Regarding #4, if you look at the releases source code for DOS 2.0 you will see compilation switches for PCD and MSD. I would need to look again but some were control code things, plus sign-on messages. I know IBM shipped different tools than MS too. http://www.classiccmp.org/cini Long Island S100 User?s Group Get Outlook<https://aka.ms/qtex0l> for iOS ________________________________ From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 12:44:26 PM To: Will Senn via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: IBM PC-DOS 2.10 explorations On 10/3/20 8:38 AM, Will Senn via cctalk wrote: 1 and 6:The folks at vcfed.org are far more involved into things PC; I would recommend that venue. 2. Interrupt 21 is the most hardware-independent way to perform console output. It is neither the fastest nor most flexible. Most MSDOS programs needing fast or full-screen control revert to writing into display memory directly, which is a bit more involved, but worth the effort. There are also INT 10h calls, but again, for text output, they can be very slow. 3. Can't address that one--I have 1.0 and 4.0 and later in my library; I'm not sure if I have the "gap" ones. MASM 1.0 was a huge mess; the product really didn't start to mature until 4.0. 4. MS-DOS 2.x had numerous variations, such as that employed for the NEC PC98 series of machines, as well as numerous other non-IBM PC platforms. As far as I know, PC-DOS was configured only to be compatible with IBM's own product line. 5. 3.3 was very popular in the day; one thing that it provided was a way to avoid some of the storage limitations of earlier versions. It also introduced quite a number of API additions (see Ralf Brown's interrupt list for details). --Chuck

On 10/3/20 11:44 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Thanks Chuck, I didn't know about vcfed. I'll head over there. Your points about display memory is helpful, as is the rest of your post. I appreciate it. will

On 10/3/20 4:07 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Great detail. I'll be playing around in the video memory. Int 21H is fine for printf style output, but I've never really played around with pages of data and this sounds like fun. Hmm. I'll give it a shot. Great detail, thanks. I am using a Thinkpad T430 w/DOS 6.22. If I can figure out how to get 3.31 on there, I'll give it a shot. I bought a Floppy-USB connector for my old 1.44 floppy drive and it works fine with DOS 6.22, but I'm not sure where to locate 3.31 media that I could burn onto a 1.44 floppy and boot. I have sealed IBM DOS 3.3 media, but I don't think my T430 is really compatible :). So, I'm not keen on opening the seal... Well, there's a thought. I have Turbo Pascal 3 and it works fine. I just like the feeling of running the old stuff. Thanks Fred! -- GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF

Richard, I'll look for the Compaq 3.31 3.5" image. Thanks! Will On 10/4/20 10:02 AM, Richard Cini wrote: -- GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF

On Sun, 4 Oct 2020, Richard Cini wrote: PS/2 came out with PC-DOS 3.30 But also an IBM push for OS/2 DOS versions according to media support (ignoring other IMPORTANT changes, such as file handles, hierarchical DIRectories, etc.) DOS 1.00 160k 40 tracks single sided 8 sectors per track. PC-DOS 1.10 MS-DOS 1.25 320K 40 tracks per side double sided 8 sectors per track. DOS 2.00 360K 9 sectors per track MS-DOS 2.11 customized by SOME OEMs 720K 3.5"; not all are same format as PC-DOS! DOS 3.00 1.2M DOS 3.10 CD-ROM "network redirector" DOS 3.20 720K DOS 3.30 1.4M MS-DOS 3.31 HDD >32M customized by OEMs PC-DOS 4.00 MS-DOS 5.00 first version sold RETAIL MS-DOS 6.00 PC-DOS 6.10 cartload of bundled third party add-ons MS-DOS 6.20 patched for reliability, including changing SMARTDRV to stop trashing disks (blamed on compression) MS-DOS 6.21 compression not provided (copyright lawsuit) MS-DOS 6.22 non-infringing compression Win98SE USB Note that 2.11 and 3.31, due to OEM customization will OFTEN have a different FORMAT program (different drives), and different MODE.COM (some had different video modes available). Sometimes some other bundled programs had differences. Note that DOS version is a numeral, a period, then a two digit decimal number. It is ALWAYS 2.10, NOT 2.1; 3.10, NOT 3.1, etc. What we call 2.1 is ACTUALLY version TWO point TEN! what we call 3.2 is ACTUALLY version THREE point TWENTY! what we call 3.31 is ACTUALLY version THREE point THIRTY-ONE! what we call 4.01 is actually version FOUR point ONE. MOV AH, 30h INT 21h returns the major version in AL. Print that. Then print a period. Minor version is in AH. print that as a 2 digit decimal number. 2.10 has AX: 0A02 3.10 has AX: 0A03 3.20 has AX: 1403 3.30 has AX: 1E03 3.31 has AX: 1F03 Note: SETVER (since 5.00) lets a version of DOS lie about its age. There's an important reason. When PC-DOS 1.10 came out, with double sided drives, people sometimes ran CHKDSK from DOS 1.00 (sometimes even having 1.00 CHKDSK on a 1.10 boot disk), which proceeded to "FIX" the disk into an unusable form. To prevent that and similar disasters, in addition to modifying CHKDSK to not make changes without confirmation, henceforth, EVERY program distributed with DOS had a MOV AH,30h/INT21h/CMP AX... so that programs could only run with "correct version of DOS. When they stopped including EXE2BIN.EXE and even LINK.EXE with DOS, it became necessary to either step on the version checking code (with DEBUG.COM) or use SETVER. I'll do a separate post about DRIVER.SYS and DRIVPARM. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

On Sun, 4 Oct 2020, Ali wrote: When IBM announced 3.20, I stood in line outside the IBM retail store in Oakland for the doors to open. Support of 3.5" was important to me. We need to differentiate between Retail Sales BY MICROSOFT, V manufacture and WHOLESALE sales by Microsoft to OEMs for them to retail. With a WIDE variety of different packagings, ranging from personalized to the OEM (Compaq, Zenith, Morrow, etc.), very generic, and even packaging that would not be out of place for a Microsoft retail sale. I was unaware of DOS Retail sales done directly by Microsoft prior to 5.00. Although MANY OEMs would sell to anybody with money, most vendors at shows, and even stores, were acquiring their inventory from OEMs. They wouldn't really be called "GRAY MARKET" unless Microsoft's terms with the OEM had precluded that. But, if you have reason to believe that your copies came directly from Microsoft, not through an OEM, OR came through a retail store that had no affiliation with an OEM, then I need to revise my perception of when Microsoft started to retail DOS. Has anybody ever seen a retail price list or RETAIL SALES (V product) ad? (write/call to purchase) YES, I can be TOTALLY WRONG. I felt the elephant's tail and smelled the region, but did not have the big picture. I had even previously speculated that the 1991 date of 5.00 might reflect 10 year non-competition terms in the original IBM/Microsoft contract(s). Microsoft certainly did have capability of retail, at least for SOME products. Did they RETAIL the Softcard, or only Wholesale? In 1979?, Lifeboat (that Microsoft had redirected me to) had repeatedly failed to fulfill an urgent need for multiple copies of the new Microsoft Fortran for TRS80, On the way back from the eclipse in Montana, I made a stop, and a friend (Bob Wallace) who worked for Microsoft handed me the very first couple of copies in the Seattle airport. The handoff WITHIN state of Washington should have prevented sales tax exemption for interstate commerce. It could still be exempt due to being FOR RESALE (although THAT should have required me to fill out forms with the WA state taxman), so they might have written it up as being interstate (legal if they called me a courier, rather than the customer?) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

The picture referenced is for an aftermarket version of DOS. The retail versions came in fancy white boxes with hologram logos. I can probably take a picture of one in my warehouse, if you need it. Cindy On 10/5/20 3:04 PM, Ali via cctalk wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020, Cindy Croxton via cctalk wrote: Do you happen to have any boxed copies of 3.30/1 or 5.0 for sale by chance? Thanks! g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

When 5150, 5160, and 5170 first came out, 3.5" drives did not yet exist. OEMs that were early adopters of them used MS-DOS 2.11. The disk format was not always the same as what IBM used starting with DOS 3.20. For example, GAVILAN MS-DOS 2.11 supported 720K 3.5", but with a different format until version 2.11K (by which time the company had collapsed) When IBM introduced their 720K 3.5" drives, along with PC-DOS 3.20, they also started selling add-on 3.5" drives! First an external with DC37 connector, and then later externals for PS/2. Those could be connected to the external floppy port of 5150 and 5160. BUT, DOS didn't know from 720K, and would do a 360K image on the drive. Until TOLD otherwise. DRIVER.SYS was an installable device driver, starting with DOS 3.20, for using unexpected drive types (such as not included in the AT CMOS), since 5150, 5160, 5170 all had hardware that could handle 720K 3.5". And 5170 hardware could handle 1.4M before that was included in early BIOS CMOS. DEVICE = DRIVER.SYS /D:1 /F:2 told DOS to create a new additional drive letter for 720K in the physical second FLOPPY drive. /D: specified drive (0 - 255, although stock controller only did 0 - 3) /F: specified drive type 0 - 160 K/180 K or 320 K/360 K 1 - 1.2 megabyte 2 - 720 K (3.5" disk or 80 cylinder low density 5.25 (NOT used in USA)) 3 - SD 8" (not supported on all) 4 - DD 8" (not supported on all) 5 - Hard disk 6 - Tape 7 - 1.44 MB (3.5" disk) 8 - Read/write optical disk 9 - 2.88 MB (3.5" disk) drive type could also be specified by /T:, /S:, /H: for cylinders, sectors per track, and sides; BUT it would NOT let you create as needed; it only used that data to look for a match in the existing list. For example, if you told the 5170 that the 8" drive was a 1.2M (not all recognized type 3 and 4), could you tell it 77 tracks V 80? (Similar situation in FORMAT) And some later systems permitted /F:720, etc., since "who can remember drive type NUMBER?" On SOME systems, you could substitute DRIVPARM = /D:1 /F:2 for similar effect. Same switches as DRIVER.SYS. EXCEPT, DRIVPARM would alter the parameters for existing drive letter, NOT create a new drive letter. See also, LASTDRIVE (With 4 floppies, CD-ROM(s), HDD(s), parallel port drive(s), Floptical(s) on SCSI, RAMDISK(s), etc., didn't want to waste drive letters) DRIVPARM was not documented in PC-DOS I still don't understand: On a 5170, with IBM BIOS ROMs using MS-DOS, DRIVPARM would produce an "UNRECOGNIZED CONFIG.SYS COMMAND" message. On a 5170, with IBM BIOS ROMs using PC-DOS, DRIVPARM would produce an "UNRECOGNIZED CONFIG.SYS COMMAND" message. On a 5170, with NON-IBM BIOS ROMs using MS-DOS, DRIVPARM would work correctly. On a 5170, with NON-IBM BIOS ROMs using PC-DOS, DRIVPARM (UNDOCUMENTED) would work correctly. Notice that with the NON-IBM BIOS, it would work with MS-DOS OR PC-DOS. "Lack of existence in PC-DOS" was NOT an issue. With the IBM BIOS ROMs, it would not work, disunirregardless of MS-DOS V PC-DOS. Therefore, it seems that it was present in BOTH versions of DOS (albeit undocumented in PC-DOS), but had a strange incompatability with the IBM BIOS ROMs. And, especially strange that the error message seemed to clearly be an OS problem. All of the software changes for 720K 3.5" would also work for 5.25" low density 80 track per side 720K drives. (What had the comical "QUAD DENSITY" name in many CP/M systems) Drives such as Tandon TM100-4, TEAC 55F, Shugart/Panasonic/Matsushita 465. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

On Sun, 4 Oct 2020, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: THANK YOU! That provides some clues about the issue of BIOS, not DOS, incompatability.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2020, Will Senn wrote: I'm curious. 6.22 did not have native USB support - that didn't come about until WIN98SE. Are you running CONFIG.SYS drivers for it? If you can find an original copy of COMPAQ MS-DOS 3.31, that was originally available on 1.2M and 1.4M Zenith MS-DOS 3.31 is another popular choice. Try to find it, rather than opening the PC-DOS 3.30. 3.30 (and all earlier) did not support HDD >32M, although there were ways to cheat that limitation, such as the network redirector (with MSCDEX) coul make a local drive LOOK like it was a network drive elsewhere. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com