Talk:Timeline of DOS operating systems

	This 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.

Windows 98

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]

Title

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]

On second thought, you're right about x86. x86 DOS is the primary topic for DOS, so x86 is redundant. Per WP:PRECISION, concise titles are preferred, and over-precision should be avoided. I'm moving the two violators of this policy, Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems and Timeline of x86 DOS operating systems—Wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

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]

Notability of PTS-DOS

Is PTS-DOS really notable enough to be listed ? It is a little known product with only 3 entries in the timeline. Asmpgmr (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple other lesser-known DOS operating systems listed, i.e., PC-MOS/386 and ROM-DOS. My opinion is that if they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, they are notable enough to be listed here. There once was an "other" category in the color key (it was white), and its only member was ROM-DOS. Since then the white background came to be used for notable DOS-era developments, such as expanded memory. I've brought back the "other" category, and merged PTS-DOS into it. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should FreeDOS also be put in the other category ? It has few entries in the timeline and it's definitely not as significant as DR-DOS which is the primary compatible DOS. Asmpgmr (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to let FreeDOS be for now. It is about the only DOS still actively supported, it seems. Though the frequency of each release is more reflective of how easy it is to distribute a new version online, versus package and ship floppy disks. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multitasking MS-DOS 4 and PC DOS 7.1

How much is known about these two versions of DOS ? Are there definitive dates for their release ? Is there any definitive technical info available for either ?

Multitasking MS-DOS 4 (aka European MS-DOS 4)

International Computers Limited (ICL) was an OEM
Apricot, Groupil and Siemens may have been OEMs as well
4.0 was based upon DOS 2
4.1 included changes from DOS 3.1
ultimately formed the basis of OS/2 1.0

References from Larry Osterman who actually worked on it:

Ralf Brown's Interrupt List mentions some of the enhanced Int 21h API functions which supported multitasking.

PC DOS 7.1

never officially released
several revisions between 1999 and 2003 (last was build 1.32 from December 2003)
based upon PC DOS 2000
major new feature is FAT32 support
was used in several versions of Norton Ghost and IBM's ServerGuide Scripting Toolkit

Asmpgmr (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is very scant information on multitasking MS-DOS 4 (I'll call it M-DOS 4) because it was more or less an unreleased product. Larry Osterman is essentially the only source of information. One of the OEMs was SMT Goupil (not "Groupil"), part owned by France PTT. Apricot and ICL OEMed M-DOS 4 as well. According to Larry Osterman, Goupil was the only OEM who eventually received multitasking MS-DOS 4.0 and ran it on the Goupil G4. ICL DRS 300 was one of the multitasking MS-DOS 4.1 systems (Google for it). I don't think it's very accurate to say that M-DOS 4 "formed the basis of OS/2". Not much more than DOS 3 did. M-DOS 4 pioneered some technologies also used in OS/2, such as the New Executable format (also used by Windows), detached programs, or pop-ups. But M-DOS 4 did not support multi-threading, virtual memory, or a GUI, and most importantly did not run in protected mode. M-DOS 4 was more like a fork, as evidenced by the fact that ICL shipped multitasking MS-DOS 4.1 in September 1987 while OS/2 1.0 was released only about two months later. Codegen86 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 17 June 2012‎ edit which removed stuff about multitasking from EMS 3.2 description

Duncan, Ray (1988). The MS-DOS Encyclopedia, Microsoft Press. ISBN 1-55615-049-0, p. 305:

The EMS version 3.2, modified from 3.0 to add support for multitasking operating systems, was released shortly afterward as a joint effort of Lotus, Intel and Microsoft.

It's not completely clear to me whether this release was concurrent with MS-DOS 3.2—note the Nov. 1985 item: "Both the Lotus-Intel-Microsoft and AST expanded memory specifications enable users to address up to 8 MB of RAM."

Page 316 of the same Duncan book:

The EMM relies heavily on the good behavior of application software to avoid the corruption of expanded memory. If several applications that use expanded memory are running under a multitasking manager, such as Microsoft Windows, and one or more of those applications does not abide strictly by the EMM's conventions, the data stored in expanded memory can be corrupted.

Maybe Duncan should have said, "The EMS version 3.2, modified from 3.0 to add support for multitasking operating environments..."? What he said implies OS/2, what he should have said implies Windows, TopView, etc.? – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multitasking operating environment (meaning Windows 3.x) makes much more sense. OS/2 didn't use expanded memory. Microsoft used the terms "operating system" and "operating environment" interchangeably in describing Windows 3.x which is unfortunate. Also OS/2 1.0 was released in December 1987 though it was announced in April 1987 (with the first PS/2 models). Anyway since EMS was designed for DOS programs is there any reason why multitasking should be mentioned in the DOS timeline ? Asmpgmr (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other mentions of multitasking in this timeline. Your thoughts on the title of this article (see above section)? Timeline of the DOS era? Efforts to market multitasking solutions, particularly at Digital Research, span almost the entire era.

The definition of "multitasking" in the context of DOS is very vague. It might include certain TSRs (PRINT.COM), and it certainly should include peer-to-peer network servers like the IBM Network Program. If one were to talk about multitasking in the DOS context, it would have to start(?) with PRINT.COM background spooling and center on DOS 3.0/3.1, critical sections within DOS, and the SDA (Swappable Data Area) in DOS 3+. The EMS function to save/restore page maps was most likely intended for Windows (Windows 2.0 used EMS a lot when it could), but also would have been very handy for any TSRs utilizing EMS. And yes, OS/2 1.x had no support for (or use of) EMS whatsoever. Codegen86 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of x86 multitasking (incomplete, need to add mention of earlier operating environments)

April 1982: Digital Research announces Concurrent CP/M-86, aka Concurrent CP/M, a new CP/M-86-compatible single-user multitasking operating system
October 1983: Digital Research releases CP/M-86 Plus Version 3.1, based on the multitasking Concurrent CP/M kernel
August 1984: IBM announces a new multitasking windowing software utility called TopView
January 1985: Digital Research previews Concurrent DOS 286, an 80286 native mode operating system, allowing users to take full advantage of the protected mode to perform multi-user, multitasking operations
August 1985: IBM and Microsoft announce a Joint Development Agreement to create a new multitasking operating system from scratch, known as Advanced DOS (I've also seen "286 DOS")

4th qtr. 1986: Microsoft releases MS-DOS 4.0, the first multitasking version, to European customers
April 1987: Foxbase 2.0 386 does not support multitasking, which must wait for advances in the operating system
May 1990: DOS Protected Mode Interface (DPMI) version 0.9 is formally released—unlike VCPI, DPMI was designed for a multitasking operating system (hmmm, do they mean an operating environment like Windows 3.0??)

A lot of timelines on Wikipedia give little more than version numbers and dates. This timeline attempts to explain details of the versions and give an overall context. Maybe it can try to address misconceptions about what multitasking means. Terminate and Stay Resident "creates the appearance of multitasking," so an end-user may believe they are multitasking when they call up Sidekick. (Don't get me started on whether a human can really multitask, and whether they are operating efficiently when they timeshare a dozen tasks with their Franklin Planners, vs. lock the door and keep complete focus on the programming task at hand ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent DOS really was multitasking. TopView was an IBM program which attempted to provide this as well. Of course European MS-DOS 4.0 really did have multitasking support. Advanced 286 DOS was the early designation of what became OS/2. Those entries are fine. I think the Foxbase sentence regarding multitasking should be removed. As for DPMI, well it is the DOS Protected Mode Interface and was primarily designed to allow programs to be written which ran in protected mode and use extended memory while being able to utilitize the DOS API. Windows 3.x provided a DPMI server and Windows 3.x was multitasking so it would have to be referring to that. I think the "designed for a multitasking operating system" part should be removed.

A separate issue: what is the source of the April 1986 date for European MS-DOS 4.0 ? I know that is the correct timeframe but I could never find a specific date of its release. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the InfoWorld article referenced in the timeline. Search for it on Google books. I'm afraid it doesn't give the definitive release date you're looking for. In the March 24, 1986 issue, they said that 4.0 "will go on sale to European customers in April." I suppose that leaves open the possibility of unexpected delays, and I'm making a definite statement in the timeline, but really, announce the product will be out in April a week or so before April, and then miss by over a month? Microsoft acknowledged the existence of 4.0, but said it is an unannounced product that had been preannounced by Apricot. Apricot said they had worked with Microsoft for nearly two years developing the Apricot implementation of DOS 4.0—Wbm1058 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just searched some more and found an article that seems to make "will go on sale to European customers in April" seem like a fabrication or completely inept misstatement.[1] I'll update the timeline to reflect this new information—Wbm1058 (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Brown's Interrupt List said that it came out between DOS 3.2 and DOS 3.3 so if that info is correct that puts it between April 1986 and April 1987. I've read that it came out sometime in 1986 but I don't have a definitive source. Supposedly Multitasking MS-DOS 4.1 came out in 1987 but again no definitive source. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have the European 4.0 release narrowed down to the last 3 months of 1986. The InfoWorld Mar 2, 1987 issue has a table on page 5 that confirms: "DOS 4.0 Released in Europe in 1986"... haven't found anything yet that gets more specific than that 3-mo. window. Did find someone posted a picture of the Oct 1987 4.1 diskettes and listed their contents. Nothing similar for 4.0 on that site, their 4.0 is IBM's version—Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Osterman's Bio, it seems the 4.0 project was mostly complete by March 1986, probably about the time that Microsoft pitched it to IBM and Apricot pre-announced, expecting it to be finished soon. But then IBM wasn't interested, and Apricot, being a smaller customer, had to wait "about 6 months" while Osterman's skeleton crew "finish(ed) up DOS 4 - mostly spent working on bug fixes and cleaning up the remaining features that had to be completed." –Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sentence really necessary: Application programs communicate directly with the EMM using software interrupt 67H, bypassing DOS. New INT 67H function 4EH supported multitasking operating systems by saving and restoring page maps

It is a bit technical to be in a timeline and inconsistent since there is no technical info regarding changes to the DOS Int 21h API listed anywhere in the timeline. Asmpgmr (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I edited it to remove the hex numbers. I probably went a bit overboard because the issue of whether the EMM supported a multitasking O/S was raised. Also I was forced to tie the EMS 3.2 release to DOS 3.2, which was misleading since EMS happened months earlier. Could never find an article about MSFT coming onboard in InfoWorld. But now Google has more magazines searchable online, so I finally found a source for the timing of LI becoming LIM—Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that EMS 3.2 increased the memory limit to 8 MB from 4 MB in EMS 3.0. Not 100% sure since this was a long time ago. I know that EMS 4.0 increased the memory limit to 32 MB and this can be verified since the EMS 4.0 spec can still be found online. Note I'm pretty sure there was only about half a year between EMS 3.0 and EMS 3.2 Asmpgmr (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found this interesting link - http://ps-2.kev009.com/bocaresearch/Drivers&Software/Archived/File_area_20/BRATPLUS.TXT Asmpgmr (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VESA BIOS Extension added to timeline

I added VBE 1.0 to the timeline. I can't find the original spec but here is a site that has most of the VBE specs from 1.0 to 3.0 - http://nightmist.us/study/SL/SUITE/VBE/

VBE 1.0 - October 1989
VBE 1.1 - ? 1990
VBE 1.2 - October 1991
VBE 2.0 - November 1994
VBE 3.0 - September 1998

Asmpgmr (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]