Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Posts Source Code For MS-DOS and Word For Windows
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.'"
Why not DOS 6.22? They're not making a bundle on that, either.
None of the links are to the source???
I call BS.
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
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?!
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.)
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.
Eagerly awaiting the first fork! MS-DOS for Linux? Mac? It can finally happen!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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
Someone posted a mirror to GitHub: https://github.com/Incognito/msdos
Someone posted the source to GitHub for easy browsing: https://github.com/Incognito/m...
I don't think they needed to worry....
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.
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.
$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.
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.
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.
to the package that is sitting on my shelf... nice.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
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 ----
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.
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.
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
Table-ized A.I.
I read "ribbon haters" and thought "hey, there are still people who use typewriters?"
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
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...
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?
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?
and compare it to the disassembled code I have from years ago. I'm willing to bet the disassemblies have better comments.
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.
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 :-(
It's end of life anyway... Microsoft should be happy to publish all that code too, right?
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?
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.
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
This is great news for open source fans like myself! I can finally upgrade from CP/M!
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 based on user account deletion
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.
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
the first thing I would do with MS-DOS source code will be to do a find and replace on "dir" to "ls"
hisham