Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#101

Post by userbinator »

6502nerdface wrote: post #87

The README for 2.0 contains an interesting apology to OEMs: > The user manual contains some significant errors. Most of these are due to last minute changes to achieve a greater degree of compatibility with IBM's implementation of MS-DOS (PC DOS). This includes the use of "\" instead of "/" as the path separator, and "/" instead of "-" as the switch character. For transporting of batch files across machines, Microsof…

There's even an (undocumented?) int 21h function to get the switch character, if I remember correctly.

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#102

Post by nailer »

hnzix wrote: post #40
rangibaby wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Messing with SET BLASTER (port 220 IRQ 5 DMA 1) to get sound to work in "Rise of the Triad" was probably the defining moment of my early PC misadventures. That and making a boot disk for Dark Forces, and labelling it "boot dick" by accident (thanks for kicking me in the nuts, mum)

Ludicrous gibs!

Dog mode

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#104

Post by codebje »

jamieweb wrote: post #100

Latest commit: 13 Aug 1983 Looks like they manually backdated that for effect, as there are only 3 commits in the repo.

I'm pretty sure they'd have had to backdate that, since git didn't exist until 2005. :-)

Or a CVS importer applied the appropriate date, perhaps.

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#105

Post by jchw »

codebje wrote: post #104
jamieweb wrote: post #100

Latest commit: 13 Aug 1983 Looks like they manually backdated that for effect, as there are only 3 commits in the repo.

I'm pretty sure they'd have had to backdate that, since git didn't exist until 2005. :-) Or a CVS importer applied the appropriate date, perhaps.

CVS still didn't exist. Which makes me wonder how the MS-DOS source code was managed in the early days.

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#106

Post by colejohnson66 »

jchw wrote: post #105
codebje wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure they'd have had to backdate that, since git didn't exist until 2005. :-) Or a CVS importer applied the appropriate date, perhaps.

CVS still didn't exist. Which makes me wonder how the MS-DOS source code was managed in the early days.

SCCS or RCS?

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#107

Post by danmg »

theamk wrote: post #53

Interesting, all sources of MS-DOS 1.25 is just 12K lines of code, including comments. Today, this seems like a pretty small project, and most commercial apps are significantly bigger.

Most of the functionality is done by the BIOS. It's basically a shell that wraps around the interfaces provided by the BIOS.

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#110

Post by aries1980 »

simcop2387 wrote: post #20
utopcell wrote: post #14

Full assembly. Was this the case all the way up to 6.22 ?

I bet at least until the whole .com .exe stuff was sorted out. After .exe was created they finally got more than a single segment in a binary, so they probably we're using C by then for some things at least. I imagine all the .com files were ask even at 6.22 though, because of the 64kb limit of them

Also, .exe had a larger header, afaik 512 bytes, that was luxurious for some use cases.
Post reply on HN