> Kai Kaltenbach wrote:
>>[...]
> Is this the same Kai that the "power goo" software was/is created by? Haven't
> seen the name in here before and guessing he's a recent signon? (I may just be
> on a drug flashback and imagining all of this)
I think you are talking about Kai Krause - he is already
living somehere in California :)
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
> Anyway, this plus a message from one of our own, results in an
> interesting question. How, in 1982 (or in 1980-81, when Project Acorn was in
> beta), would Microsoft have written and compiled DOS 1?
86-DOS (the base of MS-DOS 1.0) at least was developed on
a DEC 2020 station and transfered via serial line to an
INTEL ISIS system for writing Disks, or to the SCP 8086
S100 system for runntime tests.
Gruss
h.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
One of my recent time sink-hole projects is de-compiling DOS 1.1. I
figure that I needed a computing challenge :)
Anyway, this plus a message from one of our own, results in an
interesting question. How, in 1982 (or in 1980-81, when Project Acorn was in
beta), would Microsoft have written and compiled DOS 1?
I know that DOS as we know it was purchased from Tim Patterson of
Seattle Computing Products (Is this the right name? I don't have a copy of
one of my many Gates books handy.), so the source code in printed, magnetic,
or paper tape form would have existed. Would they have used a PC simulator
running on another computer (the same way they wrote BASIC for the Altair)?
Would they have waited to receive a beta unit to test/develop it live after
months of writing blind code based on IBM's specifications documents?
Anyway, I digress. I've pretty much finished the boot sector code, and
IBMBIO is done. So, now I'm working on IBMDOS. Does anyone know anything
about how early DOS versions loaded? Looking at the DOS1 code and comparing
it to DOS6 code, it seems like the DOS1 boot sector loads both BIO and DOS
back-to-back in memory (producing a single image, if you will), and then
jumps to BIO. DOS6, in comparison, the boot sector loads IO, which then
loads DOS.
Any thoughts? I felt this qualifies as "classic" since the file dates
are May 7, 1982 <g>
Rich Cini/WUGNET <nospam_rcini(a)msn.com>
- ClubWin! Charter Member
- MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
- Preserver of "classic" computers
<<<< ========== reply separator ========== >>>>>
At this point in CP/M and DOS development, it was common to use
an automated translation tool to convert 8080 and Z-80 assembler
to 8088 code. I believe this was used on early DOS, too. I remember
seeing the "signature" of this in disassemblies by the way something
was done less than efficiently.
- John
< Ok, so given that there are people out there who know about phone
< systems, how would I build a device that sat on the phone line and could
< detect whether the line was in use or not - it's extremely annoying when
< you have a modem and voice phone on the same line and your voice call
< gets interrupted by a burst of modem noise! :)
for this the US and euro systems are sufficiently the same.
<
< btw, this is for a UK system - I've seen curcuits to do exactly this
< job, but they never say whose phone systems their designed for, and I'd
< imagine that US and UK systems work with different setups....
the only thing you need to do is detect if the line voltage is above or
below some level. that point is best set mid way between battery off hook
and battery on hook (easily measured). The only other need is to do it such
that you do not load the line(or you look like your off hook) and can
withstand the ring without failing the circuit. Likely the circuits you've
sen will do that.
Allison
< I would _guess_ that MS-DOS was written and assembled on a CP/M system of
< some sort, until it was self-hosting. Although, it's also quite possible
< that MS-DOS was assembled on a QDOS system, since that's basically what
< it was :)
it could have been done under intel ISIS using the MDS-311 package or
IRMX-80 or IRMX-86 along with ICE pods. the 8088/86 was a already a
mature product by time IBM started the PC and there wre at least three
second sources. Also 8086 development tools from Intel, AMD and HP to
name a few were available. So developing 808x code was not a problem.
I know that as we built a system using 8088 at 8mhz to play with the
7220 GDC which was the hottest thing for graphics on one chip for before
the PC would escape into the world.
Allison
CL>> -tony
CL>>
CL> Well, it looks like I'm going to have to read up on terminals. I really kno
CL>little about them. It has baud rate settings on the back 300 - 19.2 . I'm
CL>surprised at the speed. I would have thought 2400 or at most 9600.
CL> Thanks for the help.
CL>ciao larry
CL>lwalker(a)interlog.com
The baud speed really isn't that surprising since 19.2 is the speed of
the Atari SIO.
> The voltages must remain the same in order to be compatible with old
> equipment per government regulations. Believe it or not there are still
> many people out there with old (ancient) rotary dial telephones.
a) Don't forget about these pseudo modern phones - keys, but
still emiting pulse scemes.
b) I had, until I switched to ISDN, still a 1927 Telephone
in every day use. Worked fine, even with the latest (analogue)
exchange :) - Noy I connect it via an a/b adaptor.
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
At 09:40 PM 7/16/98 +0100, Tony wrote:
>> Has anyone built any of David Heiserman's robots? He's written several robot
>> construction books. Some with hardwired logic, some with microcomputers.
>
>I don't think I've come across these - can you provided titles, etc, please
>
He wrote many, I think about all for TAB books, now part of McGraw Hill.
'Build your own working Robot', 1976. TTL, sorry my copy has been borrowed
and lost. Must still be much easier to find, at least in the U.S. than
"We Built our own Computers"
'How to build your own self-programming Robot', 1979. Used a 8085. Has a
convoluted final algorithm (to me) to determine responses.
'How to build your own working Robot, the second Generation', 1987. Still
TTL, about 30 ic's, 4 bits input (bumpers), 4 bits output (2 drive motors).
Other's I haven't seen are '101 Programming Surprises and Tricks for the IBM
PC'.
Of course today there are all sorts of robots with PIC microcontrollers, etc.
-Dave
< running on another computer (the same way they wrote BASIC for the Altair)
< Would they have waited to receive a beta unit to test/develop it live afte
< months of writing blind code based on IBM's specifications documents?
Likely they used a intel MDS800 running asm86 or PLM86. They could run
on intel ISB86 systems (multibus 8086 based). the 8086 was introdued in
'78 and available in '79 so hardware was not a problem. Heck they could
ahve used a Seattle Computers S100 8086 crate.
< it to DOS6 code, it seems like the DOS1 boot sector loads both BIO and DO
< back-to-back in memory (producing a single image, if you will), and then
< jumps to BIO. DOS6, in comparison, the boot sector loads IO, which then
< loads DOS.
<
< Any thoughts? I felt this qualifies as "classic" since the file dates
< are May 7, 1982 <g>
The monolithic load is an artifact of the CP/m heritage in general and
specifically CP/M1.4. It's effect was to make loading drivers difficult.
That resulted in later version loading the IO which is more extensable and
then using the io to load the DOS. I may add that CP/M2.x put more of the
burden in the bios and also seperated the load preocess more. Parallel
development.
Allison
