Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dr. DOS Still 'Doing It' At 8.0

Posted by simoniker on from the the-doctor-is-in dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Believe it or not, DOS -- DR-DOS, no less -- is still alive and kicking after all these years! Devicelogics, a company founded by former executives of Caldera and Lineo in Utah, says it has begun shipping version 8.0 of DR-DOS today. The company says the most significant enhancement in the latest version of this long-lived (and 'stable') operating system is support for FAT32 large partitions, enabling DR-DOS 'to keep up with market demand for DOS-based embedded solutions built on FAT32 platforms.'"

69 comments

  1. I still use dos by slothman32 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know DOS is archaic but I still use it. It's useful for apps when you want limited stuff in memory. Linux and windows can't compete with 100k kernal. Plus I use it whenever I want a new os. I just format in DOS mode then install from there. PC-DOS released version 8, yeah I know different, along time ago. I wonder what the actual differences are between PC 8 and DR 8. Does anyone call DR-DOS "doctor-dos?" I always do. Of course I don't call MS-DOS, "missz. dos," like a possibly-married female.

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    1. Re:I still use dos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > PC-DOS released version 8, yeah I know different, along time ago.

      AFAIK, IBM only released PC-DOS 7, and later PC-DOS 2000, which was just PC-DOS 7 with some Y2K fixes.

    2. Re:I still use dos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it "mess-dos" as in, you know, a mess.

    3. Re:I still use dos by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      It might be archaic but devicelogics is quite proud of it. 5 user licenses, $200.00. Where was that post with the URL for FreeDOS?

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    4. Re:I still use dos by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I know DOS is archaic but I still use it. It's useful for apps when you want
      > limited stuff in memory. Linux and windows can't compete with 100k kernal.

      I don't mess with the embedded stuff. However, DOS has other uses too. I'm
      not talking about having it be my regular desktop system, but it has uses.
      Uses besides running legacy software, I mean. For one thing, it'll run on
      pretty much *any* x86 system, irrespective of the details of the hardware,
      and it has *no* trouble fitting on a floppy with plenty of room to spare for
      utilities (partitioning stuff, filesystem utils, hex editors, disk editors,
      whatever), and after it boots you can take out the boot floppy and just stick
      in a different floppy. DOS was made to run on systems with a 360K floppy
      drive (or worse) and it shows. If it happens to need (for reasons to do
      with memory managment, presumably) to reread something from the boot floppy
      again, it'll just prompt you to re-insert it, then prompt you again to put
      the other one back. This can get a little tedious, but it *works*, and it
      works under some pretty spartan conditions. (CD drive not working? Hard
      drive still need partitioning? No problem.) This makes DOS really great
      for things like setting up a blank partition table and installing a
      third-party bootloader (OS-BS or BOSS or PowerBoot or whatever).

      DOS is also the preferred OS to use for flashing your BIOS or testing your
      hard drive for physical problems (especially if you only have one hard drive
      in the computer).

      In the last few months Knoppix is *starting* to displace DOS for some of
      these things. Maybe eventually we'll be able to get by without DOS. But
      I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    5. Re:I still use dos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I ditched Win 95 way back when, I've *never* used DOS for anything. Not once. I've repartitioned disks, recovered from hardware failures, and lots of other things. I get along just fine.

  2. I noticed this earlier today by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I downloaded some utilities for a Western Digital HD. It make a boodisk with - to my surprize - DrDOS as the base. First thing I thought was "Hey wow, haven't see that in awhile!"

    It makes sense, though. DOS will run on just about any x86 based machine out there, insuring a very wide compatability, it's something most people are used to (ie: DOS, as opposed to a linux based bootloader, which fewer people are accustomed to) and I'm sure the licensing is a mere fraction of MSDOS - or at least it would be if MS still supported it.

    Makes you wonder about things like FreeDOS... maybe it's still a bit unrefined for these uses? Maybe buyers actually do want a "real company" behind the products they use?
    =Smidge=

    1. Re:I noticed this earlier today by MountainLogic · · Score: 3, Funny

      FreeDOS is another altrnative depending on your requirements.

    2. Re:I noticed this earlier today by cgenman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dos is not dead, it's just gone embedded. My camera ships with a version of DOS as an internal OS, but you wouldn't know it from use.

      Hidden, Dos plots it's revenge.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
  3. ahh the memories... by ophix · · Score: 1

    i used to use drdos on a laptop because i liked its multitasking kludge :)

    im happy to see it is alive and well.

    1. Re:ahh the memories... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I never used Dr DOS, but I was under the impression that its multitasking was the real deal. Unlike the broken multitasking in MS-DOS.

    2. Re:ahh the memories... by ophix · · Score: 2, Informative

      msdos really didnt multitask at all, unless the application you were running would let you spawn off a shell.

      drdos had 2 different multitasking options. i barely remember the differences between them other than one would stop all other apps you had open except for the one you were in currently, and the other would actually give all the apps a slice of cpu time. this is if i am remembering correctly.

      this is dos we are talking about so any form of multitasking is going to be a kludge.

    3. Re:ahh the memories... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 3, Informative

      this is dos we are talking about so any form of multitasking is going to be a kludge.

      How so? Since DOS is such a simple collection of services, it runs great in little virtual 86 compartments. In fact, the whole protected-mode scheme from Intel was designed in a way that DOS would be able to run in 'virtual 8086 machines'. DOS applications run on a multitasking environment like NT or OS/2 quite well, and quite well in 'emulation' (really not emulation') with the Free Software dosemu package.

      --
      ---
    4. Re:ahh the memories... by grotgrot · · Score: 1
      msdos really didn't multitask at all

      Yes, MS-DOS 4.0 actually did do proper multi-tasking. It was paid for by a bunch of European computer companies, including Apricot (any Brits remember them?) and ICL (RIP). For reasons I don't know, it was withdrawn, and Microsoft later came out with 3.3, and then 4.0 (totally unrelated to the first 4.0).

      I did once have a copy of the multi-tasking 4.0 but didn't do anything with it. It would have been interesting.

    5. Re:ahh the memories... by ophix · · Score: 1

      actually didnt ms skip the number 4 in version numbers for dos?

      i know dos4 was proper about multitasking, but does it count? i was under the impression it never really saw the light of day

      Ophix

    6. Re:ahh the memories... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Did you ever use time sharing multi tasking shells? Desqview used to be great. It's not a kludge, it used to work just fine.

    7. Re:ahh the memories... by grotgrot · · Score: 4, Interesting
      actually didnt ms skip the number 4 in version numbers for dos?

      Nope, they shipped version 4.0 twice. The second version of 4.0 didn't really offer anything over 3.3 (and was really buggy), so most people just skipped from 3.3 to 5.0 (I still have the manuals :-)

      You can see the timeline at the bottom of http://www.maxframe.com/HISZMSD.HTM. There is also a timeline at http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.htm

      Since we are playing nostalgia, I should also mention that I used MS-Windows 1.0 once. I was really impressed that it had a Paint program, and went to save my work of art. In those days, standard file dialogs didn't exist (you had to wait till Windows 3.1 for them). It brought up a dialog with a textfield asking for the filename. I started typing, and then wondered how long a name it would let me enter. The answer is that it let me enter a really really long name - I mashed the keyboard until I got bored. I click OK, and the screen froze and the hard disk light blinked every 5 seconds or so. I eventually rebooted the machine to discover most of the root directory entries had gone. Ah, the joys of buffer overflows! A quick session with Norton Disk Doctor got them back. I didn't touch Windows 1 again, but was an avid user of Windows 286, and then 3.0 and onwards once Windows became more mainstream.

    8. Re:ahh the memories... by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Ok, here we have the usual misunderstanding about exactly what multitasking is. From the user point of view, mutlitasking is what happens when you run two programs at once. But that's just a feature that multitasking supports. Really, multitasking is the ability to schedule and coordinate multiple tasks.

      If memory serves, MS-DOS had multitasking somewhere along the line, but because of screwups in the way the kernel was coded, you had to be very careful how you used it. Most programs didn't even try. So from a user point of view, it wasn't a multitasking system, even though it had the API for it.

    9. Re:ahh the memories... by 2TecTom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember supporting Novell DOS 7 circa 1993

      ~ multitasking (stable)
      ~ DPMS memory management
      ~ peer to peer networking w/ snmp, security
      ~ disk & file compression
      ~ antivirus & backup

      Oddly enough, Windows 3.10 was the only unstable app on those systems.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    10. Re:ahh the memories... by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem was that the DOS function calls were not re-entrent (is that the right word?). So if an app was in the middle of a file save and another app interrupted it to do a file save, the first file save was toast. Or keyboard read, or whatever. Apparantly they didn't quite get that fixed, so they dropped the multi-tasking version. The others (desqview?) got around that by basically doing what Windows did -- they took over the DOS functions and did them themselves, using DOS just get things started in the first place. That's why Microsoft starting calling Windows an operating system -- because it really was doing everything DOS was supposed to do.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    11. Re:ahh the memories... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > msdos really didnt multitask at all, unless the application you were
      > running would let you spawn off a shell.

      MS-DOS offered _approximately_ the same level of multitasking as Windows 3.1
      and MacOS 9. That is to say, there was no real multitasking at the OS level,
      but an application could be designed to multitask cooperatively, and there
      were various apps out there for DOS that were designed to do this, usually
      by hanging off the timer interrupt and only using a few cycles each time.
      Win3.1 and MacOS 9 may have provided facilities to make it easier for apps
      to do this, but the apps still had to go out of their way, so most apps
      didn't multitask in any meaningful sense; you could just switch between them,
      and the ones in the background would wait for you to switch back to them;
      this as task _swapping_, not multitasking, and MS-DOS had it as of 5.0.

      There was also a third-party product designed to pre-emptively multitask
      ordinary DOS programs that weren't made for it. ISTR it was called MultiDOS
      Plus, but it wasn't a DOS replacement (though it might have replaced the
      command prompt; I don't recall for certain). It was pretty primitive: the
      user had to make decisions about timeslice sizes and things -- and on my
      (fairly old, even then) hardware, it wasn't practical. (Can you say "4.77
      Megahertz?" I knew you could.) But it existed.

      What was more *useful*, when it was added in DOS 5.0, is task swapping. This
      was provided through dosshell, and for running multiple DOS apps fullscreen
      and switching between them, it was every bit as good as Windows 3.1. I didn't
      switch to Windows for regular use until I got Windows 95, and then I only did
      it for the preemptive multitasking. (Shortly afterward, I started messing
      with Linux, and so of course now I'm a multibooting cross-platform geek.)

      > drdos had 2 different multitasking options. i barely remember the
      > differences between them other than one would stop all other apps you had
      > open except for the one you were in currently, and the other would actually
      > give all the apps a slice of cpu time. this is if i am remembering correctly.

      If you are remembering correctly, the first option is task _swapping_, which
      is not the same as multitasking. The second option describes multitasking.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    12. Re:ahh the memories... by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1

      >Nope, they shipped version 4.0 twice. The second version of 4.0 didn't really offer anything over 3.3 (and was really buggy), so most people just skipped from 3.3 to 5.0 (I still have the manuals :-)

      The version numbers were 4.0 and 4.01, although I don't think that I actually saw a copy of 4.0.

    13. Re:ahh the memories... by Deagol · · Score: 1
      Ah, DESQView... now there was a classy, lean, multitasker. It's a shame it got canned by Quarterdeck, then sold off. DV/X sucked ass, but it never really got the chance for refinement.

      It was the only OS (for lack of a better word) in those days that could survive running "format a:" in 2 windows at the same time. Not that there was much point -- the disks were totally unusable afterwards -- but it was my stress test of choice. DOS/Windows failed the test, OS/2 failed, Win95 failed, and Windows NT (3.1 at the time) failed. I think they simply all locked up. But DESQView simply hummed along, not really caring that what you were doing was pointless, but doing it nonetheless.

      I used to have a copy of the last DV version (2.46, was it?) and the last QEMM version, which I would break out on occasion to refesh my memory on those days. However, I lost it (along with my stash of other DOS classics) when I threw a poorly-labeled CD-R into the circular bin. :(

      So if anyone knows where to locate this gem, along with Direct Access 5.0 (menu program), Professional Write, and PC Tools 5.x (remember them? Central Point, I think), please provide a URL.

      --
      Method of processing duck feet
    14. Re:ahh the memories... by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      DOS INT 21 services were non-reentrant but it was really, really easy to write your own routines (or buy off-the-shelf replacements), otherwise ten years of TSR's (Terminate & Stay Resident) applications wouldn't have worked well. Also, back then BIOS routines (including keyboard reads at INT 8, disk IO at INT 13, DPMI at INT 31, and so on) were still useful, and they are reentrant.

      There wasn't really any attempt to change this (let alone "fix" it). DOS was never intended to multi-task, and since it's services were pretty simple it was common practice -- really just an automatic assumption -- that if you needed reentrancy you'd use your own routines or buy a library. The only way interrupt-driven file IO would corrupt extant IO would be if the interrupt handler was improperly written at a very basic level. It was easy and perfectly possible to do overlapping background IO (remember having to load background disk cache utilities?).

      Good old INT 29. I made a lot of money off that interrupt... and the programming was a hell of a lot more fun than any decent paying IT jobs out there today.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    15. Re:ahh the memories... by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Sorry, DPMI wasn't BIOS of course... I was getting carried away cataloging interrupts as they percolated to the surface... :)

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  4. Caldera? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Do we hate DR-DOS or like it this week? Caldera is SCO now right? So these are guys that used to work for the company that became SCO? So, we should hate DR-DOS... I think.

    1. Re:Caldera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These guys left before Darl and company moved in; they have, AFAIK, nothing to do with him or with the continuing legal farce which is the new SCO. Just because somebody once worked for a company which, after a change of management, went on to do bad things doesn't implicate them in any way in that.

    2. Re:Caldera? by Eneff · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just because somebody once worked for a company which, after a change of management, went on to do bad things doesn't implicate them in any way in that.

      Look here, buster. We're short on two minute hate subjects today and you're trying to defend a known villain?

      Silence!

  5. So... by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What's the point of linking a story that simply repeats, word for word, the Slashdot story?

    And you might have mentioned, for those who think that the only OSs are Windows, Linux, and MacOS, that DR-DOS is the current incarnation of CP/M -- the OS that would have been the OS if the folks at Digital Research hadn't been so paranoid about NDAs.

    1. Re:So... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's the point of linking a story that simply repeats, word for word, the Slashdot story?

      You must be new here...

      Nobody is expected to actually read the articles. Therefore, the story summary must be detailed enough for people to:

      1) Form strong (sometimes overbearing) opinions on the subject
      2) Draw "Insightful" conclusions about the scenario, based only on the summary of course
      3) Claim to be an expert on the subject
      4) Completely refute any arguments in the summary, and declare the whole subject moot
      5) Bitch and moan about the summary being too similar or identical to the first paragraph of the linked story

      Welcome to /. #8708117!
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:So... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the 'current' incarnation of CP/M would be CP/M-86, which still has some enthusiasts involved in it's use and continuing development. It has patches that allow it to (wow!) access hard drive partitions larger than 4 MB, which wasn't possible with the Stock CP/M-86 that I have in a boxed set on my shelf.

      DR-DOS was a derivative product from Digital Research.

      And Digital Research's problem with signing NDAs came out of the hippy culture the company grew up in. That never really changed enough for the company to survive.

      --
      ---
    3. Re:So... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      I have two Digital laptops on my desk now... Was Digital Research same as DEC? Can't remember now. Can't care either. Both laptops work fine...

    4. Re:So... by Smidge204 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      1) He's #162816. You were reading the post number.

      Hah! Speaking of not reading...

      2) If you want to see real laziness in reading, check out this guy.

      *facepalms*
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:So... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Since you don't care that Digital Research was not Digital Equipment Corp, I won't say anything. But did you know that DR was originally call Intergalactic Digital Research?

    6. Re:So... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      That's a real real real cool name! :-) I better get an Intergalactic DR-DOS to go with my Pan-Intergalactic Gargle Blaster.

  6. No single user license pricing? by CaptKilljoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting, the buy icon at the bottom has only a 5-licence pack for $200. The previous version is $29 for a single user licence.

    (I must say the site isn't very professional. It lists DPMI/DPMS in two bullet points and multi-tasking in three.)

    1. Re:No single user license pricing? by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you are single user, FreeDOS makes more sense. More or less the same functionality and free as free beer. If you want text functionality and multi-tasking, Running a small linux kernel (1.2 family kernel for example) would make real sense. The development of those still go on and they fit in a floppy, unlike 2.x kernels which tend to be pretty large. I used to have 386's with 4MB ram for networking and X stuff (1MB Trident ISA is good enough for any X client). Still FreeDOS makes more sense if you want to boot a DOS shell and run some obsolete app.

      Since Knoppix came along I threw all of my MS-DOS boot disks away. If it can't run Knoppix, it's no worth rescuing it. If the PC doesn't have a floppy, there's always tftp/bootp solution to revive such systems.

  7. Fat32 Support by Goo.cc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't they have to pay a royalty to Microsoft due to the patents on Fat32 in embedded devices?

    1. Re:Fat32 Support by Shurhaian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they did have to pay such a royalty, so would FreeBSD, as well as every Linux flavour I've encountered, because they all had Fat32 support. My guess is that as long as they don't use Microsoft code to accomplish it, and instead people just peered at the raw data until they figured it out, it's okay(or the FreeBSD project and anyone else who includes fat32 drivers does in fact pay).

      Or is there some ultra-important distinction I'm missing? Wouldn't be the first time.

      --
      NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
    2. Re:Fat32 Support by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1
      Or is there some ultra-important distinction I'm missing?

      Yes. You're thinking of copyright. FAT32 is patented, which means you need a license to use the technology, even if you wrote the code from scratch. MS has never enforced the patent, but now that FAT32 is so popular, they're apparently going to, just like Unisys and GIF.

      On the plus side, patents only last for 20 years, unlike forever-and-a-day for copyrights.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    3. Re:Fat32 Support by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

      That might be true if i read MSDN about FAT32. But FAT32 isn't that hard to re-implement using reverse engeneering.

    4. Re:Fat32 Support by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1
      That might be true if i read MSDN about FAT32. But FAT32 isn't that hard to re-implement using reverse engeneering.

      Reverse engineering is prohibited too. That's the difference between copyright and patents -- with copyright, only copying is prohibited, but with patents, you're not allowed to use the technology at all without the patent holder's permission, no matter how you managed to obtain it. Even if you thought of the same idea completely independently, you can't use it until the patent expires.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    5. Re:Fat32 Support by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

      i have here all the rights to reverse-engineer program, for sole purpose of bugfixing or improvong compatibility with new hardware or software.

  8. Good To See by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

    It's good to see that DR-DOS survived being a prop in an anti-Microsoft show trial and is still a viable Operating System for some uses.

    Noorda is a bitter, bitter man.

    --
    ---
  9. DR-DOS still going strong by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and they say that BSD is dying! ;)

    1. Re:DR-DOS still going strong by dotgod · · Score: 0, Troll

      wow...good point...just goes to show how crappy BSD is!

  10. ASUS ships FreeDOS by dan_bethe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FYI, when you buy an ASUS motherboard, its utility cdrom boots FreeDOS.

    1. Re:ASUS ships FreeDOS by shamino0 · · Score: 3, Informative
      FYI, when you buy an ASUS motherboard, its utility cdrom boots FreeDOS.

      Well, a stripped-down version with a broken installer. The FreeDOS people warn against using this CD for anything other than flashing a corrupted BIOS. Those who try to install FreeDOS from this CD may end up with a trashed boot sector.

    2. Re:ASUS ships FreeDOS by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe that Sun's SunPCi x86 co-processor cards also use FreeDOS by default on their virtual drive files.

      My pipe dream is to have a Sun workstation with an x86 card and a mythical PowerPC card... several versions of Solaris, several versions of Linux, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Mac OS X all in one box! Those dual-boot fanboys would drop to their knees and beg for mercy from such a beast!

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    3. Re:ASUS ships FreeDOS by RGRistroph · · Score: 1, Redundant

      The utility floppies that come with Western Digital harddrives boot DRDOS. I don't know about the cdroms they recently started using instead of floppies.

    4. Re:ASUS ships FreeDOS by dan_bethe · · Score: 1
      My pipe dream is to have a Sun workstation with an x86 card and a mythical PowerPC card... several versions of Solaris, several versions of Linux, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Mac OS X all in one box! Those dual-boot fanboys would drop to their knees and beg for mercy from such a beast!
      You could do the equivalent with any Power Macintosh running Linux! :)
    5. Re:ASUS ships FreeDOS by jlockard · · Score: 1

      Almost... you couldn't run the SPARC version of Solaris.

      --
      --JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
  11. Doctor DOS by brain_not_ticking · · Score: 0

    My father was involved (expert witness) in a lawsuit between Caldera and MSFT. Apparently many of the (MSFT) lawyers as well as other witnesses referred to DR-DOS as "doctor dos," but most likely only as an attempt to make Caldera/Digital Research seem like a bunch of fools who made some bad programming mistakes causing Win 3.1 not to run on their OS.

    1. Re:Doctor DOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of IT people called it "Doctor DOS" as well -- I don't think it was supposed to be an insult.

  12. Interesting use of Linux technology by Voivod · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've talked to the DrDOS guys a few times... they're pretty cool and are very pro-Linux. They were pushing their Drlx product that lets you use Linux device drivers in a DOS environment to get things like USB support which is nice.

    Anyone who thinks DOS is dead does not work anywhere near the embedded world. It's very much alive and kicking in little boxes all around you and new products are still being developed based on it. Problem is that nobody is putting out device drivers for "new" technology like USB for DOS so unless they find a way to utilize existing drivers they're in trouble as older standards like ISA fade. Linux to the rescue. :-)

  13. Evidence of such plans? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Yes. You're thinking of copyright. FAT32 is patented

    Which means nothing if Microsoft has no plans to assert the patent against developers of free software. Microsoft doesn't want to become the victim of a burnallfat32 FUD campaign that could become higher profile than the one directed at Unisys.

  14. Great News -- Time to upgrade by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been using DrDOS (Caldera OpenDOS) 7.03 for many years now; it came with Caldera 1.3 Linux' DosEMU package and a free for individual use license, so I have installed it on all my boxes (it uses Lilo to dual/triple boot) as I still use several DOS programs, and it runs under DosEMU in my Knoppix 3.2 hard disk install as well.

    And, yeah, I would call version 7.03 stable (although 7.0 and 7.02 definitely were NOT stable when using DPMS.) I have never had an issue with it, uptimes rivaled Linux.

    Some DOS programs are irreplaceable (Dragmax and Pipemax for auto racers, several truly great astrology programs, and my favorite scientific encyclopedia -- Compton's original CD. The Windows versions of it do not have as much content unless you count "movie clips" as content.)

    So it's time to upgrade so I can read/write FAT32 partitions, as well, I guess. I just hate to see a "free" (as in beer) license go commercial, though.

  15. DEC vs DR by Kardamon · · Score: 1

    No.
    DEC - Digital Equipment Corp. made hardware (VAX) and the VMS operating system on which Windows NT is based. DEC became a part of Compaq, now HP.
    DR - Digital Research made the CP/M and DR/DOS operating systems.

    --
    -- Qu'est-ce que la propriété intellectuelle? It is thought control.
    1. Re:DEC vs DR by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's correct to say that NT is based on VMS. It is true that the same guy architected both.

  16. Full Source Buyout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They are offering OEM buyouts for $20,000.

    I wonder if they would consider a GNU buyout.

    1. Re:Full Source Buyout by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      If you pay enough, I guess they would. Probably not for $20,000, OTOH if you'd offer them $20,000,000,000, I'm sure they'd not reject the offer (provided you actually pay, of course).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Full Source Buyout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      $20 B is a lot, even for a huge company. I'm sure they would do it for a lot less. I'd imagine that $2 M would also be a lot.

      I'd really love to see this "freed" blender style. It may not rake up the support that blender did.

  17. The relentless march of technology by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    to keep up with market demand for DOS-based embedded solutions built on FAT32 platforms. ..... because you can't buy 2GB drives anymore :-)

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  18. In a Bowling Alley near you by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

    I noticed once that my local bowling alley used DRDOS for Scoring. Somebody managed to crash it once by bowling the ball at the wrong time :(

    1. Re:In a Bowling Alley near you by jlockard · · Score: 1

      I Doubt they used DRDOS for scoring. They probably used DRDOS as the OS on which the buggy scoring software ran. The 'misthrown' bowling ball crashed the buggy software, not DRDOS.

      --
      --JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
  19. Re:ahh the memories. download DESQView 2.8 here: by Zeio · · Score: 1

    Download DESQView 2.8, QEMM 8.03 or 9, and other stuff here:
    http://www.chsoft.com/dv.html

    If you want to find old stuff, go to #oldwarez on EFNet (or something similar) or fire up EMule 0.42d and search. Also, Googling the web or google.groups can be rather an effective way to lay your hands on abandonware.

    What next? Repton? Alley Cat? Herzog Zwei rom dump?

    Historic reference to the final version of DV, 2.80.

    From: marsha@test120.qdeck.com (Marsha Ailing)
    Organization: Quarterdeck
    Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 16:48:18 GMT
    Subject: Fw: #So - DESQview 2.8 Sent to Production
    Message-ID:
    Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.desqview
    X-Newsreader: Quarterdeck Message Center [2.00]
    Lines: 36

    DESQview 2.8 and DESQview 386 2.8 are Now Available for ordering!

    The new versions have a good deal in common with previous versions of
    DESQview. DESQview 2.8 contains a relatively modest number of changes from the
    previous release, DESQview 2.7. DESQview's version number has changed
    primarily to reflect a major change in DESQview 386, which is that DESQview 386
    v2.8 incorporates QEMM 8.0, where DESQview v2.7 included QEMM 7.5. (DESQview
    386 consists of a copy of QEMM and a copy of DESQview running on the same
    machine. It doesn't matter whether QEMM and DESQview are purchased separately,
    or together in the DESQview 386 retail package.)

    DESQview 2.8 includes a DOS-only version of Manifest, found in the DESQview
    directory (typically C:\DV). DESQview 386 also includes a version of Manifest
    that presents both a DOS and Windows interface; this version can be found in
    the QEMM directory (typically C:\QEMM).

    Other changes to DESQview have been minimal. In this release, DESQview has
    been enhanced to provide better support for network printing under NetWare's
    VLM, and has been modified to support PCI machines that also support the Micro
    Channel Bus. An inconsistency involving closing programs started via a
    command-line parameter to DESQview has been addressed. A number of technical
    notes have been added to the DESQview distribution; see the section "Technical
    Notes" below for more details. Finally, DESQview 2.8 works around a problem
    in DOS's management of the date change at midnight.

    That's right, DESQview 2.8 solves the problem referred to in
    MIDNIGHT.TEC. Having got that licked, we now begin to believe that world
    peace is an attainable objective.

    DESQview 2.8 is not available as a patch.
    I don't have any pricing yet.
    --
    Marsha Ailing
    Beta Test Coordinator
    Quarterdeck Corporation
    Marsha@test120.qdeck.com

    What's New in DESQview 2.8

    DESQview 2.8 contains a relatively modest number of changes from
    the previous release, DESQview 2.7. DESQview's version number has
    changed primarily to reflect a major change in DESQview 386, which
    is that DESQview 386 v2.8 incorporates QEMM 8.0, where DESQview
    v2.7 included QEMM 7.5. (DESQview 386 consists of a copy of QEMM
    and a copy of DESQview running on the same machine. It doesn't
    matter whether QEMM and DESQview are purchased separately, or
    together in the DESQview 386 retail package.)

    DESQview 2.8 includes a DOS-only version of Manifest, found in the
    DESQview directory (typically C:\DV). DESQview 386 also includes
    a version of Manifest that presents both a DOS and Windows
    interface; this version can be found in the QEMM directory
    (typically C:\QEMM).

    Other changes to DESQview have been minimal. In this release,
    DESQview has been enhanced to provide better support for network
    printing under NetWare's VLM, and has been modified to support PCI
    machines that also support the Micro Channel Bus. An inconsistency
    involving closing programs started via a command-line parameter to
    DESQview has been addressed. A number of technical notes have been
    added to the DESQview distri

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
  20. FAT32 - is it reason for major version No. change? by Arioch_BDV · · Score: 1

    Even students can do that: http://www.phystechsoft.com/

    I wonder if FAT32 is the only noteciable update in Dr.DOS 8

    BTW, does DR DOS or FreeDOS has some scripting like REXX in IBM DOS ?

  21. Re:FAT32 - is it reason for major version No. chan by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

    This thread doubtless is down to only us, but thankx for the link; I didn't know about PTS DOS, even though I use(d) arachne's browser -- an efficient, monstrously-ugly thing (on which DR-DOS under Caldera built its own browser.)

    To answer your question, I agree that a full version upgrade for this feature, promised by Caldera back in 1995 or 6, is overkill. But perhaps the leap from RH 8 to 9 or Slack from 4.x to 7 IIRC inspired them. ;o}