home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Collection of Education
/
collectionofeducationcarat1997.iso
/
COMPUSCI
/
DOSREF20.ZIP
/
CHAPTER.001
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1991-06-17
|
37KB
|
678 lines
** Programmer's Technical Reference for MSDOS and the IBM PC **
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Shareware Version, 06/17/91 │
│ Please Register Your Copy │
└─────────────────────────────┘
Copyright (c) 1987, 1991 Dave Williams
USA copyright TXG 392-616 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISBN 1-878830-02-3 (disk-based text)
C H A P T E R O N E
DOS AND THE IBM PC
C O N T E N T S
Some History .......................................................... 1**1
What is DOS? .......................................................... 1**2
Other Operating Systems ............................................... 1**3
Specific Versions of MS/PC-DOS ........................................ 1**4
The Operating System Heirarchy ........................................ 1**5
DOS Structure ......................................................... 1**6
DOS Initialization .................................................... 1**7
SOME HISTORY├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1**1
Development of MSDOS/PCDOS began in October 1980, when IBM began searching
the market for an operating system for the yet-to-be-introduced IBM PC.
Microsoft had no 8086 real operating system to sell, but quickly made a deal
to license Seattle Computer Products' 86-DOS operating system, which had been
written by Tim Paterson earlier in 1980 for use on that company's line of 8086,
S100 bus micros. 86-DOS (also called QDOS, for Quick and Dirty Operating System)
had been written as more or less a 16-bit version of CP/M, since Digital
Research was showing no hurry in introducing CP/M-86.
This code was quickly polished up and presented to IBM for evaluation. IBM
had originally intended to use Digital Research's CP/M operating system, which
was the industry standard at the time.
Folklore reports various stories about the rift between DRI and IBM. The most
popular story claims Gary Kildall or DRI snubbed the IBM executives by flying
his airplane when the meeting was scheduled. Another story claims Kildall
didn't want to release the source for CP/M to IBM, which would be odd, since
they released it to other companies. Industry pundit Jerry Pournelle claims
Kildall's wife killed the deal by insisting on various contract changes. I
suspect the deal was killed by the good ol'boy network. It's hard to imagine
a couple of junior IBM executives giving up when ordered to a task as simple
as licensing an operating system from a vendor. Wouldn't look good on their
performance reports. It would be interesting to hear IBM's story...
IBM found itself left with Microsoft's offering of "Microsoft Disk
Operating System 1.0". An agreement was reached between the two, and IBM agreed
to accept 86-DOS as the main operating system for thir new PC. Microsoft
purchased all rights to 86-DOS in July 1981, and "IBM Personal Computer DOS
1.0" was ready for the introduction of the IBM PC in October 1981. IBM
subjected the operating system to an extensive quality-assurance program,
reportedly found well over 300 bugs, and decided to rewrite the programs. This
is why PC-DOS is copyrighted by both IBM and Microsoft.
Some early OEM versions of DOS had different names, such as Compaq-DOS, Z-DOS,
Software Bus 86, etc. By version 2 Microsoft managed to persuade everyone but
IBM to refer to the product as "MS-DOS."
It is sometimes amusing to reflect on the fact that the IBM PC was not
originally intended to run MSDOS. The target operating system at the end of the
development was for a (not yet in existence) 8086 version of CP/M. On the other
hand, when DOS was originally written the IBM PC did not yet exist! Although
PC-DOS was bundled with the computer, Digital Research's CP/M-86 would probably
have been the main operating system for the PC except for two things - Digital
Research wanted $495 for CP/M-86 (considering PC-DOS was essentially free) and
many software developers found it easier to port existing CP/M software to DOS
than to the new version of CP/M.
The upgrade from DOS 3.3 to 4.0 was done in-house by IBM. DOS 4.0 was a
completely IBM product, later licensed back to Microsoft. In early 1990 IBM
announced that it was ceasing development of DOS and all further work would
be done solely by Microsoft.
Microsoft Press' "MSDOS Encyclopedia" shows a reproduction of a late
DOS 1.25 OEM brochure. Microsoft was touting future enhancements to
1.25 including Xenix-compatible pipes, process forks, and multitasking,
as well as "graphics and cursor positioning, kanji support, multi-user
and hard disk support, and networking." Microsoft certainly thought
big, but, alas, the forks, multitasking, and multiuser support never
came about, at least in US versions of DOS. Oddly, the flyer claims
that
"MS-DOS has no practical limit on disk size. MS-DOS uses 4-byte XENIX
OS compatible pointers for file and disk capacity up to 4 gigabytes."
Umm... yeah. One sort of gets the idea nobody at Microsoft had a hard
disk larger than 32 megabytes...
For the record they actually delivered:
Xenix-compatible pipes DOS 2.0 ("|" operator)
process forks, and multitasking eDOS 4.0 (not delivered in the US)
multi-user never delivered
graphics and cursor positioning DOS 2.0 (ANSI.SYS, more than likely)
kanji support DOS 2.01, 2.25 (double-byte char set)
hard disk support DOS 2.0 (subdirectories)
networking DOS 3.1 (file locking, MS Networks)
Early Microsoft ads pumped DOS' Xenix-like features and promised Xenix
functionality in future releases.
We'll probably never know what the real story was behind eDOS/DOS 4/
DOS 5/286DOS/OS2. Microsoft had announced their intent to build a
multitasking, multiuser version of MSDOS as early as 1982. They shipped
betas of "DOS 4.0" in '86 and early '87, before 3.3 was even announced.
Microsoft UK announced they had licensed 4.0 to Apricot Computer, and
the French Postal Service was supposed to be running it. I've never
been able to find out if Apricot ever shipped any 4.0 to end users.
Despite Gordon Letwin's acid comments about problems with the 80286
processor, I doubt the '286 was the barrier between users and a
multitasking MSDOS. I also doubt there was any shortage of programming
talent at Microsoft - Digital Research's Concurrent DOS and Software
Link's PC-MOS were developed without undue trouble.
MSDOS and PC-DOS have been run on more than just the IBM-PC and clones. Some
of the following have been done:
Hardware PC Emulation:
Apple II -> TransPC 8088 board
Apple MacIntosh -> AST 80286 board
Atari 400/800 -> Co-Power 88 board
Atari ST -> PC-Ditto II cartridge
Commodore Amiga 2000 -> 8088 or A2286D 80286 Bridge Board
IBM PC/RT -> 80286 AT adapter
Kaypro 2 -> Co-Power Plus board
Software PC Emulation:
Apple MacIntosh -> SoftPC
Atari ST -> PC-Ditto I
IBM RS/6000 -> DOS emulation
DOS Emulation:
AIX (IBM RS/6000) -> DOS emulation with "PCSIMulator"
OS/2 -> DOS emulation in "Compatibility Box"
QNX -> DOS window
SunOS -> DOS window
Xenix -> DOS emulation with DOSMerge
WHAT IS DOS?├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1**2
DOS exists as a high-level interface between an application program and the
computer. DOS stands for "Disk Operating System", which reflects the fact that
its main orig