4 ms·
That OS/2 2.0 debacle was so bad BTW it is my favorite topic (especially the MS part). I mentioned before out that DR would not be easily be able to clone OS/2
by yuhong 9y ago
That OS/2 2.0 debacle was so bad BTW it is my favorite topic (especially the MS part). I mentioned before out that DR would not be easily be able to clone OS/2 as they did with DR-DOS.
- Zardoz84 9y agoDR-DOS not was a clone of MS-DOS. The truth is that was CP/M-86 that was added stuff to be MS-DOS compatible. I used DR-DOS 5 when I was a children and I remember that it worked better that MS-DOS 6. Sadly, Microsoft used these dirty trick that Windows 3.1 would autofail if detect any OS that isn't MS-DOS.
- yuhong 9y agoEarly versions of DR-DOS was (kind of), but eventually I think they redesigned the kernel to use true DOS data structures etc.
- Zardoz84 9y agoDR-DOS 5 keep having the old CP/M sauce like BDOS kernel renamed as "IBMDOS.COM". Other thing, would if they removed old CP/M stuff that was not necessary any more to run MS-DOS programs, but the source code keeps being a evolution of the old CP/M.
- einr 9y agoSadly, Microsoft used these dirty trick that Windows 3.1 would autofail if detect any OS that isn't MS-DOS. That code, while present in the codebase, was deactivated in the release version of Windows 3.1, so it actually ran just fine on DR-DOS.
- orionblastar 9y agoMS-DOS used CP/M-80 API calls so programmers could convert CPM to DOS programs. That is what I heard.
- pjmlp 9y agoYes, that was the case.