Microsoft Posts Source Code For MS-DOS and Word For Windows

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Posts Source Code For MS-DOS and Word For Windows

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:17AM from the historical-sources dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft, along with the Computer History Museum, has posted the source code for MS-DOS 1.1 and 2.0, and Word for Windows 1.1a. It's been a long time coming — DOS 2.0 was released for IBM PCs in 1983, and Word for Windows 1.1a came out in 1990. The museum, with Microsoft's consent, has made the code available for non-commercial use. They've also explained some of the history of this software's development: '[In August, 1980], IBM had already contracted with Microsoft to provide a BASIC interpreter for the PC, so they asked them to investigate also providing the operating system. Microsoft proposed licensing "86-DOS", which had been written by Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) for their 8086-based computer kit because the 16-bit version of CP/M was late. When SCP signed the licensing deal [7] with Microsoft, they didn't know for sure who the computer manufacturer was. Paterson said "We all had our suspicions that it was IBM that Microsoft was dealing with, but we didn't know for sure." [1] He left SCP to work for Microsoft in 1981. "The first day on the job I walk through the door and 'Hey! It's IBM.'" Microsoft originally licensed 86-DOS in December 1980 for a flat fee of $25,000. By the next summer they recognized the importance of owning it and being able to license it to other companies making IBM-PC clones, so they purchased all rights for an additional $50,000.'"

224 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why not DOS 6.22? They're not making a bundle on that, either.
1. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by counterplex · 2014-03-25 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure that's needed really. Projects like FreeDOS and the like seem to be fine on their own. The DOS 2.0 source code is more of a curiosity, nothing more.
  
  --
  $x = ($x * 10) % 10 >= 5 ? 1 + int $x : int $x
2. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I guess DOS 6.22 is still somewhere part of their Windows 8.1 64 bits system. Releasing that code might give vulns. to current systems. :)
3. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  the Computer History Museum
  Because there is historic value in early versions. There is also value in seeing how the apparent problems changed, but where things began is pretty significant.
  Oh, sorry, mod this down, I accidentally thought you might even take the half-second to read the first sentence of the summary before commenting. I forgot where I was for a moment there.
4. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by eclectro · 2014-03-25 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Great minds think alike. Came here to post this.
  
  --
  Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
5. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by SJHillman · 2014-03-25 07:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  To the best of my knowledge, the last version of Windows to actually be based on DOS was Windows ME. 2000, XP and later followed the NT base.
6. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by MightyYar · 2014-03-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, DOS still runs in a VM, even on Windows 8.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
7. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  64 bit Windows does not have the VDM (virtual DOS machine). It is still in the 32-bit versions, but IIRC it's based on DOS 5 and not DOS 6.
8. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Jugalator · 2014-03-25 07:45 · Score: 2
  
  MS-DOS no longer exists in Windows. I don't think it was compatible with the NT kernel. The "Command Prompt" is confusingly similar though, but I don't think they share code.
  
  --
  Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
9. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by dacut · 2014-03-25 07:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why not DOS 6.22? They're not making a bundle on that, either.
  Distributing the source code to a proprietary product has a number of potential legal hurdles. If there are parts of the source which were licensed from another company (as would be the case with MS-DOS and SCP, IBM, Stac, and possibly others), those agreements need to be revisited and you may need to get permission from that company (or its successors) to do so. (I include IBM because, I believe, they took over much of the development for the 4.x series.)
  MS-DOS 2.x might be the latest version they (currently) feel confident in being able to release free of these restrictions.
10. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Waffle+Iron · 2014-03-25 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Why not DOS 6.22? They're not making a bundle on that, either.
  You don't expect them to give access to advanced features such as file system subdirectories for free, do you?
11. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by nogginthenog · 2014-03-25 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  32bit Windows 8 can still run DOS apps. There's got to be some DOS 6.22 code in there.
12. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Sun · 2014-03-25 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Windows, including the most up to date one, still have a 16 bit personality able to run DOS programs. This means there is something there that is able to catch int 21 and process it, as well as allow programs to direct interrupts.
  While it is true that cmd.exe (as well as the black screen dumb terminal that it usually runs in) are not DOS, DOS is certainly still in there, somewhere.
  Which is not to say that I think the "vulnerability" angle has any merit. Just that your statement isn't entirely true.
  Shachar
13. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Guy+Harris · 2014-03-25 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Great minds think alike. Came here to post this.
  Yes, great minds think alike.
  Other minds think there's still DOS in the core of Windows, rather than a bag on the side to run old DOS programs, sort of like the VDM in Wine. Srsly, the late '90's called, they want their "Windows is still a hack on top of DOS" meme back.
14. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by nogginthenog · 2014-03-25 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  For example:
  /* We copied this from CP/M but we don't know what it does */
15. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by The+MAZZTer · 2014-03-25 08:00 · Score: 2
  
  It uses the NTVDM, which emulates DOS. Windows doesn't actually run on top of DOS anymore.
16. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Which in no way implies that Windows is still based on DOS.
17. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  The shell call that executes files looks at the file header of executables and opens it with NTVDM if it isn't PE format. NTVDM is the Windows NT Virtual D Machine. It is not part of the operating system any more than notepad or paint are.
18. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Gothmolly · 2014-03-25 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Heck, even ProDOS had subdirectories.
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
19. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  I couldn't tell if you were joking or not until the :) - but it's true, DOS code lives on in 32 bit versions.
20. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Hal_Porter · 2014-03-25 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That doesn't mean that Windows 8 is 'based on Dos' anymore than a Linux box with the Dosbox emulator running Dos apps in a windows is.
  Incidentally in 64 bit Windows there is no NTVDM or support for 16 bit Windows - you can have 16 bit apps running on a 32 bit kernel via a thunking layer (Windows On Windows), or 32 bit apps running on a 64 bit kernel via a thunking layer (WOW64) but you can't have 16 bit apps running on two thunking layers on a 64 bit kernel. Since Microsoft won't support memory above 4GB using PAE on 32 bit Windows you pretty much have to use 64 bit Windows on a machine with more than 4GB. In fact even on a 4GB machine you'll have more usable memory with a 64 bit OS than a 32 bit one - there's a hole under 4GB for PCI memory mapped space. The only way to get access to the memory the hole covers up is to see it about 4GB. With current Microsoft OSs that is only supported on 64 bit OSs. So in the long run most machines are going to come with a 64 bit OS and that means no NTVDM.
  Of course part of it is probably that 16 bit Windows and Dos apps have pretty much ceased to be commercially important. And if you want retro games you've been better off with something like Doxbox than NTVDM for some time.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
21. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Kalriath · 2014-03-25 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  That's expressly covered in the Computer History Museum's article - it was confirmed, by a computer forensic engineer no less, that DOS is not copied from CP/M.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
22. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by RightSaidFred99 · 2014-03-25 08:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Windows, including the most up to date one, still have a 16 bit personality able to run DOS programs. This means there is something there that is able to catch int 21 and process it, as well as allow programs to direct interrupts.
  Modern computing fail. I can run ARM Android binaries on my Windows box, doesn't mean that Windows has Android vulnerabilities or that Android is part of Windows.
23. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Jugalator's statement: There's got to be some DOS 6.22 code in there.
  Your response: Windows doesn't actually run on top of DOS anymore.
  My conclusion: You can't read.
24. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by tlhIngan · 2014-03-25 08:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Windows, including the most up to date one, still have a 16 bit personality able to run DOS programs. This means there is something there that is able to catch int 21 and process it, as well as allow programs to direct interrupts.
  While it is true that cmd.exe (as well as the black screen dumb terminal that it usually runs in) are not DOS, DOS is certainly still in there, somewhere.
  Nope, 64-bit versions of Windows do not have the 16 bit personality anymore because the CPU cannot run 16-bit code in 64-bit mode. Virtualization programs typically run 16-bit code in a software emulator as it's comparatively very little code before the OS jumps into 32 bit mode or 64 bit mode.
  cmdhost.exe, the command prompt host, is just a program that generates the GUI-less environment for a command line program to operate in (since the concept of stuff like "stdin" and "stdout" aren't applicable). It's not DOS at all, just a program that emulates what used to be called a DOS box by providing various services like clipboard to stdin/stdout, scroll back buffers, mapping text draw commands and cursor control commands, etc.
  Other than that, cmd.exe is a regular 32-bit program making regular Win32 API calls as needed.
25. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by dryeo · 2014-03-25 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've run the 16 bit ver 1 of cmd.exe under NT (W2K). Being a protected mode OS/2 16 bit application it ran fine though Windows didn't honour the full screen bit in the file header and ran it in a window. I'm sure it would not have given it as much hardware access as it was capable of using either.
  They did remove the capability to run the older versions after W2K but it could most likely easily be put back if there was a need though only in the 32 bit versions of Windows.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
26. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Windows 2000 still had the OS/2 1.x subystem, that would not run on modern versions of Windows.
  For those not aware, CMD.exe is a native program and has nothing to do with DOS, despite the similar command language. Both OS/2 and WinNT also had a copy of command.com.
27. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Guppy06 · 2014-03-25 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  I would guess there's a lot more in the way of tricky IP issues to deal with there than with the early versions that were still primarily based on the original purchased rights.
  We're talking about a version of DOS where the only text editor is edlin, and this is before we start dealing with Dou-- er, DriveSpace.
28. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Guppy06 · 2014-03-25 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Metro versus dosshell
  FIGHT!
29. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  My computer in 2002 ran DOS programs too fast for any games to work. Anyone trying to run them on modern hardware is just fooling themselves. 16 bit is dead, 32 bit is dying.
30. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by mcl630 · 2014-03-25 10:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Dosbox allows you to slow down the emulated DOS environment to make old games run fine.
31. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by rev0lt · 2014-03-25 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  There's got to be some DOS 6.22 code in there.
  I would really doubt that, aside from cmd.exe. All real-mode interrupts are faked into protected mode (and until at least some versions ago, eg. int21h was also available in protected mode inside windows applications and command-line DPMI applications), and IRQ handlers are reflected by the emulation mechanism. Some bios interrupts (int10h, int16h) are completely emulated, instead of the eg. EMM386 mechanism of reflecting them to the original handlers. Most MsDos code is real-mode and completeley useless inside a "modern" windows context (since w95/nt at least).
32. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by mcl630 · 2014-03-25 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  According to the computerhistory.org article, subdirectories were added in DOS 2.0.
33. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  How do we know they are releasing the actual source code? It can no longer be compiled.
  What do you mean it can no longer be compiled? Is the source code iAPx86 (8-bit / 16-bit) or C or a Microsoft BASIC programme containing the source code in hexadecimal or decimal opcode form within DATA statements? Never mind I checked and the source code is assembly language. So you should be able to run it through a compatible assembler producing a series of executable binary files. Maybe I will attempt it this weekend.
34. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Juggalator's statement: MS-DOS no longer exists in Windows. I don't think it was compatible with the NT kernel. The "Command Prompt" is confusingly similar though, but I don't think they share code.
  Your response: Jugalator's statement: There's got to be some DOS 6.22 code in there.
  My conclusion: You can't read
35. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Kalriath · 2014-03-25 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  It was confirmed by a forensic engineer in the course of a lawsuit against Microsoft by Digital Research that it is not a copy. They saw it long before now.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
36. Re: Why are they posting old source code? by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-25 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  So in other words, you don't doubt it at all.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
37. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by joelleo · 2014-03-25 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  you're thinking of command.com, not cmd.exe. Command.com was the 16 bit command prompt in 32 bit (and 16 bit) windows. Windows NT through to Windows Server 2008, command.com existed parallel to cmd.exe for execution of 16 bit code either natively (16 bit versions of Windows or, in 32 bit versions of Windows, inside the NTVDM. Server 2012 does not come in a 32 bit version thus command.com is not included.
  
  --
  "In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
38. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  What do you mean it can no longer be compiled?
  ...
  Never mind I checked and the source code is assembly language.
  That's why it can't be compiled - nobody makes an assembly language compiler anymore. :)
39. Re: Why are they posting old source code? by rev0lt · 2014-03-25 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read what I wrote? Aside from cmd.exe (which may or MAY NOT include some command.com funcionality - probably not, command.com source was a bit messy), everything else is not even remotely DOS-related, but an ABI. BTW, most of MSDOS 6.2 code is still assembly, and that makes it "unmaintainable" by today standards.
40. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  Linux still runs on a VM in windows too, does that mean windows is based on Linux now?
41. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by dryeo · 2014-03-25 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  No I'm not. This was the 16 bit OS/2 ver 1 cmd.exe from which the current Windows cmd.exe is descended from. It ran natively on NT using the OS/2 subsystem. Used to be able to get a Presentation Manager kit from MS at one time and natively run 1.x 16bit GUI applications as well. Remember NT started out as OS/2 NT ver 3.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
42. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Blaskowicz · 2014-03-25 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  My computer from 2002 ran most of the games at the right speed. Stuff from the 1980s is wrong but not all of it, Arkanoid is fine. The occasional game from the 1990s was too fast as well. But by large in my experience the games got the timing right. DOS and the PC had timers, interrupts and a real time clock.
  I still ran 98SE to be precise.
  Those were good times. I don't really enjoy the slowness of Dosbox or the fact the sound craps out if it is overloaded. I can hardly play doom (with external software midi synthesizer. But there my current linux distro's pulseaudio seems to use too much CPU or whatever). Dosbox is not good enough for me, I'd like to play 3D games that render at 640x480 or more, with a perfectly fast framerate and no glitch. Like I used to be able to.
43. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why not DOS 6.22? They're not making a bundle on that, either.
  It's a historical museum. Historical museums show old stuff. It's kind of like how railroad museums prefer to have steam on display rather than diesel. Speaking of experience more than 90% picks steam over diesel when given the choice even if the diesel is older than some of the steamers and most people picking the diesel knows what it is while most people picking the steamer goes "it's a train" and "it's black". Sure there are people who know steam locomotives well, but they are a minority. In fact a surprisingly high amount of people fail to realize simple stuff like they contain lots of steam (they don't even get it from the name!).
  I don't see why a computer museum should be any different. Most people will likely look for "computer stoneage" and first mouse, first GUI and stuff like that. DOS 6.22 is just a *text OS like DOS 1.1, only 1.1 is older, which mean better in this context. Looking at the code reveals that it is code. It might as well have been written by the ancient egyptians as it makes no sense to the common reader.
  *I intentionally didn't mention command line because the people in question here would likely call it "a text computer".
  Most people here would strongly disagree that source code is unreadable. However that be because we filtered out "the common man" just by reducing "us" to the group of people, who read slashdot. The common man will never read this.
  Why is the common man important here? It's quite simple. People pay $15 each regardless of coding skills. While it is more interesting to deal with people who knows what they see, the common man is the one delivering the money to keep the museum alive.
  Having said this, I would say some other people also contributed with some good ideas on why they pick old versions of DOS. Particularly copyright and non-MS lack of consent seems like a very valid one. The truth is likely a mix of multiple reasons.
44. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by jones_supa · 2014-03-25 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  What part about his facts was wrong?
45. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by jones_supa · 2014-03-25 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  Which is how most software companies work.
46. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by mysidia · 2014-03-25 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  We're talking about a version of DOS where the only text editor is edlin, and this is before we start dealing with Dou-- er, DriveSpace.
  OK... How about DOS 5.0? I started with that. No doublespace or drivespace there.
47. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  Why not DOS 6.22? They're not making a bundle on that, either.
  By the way, even though not officially released by Microsoft, MS-DOS 6.0 source code has been leaked previously and can be found on the Internet.
48. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by mcl630 · 2014-03-25 16:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nothing in the your quote contradicts what I said. I've used DOSBox to play old games. There is a setting to adjust the speed of the emulator.
  In fact I just took a look at one of the config files, the setting is called "cycles" and it is in the "cpu" section of the config.
49. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by davester666 · 2014-03-25 16:50 · Score: 2
  
  source code for word is valuable for that crazy docx format which has some things specified like this: "do X like Microsoft Word Y.Z does".
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
50. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Hal_Porter · 2014-03-25 16:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In Undocumented Dos they explained that the version of Dos was a "a hacked version of MSDOS ... mostly removing the file system". NTVDM runs real mode Dos programs in V86 mode. So what happens is that when when you make an int 21h call to open a file in a Dos program? You real mode code hits a BOP. A BOP is an illegal opcode. At that point the processor traps (or software emulator on a Risc machine calls out) and you end up running fairly standard user mode protected mode code which handles the file open.
  You can see it here in Reactos
  http://old.reactos.org/wiki/DO...
  
  In order to implement the DOS "API" (int 21, etc.) we need a way to call Win32 and kernel procedures from the VM thread. This is accomplished in Microsoft's NTVDM by writing a stub 16-bit kernel (ntdos.sys, ntio.sys, ...) that hooks the same interrupts as a 16-bit DOS kernel would, but instead of actually handling these, it executes a special undefined opcode (C4 C4 followed by some more bytes indicating the desired operation) in order to trap back into kernel mode/protected mode (meaning execution will pass through KiTrap6, "INT 06: Invalid Opcode Code (#UD)"). The request is dispatched to the proper VDM and handled in protected mode, and then an iret takes execution back to the instruction after the invalid opcode sequence.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
51. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Retron · 2014-03-25 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  x86 versions of Windows 8.1 have the MS-DOS 5 based NTDVM in them. Run command /c ver from a command prompt and you'll see it's MS-DOS 5.0.500. Run command /c dir c:\ and you'll see the MS-DOS 5 directory listing (normally the dir command is handled differently, even if you're running command rather than cmd).
  As a bonus, every copy of Windows 8.1 - x86, x64, ARM - comes with MS-DOS8. It's embedded in diskcopy.dll and is used when you format a floppy disk as an MS-DOS startup disk. Why it's on the ARM version I have no idea!
52. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  Actually it is more likely that average minds think alike.
  The outliers tend to think more unique thoughts.
  I always found the "think different" slogan to be a bit off, but I guess they don't really specify the direction.
53. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by hairyfeet · 2014-03-25 19:16 · Score: 2
  
  What would be nice is if they put out the Win95 or Win98 source code as there is a ton of games that played on win9x that really didn't run anywhere else.
  But I'd say DOS source is pointless except as a curiosity as between DOSBox and FreeDOS we now have DOS that works better than the original by a pretty good clip. After all DOSBox even gives you emulation of the most used hardware and FreeDOS gives you a fully bootable with mouse support for your drive imaging and the like so I don't see a release of MS-DOS really doing anybody much good now, which is probably the point as it gives them a little free positive publicity for just throwing some of their worthless crap out there. Funny how they won't even release DOS under a free license like BSD, what are they afraid companies are gonna start building things with DOS again?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
54. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 20:54 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure the 'docx' crap isn't remotely covered in the Word 1.x 'doc' crap.
  You'd be better off reading about the doc format from OpenOffice or LibreOffice source.
55. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Barsteward · 2014-03-25 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  as shown previously, you don;t need access to the code to make a MS OS vulnerable.
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
56. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Barsteward · 2014-03-25 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  oh fuck, now the museum is going be infected with viruses
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
57. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 23:27 · Score: 0
  
  Do you have a piece of source code to support your claims? Because unless proven otherwise, Windows is still a crap patchwork.
58. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Neil+Boekend · 2014-03-26 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  The copyright hasn't expired on the software they copied for that.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
59. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  This is not entirely accurate, because I recall of a bug with backspaces that would overwrite some buffer in cmd.exe, crash a system service and make windows reboot. Normal programs cannot do this.
60. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  It couldn't GIVE them vulnerabilities... those are already there. It could only expose the ones that already exist.
61. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Distributing the source code to a proprietary product has a number of potential legal hurdles. If there are parts of the source which were licensed from another company (as would be the case with MS-DOS and SCP, IBM, Stac, and possibly others), those agreements need to be revisited and you may need to get permission from that company (or its successors) to do so. (I include IBM because, I believe, they took over much of the development for the 4.x series.)
  It is clear to any rational person that thinks about these issues that a right to long term public oversight over business activities necessarily arises under the 9th Amendment as one of the major rights retained by the people.
  This right of oversight allows the public to determine that businesses aren't engaging in inappropriate activities, such as exploiting their workers, polluting the environment, or putting backdoors into their products on behalf of government organizations such as the NSA. Protection of trade secrets is necessarily something that can only happen over the short term.
  As a consequence, public access, over the long term, to well-documented, buildable source code of all commercial software is a fundamental right.
  If there are legal hurdles that prevent this from happening, then they exist in violation of the Bill of Rights. Treaties, contract law, trade secret law, and copyright law must necessarily take second place to the authority of the Bill of Rights.
  An even more stringent right of oversight necessarily exists over software and hardware designs directly used by the government (or by third party agents working on behalf of the government) for law enforcement.
  Historically, the legal profession may have found it inconvenient to recognize the existence of such a right. As has been discussed numerous times on Slashdot, legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to recognizing the authority of the 9th Amendment. There may be a fear amongst legal professionals that recognizing any rights arising under the 9th Amendment will open a floodgate of change that will wash away many currently accepted practices. This is certainly a legitimate fear, as the right to ethical practice of law will certainly appear on any short list of rights sensible people choose to assert under the 9th Amendment, with profound consequences for the legal profession.
  This ethical conflict of interest is at the root of a great many problems in the US legal system (including many patent and copyright issues), and dealing with it will be the biggest challenge facing the law and the legal profession for the coming century.
  It follows that attempts by legal professionals to use laws (such as contract or copyright law) or precedents to interfere with the exercise of this right is unethical practice of law and a violation of the oaths they have sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights.
62. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Guy+Harris · 2014-03-26 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Do you have a piece of source code to support your claims?
  No. Do you have a piece of source code to prove that NT-family versions of Windows are DOS-based? The "Inside Windows NT" books say that the NT kernel-mode code has a very much non-DOS structure.
  
  Because unless proven otherwise, Windows is still a crap patchwork.
  An OS can be a "crap patchwork" without being based on DOS.
63. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by kmoser · 2014-03-26 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Srsly, the late '90's called, they want their "Windows is still a hack on top of DOS" meme back.
  You're right. Windows X is a hack on top of Windows 1 ... X - 1.
64. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Guy+Harris · 2014-03-26 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Srsly, the late '90's called, they want their "Windows is still a hack on top of DOS" meme back.
  You're right. Windows X is a hack on top of Windows 1 ... X - 1.
  OK, if "Windows NT 3.1" is Windows X, what's Windows X - 1?
65. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  anything newer might actually compete with current products.. ya know, you don't NEED the latest and greatest to perform many tasks. most or all tasks for most users. newer dos had 32 bit possibilities, multitasking, decent graphics capabilities, plenty of programs available, and does have web browsers, email clients and more readily available even today.. and if dos was at all feasible to use, there would be more, lots more... not to forget old dos runs like a bat out of hell on old hardware long since forgotten about. releasing any code that is even remotely usable today, by itself or 'borrowed' for other projects, is not in microsoft's interest (nor in the interest of their major hardware partners -- intel, dell, hp, etc). it's all about the money. microsoft believes any misuse or misappropriation of this old of a code base is worth the risk for the public relations boost and free publicity due to the perceived goodwill and generosity from the (largely empty, tbh) gesture
66. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  An OS can be a "crap patchwork" without being based on DOS.
  Like pretty much every single Linux based OS. They are all kludgy and break themselves; no malware needed.
67. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by dosius · 2014-03-26 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  MASM, probably, but every MASM I've tried - 1.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, 5.1 - chokes and dies on it. Let me know if you get 'em to roll - I'd like to create some custom bins and take 'em for a spin. xD
  -uso.
  
  --
  What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
68. Re: Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  > Did you even read what I wrote?
  Come on... this is Zero__Kelvin we're talking about!
69. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-26 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  Since they changed the copyright laws in the USA in 1976 (about the time microcomputers arrived) to protect works for 50 years after the author's death, it's pretty safe to say that NO copyright on software for any microcomputer has expired, EVER.
70. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by davester666 · 2014-03-26 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  yes it is. microsoft literally has it specified as part of the format. there are formatting specifications that basically are "make this look like how this old version of Word did it". That's why it was so ridiculous that Microsoft claims it is an open document format with a public specification.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
71. Re:Why are they posting old source code? by hobarrera · 2014-03-31 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  What would be nice is if they put out the Win95 or Win98 source code as there is a ton of games that played on win9x that really didn't run anywhere else.
  Try wine. Not every single game out there works, but windows-9x games have higher chances of running on wine that they do on windows 7.
Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:24 · Score: 1

None of the links are to the source???
I call BS.
1. Re:Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  www.computerhistory.org
  But it's been /.ed.
2. Re:Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  No it hasn't. Slashdot does't have the user base to slashdot any site anymore.
3. Re:Where's the source? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2014-03-25 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  I saw it posted to hacker news earlier today so they may have /.ed it
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
4. Re:Where's the source? by dacut · 2014-03-25 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actual link to the source appears to be http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/microsoft-ms-dos-early-source-code, but it's throwing 503s at me right now.
5. Re:Where's the source? by Forever+Wondering · 2014-03-25 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.computerhistory.org...
  You have to accept a license agreement and you will get to download msdos.zip
  
  --
  Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
6. Re:Where's the source? by Blaskowicz · 2014-03-25 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Servers are now immensely more powerful and loaded with memory, the various software and hardware buffers are bigger, the software more robust, the would-be slashdotters are served a static page etc.
  For technical reasons alone sites can't be slashdotted by slashdot anymore. That's what I read on slashdot several years ago already.
Source code for 3.3 was out there long ago.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:27 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure it was 3.3, but I remember snatching up MS-DOS source code off of usenet or maybe some rogue FTP probably 15 years ago. I have no idea where my copy is these days, but I think there was also some newer Windows code in that "release"
1. Re:Source code for 3.3 was out there long ago.... by SJHillman · 2014-03-25 07:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm trying to find DOS 3.3 on a 5.25" floppy somewhere. Have an old Tandy that has a slightly DOS install on its ancient hard disk that I'm looking to repair. Once I get it running, I plan on keeping it in my office for when people come whining about wanting a new PC.
2. Re:Source code for 3.3 was out there long ago.... by ArcadeMan · 2014-03-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can recall, the Tandy 1000 series had its MS-DOS in ROM, you don't even need a floppy or hard drive in order to boot it.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
3. Re:Source code for 3.3 was out there long ago.... by rujasu · 2014-03-25 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  It varied from system to system with Tandy. My still-working Tandy 1400 LT boots DOS 3.2 off a 3.5" floppy. It has no hard drive and the ROM only holds a simple BIOS.
4. Re:Source code for 3.3 was out there long ago.... by sensei+moreh · 2014-03-25 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  I got rid of my LT 1400 long, long ago. Don't know if I still have any early 90s vintage floppies lying in a box somewhere in my basement.
  
  --
  Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
5. Re:Source code for 3.3 was out there long ago.... by bloodhawk · 2014-03-25 13:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  my Tandy 1000ex most definitely required its DOS to be booted from the floppy drive. was damn frustrating when I was first learning computers and looking through commands, one of the first ones I tried was Format a:, spent the next 2 weeks waiting for a replacement dos disk :-(
6. Re:Source code for 3.3 was out there long ago.... by SJHillman · 2014-03-26 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I have two Tandy 1000's. One has dual 5.25" floppies, the other has one 5.25" floppy and DOS on the ROM. It's the latter that I'm looking to repair.
Slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:28 · Score: 0

Tried to download the MS DOS source code- got a guru meditation error from the webserver. Mind = blown.
FreeDOS by ArcadeMan · 2014-03-25 07:30 · Score: 1, Informative

Stop asking Microsoft for the source code to MS-DOS when there's already a compatible DOS available for free.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
1. Re:FreeDOS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  I can't remember the name of it, but I think someone ~8 years ago partially re-implemented DOS as a 32-bit operating system with flat addressing, but whose general scope and layout was limited to the capabilities of DOS + BIOS. I think it was abandoned after he realized he'd just spent months developing an inferior alternative to Linux for no real reason.
2. Re:FreeDOS by Joce640k · 2014-03-25 07:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  FreeDOS isn't done until Lotus won't run.
  Or something.
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:FreeDOS by Kalriath · 2014-03-25 08:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Irrelevant. The source code for MS-DOS 1.0 is interesting as a curiousity, a piece of history if you will. It's most assuredly not useful as the basis for any modern work. And FreeDOS is, well, not a piece of history, a curiousity. Hence, FreeDOS is irrelevant to this discussion.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
4. Re:FreeDOS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, am excited at this announcement, from a geek standpoint. Also, the licensing terms make it pretty clear that this can't be used as the basis for any work, period.
5. Re:FreeDOS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  freedos is incompatible with many programs and weighs heavy on real vintage machines as it loads more or less 2 oses to do the job of one
I'm In Trouble Now by LifesABeach · 2014-03-25 07:30 · Score: 4, Funny

I told my dad about this post pointing on my Touch Screen; now he's calling my doctor and asking about a Tetanus Shot, and he looks worried?!
1. Re:I'm In Trouble Now by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  I don't get it.
True to their genesis by Anna+Merikin · 2014-03-25 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

This short history summary shows that Microsoft's roots are in marketing, not programming. Once they obtained their license from SCP, they were responsible for DOS' development alone, and we eventually got MS-DOS 4.0, 4.01, 4.02.....4.22, 5.0 (( don't remember any bugixes for that one), 6.0, 6.01, 6.02, etc. NB: some of the interim 6.x changes series were for stealing compression technology from a competitor.
Thier buggy software continued right the 20th century till XP (2001)
It took them a long time to learn to program, and, now, their marketing is shooting themselves in their feet.
Long live MS (not.)
1. Re:True to their genesis by Quila · 2014-03-25 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This short history summary shows that Microsoft's roots are in marketing, not programming
  No, their roots were in programming. This was their foray into marketing. Anybody who used a Radio Shack Model 100 (or its brethren) knows that Microsoft was capable of developing an excellent product at one point.
2. Re:True to their genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  they were responsible for DOS' development alone
  IBM would disagree with you.
3. Re:True to their genesis by UnknownSoldier · 2014-03-25 07:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  /Oblg. M$ joke
  Windows 95: 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
4. Re:True to their genesis by Anna+Merikin · 2014-03-25 07:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In the interests of truth, you are right; I left out their contributions to BASIC (I believe it was jointly developed at some point with Apple) and Bill Gates himself did some work on that groundbreaking program, but probably it was others who did most of the programming work with Gates being the bulldog who tried to drive payment for the program, which had gotten into the wild. There are some charming emails from Gates warning users about pirating BASIC circulating om the internet.
  However, their huge success in relicensing seems to have driven their business plan after 1982.
5. Re:True to their genesis by PPH · 2014-03-25 07:54 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Their roots are in brokering deals. They bought some rights from Patterson and got them cheap by concealing their end customer (IBM). They then hired Patterson and tossed him another $50K for the remaining rights to distribute. $75K altogether. If Patterson had said "No thanks" to the employment offer and hung onto distribution rights, SCP might have done a better job building upon DOS and they'd be the rich people. Microsoft would have gone on to be one of many apps developers in a diverse DOS-based ecosystem.
  Microsoft has always feared the independent developer. They have become adept in killing off potential competition or buying up expertise and burying it somewhere in the Redmond campus.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
6. Re: True to their genesis by swillden · 2014-03-25 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Not marketing, except from the perspective of engineers to whom any portion of the business processes not related to technology gets called "marketing". IBM did all of the marketing relevant to the success of MS-DOS. Microsoft's coup was in brokering a deal with IBM and being smart enough to make it a per-copy licensing deal rather than selling the software outright.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
7. Re:True to their genesis by Quila · 2014-03-25 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, they were good at one point. That Model 100 was the last Microsoft product that Gates' own code went into. Maybe that's it, maybe Gates was a great coder, but a poor manager of coders where quality is concerned.
8. Re:True to their genesis by RightSaidFred99 · 2014-03-25 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  I love you tools. Microsoft 'stole' compression technology technology from a competitor...as opposed to Open Source which is _totally_ not based on anyone else's ideas or code.
  Free software wants to be free, man, don't patent software, maaaan! Oh, unless it's Microsoft - they 'stole'.
  Tool.
9. Re:True to their genesis by Anna+Merikin · 2014-03-25 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, I remember. I misspoke. IBM gave a lot of code to MS-DOS (which, when sold by IBM, was called IBM-DOS). So MS was not the sole developer of DOS, and it is possible IBM contributed the buggy parts.
  But if that is so, why was OS/2 (developed FOR IBM BY MS originally) so, well, weird?
10. Re:True to their genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I thought everyone knew this. There was more history that I remember. When IBM first saw the code M$ had bought from SCP (it was first called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty Operating System), it had 8000 lines of assembly code, and IBM pulled out 6000 lines of bugs, then gave it back to M$. The only reason IBM was so generous was that they didn't want to get caught up in Sherman (Antitrust) Act problems, so they made M$ their beneficiary. Little did they know that their friend and partner would become their fiend and back-stabbing competitor. M$ got caught intentionally breaking their products when run on DrDOS, and had to not just buy "Doublespace" but all of Stac Electronics after M$ stole compression technology from Stac. There were a lot of other things that M$ did later on that gave them a bad name (screwing with IBM over OS/2, Killing Netscape by bundling IE) with Gates lying to the judge "oh noes, its unpossible to remove....(cross fingers), threatening to 'wack Dell' if they tried to offer any computer with Linux bundled instead of windblows, killing FoxPro (and FoxSoft), killing WordPerfect, killing dBase (and Ashton-Tate), killing CorelDraw, killing Borland", but these were early dirty tricks. Later they would move on to ruining standards bodies by rigging elections on their OOXML (a target standard even M$ can't hit), and trying to screw with hardware bootloaders to only accept M$ operating systems. The list goes on and on. There are real reasons why so many people in the industry want them dead. Their mission statement is "mendacium,
  fallere furtum", and translates to "lie, cheat, steal".
11. Re:True to their genesis by dryeo · 2014-03-25 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  Not IBM-DOS but PC-DOS.
  OS/2 got a bad start due to IBM trying to keep a promise that it would run on a 286. Getting a 286 to multi-task and run a VDM was not easy. Still OS/2 looked like DOS when you fired it up, with basically the same extra commands as cmd.exe still has, things like start to launch a program in the background. The graphical interface that came with OS/2 1.1 was what Windows 3.x and Win NT 3.x copied though they did remove things like folders in the Program Manager.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
12. Re:True to their genesis by CronoCloud · 2014-03-25 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  killing WordPerfect
  It's not dead yet!
  This is on the shelf at my local Wal-mart:
  http://www.walmart.com/ip/Core...
13. Re:True to their genesis by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-03-25 09:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Maybe that's it, maybe Gates was a great coder, ...
  Andy Hertzfeld, over at folklore.org, has made some comments regarding how poor Gates' coding skills appeared to be.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
14. Re:True to their genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Learn some history, idiot.
  Or shut up and let the adults (those who were actually alive and paying attention at the time) talk.
15. Re:True to their genesis by westlake · 2014-03-25 09:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This short history summary shows that Microsoft's roots are in marketing, not programming.
  In 1975 there is BASIC for the Altair. In 1976 Microsoft was selling BASIC to Fortune 500 clients. In 1977 it is branching out into FORTRAN, COBOL. and Assembler. In 1978, Microsoft releases Applesoft BASIC.
  
  [In 1979] Microsoft 8080 BASIC is the first microprocessor product to win the ICP Million Dollar Award. Traditionally dominated by software for mainframe computers, this recognition is indicative of the growth and acceptance of the PC industry.
  June 18, Microsoft announces Microsoft BASIC for the 8086 16-bit microprocessor. This first release of a resident high-level language for use on 16-bit machines marks the beginning of widespread use of these processors.
  [in 1980] Microsoft introduces the Pascal language, develops XENIX (enhanced version of the UNIX operating system), and begins to explore spreadsheet applications. It also releases its first hardware product, the Microsoft SoftCard, which allows Apple II users to run CP/M-80. Microsoft will provide BASIC, FORTRAN, and COBOL languages for the Z-80 SoftCard.
  Microsoft Time Line
  In 1980 Microsoft had a solid track record in development tools for the microcomputer and was well positioned to become a major player in operating systems and applications software in both the business and consumer markets.
16. Re:True to their genesis by cavreader · 2014-03-25 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  There buggy software might have something to do with the rapid evolution of the processors and memory architectures during this era. In the beginning good enough replaced perfection when it came to releasing new software. By the time something was perfect you risked the chance that your targeted architecture was deemed obsolete. During this time you also had rapid increases in the number of peripherals such as network cards, video cards, printers, and input devices. This all happened when there were no industry standards and companies were building proprietary hardware and software solutions. It's amazing things worked at all.
17. Re:True to their genesis by westlake · 2014-03-25 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Their roots are in brokering deals. They bought some rights from Patterson and got them cheap by concealing their end customer (IBM).
  Three guesses and the first two don't count.
  Losing patience with the snail-on-a-salt-lick pace of Digital Research, the Holy Grail for the systems software geek in 1980 was a serviceable CP/M-86 clone. "Serviceable" in this context did not mean "market ready for an IBM PC."
  Microsoft's deal with SCP was never as one sided as the geek likes to pretend.
  
  On July 27, 1981, just prior to the August 12 PC launch, Microsoft bought the full rights to the operating system for an additional $50,000, giving SCP a perpetual royalty-free license to sell DOS (including updated versions) with its computer hardware.
  Thanks to the deal with Microsoft the provided additional capital to Seattle Computer, the company expanded its memory business to provide additional memory for [its] PC products. The company had its best year in 1982, reaping more than a million dollars in profit on about $4 million in sales.
  Seattle Computer Products/a
18. Re:True to their genesis by Hal_Porter · 2014-03-25 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
19. Re:True to their genesis by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-03-25 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt that a throwaway two-page example game written to showcase a BASIC interpreter can serve as a good sample of one's coding skills.
  It would be far more interesting to look at the actual closed code of some commercial product that MS shipped, and which Gates contributed to.
20. Re:True to their genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  no, more likely he would have gotten nothing as MS would then have waited for CP/M to finally be ready and that is the version that would have ended up in IBM machines and he would have been left wondering what might have been.
21. Re:True to their genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  Andy Hertzfeld, over at folklore.org, has made some comments regarding how poor Gates' coding skills appeared to be.
  The linked page says the game was bad, it says nothing of the coding.
22. Re:True to their genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  No I think he has a valid point, when it's not Microsoft the concept that software can't be "stolen", that music can't be "stolen", that movies can't be "stolen", that ideas can't be "stolen" is propagated furiously. If you want to play that hypocritical game of double standards then software patent and copyright theft lawsuits for people "stealing" music, movies and software by pirating it should certainly be allowed to continue and the defendants prosecuted.
23. Re:True to their genesis by inasity_rules · 2014-03-25 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  I feel we should update that joke to include Vista somehow.
  
  --
  I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
24. Re:True to their genesis by SuiteSisterMary · 2014-03-25 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  Windows Vista: A 64-bit compilation of 32-bit extentions to a 16-bit patch written for an 8-bit OS blah blah blah.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
25. Re:True to their genesis by Megane · 2014-03-26 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Being written in a small locked closet with no air-conditioning, over a period of a couple of days, as a demo program for a brand-new computer? I can't say I'm surprised.
  I'm going to agree with the El Reg link. I learned 8080 assembly language "from Bill Gates" by disassembling TRS-80 Level II BASIC (which I think was roughly the same version as on the Altair) back in the day. (Note that it did not teach me Z80 assembly language due to the lack of using anything but relative jumps, and IX in I/O drivers. But I've seen some C-to-Z80 code that I found quite mind-bending.) I recall finding about 35 bytes that could be bummed out of that 12K ROM, which isn't bad. (In comparison, you can bum over 1K out of the 8K ROM in the ColecoVision, while still keeping all of the absolute entry points (ab)used by other crap programmers!)
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
26. Re:True to their genesis by Arker · 2014-03-26 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  "5.0 (( don't remember any bugixes for that one)" The actual 5.0 sucked. The bugfix was 5.0a though, and that's probably what you remember. 5.0a was, IMHO, the best MS-DOS ever released. All the core functionality present, reasonably mature and field tested, well documented. I had a book on my desk that gave the syntax for every documented function, and another one that gave all the undocumented ones that were known outside of MS as well. 6.x mostly added an inferior copy of the Norton Utilities, QEMM, and Stacker products that ran wonderfully on 5.0a, along with a few bugs. As a marketing strategy it achieved its goal, killing off the competing products, but from a user and administrators point of view I preferred to avoid it. MS did not release another reasonably mature OS until Windows 98SE, which true to form they replaced with the bug-ridden and defective by design Windows ME, for marketing reasons.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
27. Re:True to their genesis by Anna+Merikin · 2014-03-26 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yep! My memories of those days are not as clear as yours, but now that you mention it, yes, 5.0a was the man. I didn't use stacker, but Norton Utilities was in my toolkit since I got my first personal computer loaded with DOS 3.6. When I finally got a 386 processor and could access extended memory, I loaded QEMM and Sidekick, loaded 4dos instead of command.com as shell and multitasked with ease on DOS 5.0a, -- I loved seeing 703Kb listed under the column "memory under 640Kb !" Luckily I avoided the stinking pit of 4.xx
  Once Windows 95 was announced, I used DR-DOS 7, but it wasn't a perfect plugin for MS-DOS. I had to do some hacking to get the cd-drive recognized (had to link drcdx to mscdx IIRC) and networking sucked big time.
  Then I discovered Linux.
  The DOS included in W98/SE was, as you say, MS' best.
  However, I still have an orginal-license (free for private use on unlimited instances) Caldera DR-DOS 7.03 image on my hard disk just in case I need a DOS for some reason. That was one great DOS!
28. Re:True to their genesis by cusco · 2014-03-26 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Had a roommate at one point who was friends with Patterson from SCP. Peter asked him whether he felt that MS had ripped him off with the DOS purchase, and he said no, that he felt MS paid about what the OS was worth. Incidentally, its original name was QDOS, for Quick & Dirty Operating System since it had been slapped together to run some internal hardware project.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
29. Re:True to their genesis by cusco · 2014-03-26 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  5.0 also had the DOSSHELL task switcher, which enabled running multiple programs and switching between them either by key combinations or mousing. It was removed in DOS 6.0, but you could copy DOSSHELL.exe from your 5.0 disks and it would run fine in DOS 6.0 or 6.1. Finally in 6.2 DOSSHELL would no longer launch, apparently deliberately blocked, probably because a lot of people like me preferred it to Windows 3.1.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
30. Re:True to their genesis by Arker · 2014-03-26 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  "I didn't use stacker, but Norton Utilities was in my toolkit since I got my first personal computer loaded with DOS 3.6" Funny to think how long ago it was now. Peter Norton taught me x86 programming, via a book. By the end of that one he had walked you through implementing DiskEdit piece by piece. Stacker was an odd one, I hated it but I loved it. Made recovering data with diskedit impossible, of course, and it was fiddly and tended to fail (though DriveSpace was much worse.) But at the same time there were applications where it could allow you to do the impossible performance-wise. Apps that were disk/IO-bound running on machines with under-utilized CPUs could see massive speedups. So in general I avoided it like the plague but on certain machines it was key. The lineage of your DR-Novell-Caldera DOS was very interesting too. IIRC it's CP/M with DOS compatibility. There was a lawsuit MS lost or settled about MS-DOS being an unauthorized rip of CP/M, and DR got access to MS DOS code to permit compatibility in perpetuity. IIRC this was one of the earliest driving motivations at MS to get rid of DOS and promote Windows into a standalone OS. Surely FreeDoS is ready by now though, right?
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
31. Re:True to their genesis by Arker · 2014-03-26 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I remember dosshell. Used it a couple times in a pinch but I greatly preferred Xtree.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
32. Re:True to their genesis by Anna+Merikin · 2014-03-26 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it is. I don;'t use DOS anymore, though I am tempted to resurrect some games I'd played which have gone obsolete; the Sierra racing series, f'rexample.
  I notice Sparky Linux Gamer's edition ships with FreeDOS.
33. Re:True to their genesis by Anna+Merikin · 2014-03-26 16:59 · Score: 2
  
  I greatly preferred Xtree.
  
  note: ytree for Linux is a near-perfect clone of xtree for DOS. I still use it.
34. Re:True to their genesis by UnknownSoldier · 2014-03-27 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Priceless!
  I think that is going to be my new pseudo .sig for a while ...
  --
  Microsoft Vista 64:A 64-bit compilation of 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition with 0 bit of understanding good UI.
35. Re:True to their genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-27 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  This is a good point, one that most people seem to miss.
  The value in PC-DOS wasn't in what the OS could do, it was in the distribution infrastructure that only IBM could provide. Seattle was already selling the OS; there was no way they could get it onto every desktop. IBM and Gates made that happen.
Downloads are at the computer history museum. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:37 · Score: 0

Link. Server is currently overloaded.
Fork? by Jugalator · 2014-03-25 07:42 · Score: 2

Eagerly awaiting the first fork! MS-DOS for Linux? Mac? It can finally happen!

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
1. Re:Fork? by Kalriath · 2014-03-25 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  Not legally allowed. The license prohibits distributing derivative works - it's for research and educational purposes only (though you can make your own derivative works).
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
2. Re:Fork? by Chris+Mattern · 2014-03-25 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  MS-DOS for Linux? Mac? It can finally happen!
  To quote Londo Mollari, "I can only assume that you have not been paying attention!"
3. Re:Fork? by DanielOom · 2014-03-25 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Most of the source code was built with a proprietary "csl" compiler that generated "pcode" that was run through an interpreter at runtime."
  This will prove hard to port to modern systems.
4. Re:Fork? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2014-03-25 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Eagerly awaiting the first fork! MS-DOS for Linux? Mac? It can finally happen!
  already been done for years
  DOSEMU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  DOSBOX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  WIN4LIN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  FreeDOS + $Hypervisor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
GitHub Source by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Someone posted a mirror to GitHub: https://github.com/Incognito/msdos
1. Re:GitHub Source by gwstuff · 2014-03-25 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Someone" :-)
2. Re:GitHub Source by Kalriath · 2014-03-25 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft is going to fire a takedown at that - guaranteed.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
3. Re:GitHub Source by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Now it has been taken down.
GitHub Source by DeeEm · 2014-03-25 07:45 · Score: 1

Someone posted the source to GitHub for easy browsing: https://github.com/Incognito/m...
DOS 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:47 · Score: 0

is the last version Bill Gates wrote.
Just FYI.
1. Re:DOS 2.0 by fizzer06 · 2014-03-25 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe Gates didn't like Japanese:
  In the "v20source" folder of the "zip" file, in the file "FORMAT.ASM":
  IBMJAPVER EQU FALSE ; SET ONLY ONE SWITCH TO TRUE!
  IBMVER EQU FALSE
  MSVER EQU TRUE
  KANJI EQU FALSE
  "Jap" version? Really? Wow.
2. Re:DOS 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  "Jap" version? Really? Wow.
  I agree: it's a horrifying waste of disk space and assembler RAM. "IBMJAVER" would convey the same information, and save a byte each place it's used.
recompile! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:48 · Score: 0

How about the original MS word for mac.
or, I'd like to see someone port this old version to a modern system just for the heck of it.
"Non-commercial use" by EricTheGreen · 2014-03-25 07:49 · Score: 1

I don't think they needed to worry....
1. Re:"Non-commercial use" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think they needed to worry....
  I think you underestimate the tendency for organizations to hold on to old stuff. OK, maybe not the original version of DOS; but was at a place where I had to interact with a DOS-based program in the late 90s. I bet there are still people interacting with DOS-based software for business purposes. Where I was, DOS was not a licensing bottleneck though. The software that ran on top of DOS was--there were a limited number of sessions from the server and you had to pay based on the number of sessions. We were sometimes chided for having two windows open at once because of that.
SCP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:50 · Score: 0

"When SCP signed the licensing deal [7] with Microsoft, they didn't know for sure who the computer manufacturer was..."
Status: Euclid
Special containment:
The item is to be locked in safe with rotating passwords on the keypad.
No further safety procedures have been suggested due to the fact that most people cannot be around the device for any length of period.
Description:
Nobody truly knows the source of the device.
Some say it has been with us since the beginning of time, some say before that.
Some say that a man named [name redacted] found it in a [location redacted] in Egypt in the year 1822. Carbon-dating is not possible due to the odd lack of carbon in any of its structure.
The fear one gets when using it comes from the deepest depths of the mind, the animal side of the brain that senses it is a threat so against its existence, it must escape at all cost.
Experiments resulted in the total loss of consciousness of all subjects when held near the device for any length of time when sitting at the table with it.
The furthest distance the device seems to radiate is 17 meters in all directions.
Further experiments were able to take pictures of it when filtered from the intense radiation that is seemingly only visible to photographic devices.
When taken on to personal computing hardware, people still felt the effects of the device to an extent.
It also had a remarkable ability to make anyone go insane and somewhat addicted to actually using it, rather than pass out.
Many died due to exhaustion, not eating, and one experiment resulted in the subject repeatedly smashing his head off the monitor, they died shortly after.
They tried to reduce the effect of the picture, by embedding one pixel of the image instead of all of it, with much success. After repeated tests, only 1 out of the 100 tests resulted in total insanity.
See experiments log for detailed experiments.
A young man that worked at the company decided to use it in software in the late 80s, to see if it could be used to create money for the foundation.
So far, it has been very successful in the few products it has been placed in, resulting in a lot of sales.
More tests will be done by the end of the decade, with the creation of a full company to produce operating systems for personal computing devices.
Note: add this to the list of items useful as a profit-scheme for the company. This one in particular seems to be promising in producing a large amount of profit for the company.
Confirmed, Microsoft started by the SCP foundation
1. Re:SCP by lgw · 2014-03-25 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nice - original? Always like the SCP stuff, as poorly-written as it can be. Real creativity there.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Tainting by Jiro · 2014-03-25 07:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Doesn't even looking at this source code create a minefield for open source developers? If you look at the source code, Microsoft can scrutinize all your open-source contributions claiming that since you read Microsoft's source code, you can't suddenly forget everything you learned, so all your contributions to open-source software are tainted by your knowledge. It will be impossible to prove otherwise. This may mean that if you look at Microsoft's source code, you are barred for life from working on the Linux kernel or anything even remotely related to operating systems. It could even affect your ability to get a job.
1. Re:Tainting by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Meh... If you're writing code in 8086 assembler in 2014, chances are that your code will not be read by anyone, ever.
2. Re:Tainting by ledow · 2014-03-25 08:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Are you intending to write an antique DOS system in assembler that uses some really, really primitive version of FAT - by the looks of it? Then probably best not to look.
  The other 99.99999% of the planet, however, might find it interesting.
  Personally, I find anything still written in assembler to be totally worthless. If you wanted that, you could have run it through a disassembler at the time of it's release and it's not-much-more work to get to something just as readable.
  Like the original Prince of Persia code dump - only useful for historical reference and to find out how data and data structures were processed in terms of file compatibility etc. (so, long-dead OS and filesystems are pretty worthless, especially when we know almost everything about them already).
  And honestly, from a first glance, it's SUCH basic code that if you were to program any kind of DOS, and needed to be MS-compatible, the only obvious way to do so would be a basically word-for-word re-writing of what they have. There's almost zero room for "invention" or "interpretation" here, so it's mostly uncopyrightable except as a collection of code. Most functions are literally a handful of lines of assembler on well-known data structures that do one quite obvious thing and the necessary - and prescribed by the way the OS works - register / stack shuffling to make it happen.
  If I were on the FreeDOS team, yeah, I wouldn't want to read it. But honestly, the chances are I wouldn't bother - I'd have a much nicer, more modern, easier-to-read, collaboratively-written project that does an awful lot more than these antique DOS's could ever do sitting right in front of me, already written. There's nothing "useful" here, but it buys MS some "open-source" lip-service.
3. Re:Tainting by VortexCortex · 2014-03-25 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's not how copyrights work. That's how patents work...
4. Re:Tainting by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, you really have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
5. Re:Tainting by iggymanz · 2014-03-25 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  you are a poseur talking out of your ass
  raw output of disassembler is near worthless for anything without hours of study per 100 lines of code
  there are thousand of ways to write code for what ms-dos does even if data structures and commands known
  ms-dos is still used, on industrial controllers where the interrupts and overhead of an OS are unneeded and unwanted. very common manufacturing/CNC applications.
6. Re:Tainting by Zordak · 2014-03-25 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's not how copyrights work. That's how patents work...
  Actually, while the parent was a bit extreme in his paranoia, he was closer to correct than you are. You infringe on a patent whether you saw the patent or not. For copyright, the plaintiff has to prove that you copied the work in some way. If I coincidentally wrote a book that word-for-word identical to Twilight, for example, without ever having seen the original, technically I wouldn't be infringing on the copyright.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
7. Re:Tainting by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Nooope. When you try to release code in a company, you have to go through all sorts of hoops to ensure that you weren't tainted, eg. by looking at GPL source code and including it in a proprietary, or even open-source-but-not-GPL, product. This goes even for open source, where GPL code can be tainted by being tainted with code taken from GPL-incompatible sources without permission.
  But nobody is going to be tainted by this code.
8. Re:Tainting by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  You'd be infringing on good taste, though.
9. Re:Tainting by exomondo · 2014-03-25 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't even looking at this source code create a minefield for open source developers?
  No, otherwise we would have seen the same issues with restrictive open source licenses Vs permissive open source licenses or even open source licenses Vs proprietary software development. Otherwise I could publish a restrictively-licensed open source program and then sue every software developer who read it and wrote code that wasn't under the same license. I think it's pretty obvious that's FUD.
10. Re:Tainting by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 18:11 · Score: 0
  
  MS-DOS and PC-DOS are still used, but I doubt MS-DOS 2.0 is used anywhere outside of museums and OS zoos.
Word 5.1 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 07:56 · Score: 0

Sigh, maybe someday Microsoft will release the code for the last version of Word for the Mac that I liked, 5.1a. I could actually run it (in emulation) on the early versions of OS X. Given the hardware performance enhancements over the previous decade, it was screamingly fast.
Yeah! by musicon · 2014-03-25 07:57 · Score: 1

Long time or not, this is a good thing for Microsoft to do, as well as for the community in general.
Unfortunately, however, it's under a non-commercial license, so any FreeDOS developers still need to avoid contact with it to avoid any IP complaints.
1. Re:Yeah! by RightSaidFred99 · 2014-03-25 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Paranoia. Nobody, including Microsoft, cares what anyone does with any of that code.
That is a hell of a return on investment by es330td · 2014-03-25 07:58 · Score: 1

$75,000 total cost for how many millions (billions?) in licensing revenue from PC manufacturers? This may go down as one of the best acquisitions in business history.
1. Re:That is a hell of a return on investment by PRMan · 2014-03-25 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  They actually got sued later and settled for $1 million.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
DOS 1.1x was significant by linebackn · 2014-03-25 07:58 · Score: 1

The really interesting thing about DOS 1.1 (or actually very slightly later revisions) is that it was the first to be released to OEMs other than IBM. Early clone makers such as Zenith, Corona, Columbia Data Products, Eagle Computers, or Compaq (you might have heard of that last one), never would have gotten off the ground if Microsoft had not licensed it out to them.
Some of the early "MS-DOS" compatibles were not even hardware compatible with the IBM PC. All you could rely on was the presence of an 8088/8086 and MS-DOS provided I/O calls. And those OEMs had to customize MS-DOS to recognize their proprietary hardware.
I'm not so sure about the value of Word for Windows 1.x. It wasn't even the first word processor for Windows (Beaten by AMI and PageMaker).
Now, on the other hand I have heard some interesting things about the internals of Word 1.00 for DOS.
1. Re:DOS 1.1x was significant by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  > it was the first to be released to OEMs other than IBM.
  That is not quite true. Before PC-DOS and MS-DOS SCP had released 86-DOS to several OEMs*. Microsoft was just another licensee until it purchased all rights.
  * see Byte magazine adverts prior to IBM-PC release.
2. Re:DOS 1.1x was significant by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  > Early clone makers such as Zenith, Corona, Columbia Data Products, Eagle Computers, or Compaq (you might have heard of that last one), never would have gotten off the ground if Microsoft had not licensed it out to them.
  Nonsense. Most of those were already producing computers before MS-DOS existed. Columbia, eg, was started in 1976 and """In 1980, Columbia Data Products made some Z80-based computers, most notably their Commander 900 series, which had several models some of which were multiprocessors and had graphics capabilities."""
  86-DOS and MS-DOS were clones of CP/M for the 8086/8088. CP/M-86 was a better product that MP/M 1.x and 2.x and DRI had multiuser MP/M since 1978 and demonstrated Concurrent-CP/M the month that the IBM-PC launched.
  > Some of the early "MS-DOS" compatibles were not even hardware compatible with the IBM PC.
  Or putting it another way: The IBM-PC was not even hardware compatible with anything, not even the S-100 bus systems that had established a multi-vendor market years before and were running CP/M, CP/M-86, MP/M and other operating systems. Even SCP made S-100 systems in their Zebra range which is why they wrote (or stole) 86-DOS in the first place.
  > And those OEMs had to customize MS-DOS to recognize their proprietary hardware.
  MS-DOS, exactly like CP/M before it was composed of 3 parts: BDOS, CCP, and BIOS. The BDOS and CCP were standard and unchanging. _All_ OEMs had to have a custom BIOS. It happened that IBM put their BIOS in ROM along with a few other bits.
3. Re:DOS 1.1x was significant by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Eagle Computer products were totally compatible with the IBM PC. They copied IBM's BIOS. An identical copy. Great machine for the time. Compared with semi-comptible clunkers from Texas Instruments and the DEC Rainbow.
4. Re:DOS 1.1x was significant by tibit · 2014-03-25 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Man, that MS Word source should be perfect for an allnighter port to modern winapi :)
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
5. Re:DOS 1.1x was significant by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 18:30 · Score: 0
  
  It also contains a whole bunch of X86 real mode assembly code.
here by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:01 · Score: 0

http://www.computerhistory.org/ms-dos-early-source-code/agreement/
So sad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:08 · Score: 0

I knew CP/M was in the running in the early PC days. Didn't realize it lost out due to a 16 bit version being late. I've always wondered how things would've been if CP/M had dominated on early PCs rather than DOS.
Who cares? by rnturn · 2014-03-25 08:09 · Score: 0

Microsoft: "Hey! Look what we found in the back of the closet! Anyone want it?"
Great gesture, eh? MS is at least 10 -- and more like 20 -- years too late in doing this. Just why do they think anyone is going to want this code nowadays? One doubts that it really has any value to anyone -- which I'm certain is why they're doing it -- but it doesn't have much in the way of PR value either.

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
1. Re:Who cares? by exomondo · 2014-03-25 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Just why do they think anyone is going to want this code nowadays?
  The Computer History Museum, obviously.
  
  One doubts that it really has any value to anyone -- which I'm certain is why they're doing it
  What value did you think something in the Computer History Museum was going to have to you?
  Obviously it wasn't going to have a valuable contribution to development of modern software, it's over 2 decades old for god sake so it's pretty deluded to think otherwise. Were you actually expecting source code from their existing proprietary applications? Really?
Now I have the source by MeNeXT · 2014-03-25 08:11 · Score: 1

to the package that is sitting on my shelf... nice.

--
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Damn!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:20 · Score: 0

I think I paid like $200 buck for DOS 2.0.
The point? by nurb432 · 2014-03-25 08:26 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Other than ( tainted ) history, is there a real point? FreeDOS surpassed the functionality long ago and is Opensource.. There are several editors that are available too, that are open and free...
Sounds like pandering to me.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:The point? by Lehk228 · 2014-03-25 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  read the summary, or at least the first line of the summary "Microsoft, along with the Computer History Museum"
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
2. Re:The point? by jones_supa · 2014-03-25 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Other than ( tainted ) history, is there a real point? FreeDOS surpassed the functionality long ago and is Opensource.. There are several editors that are available too, that are open and free...
  The history is the point here, Einstein. You and your darn open source...
It's been out there for a while by Aug+Leopold · 2014-03-25 08:30 · Score: 2

It doesn't seem to be widely known, but the MS-DOS 6.0 source code was leaked at some point. However, if you look it up you will only see posts from late 2006 when it was indexed by google code search. There doesn't seem to be any information on how or when it was originally leaked it seems like for whatever reason it wasn't big news at the time.
1. Re:It's been out there for a while by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  .. I have it here somewhere.. was definitely the real deal.
2. Re:It's been out there for a while by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Here is the zipped source.
Finally something for the Ribbon haters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 08:32 · Score: 0

Word for Windows 1.1a!
1. Re:Finally something for the Ribbon haters by dfsmith · 2014-03-25 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  I read "ribbon haters" and thought "hey, there are still people who use typewriters?"
Curiosities by jabberw0k · 2014-03-25 08:38 · Score: 1

The routine for directory listing is called CATALOG (shades of Apple DOS, and Heath's HDOS); for deleting, the routine is ERASE (shades of CP/M).
Early, abandoned steps toward UNIX: MS-DOS 2.2 supported the SWITCHAR variable in config.sys; if set to anything but "/", the directory separator would be slash -- just like Xenix and UNIX; if set to "-" you would type "DIR -W C:/foo/bar" for a wide listing of what generally would be called C:\FOO\BAR
I found this statement by Tablizer · 2014-03-25 08:48 · Score: 5, Funny

12700 REM see, 640k is enuf 4 me - BG

--
Table-ized A.I.
Word for Windows manual by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 10:06 · Score: 0

I still have a mint condition manual for Word for Windows 1.1a. What an amazing program for its time.
Dos version what? by ruir · 2014-03-25 10:06 · Score: 1

As far as I am aware, DOS v3.x source code is out in the open and can be easily be found with a google search...
Whats this - .sed files? grep.exe? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2014-03-25 10:10 · Score: 1

Possibly shows how little I know of Windows development, but I was surprised to find *.sed files and a grep.exe file in the Word for Windows source. Is it possible that MS employed people... hairy people... with beards.... who had worked with *nix?
1. Re:Whats this - .sed files? grep.exe? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft OS development happened on Xenix for years. It wasn't until NT came along that they had a development platform worth the name.
2. Re:Whats this - .sed files? grep.exe? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  A lustrous beard was prerequisite for being a 70s/early 80s computer hacker.
how about the file system, Lucent patent... by swschrad · 2014-03-25 10:36 · Score: 1

can't remember offhand if they ever settled that little spat or not. if not, beware!

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I really should examine it... by oldfogie · 2014-03-25 10:42 · Score: 1

and compare it to the disassembled code I have from years ago. I'm willing to bet the disassemblies have better comments.
"Source code?" by Prien715 · 2014-03-25 10:48 · Score: 1

The whole thing is in assembly.
When it comes to assembly, what exactly is the difference between "source code" and the binary? Better comments and variable names?

--
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
1. Re:"Source code?" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  Get off my lawn!
2. Re:"Source code?" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  if you dont know the difference tween ASM and binary then you do not need to comment
3. Re: "Source code?" by iamacat · 2014-03-25 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Greatly reduced occurrences of data being disassembled as code and vice versa. Or code being disassembled into meaningless rubbish due to wrong starting offset. .EXE is no ELF binary or java class file.
avast detects TROJAN Bill.Gates.Eat.My.Shit.And. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 11:22 · Score: 0

Die.but.Gimme.All.Da.Money.First trojan.
How the heck... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 11:54 · Score: 0

What is the trick to showing the full URL in a /. post now?
She was already out of date by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 12:23 · Score: 0

That shit was out of date back in 1982.
Get over that shit.
GTFO by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 13:52 · Score: 0

Yes, he didn't want people stealing his company's work. The nerve of him.
The 1980's called by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 14:36 · Score: 0

People seem to forget about the historic rivalry between U.S. and Japanese technology companies, especially in the 1980's. Watch a few episodes of Computer Chronicles for a taste of how Japan was viewed at the time (purely copycat, lacking innovation).
1. Re:The 1980's called by cusco · 2014-03-26 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like China is viewed today?
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Enter your code reviews here by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 15:00 · Score: 0

Hungarian notation. Whitesmiths-style bracing. Lame.
I want XP source code by mysidia · 2014-03-25 15:03 · Score: 1

It's end of life anyway... Microsoft should be happy to publish all that code too, right?
Why are they posting old source code? (compliance) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 16:19 · Score: 0

Due to the high speed at which the EU has performed it's antitrust case against Microsoft we are finally see some legal relief for Microsoft's illegal anti competitive practices.
Woot EU for the win!!! :)
Admirable by iamacat · 2014-03-25 16:27 · Score: 2

I wish more companies would do this, and sooner too. Would your ten year old code really be a serious competition to your current efforts? It can however be priceless for learning, or even support for hobbyists who like tinkering with old gadgets.
Lets thank Microsoft for doing the right thing and hope its a sign of good things to come from their new leadership. Apple, Novell and Sun - please take notice.
1. Re:Admirable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-27 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  IMO obviously you weren't around during the whole "DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY" BS, and the note to hobbyists from gates.
MS dusted off the source code? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 17:59 · Score: 0

"On Tuesday, we dusted off the source code for early versions of MS-DOS and Word for Windows"

I thought Microsoft 'lost` the source code for MS-DOS ..
exactly the same only totally different by WheatGrass · 2014-03-25 18:00 · Score: 1

Well, maybe not totally different... It seems there are many stories about why IBM didn't secure CP/M from Gary Kildall. Reading this post conflicted a bit with the story I had read about the day Gary Kildall went flying. This link seemed fair... DOS heart stolen
Great news! by Loki_666 · 2014-03-25 18:15 · Score: 1

This is great news for open source fans like myself! I can finally upgrade from CP/M!
How so? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-25 19:10 · Score: 0

Microsoft was an independent developer. Microsoft has always relied on other independent developers. Microsoft was one of many app developers in a diverse DOS-based ecosystem. Microsoft's fear of competition is no worse than any of its competitors. Everyone in the business was involved in killing off potential competitors or bullying up expertise. IBM did it very obviously when it brought in Microsoft in the first place. But to this day, Google and even Facebook are doing it. Microsoft's roots are in programming.
Bill Gates was a programmer, a good one too. Bill Gates just had a knack for poker, and it's something that he stood out for because Microsoft leadership outside of Gates has been really underwhelming, as has Microsoft marketing frankly. I wonder what might have been for SCP too. Without Microsoft, SCP would probably still have been a bit player. There was still Digital Research. Maybe IBM and DR would have gotten along better. Actually, if I remember right, it was Bill Gates who steered IBM towards Digital Research for an operating system, and it was Gary Kildall who blew the deal and left IBM and Microsoft to look for an alternative CP/M for BASIC.
Emulator by fluffythdestroy · 2014-03-26 00:28 · Score: 1

maybe its a start to a proper emulator. the bunch at dosbox could take a look at this. If I was them, I would.

--
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-03-26 00:54 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
"dir" to "ls" by hishamnajam · 2014-03-26 09:45 · Score: 1

the first thing I would do with MS-DOS source code will be to do a find and replace on "dir" to "ls"

--
hisham
Check by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-02 04:40 · Score: 0

Just for fun: checking Microsoft Word 1.1a source code with PVS-Studio static code analyzer - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0245/