Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of DOS operating systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codegen86 (talk | contribs) at 11:18, 19 May 2012 (MS-DOS 3.1 questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

no entry about win98?188.222.7.234 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Windows 98 did not introduce a new version of MS-DOS. I believe it came with the same version of DOS as Windows 95 OSR 2. So, from the standpoint of MS-DOS, Windows 98 may not be particularly meaningful. Though I don't think there would be any harm in including Windows 98 in the timeline, users such as Codegen86 (see below) may disagree. I am curious about how these Windows versions of DOS "identify" themselves as "MS-DOS version 7.x". Whenever I do a VERSION command, I just get "Windows 95" or "Windows 98" etc., not MS-DOS. Can anyone tell me how to find the MS-DOS version numbers which are embedded in Windows 9x? Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is completely misleading. The timeline is not restricted to DOS, and it starts way before any x86 systems appeared. Codegen86 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the title is "completely misleading", though I am largely responsible for expanding it from its original focus. The portion in the 1970s before the release of version 1.0 lays out both the hardware and software foundations on which DOS was built. Without these prior developments, DOS would never have happened. Likewise, hardware and related software developments in the 1980s and early 1990s relate closely to and often control the developments in DOS itself. Feel free to suggest a better title. Would "Timeline of the x86 DOS era" work better as a title? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about simply "Timeline of the DOS era"? That implies x86 while not excluding mentions of non-x86 (or non-DOS) systems. Codegen86 (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought of adding limited, major parallel Apple (Motorola-processors) developments, but think the focus should be kept on x86 and x86 should remain in the title. There is already some mention of UNIX here. Apple, UNIX and other OS could have their own timelines. —Wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for MS-DOS 3.1 being released in November 1984? Is it the InfoWorld article from Dec 3, 1984? That one only says that MS-DOS 3.1 will be appearing "within the next few months". Then it talks about something having been released by AT&T in Nov '84 in Europe, but it's rather unclear whether that was 3.0 or 3.1 or something else (3.05? 3.06?). Since IBM's DOS 3.1 didn't show up until April 1985, it would be good to have some better source than a poorly written InfoWorld article which can't get the versions straight to begin with... --88.67.95.53 (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On page 39 of The MS-DOS Encyclopedia: "...so in August 1984, Microsoft released version 3.0 to IBM without network software."
On page 43, "...Version 3.1, completed by Zbikowski and Reynolds and released three months later, completed this network support...".
Three months later is November 1984. I'll update the article to add the reference. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that IBM's network software differed from Microsoft's, as it supported proprietary IBM hardware. That seems to me the main reason for the delay in the release of IBM's version 3.1 – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the MS-DOS Encyclopedia entry in the meantime... it's poorly edited and could be read as "Zbikowski and Reynolds completed version 3.1, which was then released 3 months later". You should perhaps quote Advanced MS-DOS Programming instead which says: "MS-DOS version 3.1, which was released in November 1984...". The bigger question is what "released" means here. Released to OEMs? There were no end-user MS-DOS versions back then. When did OEMs actually ship it? If you say that MS-DOS 3.1 was released in Nov '84 but no customer could actually buy it, isn't that misleading? Consider also http://actapricot.org/disks/aprid5ks.htm#apr00029.dsk which contains MSDOS.SYS dated 11/28/1984 and which is MS-DOS 3.06, not 3.1, yet supports MS-NET 1.0. Speaking of which, what's the source for MS-DOS 3.05 being released in August 1984? Codegen86 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_DOS_operating_systems&oldid=493326078"