The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
1–10 of 119 posts
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#2Why only 2.0, not 6.22?
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#3Why only 2.0, not 6.22?
Not speaking from any authority, but I'd imagine because 6.22 can still be useful in certain applications and Microsoft would still want to exploit that.
Then again, there's FreeDOS which happens to be used in a ton of places that MS-DOS otherwise would be (BIOS update disks, car radios, etc)
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#4Why only 2.0, not 6.22?
I wonder, is 6.22 considerably more complex than DOS 2? Did they do any rewrites or is 6 based directly on 2?
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#5Why 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.)
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#6Wonder if and when we will get closer to seeing existing windows apps open sourced. It looks like they may be doing clean up of old codebases to release
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#7Wonder if and when we will get closer to seeing existing windows apps open sourced. It looks like they may be doing clean up of old codebases to release
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#8Why only 2.0, not 6.22?
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.
Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0
#9Well 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?