the BIOS level routines, what M$ did,
is build a "Command Parser" on top, (similar to Bash on Unix) that looks
nothing at all like CPM. IBM probably asked them to do this, so that they
could have a "Market Niche" that separated PC DOS from CP/M.
The neet thing about using a command parser on top of an operating system
is, of course that you can "Interpret" a Script file (Batch file in dos
parliance) which is especially useful at start-up. (How many of you would
be able to run windows without a mouse driver). I can, but it can be
really akward, and I can't seem to get the groups to close properly...
I think I forgot the magic key sequence ;)
This (scripts or batch files) gives quite a boost to serious programming
because it increases the number of ways you can set up your computer. A
freind of mine, that is still using a C64, can't understand why anyone
would want a computer to take a significant time booting up, but in the
same breath complains that he has to get around to replacing the ROM so it
doesn't screw up the colors when it reboots.... ;)
>> Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
>> > <snipped>
>> > anyway? How many people have even seen a version 2.x?
DOS 2 was what we all used before hard disks arrived - remember then?
Maybe most don't :-)
No - on reflection DOS 2 added hard disks, DOS3 added networks, DOS 4
added lots of fat, less speed and general un-niceness, DOS 5
corrected DOS 4, DOS6.0X added double space, DOS 6.2X took Double
Space away again and added Drive Space. (Maybe not quite right -
fairly close I think).
Somewhere in my laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge collection of olllllllllllld
360K 5.25" floppys I have a real bootable DOS 1 diskette (maybe more
than 1). I don't know which one it is and they are probably mostly
unreadable now due to fungal attack (which happens to floppy surfaces
if allowed to live in other than dry conditions!).
I'd like to locate and recover it one of these days as a memento of
the "good old days".
I'm joking of course (about the good old days - not about the DOS 1)
but can you now imagine a system that would actually load DOS AND run
a program with 16 KB RAM total. That was the original IBM PC.
(Someone will tell me that this was only possibly with the floppy
version - you needed 32K or 64K to boot DOS - dunno, may be so) - OK
ever seen a 64K system that could .... ?
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999
, 2000 only
- New search...