5 ms·

Why only 2.0, not 6.22?

by miffe 8y ago

chungy 8y ago
Not speaking from any authority, but I'd imagine because 6.22 can still be useful in certain applications and Microsoft would still want to exploit that. Then again, there's FreeDOS which happens to be used in a ton of places that MS-DOS otherwise would be (BIOS update disks, car radios, etc)
- mdip 8y ago
  Glad someone else started the whole "Not speaking from any authority", so I'll follow your lead... (-: In addition to said usefulness, it doesn't necessarily have to even be something that Microsoft may consider useful to keep as IP, and -- here it comes -- not speaking from any authority but I recall that there were some components that Microsoft may not have the complete ownership of in these later versions of MS-DOS; I'm not sure if these components are so critical that releasing it without them would make it unusable, or if it would just involve a lot of effort on the code side to do so (and then on the audit side to make sure it was really done[0]). Those companies may not exist any longer to even get the appropriate permission from ... though they have a way of popping out of the woodwork when there's a large corporation that could be sued. Even if memory serves me wrong, and these later versions of MS-DOS are 100% Microsoft code[1], owned free-and-clear without copyright or patent licensing agreements that included any provisions about publication/re-licensing of source code. You then have the legal team. Copyright is hard, and while I'd be surprised if Microsoft didn't have a legal team that understood software licensing and all of the fun and turmoil of Copyright (multiplied by every country they operate in), I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the idea of Copyright and 'All Rights Reserved' are indistinguishable to -- at least -- some of these lawyers. However, assuming even that's not a problem, getting everyone in a room to clean all of the guts off of the floor is both a time-consuming and not-at-all-easy task. I've done the 'large multi-national corporation thing'[2] and IP was something you didn't pull an "it's easier to ask for forgiveness..." thing on. I created a security product, software, hardware and all for the company, with direct assistance with Microsoft. My boss made a handi-cam video which Microsoft showed at the MVP summit. I spent weeks trying to get permission to upload the video to YouTube or have it put on our marketing page (made little sense there; but probably the easier path). I didn't give up -- I was told in no uncertain terms that I was forbidden to upload the video and that I should delete all copies of it (which I did) with various IP-related reasons given[3]. Honestly, I'm surprised they bothered with MS-DOS versions of that age. It's really neat, don't get me wrong. I'm guessing they either believe that the historical value, good will generated (marketing), and such is high enough to warrant the effort/time/cost and/or the effort was minimal due to it being a simpler time, smaller team, era of software development[4]. [0] And even then, just because you're right, doesn't mean you won't be sued; nor that said suit won't cost more to win than it would ever possibly be worth. [1] Honestly don't recall -- I can only remember things I saw, vaguely, from my old PC and while I can't remember specifically seeing a notice about third-parties in the copyright notice that appeared prior to the prompt display, I thought a few of the things it shipped with (very possibly having nothing to do with DOS) having been part of the installed product. [2] 17,000 employees at its peak, globally (plus many, many contractor/temp), so not 'massive' like the likes of Microsoft, but big enough that several bureaucracy-dances were required for some of the most basic-sounding things when it came to software licensing (and a whole lot of other things). We were in tech, but not software, so there's the artificial barrier of explaining to a lawyer the idea of a GPL-style license. Fun times. [3] I knew our IP policy and worked in security the year prior, so I knew they weren't screwing around. I also assumed nobody would have the desire (or stones) to upload it. I discovered at a job interview that went really well that the reason I wasn't asked a large number of technical questions was because they found the video of the product I had described on my resume and it demonstrated everything they were looking for. I'm not sure who did it (it wasn't me -- I signed the contract, so I really did delete all of my copies), or when -- years (and one merger) later they were far more lax, too. [4] And I'm really hopeful this is the God's honest "everything but the license" original code, warts and all, because it'd be fascinating to look at something produced at this time under the pressures that were all around them. I remember seeing videos of Bill Gates where he looks like he's going to outright vomit Microsoft blue -- unshaven, unshowered, and talking to a room full of people and a camera.
phendrenad2 8y ago
I wonder, is 6.22 considerably more complex than DOS 2? Did they do any rewrites or is 6 based directly on 2?
- bluedino 8y ago
  Includes so many other things like disk compression
milpool 8y ago
I'd prefer 3.0 - because it was the baseline to DOS applications, it seems. EverythingTM runs on DOS 3.0. (I'm using MS-DOS 5.0 on my 386, though.)
- unixhero 8y ago
  Why would you, when 6.22 has better tools and features?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    Memory footprint?
  - mdip 8y ago
    I wasn't a fan of the 6.x series of DOS but I can't remember exactly why. I have fond memories of DOS 5.0, but that's also the first version I ran on my 486 that we built in the 90s (I came from an 8088, so this was an unfathomable upgrade). It was the first version of DOS that I could finally run some interesting games on. One thing I do recall about the 6.x series that drove me nuts was that the installer progress bar was ... peculiar[0]. It seemed like you could benchmark the 5.0 and 6.22 install from the time the progress bar started and both would go from 0% to 99% in the same time, but where 5.0 would finish with a non-unusual delay after 99%, each version of 6.x spent a while there, with each minor version longer than the prior. By a while, it was something like 3 or 4 times more time spent on that 1% than the entirety of 0-99 (no politics intended). We joked that the entire MS-DOS 5.0 installer must have been copied over and they appended all of the files for 6.x to some post-install script that ran at 99%. No evidence or attempts to gather evidence were ever done, but it was something to talk about while waiting for that last semi-solid 8-bit ASCII block to get filled in. The 6.x series ended up being one that I ran for the least amount of time -- I ended up on DR-DOS and PC-DOS. But software of that time was really painful to work with. Eventually, I ended up on OS/2 (2.0 through Warp, which I used until just prior to Windows 95) because it felt like the software I depended on ran the same on the platform it was designed for -- Windows 3.x -- as it did on on OS/2's compatibility layer[1]. And the worst part is this is not a compliment of OS/2. Back then, starting an application wasn't as simple as tapping an icon on a touch-screen. Some programs required commitment and following a careful launch sequence if your level of commitment was detected as insufficient. To appease these demonic applications, you followed a careful set of ritualistic actions. Double-click the program icon, wait until the mouse stops moving entirely (or if it starts hopelessly stuttering, that's fine, too). At this point, turn the computer off, wait until it's quiet, turn it back on, tidy your desk, refill the coffee, double-click the application icon (rinse, repeat until you land three 7s). And in the days of co-operative Multitasking or OS/2's 'hold my beer' with a single application's bug taking out the entire system (OS/2 one-upped Microsoft by occasionally causing dumpster fires in the shape of large, metal, PC enclosures). /s This really wasn't meant to be so ranty, so my apologies. I think fondly of those days. I also tend to think about them a lot more when people say silly things like 'quality of software isn't what it used to be'. It really depends on what 'used to be' means. (-: [0] Sure, complaining about an installer you run once is weak, but while I mentioned that big computer upgrade, I didn't mention was that it was funded by my father selling PCs which I assembled and configured DOS/Windows/Networking on (we had some corporate clients). It was a side business he set up as a way for me to make enough money to buy a top-of-the-line upgrade. I was 13, or so, and we were ... successful ... just my take in it paid for a car and a 486 that cost as much as a car. I installed ... a lot ... of DOS ... and Windows. [1] If memory serves, it was actual Win32 API code that they had a license to from past contractual agreements (they still had to pay for the license for each version but they were legally allowed to include it on install media), so it wasn't so much a compatibility layer as it was ... Windows, running on OS/2 with stability as a future feature ... of Windows, and nearly every Windows app of the era. Later they removed the compatibility layer, and released a version where you could provide your Windows installation disks to get the compatibility layer. The two were meant to feel tightly glued together, but someone mixed up glue and lube.
qwerty456127 8y ago
I would love to see the sources of MS DOS 7.1 (the version included with Windows 98 that supports FAT32) actually. And Novel DOS 7 (that supports multitasking) if possible. Also these could make an amazing contribution to the FreeDOS project and possibly add some steam to what the world of DOS is nowadays. I love DOS.
- sverhagen 8y ago
  Could you elaborate, do people love it nostalgically, or are they making a case for actual current day usage of some sort?
  - qwerty456127 8y ago
    I love it nostalgically (and I actually enjoyed using it back in the days), many people still use some flavor of DOS e.g. in supermarkets and post offices. I believe there is a lot of old hardware that is only compatible with DOS still in use.
    - xahrepap 8y ago
      In 2006 I worked at a dry-cleaner/laundromat that had its computer system all running on DOS. I remember when the computer died one day, my boss went to the local thrift store and found a computer old enough to just move the drive over and keep things running. I thought it was odd, but it worked great! Kept us from using it to play games :)
      - berbec 8y ago
        Up until about 10 years ago the ordering system at all the Domino's pizza stores was running either on a DOS or a Win95 machine in a dos window. They manage to patch it to the point it could take internet orders over, what I think was, a virtual modem controlled by a helper windows program.
      - qwerty456127 8y ago
        > Kept us from using it to play games :) Why? All the best games ever run under DOS!
userbinator 8y ago
If you don't mind doing some searching and the legality (or lack thereof), I believe the sources for 6.22 were leaked a long time ago along with 3.2 (or 3.3, can't remember now --- this was over a decade ago.) Maybe MS will officially release it someday, but you'll probably see 3.x first.

Why only 2.0, not 6.22?

by miffe 8y ago

Why only 2.0, not 6.22?

Not speaking from any authority, but I'd imagine because 6.22 can still be useful in certain applications and Microsoft would still want to exploit that. Then again, there's FreeDOS which happens to be used in a ton of places that MS-DOS otherwise would be (BIOS update disks, car radios, etc)

mdip 8y ago
Glad someone else started the whole "Not speaking from any authority", so I'll follow your lead... (-: In addition to said usefulness, it doesn't necessarily have to even be something that Microsoft may consider useful to keep as IP, and -- here it comes -- not speaking from any authority but I recall that there were some components that Microsoft may not have the complete ownership of in these later versions of MS-DOS; I'm not sure if these components are so critical that releasing it without them would make it unusable, or if it would just involve a lot of effort on the code side to do so (and then on the audit side to make sure it was really done[0]). Those companies may not exist any longer to even get the appropriate permission from ... though they have a way of popping out of the woodwork when there's a large corporation that could be sued. Even if memory serves me wrong, and these later versions of MS-DOS are 100% Microsoft code[1], owned free-and-clear without copyright or patent licensing agreements that included any provisions about publication/re-licensing of source code. You then have the legal team. Copyright is hard, and while I'd be surprised if Microsoft didn't have a legal team that understood software licensing and all of the fun and turmoil of Copyright (multiplied by every country they operate in), I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the idea of Copyright and 'All Rights Reserved' are indistinguishable to -- at least -- some of these lawyers. However, assuming even that's not a problem, getting everyone in a room to clean all of the guts off of the floor is both a time-consuming and not-at-all-easy task. I've done the 'large multi-national corporation thing'[2] and IP was something you didn't pull an "it's easier to ask for forgiveness..." thing on. I created a security product, software, hardware and all for the company, with direct assistance with Microsoft. My boss made a handi-cam video which Microsoft showed at the MVP summit. I spent weeks trying to get permission to upload the video to YouTube or have it put on our marketing page (made little sense there; but probably the easier path). I didn't give up -- I was told in no uncertain terms that I was forbidden to upload the video and that I should delete all copies of it (which I did) with various IP-related reasons given[3]. Honestly, I'm surprised they bothered with MS-DOS versions of that age. It's really neat, don't get me wrong. I'm guessing they either believe that the historical value, good will generated (marketing), and such is high enough to warrant the effort/time/cost and/or the effort was minimal due to it being a simpler time, smaller team, era of software development[4]. [0] And even then, just because you're right, doesn't mean you won't be sued; nor that said suit won't cost more to win than it would ever possibly be worth. [1] Honestly don't recall -- I can only remember things I saw, vaguely, from my old PC and while I can't remember specifically seeing a notice about third-parties in the copyright notice that appeared prior to the prompt display, I thought a few of the things it shipped with (very possibly having nothing to do with DOS) having been part of the installed product. [2] 17,000 employees at its peak, globally (plus many, many contractor/temp), so not 'massive' like the likes of Microsoft, but big enough that several bureaucracy-dances were required for some of the most basic-sounding things when it came to software licensing (and a whole lot of other things). We were in tech, but not software, so there's the artificial barrier of explaining to a lawyer the idea of a GPL-style license. Fun times. [3] I knew our IP policy and worked in security the year prior, so I knew they weren't screwing around. I also assumed nobody would have the desire (or stones) to upload it. I discovered at a job interview that went really well that the reason I wasn't asked a large number of technical questions was because they found the video of the product I had described on my resume and it demonstrated everything they were looking for. I'm not sure who did it (it wasn't me -- I signed the contract, so I really did delete all of my copies), or when -- years (and one merger) later they were far more lax, too. [4] And I'm really hopeful this is the God's honest "everything but the license" original code, warts and all, because it'd be fascinating to look at something produced at this time under the pressures that were all around them. I remember seeing videos of Bill Gates where he looks like he's going to outright vomit Microsoft blue -- unshaven, unshowered, and talking to a room full of people and a camera.

phendrenad2 8y ago

I wonder, is 6.22 considerably more complex than DOS 2? Did they do any rewrites or is 6 based directly on 2?

bluedino 8y ago
Includes so many other things like disk compression

milpool 8y ago

I'd prefer 3.0 - because it was the baseline to DOS applications, it seems. EverythingTM runs on DOS 3.0. (I'm using MS-DOS 5.0 on my 386, though.)

unixhero 8y ago
Why would you, when 6.22 has better tools and features?
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  Memory footprint?
- mdip 8y ago
  I wasn't a fan of the 6.x series of DOS but I can't remember exactly why. I have fond memories of DOS 5.0, but that's also the first version I ran on my 486 that we built in the 90s (I came from an 8088, so this was an unfathomable upgrade). It was the first version of DOS that I could finally run some interesting games on. One thing I do recall about the 6.x series that drove me nuts was that the installer progress bar was ... peculiar[0]. It seemed like you could benchmark the 5.0 and 6.22 install from the time the progress bar started and both would go from 0% to 99% in the same time, but where 5.0 would finish with a non-unusual delay after 99%, each version of 6.x spent a while there, with each minor version longer than the prior. By a while, it was something like 3 or 4 times more time spent on that 1% than the entirety of 0-99 (no politics intended). We joked that the entire MS-DOS 5.0 installer must have been copied over and they appended all of the files for 6.x to some post-install script that ran at 99%. No evidence or attempts to gather evidence were ever done, but it was something to talk about while waiting for that last semi-solid 8-bit ASCII block to get filled in. The 6.x series ended up being one that I ran for the least amount of time -- I ended up on DR-DOS and PC-DOS. But software of that time was really painful to work with. Eventually, I ended up on OS/2 (2.0 through Warp, which I used until just prior to Windows 95) because it felt like the software I depended on ran the same on the platform it was designed for -- Windows 3.x -- as it did on on OS/2's compatibility layer[1]. And the worst part is this is not a compliment of OS/2. Back then, starting an application wasn't as simple as tapping an icon on a touch-screen. Some programs required commitment and following a careful launch sequence if your level of commitment was detected as insufficient. To appease these demonic applications, you followed a careful set of ritualistic actions. Double-click the program icon, wait until the mouse stops moving entirely (or if it starts hopelessly stuttering, that's fine, too). At this point, turn the computer off, wait until it's quiet, turn it back on, tidy your desk, refill the coffee, double-click the application icon (rinse, repeat until you land three 7s). And in the days of co-operative Multitasking or OS/2's 'hold my beer' with a single application's bug taking out the entire system (OS/2 one-upped Microsoft by occasionally causing dumpster fires in the shape of large, metal, PC enclosures). /s This really wasn't meant to be so ranty, so my apologies. I think fondly of those days. I also tend to think about them a lot more when people say silly things like 'quality of software isn't what it used to be'. It really depends on what 'used to be' means. (-: [0] Sure, complaining about an installer you run once is weak, but while I mentioned that big computer upgrade, I didn't mention was that it was funded by my father selling PCs which I assembled and configured DOS/Windows/Networking on (we had some corporate clients). It was a side business he set up as a way for me to make enough money to buy a top-of-the-line upgrade. I was 13, or so, and we were ... successful ... just my take in it paid for a car and a 486 that cost as much as a car. I installed ... a lot ... of DOS ... and Windows. [1] If memory serves, it was actual Win32 API code that they had a license to from past contractual agreements (they still had to pay for the license for each version but they were legally allowed to include it on install media), so it wasn't so much a compatibility layer as it was ... Windows, running on OS/2 with stability as a future feature ... of Windows, and nearly every Windows app of the era. Later they removed the compatibility layer, and released a version where you could provide your Windows installation disks to get the compatibility layer. The two were meant to feel tightly glued together, but someone mixed up glue and lube.

qwerty456127 8y ago

I would love to see the sources of MS DOS 7.1 (the version included with Windows 98 that supports FAT32) actually. And Novel DOS 7 (that supports multitasking) if possible. Also these could make an amazing contribution to the FreeDOS project and possibly add some steam to what the world of DOS is nowadays. I love DOS.

sverhagen 8y ago
Could you elaborate, do people love it nostalgically, or are they making a case for actual current day usage of some sort?
- qwerty456127 8y ago
  I love it nostalgically (and I actually enjoyed using it back in the days), many people still use some flavor of DOS e.g. in supermarkets and post offices. I believe there is a lot of old hardware that is only compatible with DOS still in use.
  - xahrepap 8y ago
    In 2006 I worked at a dry-cleaner/laundromat that had its computer system all running on DOS. I remember when the computer died one day, my boss went to the local thrift store and found a computer old enough to just move the drive over and keep things running. I thought it was odd, but it worked great! Kept us from using it to play games :)
    - berbec 8y ago
      Up until about 10 years ago the ordering system at all the Domino's pizza stores was running either on a DOS or a Win95 machine in a dos window. They manage to patch it to the point it could take internet orders over, what I think was, a virtual modem controlled by a helper windows program.
    - qwerty456127 8y ago
      > Kept us from using it to play games :) Why? All the best games ever run under DOS!

userbinator 8y ago

If you don't mind doing some searching and the legality (or lack thereof), I believe the sources for 6.22 were leaked a long time ago along with 3.2 (or 3.3, can't remember now --- this was over a decade ago.) Maybe MS will officially release it someday, but you'll probably see 3.x first.