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

41–50 of 119 posts

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

#41

Post by jmspring »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #31
gerdesj wrote: post #9

Well it has a place, I suppose. For me: I wasted a lot of time and effort farting around with config.sys and autoexec.bat getting drivers to load etc. Could I sue for lifetime wasted?

I'd name "Farting around with config.sys and autoexec.bat" among the things I enjoyed the most in my life. That's a pity you can't find a job to be paid for this nowadays...

Once you started moving up the chain with Win3, etc, throw in config.ini and program.ini amongst others. So many painful memories or is that nostalgia.

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

#42

Post by aasasd »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #31
gerdesj wrote: post #9

Well it has a place, I suppose. For me: I wasted a lot of time and effort farting around with config.sys and autoexec.bat getting drivers to load etc. Could I sue for lifetime wasted?

I'd name "Farting around with config.sys and autoexec.bat" among the things I enjoyed the most in my life. That's a pity you can't find a job to be paid for this nowadays...

Eh? Ansible and other config tools are a modern iteration of the same. Devops is what you want.

And personally, I currently have a bad case of emacs configs.

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

#43

Post by billforsternz »

milpool wrote: post #5
miffe wrote: post #2

Why only 2.0, not 6.22?

I'd prefer 3.0 - because it was the baseline to DOS applications, it seems. EverythingTM runs on DOS 3.0. (I'm using MS-DOS 5.0 on my 386, though.)

I have an irrational attachment to V2.11. For whatever reason, I thought that represented the first mature, finished DOS V2. V2 was massively improved over V1 (V1 didn't have subdirectories), and V3,4,5 etc were much more marginal improvements. For years I kept a version of debug.com from V2.11, patched (with debug.com) so that the initial version check didn't abort for something other than 2.11. It had all the features I expected in debug, yet was positively tiny compared to bloated later versions with no (important) extra features. To me that was V2.11 versus later versions in a nutshell.

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

#46

Post by qwerty456127 »

sverhagen wrote: post #29
qwerty456127 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the sources of MS DOS 7.1 (the version included with Windows 98 that supports FAT32) actually. And Novel DOS 7 (that supports multitasking) if possible. Also these could make an amazing contribution to the FreeDOS project and possibly add some steam to what the world of DOS is nowadays. I love DOS.

Could you elaborate, do people love it nostalgically, or are they making a case for actual current day usage of some sort?

I love it nostalgically (and I actually enjoyed using it back in the days), many people still use some flavor of DOS e.g. in supermarkets and post offices. I believe there is a lot of old hardware that is only compatible with DOS still in use.

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

#47

Post by themodelplumber »

0xabe wrote: post #36

Microsoft, please release QuickBasic to the world

That'd be really cool. Upgrades to QuickBasic would come out pretty fast I'll bet.

In case it doesn't happen, I have to say FreeBASIC is pretty nice...I was happy with how easy it was to make a little simulation game and compile it. Also I haven't tried it out for very long, but Gambas seems pretty neat and does some kind of web app creation thing now too.

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

#48

Post by Spooky23 »

sverhagen wrote: post #29
qwerty456127 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the sources of MS DOS 7.1 (the version included with Windows 98 that supports FAT32) actually. And Novel DOS 7 (that supports multitasking) if possible. Also these could make an amazing contribution to the FreeDOS project and possibly add some steam to what the world of DOS is nowadays. I love DOS.

Could you elaborate, do people love it nostalgically, or are they making a case for actual current day usage of some sort?

There are old DOS programs running clipper or controlling devices than one might think.

Being able to legally do something more with them may be useful to some.

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

#49

Post by stordoff »

jmspring wrote: post #41
qwerty456127 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd name "Farting around with config.sys and autoexec.bat" among the things I enjoyed the most in my life. That's a pity you can't find a job to be paid for this nowadays...

Once you started moving up the chain with Win3, etc, throw in config.ini and program.ini amongst others. So many painful memories or is that nostalgia.

I still remember copying win.ini (IIRC) to recover a friend's PC where it had somehow gone missing.

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

#50

Post by [deleted] »

rangibaby wrote: post #22
gerdesj wrote: post #9

Well it has a place, I suppose. For me: I wasted a lot of time and effort farting around with config.sys and autoexec.bat getting drivers to load etc. Could I sue for lifetime wasted?

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)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN