22 Jul
2003
22 Jul
'03
8:25 p.m.
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: RE: dos 1.0
> At 11:13 PM 7/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Karl Paul [mailto:karlpaul36@hotmail.com]
>>
>>I'm looking for the dos 1.0 manual and binder. I have the disk and
nothing
>>else. Anyone out there have a manual and binder
they would like to sell?
>>
>>This one shows up on e-Bay from time to time,
but at outrageous
prices...
>>-sigh-
I have one that I'll sell at an outragous price
:-) Mine even has thet
"rare" sticker on it that says "Version 1.1" and comes equiped with
the
"rare" DOS 1.1 disks.
The IBM PC DOS 1.00 manual seems to be quite rare indeed...the 1.10
version is not hard to find. What's fun is getting either running on a
hard drive in a 5150 :)
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
23 Jul
23 Jul
2:11 a.m.
At 10:22 PM 7/22/03 -0700, you wrote:
That would be interesting especailly since neither version supported
sub-directories!
Joe
From: Joe
<rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: RE: dos 1.0
> At 11:13 PM 7/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Karl Paul [mailto:karlpaul36@hotmail.com]
>>
>>I'm looking for the dos 1.0 manual and binder. I have the disk and
nothing
>>else. Anyone out there have a manual and
binder they would like to sell?
>>
>>This one shows up on e-Bay from time to
time, but at outrageous
prices...
>>-sigh-
I have one that I'll sell at an outragous
price :-) Mine even has thet
"rare" sticker on it that says "Version 1.1" and comes equiped with
the
"rare" DOS 1.1 disks.
The IBM PC DOS 1.00 manual seems to be quite rare indeed...the 1.10
version is not hard to find. What's fun is getting either running on a
hard drive in a 5150 :) 
3:53 a.m.
What was the first usable DOS for systems with hard drives? I didnt start
using DOS until 3.x.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <waltje(a)pdp11.nl>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: dos 1.0
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Joe wrote:
That would be interesting especailly since
neither version supported
sub-directories!
and a fixed-size (112?) number of entries in the root directory..
fun ;-)
--f 
4:10 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, TeoZ wrote:
What was the first usable DOS for systems with hard
drives? I didnt start
using DOS until 3.x.
V2.11 introduced the concept of [nested] sub-directories,
allowing
one to collect related files in "binders". There were some limits
as to the depth of the tree, but in all, with 2.11, the 5 and 10MB
disks of the time could be used without too much problems.
--f
8:28 a.m.
> What was the first usable DOS for systems with
hard drives? I didnt start
> using DOS until 3.x.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Fred N. van Kempen wrote:
V2.11 introduced the concept of [nested]
sub-directories, allowing
one to collect related files in "binders". There were some limits
as to the depth of the tree, but in all, with 2.11, the 5 and 10MB
disks of the time could be used without too much problems.
2.00 !
V2.00 introduced the concept of [nested] sub-directories
PC-DOS 2.10 added some other small miscellaneous, including slowing down
floppy access so as not to time out waiting for the Qume 142 drives used
in the PCJr and portable. (arguably the worst floppy drive EVER)
MS-DOS 2.11 (There was no PC-DOS 2.111) was intended to be the
customizable version for OEMs with other STRANGE hardware, such as 8x80
and 16x80 LCD screens (Gavilan) and BIZARRE drives, such as 720K 5.25"
and even 3.5"! (NOTE: EVERY OEM had their own version of 2.11. Sometimes
there was nothing unique about it, but often MODE.COM was seriously
different, and FORMAT.COM had to deal with any bizarre floppies that had
been added).
(NOTE2: PC-DOS did NOT support 720K (3.5") until PC-DOS 3.20)
EXCEPTION: PCJX (device driver on top of 2.10?)
PC-DOS 3.30 was the first to support 1.4M
(NOTE3: the next version that actively supported customization was MS-DOS
3.31. There was NO PC-DOS 3.31)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8:17 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, TeoZ wrote:
What was the first usable DOS for systems with hard
drives? I didnt start
using DOS until 3.x.
There were third party hard drives (with special add-on software) since
1.xx. (PC-DOS 1.00 and 1.10, MS-DOS 1.25) Somewhere, I still have a
Tallgrass external drive.
2.00 was the first to directly support hard drives, along with
hierarchical subdirectories, etc.
2.1x was INTENDED to be customizable. (laptops, different drives, etc.)
3.xx added support for path in executution (you could run a program that
was in a different directory than the one that you were in)
3.10 added the undocumented network redirector, which was also necessary
for the way that they implemented CD-ROMs. (The CD-ROM was seen as being a
VERY local network)
Each one also added additional floppy formats.
What was the first usable DOS
still waiting.
But 6.2x was my favorite, since it was the ONLY time that MICROS~1 EVER
released ANY product where the primary design goal was increased
reliability, instead of adding features.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
11:03 a.m.
IIRC the first one that supported sub-directories was DOS 2.1. Officaily
it was probably DOS 2.0 but I don't think I've ever seen 2.0. I've seen
lots of 2.1 and 2.11 but not 2.0.
Joe
At 08:48 AM 7/23/03 -0400, you wrote:
What was the first usable DOS for systems with hard
drives? I didnt start
using DOS until 3.x.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <waltje(a)pdp11.nl>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: dos 1.0
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Joe wrote:
>
> > That would be interesting especailly since neither version supported
> > sub-directories!
> and a fixed-size (112?) number of entries in the root directory.. fun ;-)
>
> --f
1:52 p.m.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Joe wrote:
IIRC the first one that supported sub-directories
was DOS 2.1. Officaily
it was probably DOS 2.0 but I don't think I've ever seen 2.0.
It WAS 2.00, and there WAS a 2.00 in both PC-DOS AND MS-DOS for a long
time. 2.00 came out along with the XT. PC-DOS 2.10 came out along with
the Jr and the "Portable" (Compaq wannabe based on the XT motherboard).
I've seen
lots of 2.1 and 2.11 but not 2.0.
What's it worth to you?
2:34 p.m.
At 03:47 PM 7/23/03 -0700, Fred wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Joe wrote:
Absolutely zip!
Joe
IIRC the first one that supported
sub-directories was DOS 2.1. Officaily
it was probably DOS 2.0 but I don't think I've ever seen 2.0.
It WAS 2.00, and there WAS a 2.00 in both PC-DOS AND MS-DOS for a long
time. 2.00 came out along with the XT. PC-DOS 2.10 came out along with
the Jr and the "Portable" (Compaq wannabe based on the XT motherboard).
I've seen
lots of 2.1 and 2.11 but not 2.0.
What's it worth to you?
9:16 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Fred Cisin wrote:
I remember one third party add-on that implemented
USER NUMBERs, as in
CP/M
I just checked my archive of mostly useless stuff, and found
a 20MB ZIP file claiming to be the DOS 6.0 source kit. It
indeed looks like a developer's personal backup of his/her
development tree.
Along with the usual suspects in there is the "COW" code, which
apparently means Character Oriented Windows .. ;)
--f
8018
days inactive
8018
days old
14 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
jforbes2＠mindspring.com -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
waltje＠pdp11.nl