vthrc@uqvax.cc.uq.oz.au (Danny Thomas) (12/19/90)
Could someone jog my memory regarding the origins of MSDOS. I seem to recall that the initial version was bought by Microsoft from Seattle Computer Co(?), who were one of the first companies to ship an 8086 board for the S100 bus. I think there was a letter or perhaps part of an article quite a few years ago, probably in Byte or Dr Dobbs, in which the author of the Seattle product explained the history. I've probably still got the article but it would take a long time to find so I would particularly appreciate references. The latest issue of Australian Microsoft's Communique magazine (Dec/Jan 1990) has the first of a two part story on "The History of DOS" in which Seattle wasn't mentioned. My memory isn't as good as it used to be and maybe the product I'm thinking of lead to CP/M 86 or something else, but if my recollection holds I find it irritating that Microsoft is not giving due credit to the original author(s) of arguably their most significant product. I wouldn't want to give the impression that MS ripped off the author in the deal and I'm sure MS could have written something similar, but presumably one of the reasons MS purchased the Seattle software was to exploit a window of opportunity that may have disappeared by the time MS wrote their own, given their lack of expertise in the area at that time *PS* could anyone supply me with a photocopy of the article in Dr Dobbs(?) which gave one side of the story on why IBM adopted MS-DOS over Digital Research's offering; the head of DR (GK) went flying or something similar(?). One of the interesting aspects of the article is the influence IBM had in the development of MSDOS; these were new to me, though not in the least surprising. It almost sounds like an apology from Microsoft P sorry guys, we would like to have done things properly but IBM wouldn't let us. [p20] "In this file structure, all the subdirectories and the filename in a path were separated from one another by backslash characters, which represented the only anomaly in the XENIX/MS-DOS system of hierarchical files. XENIX used a forward slash as a separator, but versions 1.x of MS-DOS already used the forward slash for switches in the command line, so Microsoft at IBM's request, decided to use the backslash as the separator instead." and also [p21] "... 2.11 became the standard version for all non-IBM customers running any form of MS-DOS in the 2.x series. IBM's primary interest for the next major release of MS-DOS was networking. Microsoft would have preferred to pursue multi-tasking as the next stage in the development of MS-DOS. So as soon as version 2.0 was released, the MS-DOS team began work on a networking version (3.0) of the operating system." The title referred to bias and I'll leave a quote which I may send to the PostScript news group along with a discussion, May 1990 edition of Communique article about System 7 [p14] Outline Fonts Apple's promise to supply outline fonts with the new system will HAMMER ANOTHER NAIL INTO THE COFFIN OF THE ALREADY FALTERING POSTSCRIPT. POSTSCRIPT USES BITMAP FONTS - [my emphasis, goes onto talk about problems with (screen) fonts, no mention of ATM] Please don't respond to this quote, you'd have to see it in context Danny Thomas Vision, Touch and Hearing Research Centre University of Queensland