[comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc] DOS 5.0 reseller protection?

elund@graphics.rent.com (Eric W. Lund - Subop) (06/18/91)

An article in the latest issue of Computer Shopper did a poor job of 
explaining what came with the package, and what he meant by Microsoft taking 
steps to stop resellers from including pirated copies of DOS 5.0 with their 
systems.  Can anyone explain what he was talking about?  Are there two 
different versions of DOS 5.0?  (One for upgraders -- ie, the cheap one.)  
The author stated the install disks are not "bootable", and intimated that 
creating bootable disks are a major hassle.  Is there any copy protection 
(logical, or through "hassle") in DOS 5.0?

Also, the article featured the DOS Shell, and didn't discuss the changes to 
the command.com.  What changes have been made to the line prompt, internal 
and external commands, etc?

                                   _ _
                    Eric W. Lund  | | | UUCP:...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!elund
        Friend, Countryman, Ears  | | | BITNET:   elund%graphics.rent.com@pucc
=THE=GRAPHICS=BBS================ |o o|___   Fnord:  Fnord@Fnord.Fnord%Fnord!?
=(908) 469-0049  -  "It's better= < v > \ \_ INTERNET: elund@graphics.rent.com
=than a sharp stick in the eye!"= /.W.\,|,|  <--killer bunny    GENIE: e.lund1

jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) (06/18/91)

elund@graphics.rent.com (Eric W. Lund - Subop) writes:

>An article in the latest issue of Computer Shopper did a poor job of 
>explaining what came with the package, and what he meant by Microsoft taking 
>steps to stop resellers from including pirated copies of DOS 5.0 with their 
>systems.  Can anyone explain what he was talking about?  

The "official" MS-DOS manual has a hologram on the spine, and a note on
the front cover telling you to look for the hologram.  Microsoft has lost
a helluva lot of money to pirates in the past few years...

>The author stated the install disks are not "bootable", and intimated that 
>creating bootable disks are a major hassle.  Is there any copy protection 
>(logical, or through "hassle") in DOS 5.0?

No copy protection.  The deal is that if you buy the upgrade, then by 
definition you must have a running copy already.

Joe Morris

mwilliams@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (The owls are not what they seem...) (06/19/91)

In article <aZ2P46w164w@graphics.rent.com>, elund@graphics.rent.com (Eric W. Lund - Subop) writes...
>An article in the latest issue of Computer Shopper did a poor job of 
>explaining what came with the package, and what he meant by Microsoft taking 
>steps to stop resellers from including pirated copies of DOS 5.0 with their 
>systems.  Can anyone explain what he was talking about?

Well I can try.  The package comes with a Microsoft hologram on the back of 
the manual.  The hologram is a metallic, sort or 3-D sticker that has the 
Microsoft logo on it.  Basically, the same thing you would find on a Visa 
card.  The manual states that the sticker must be present for your package 
to be authentic Microsoft software.

>The author stated the install disks are not "bootable", and intimated that 
>creating bootable disks are a major hassle.

The install disks are not bootable, but once installed, you can create boot 
disks just like you have before with other versions.

>Is there any copy protection 
>(logical, or through "hassle") in DOS 5.0?

None that I know of. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Williams               |                  _   /|    Bill Rules!
                               |                  \'o.O'
University of Arizona, MIS     |     ACK! PTHFT!  =(___)=
mwilliams@mis.arizona.edu      |                     U
------------------------------------------------------------------------

reisert@mast.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (06/19/91)

In article <aZ2P46w164w@graphics.rent.com>,
	elund@graphics.rent.com (Eric W. Lund - Subop) writes...
>
>The author stated the install disks are not "bootable", and intimated that 
>creating bootable disks are a major hassle.  Is there any copy protection 
>(logical, or through "hassle") in DOS 5.0?

I found this to be the case.  At one point, after I had upgraded from DOS
3.3 to DOS 5.0, I screwed up my CONFIG.SYS file and couldn't boot off the
hard drive anymore.  I booted off the old 3.3 floppy ('cause I forgot to
make a bootable 5.0 disk) but then couldn't access the hard drive anymore!
The only way to get out of the loop was to re-install 5.0 on the hard drive.
There was no way for me to make a 5.0 boot disk with the 5.0 upgrade disks I
had.

- Jim

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital
 Equipment Corporation."

James J. Reisert                Internet:  reisert@mast.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:      ...decwrl!mast.enet!reisert
146 Main Street			Voice:     508-493-5747
Maynard, MA  01754		FAX:       508-493-0395

jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) (06/19/91)

reisert@mast.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes:


>In article <aZ2P46w164w@graphics.rent.com>,
>	elund@graphics.rent.com (Eric W. Lund - Subop) writes...
>>
>>The author stated the install disks are not "bootable", and intimated that 
>>creating bootable disks are a major hassle.  Is there any copy protection 
>>(logical, or through "hassle") in DOS 5.0?

>I found this to be the case.  At one point, after I had upgraded from DOS
>3.3 to DOS 5.0, I screwed up my CONFIG.SYS file and couldn't boot off the
>hard drive anymore.  I booted off the old 3.3 floppy ('cause I forgot to
>make a bootable 5.0 disk) but then couldn't access the hard drive anymore!
>The only way to get out of the loop was to re-install 5.0 on the hard drive.
>There was no way for me to make a 5.0 boot disk with the 5.0 upgrade disks I
>had.

I got into this situation in exactly the same manner; the trick was to
bang on the BREAK key while booting the uninstall diskette.  Then edit
the bug out of CONFIG.SYS, reboot the fixed disk, and MAKE A BOOTABLE
FLOPPY...dammit.

Your problem is probably the same one that bit me: the DOS5 installation
rebuilt the FAT to BIGDOS format, which is unknown to DOS 3.3 and prevents
it from recognizing the DOS partition.

Joe

pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang) (06/19/91)

In article <aZ2P46w164w@graphics.rent.com> elund@graphics.rent.com (Eric W. Lund - Subop) writes:

 > and what he meant by Microsoft taking steps to stop resellers from
 > including pirated copies of DOS 5.0 with their systems.  Can anyone
 > explain what he was talking about?

Many of the less scrupulous hardware manufacturers have in the past sold
their systems with some version of MS-DOS pre-installed on the hard
disk, even though they did not pay Microsoft a licensing fee to provide
you with a copy.  I have not read the Computer Shopper magazine, but I'm
pretty sure this is what the author was talking about.  The more
reputable companies, by the way, who provide you with DOS pre-installed,
do pay Microsoft their blood money {grin} and the proof is usually that
you get the original DOS manual and diskettes with the system.

 > Also, the article featured the DOS Shell, and didn't discuss the changes to 
 > the command.com.  What changes have been made to the line prompt, internal 
 > and external commands, etc?

Changes to command.com include aliases and command recall, providing a
*SMALL* but useful part of the kind of functionality available in 4DOS
and the various UNIX shells, if you're familiar with them.  Changes to
internal and external commands include adding lots more option switches
(i.e. DIR is much more flexible now) and online help.  And of course
you've heard lots and lots about changes in memory management. {grin}


--
Singing off,
UNIX:/etc/ping instantiated (Ping Huang)

leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) (06/21/91)

In article <jcmorris.677278372@mwunix.mitre.org> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
>reisert@mast.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes:
>>I found this to be the case.  At one point, after I had upgraded from DOS
>>3.3 to DOS 5.0, I screwed up my CONFIG.SYS file and couldn't boot off the
>>hard drive anymore.  I booted off the old 3.3 floppy ('cause I forgot to
>>make a bootable 5.0 disk) but then couldn't access the hard drive anymore!
>>The only way to get out of the loop was to re-install 5.0 on the hard drive.
>>There was no way for me to make a 5.0 boot disk with the 5.0 upgrade disks I
>>had.

>I got into this situation in exactly the same manner; the trick was to
>bang on the BREAK key while booting the uninstall diskette.  Then edit
>the bug out of CONFIG.SYS, reboot the fixed disk, and MAKE A BOOTABLE
>FLOPPY...dammit.
>
>Your problem is probably the same one that bit me: the DOS5 installation
>rebuilt the FAT to BIGDOS format, which is unknown to DOS 3.3 and prevents
>it from recognizing the DOS partition.

This must be a common problem ... either through cockpit-error or bugs I 
ended up with a config.sys of size 0.  I couldn't locate my dos3.3 (or 
4.0 for that matter) but borrowed a friend's DR-DOS 5.0 ... that booted ok 
& I was able to re-create a minimum config.sys to get me going again.

I tried to re-install 5.0 as a means of re-creating the config.sys, but 
it apparently "noticed" that I already had dos5 installed and would ONLY 
let me make a set of floppies (including a bootable one).

Another note of interest ... someone who was setting up a new system here 
(used to the dos4's setup program initializing things for you on a new 
system without a formatted HD) tried to do the same with the 5.0 upgrade 
disks he got ... it would only make a set of bootable floppies ... moral 
of the story, if you run into this difficulty, disable your hard disk & 
then follow the "normal setup procedure ... after the first floppy has 
been created, you now have a bootable 5.0 disk.


leoh@hdw.csd.harris.com         	Leo Hinds       	(305)973-5229
Gfx ... gfx ... :-) whfg orpnhfr V "ebg"grq zl fvtangher svyr lbh guvax V nz n
creireg ?!!!!!!? ... znlor arkg gvzr

sccs@prls.UUCP (Source Code Control System) (06/21/91)

>>Is there any copy protection 
>>(logical, or through "hassle") in DOS 5.0?

mwilliams@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (The owls are not what they seem...) writes:
>None that I know of. 

     Are you sure ?  Anyone no for sure ?
     I used COPYCP II to make a backup copy and then tried to use the
   backups for the installation.  I got a disk error from DISK 2.  Impatient
   me didn't bother doing a VERIFY after making the copy and when the 
   error showed itself (in the middle of an install), I wasn't about to
   get nosey.  I just inserted the orginal and continued on with the install.
     If the general consensus is that MS-DOS 5.0 is not copy protected, then
   prehaps I should re-attempt making the back-ups.

jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) (06/22/91)

sccs@prls.UUCP (Source Code Control System) writes:

>>>Is there any copy protection 
>>>(logical, or through "hassle") in DOS 5.0?

>mwilliams@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (The owls are not what they seem...) writes:
>>None that I know of. 

>     Are you sure ?  Anyone no for sure ?
>     I used COPYCP II to make a backup copy and then tried to use the
>   backups for the installation.  I got a disk error from DISK 2.  Impatient
>   me didn't bother doing a VERIFY after making the copy and when the 
>   error showed itself (in the middle of an install), I wasn't about to
>   get nosey.  I just inserted the orginal and continued on with the install.
>     If the general consensus is that MS-DOS 5.0 is not copy protected, then
>   prehaps I should re-attempt making the back-ups.

You should try again.  We got an early production copy (which I checked and
found to be bit-for-bit identical to the production copy now in the stores);
in moving it around from machine to machine for testing we copied the disks
and had no problems running from the copies.

Oh yes...the copies were made with DISKCOPY.

Joe Morris