Subject: RE: dos 1.0

From: J Forbes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 00:25:01 2003

> From: Joe <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: dos 1.0
> > At 11:13 PM 7/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
 >>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>From: Karl Paul [mailto:[email-masked]]
 >>>
 >>>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

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 06:11:17 2003

>version is not hard to find.  What's fun is getting either running on a 

   That would be interesting especailly since neither version supported
sub-directories!

    Joe

---

From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 07:25:00 2003

>    That would be interesting especailly since neither version supported
and a fixed-size (112?) number of entries in the root directory.. fun ;-)

--f

---

From: "TeoZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 07:53:00 2003

What was the first usable DOS for systems with hard drives? I didnt start
using DOS until 3.x.

---

From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 08:10:00 2003

> What was the first usable DOS for systems with hard drives? I didnt start
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

---

From: Fred Cisin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 12:17:00 2003

> What was the first usable DOS for systems with hard drives? I didnt start

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     		[email-masked]

---

From: Fred Cisin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 12:28:00 2003

> 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)

---

From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 12:46:00 2003

> V2.00 introduced the concept of [nested] sub-directories
<snip>

Thanks for the clarification, Fred!  I once had a V1.0 and V1.25 kit,
but threw them away when I moved to the US.  Arrrgh.

--f

---

From: Fred Cisin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:06:00 2003

>    That would be interesting especailly since neither version supported

I remember one third party add-on that implemented USER NUMBERs, as in
CP/M

---

From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:16:00 2003

> I remember one third party add-on that implemented USER NUMBERs, as in
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

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 15:03:00 2003

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

---

From: Frank McConnell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 16:30:01 2003

> was in a different directory than the one that you were in)

Typo?  I remember MS-DOS 2.11? on the HP150A in 1983 supporting a
PATH environment variable which COMMAND.COM would use to search for
executable programs.  

-Frank McConnell

---

From: Fred Cisin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 17:52:01 2003

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Joe wrote:
> 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
What's it worth to you?

---

From: Fred Cisin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 18:04:00 2003

> PATH environment variable which COMMAND.COM would use to search for

No, I wasn't clear what I meant.
If you are in the \SUB1 directory, in DOS 2.xx, and you wanted to run WS
from the WORDSTAR directory, you had to either have \WORDSTAR listed in
your PATH command (environment variable), or do CD \WORDSTAR and THEN type
WS.
Starting with 3.00, you could type \WORDSTAR\WS to run it.
(2.xx did not permit a subdirectory path as part of the command portion of
the command line)

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 18:33:30 2003

>PATH environment variable which COMMAND.COM would use to search for

    I'm not sure when the PATH feature was added to IBM PC DOS but it
wasn't uncommon for different manufacturers to add features in different
versions. In fact, the same versions from different manufacturers seldom
had exactly the same features. Compaq always seemed to add features to
earlier versions of DOS than IBM did.

    Joe
>-

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 18:34:00 2003

>> lots of 2.1 and 2.11 but not 2.0.

   Absolutely zip!

    Joe

---

From: Fred Cisin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 18:42:01 2003

>    Absolutely zip!

Congratulations, you are now the high bidder!

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Jul 23 18:54:15 2003

>Congratulations, you are now the high bidder!
   Er, thanks :-/

    Joe