I will never forget Windows ME. Bleargh!
Dave
I wrote PC BIOS code for Phoenix Technologies from 1996 to 2023, we had to suffer through every Windows release as old stuff broke and had to be fixed.
________________________________
From: Fred Cisin <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 6:05 PM
To: David Wise <d44617665(a)hotmail.com>
Cc: Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
Sorry,
I can never remember which is which between Windows 2000
and Windows ME ("Millenium Edition")
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, David Wise wrote:
> I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.
>
> Dave Wise
> ________________________________
> From: Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 5:21 PM
> To: Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Cc: Fred Cisin <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
>> I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
>> – US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM’s version
>> thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, moreso than what
>> 8-bit machines could do!
>
> Ah, but there is so much more to the story, which deserves an entire
> chapter in the history.
>
> More than you wanted to know? : (but even more details available if you really want them)
>
> Tim Paterson, of Seattle Computer Products was developing 8086 hardware,
> but CP/M-86 was delayed. So, he wrote a temporary place-holder to use
> instead of CP/M-86 until CP/M-86 became available. That was called
> "QDOS", "Quick and Dirty Operating System". Later it became known as
> "SCP-DOS" and/or "86-DOS"
>
> Then came the "culture clash" between IBM and Digital Research
> (previously known as "Intergalctic digital Research"). That has been
> documented elsewhere; some claim that there was not a culture clash, nor
> an error.
>
> So, Microsoft (possibly Bill Gates personally) went down the street to
> Seattle Computer Products, and bought an unlimited license for 86-DOS
> "that we can sell to our [un-named] client"
>
> Tim Paterson, who later opened "Falcon Technologies" and Seattle Computer
> Products both also retained licenes to be able to sell "the
> operating system". Note that the version was not specified, as to whether
> such license would include rights to sell updated versions; that error
> (failure to specify whether future/derivative products were included) has
> been repeated elsewhere (cf. Apple/Microsoft)
>
> Microsoft also hired Tim Paterson to maintain and update "MS-DOS".
>
> Microsoft sold a license to IBM, where it became PC-DOS.
> And, it was available through Lifeboat as "86-DOS"
>
> In August 1981, when the PC (5150) was released, IBM started selling
> PC-DOS. But digital Research was not happy with IBM selling a copy of
> their operating system.
> In those days, selling a copy was legal, if the internal code was not
> copied. (hence the development of "clean-room reverse engineering")
> It wasn't until the Lotus/Paperback Software (Adam Osborne)
> lawsuit that "look and feel" became copyrightable.
>
> So, IBM agreed to also sell CP/M-86 IN ADDITION to selling PC-DOS.
> . . . and sold UCSD P-System.
>
> But CP/M-86 was STILL not ready, so everybody bought PC-DOS, many of whom
> planned to switch to CP/M-86 when it became available.
> But, when CP/M-86 was finally ready, the price was $240 vs $40 for PC-DOS.
> There are arguments about whether IBM or Digital Research set that price.
> Although, if that price was IBM's idea, then why did Digital Research
> charge $240 for copies sold through other sources (such as Lifeboat)?
>
>
> Initially MS-DOS and PC-DOS differed only in name and trivial items, such
> as "IO.SYS" and "MSDOS.SYS" being renamed "IBMBIO.COM" and "IBMDOS.COM"
> When changes were made, Microsoft's and IBM's version numbers were
> separated.
> Thus 1.00 was the same for both
> IBM released PC-DOS 1.10, and Microsoft released MS-DOS 1.25
> 2.00 was the same for both
> 2.10 VS 2.11 (IBM needed trivial changes to 2.00 to deal with the
> excessively slow Qumetrak 142 disk drives in the PC-Junior and "portable"
> 3.00 was the same
> 3.10, adding network support and the "network redirector for CD-ROMs
> 3.20 VS 3.21, adding "720K" 3.5" drive support
> 3.30 VS 3.31, BUT 3.31 was the first to support larger than 32Mebibyte drives!
> 4.00 and 4.01 IBM/Microsoft did not provide third party vendors enough
> advanced warning, so Norton Utilities, etc. did not work on 4.00 (NOT
> 4.00 did not work with Norton Utilities!)
> 5.00
> In 6.00 each company bundled a whole bunch of third party stuff (such as
> disk compression) and each got them from different sources.
> When Microsoft's disk compression was blamed for serious problems caused
> by SMARTDRV, Microsoft released 6.20 (repaired and reliability improved
> from 6.00).
> Then 6.21 and 6.22 as a result of Microsoft's legal case with Stac
> Electronics.
>
>
> Please note that MS-DOS/PC-DOS ALWAYS had a version number, a period, and
> then a TWO DIGIT DECIMAL sub-version number. THAT is what is stored
> internally. Thus, 1.10 is stored as ONE.TEN (01h.0Ah), 3.31 is actually
> THREE.Thirty-ONE (03h.1Fh), etc.
> If there had ever actually been a "1.1" or "3.2", those would have been
> 01h.01h (1.01) and 03h.02h (3.02), etc.
> "1.1" was NOT the same as "1.10", nor "3.2" the same as "3.20", otherwise
> VERY minor changes would be confused with serious changes, as happened
> when some people called 4.01 "four point one".
>
>
> Later still, Seattle Computer Products was on the rocks. There was some
> speculation that AT&T might buy it, to get the DOS license (and not have
> to pay royalties per copy!). After some legal animosity, Microsoft did
> the right and smart thing, and bought Seattle Computer Products, thus
> closing that vulnerability.
>
> Windows originally started as an add-on command processor and user
> interface on top of DOS. Windows95 made that invisibly seamless, so the
> user never saw a DOS prompt without explicitly asking for it. Windows 95
> still contained DOS (7.00), but the user never saw it.
>
>
> Gordon Letwin at Microsoft developed OS/2. But Microsoft sold it off to
> IBM, and it became known as an IBM product.
> Microsoft used some key technology from it in developing WindowsNT.
> Within Microsoft's offerings, NT competed with non-NT windows, such as
> Windows95, Windows98, and Windows2000.
> Windows[NT] Vista, XP, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 continued, and the old Windows was
> "deprecated'.
>
>
> Naming a version after the year it is released is great for sales in the
> first year, and a serious liability in subsequent years, unless there is
> actually going to be a new version every year (as automobiles do)
>
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
Did not show up on the list, so I am forwarding another copy;
sorry if there are duplicates
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
> US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM's version
> thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, moreso than what
> 8-bit machines could do!
There are conflicting reports that list that price as $25,000, $50,000, or
$75,000, although there is suppoirt for each
for example:
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=99
"for $50,000 or $75,000, depending on how the cost is calculated."
The price that IBM paid Microsoft is stated variously as $25,000, $50,000, to
$430,000
Great detail, but a few items are arguable:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-rise-of-dos-how-microsoft-got-the-ibm-pc-os-…
"By most accounts, Nishi was the one most strongly in favor of Microsoft
getting into the operating system world. Allen said in his autobiography Idea
Man that Gates was less enthusiastic. Allen called Seattle Computer Products
owner Rod Brock and licensed QDOS for $10,000 plus a royalty of $15,000 for
every company that licensed the software."
"In Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM, Sams is quoted as saying Gates told him
about QDOS and offered it to IBM. "The question was: Do you want to buy it or
do you want me to buy it?" Sams said. Since IBM had already had decided to go
with an open architecture, the company wanted Microsoft to purchase QDOS.
Besides, Sams said, "If we'd bought the software, we'd have just screwed it
up."
"According to Allen, under the contract signed that November, IBM agreed to pay
Microsoft a total of $430,000, including $45,000 for what would end up being
called DOS, $310,000 for the various 16-bit languages, and $75,000 for
"adaptions, testing and consultation."
In contrast, the TV "Pirates of the Valley" made the false and absurd claim
that bill Gates cold-called IBM to convince them to get an operating system!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
I have Norton Utilities on 5.25" floppies. I don't have a drive so I
don't know whether they're readable. They're yours if you send me a PDF
of a shipping label for 8"x10"x1" 8oz.
Van Snyder
2229 Shields Street
La Crescenta, CA 91214
van.snyder(a)sbcglobal.net
Hello all,
we now have a RM03 drive, but are missing all the cables and the RH11
backplane, though I have the cards.
Since the drive itself is a CDC 9762 I was wondering if I could ignore the
Massbus adapter in the drive cabinet and use the CDC as a "normal" SMD
drive (at least it uses the standard 60+26 pin cables).
There are no service manuals/schematics of the drive itself, so I can't
look there. And all I could find on the net were discussions of using the
Massbus adapter for normal SMD drives but in my case, I don't want Massbus
at all.
Christian
Would anyone like to rescue a vintage Pick minicomputer in Manitoba, Canada?
https://discuss.systems/@ahelwer/112836345012817998
«
A wide ask here so please boost: my grandfather is trying to get rid of
an old business computer, and I was wondering whether any vintage
computer people might want it. It was purchased for $50k from The
Ultimate Corporation in the early 80s. This ran the Pick operating
system, and my best guess is the hardware was originally manufactured by
GE or Honeywell. It's about the size of a half-rack and currently lives
in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. It has sat covered in plastic in a
chemical warehouse for the past 35 years. Where do people usually post
stuff like this other than here? Thanks!
»
--
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
IoM: +44 7624 227612 ~ UK: +44 7939-087884
ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
"So... my recommendation is to look over schematics for differences. I
think there are some."
I have some RM03's and a 9762, and this matches my understanding of these drives also, in other words one or more of the cards in the RM drive itself were modified, meaning that the MASSBUS interface doesn't connect to the drive over a standard SMD interface. These cards (in the drives) are not very large or complex, I'm guessing it should be possible to identify the differences. Also please don't discard the MASSBUS adapters - they're probably of interest to the community!
Recently people repeatedly mentioned relay computers.
There is a very nice 8-bit relay computer implementation by Joe Allen. The
computer looks and feels like the microprocessor trainer boards of the 70s.
The CPU is implemented in 83 relays. Memory, front panel interface and
serial port are implemented in a MicroChip PIC and a few ICs. This is a
fully functional computer with a well thought out instruction set.
Here is a link to a YouTube video showing the relay computer in operation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1hJoalcK68
Here is the SourceForge project page: http://relaysbc.sourceforge.net/
Joe used to sell the bare PCBs with programmed MicroChip PIC on Tindie and
Ebay, but it seems he no longer has any PCBs left.
Here is the Tindie link:
https://www.tindie.com/products/jhallen/single-board-relay-computer/
Enjoy!
Tom
Hi all!
Me and my buddy are building an Apple I replica, for now successfully.
Recently we have tested the video signal :) However, we are having big
problems (as you can imagine) with finding Signetics 2519 chips. I know
many ordered them in bulk, so I would be thankful for any help (we have US
address) or information.
As for the other components, the 74160, 7450 and DS0025C are the blockers
at this moment. These we would probably find much easier (already did
actually, just looking to maybe get them from the same source).
Thanks in advance,
Igor
As above. Looking for a 14" SA-4008 for testing with the Ohio Scientific CD-23 disk system. We're at the point with it that we can get known good data off (we see FORTH source in it) but can't boot and get errors off some of the sectors/tracks. I'd like to be able to try and initialize it, but the SA-4008 I have contains useful information that we don't want to destroy!
Thanks,
Jonathan
One idea I've had for a number of years now is to use a PLC to simulate
a relay computer. Seems like it would be a fun project. While I have the
PLC, the time and motivation to do it is currently escaping me. The idea
came as I was looking at the Simon computer construction project from
one of the electronics magazines.
Marvin
