Talk:DOS: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:08, 6 June 2012 editAsmpgmr (talk \| contribs)920 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:10, 12 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,658,269 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Computing}}, {{WikiProject Software}}.
(195 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talkheader}}		{{talkheader}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Software\|auto=inherit}}
			}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory

	\|action1=AFD		\|action1=AFD
	\|action1date=17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)		\|action1date=17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 19:		Line 24:
	\|action3oldid=246728415		\|action3oldid=246728415
	\|currentstatus=FGAN		\|currentstatus=FGAN
	\|topic=Computing}}		\|topic=Computing
	{{WikiProject Computing\|class=C\|importance=High}}

	{{archive box\|]}}

	== Move January 2008 ==
	This page was moved, then moved back; see the discussion here: ( ]). If you are concerned that DOS isn't real, but should be part of the ] article, see the arguments posted at the ] and ], as this was the main issue of these proposals. Thanks, ] (]) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	:those are either stupid arguments or made in stupid ways. DOS means Disc Operating System which is NOTHING specific to MS-DOS. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Indeed, in contrast to DOS - Disk Operating System, there are also:
	::(M)ROS Resident Operating Systems like for instance: Comodore's 4kB big operating system fo the THE PET minicomputer called Kernal. Also some of the Tandy 1000 family of personal computers featured a version of MSDOS loaded from ROM. Some other systems are the 1980ies RML 480Z micro computer runnsing ROS or Cambridge Z88 portable computer running OZ.
	::TOS - Tape loaded Operating System like for instance the early IBM 360 system with the operating system on tape called TOS/360, which later became DOS/360 loaded from ... a disk.
	::COS - Cassette Operating System like the TRS-80 KWICOS operating system
	:] (]) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

	== DOS in Vista ==

	I think Vista is the first NT system to exclude any kind of DOS functioning, but I want to make sure before i say so in the article. ] (]) 07:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

	:At least as I read what Microsoft are saying in , no, that's not the case:

	::'''Will my MS-DOS applications continue to run under Windows Vista without modification?'''
	::Yes, they will.
	:::Not all DOS programs run on Windows Vista... ] (]) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	Vista isn't "DOS-based" in the sense that some might consider ]/]/] "DOS-based", but older versions of ] (], ], ], ], 5.0 a/k/a ], 5.1 a/k/a ]) weren't "DOS-based" in that sense, either. ] (]) 09:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

	They use something called NTVDM.EXE (NT Virtual DOS Machine). In my own experience it works pretty badly. Example- Start -> Run, and tell it to run COMMAND. It will open the MS-DOS command interpreter in NTVDM; see how slowly the letters appear when you type. ] (]) (]) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

	:DOS in Windows NT (all versions), is based on DOS 5.0. NTVDM is a third-party application based on Insignia Solutions Inc's SoftPC-AT version 3. (this is taken from a string in the binary in Win2K). The versions of ntio.sys and ntdos.sys are just io.sys and msdos.sys from DOS 5, hacked to work with ntvdm.

	:Keystroke in DOS is very frustrating, because of the way that NT (and OS/2), handle DOS emulations. This is a feature of DOS, which assumes it has control of the machine, and that it's OK to busywait the system, rather than go to HLT mode). The way that NT handles the keys is to starve DOS of the necessary cycles, which is why it appears sluggish.

	:One can look at tamedos, eg http://www.tamedos.com/docs/v50/TameFAQ.htm for some technical stuff. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	==Remove Path Name using prompt command==
	{{hat\|reason=Hiding this, since it's chat unrelated to improving the article, see ]}}
	Did anyone else know that it is possible to remove the path name and replace it with anything (or nothing) as the prompt? this picture illustrates what I mean
	<small>comment made by ] (]) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) who forgot to sign it --] (]) 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)</small>


	You mean the prompt command (I still have my MS-DOS 5.0 manual), pity that's it's all on spanish:
	<pre>
	C:\Documents and Settings\naval>prompt /?
	Cambia el símbolo del sistema de cmd.exe.

	PROMPT

	texto Especifica un nuevo símbolo del sistema.

	En el símbolo del sistema se pueden escribir caracteres normales y los
	siguientes códigos especiales:

	$A & (Símbolo de unión)
	$B \| (barra vertical)
	$C ( (Paréntesis izquierdo)
	$D Fecha actual
	$E Código de escape (código ASCII 27)
	$F ) (Paréntesis derecho)
	$G > (signo mayor que)
	$H Retroceso (elimina el carácter previo)
	$L < (signo menor que)
	$N Unidad actual
	$P Unidad y ruta de acceso actual
	$Q = (signo igual)
	$S (espacio)
	$T Hora actual
	$V Versión de Windows XP
	$_ Retorno de carro y alimentación de línea
	$$ $ (signo del dólar)

	Si las Extensiones de comando están habilitadas, el comando PROMPT
	admite los siguientes caracteres de formato adicionales:

	$+ cero o más caracteres de signo "más" (+) en función de la
	profundidad del directorio de pila PUSHD, un carácter por cada
	nivel insertado.

	$M Muestra el nombre remoto asociado a la letra de unidad actual
	o la cadena vacía si la unidad actual no es una unidad de red.

	C:\Documents and Settings\naval>prompt $T

	23:47:14,65prompt $A$A$A$A$D$F$G$N$Q$V

	&&&&04/04/2008)>C=Microsoft Windows XP prompt $S

	echo hello
	hello

	dir
	</pre>
	--] (]) 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

	Its so much easier than that. Just enter:

	PROMPT

	Here's one example of an option you can use:

	To change the prompt to display the current drive and directory and a greater-than symbol, enter

	prompt $p$g

	You can also create more complicated prompts. For example, to use the same prompt as above, with two added spaces and the characters TIME= followed by a display of the current time, enter

	prompt $p$g TIME=$t

	The resulting prompt (if you are working in the DOS directory on drive C) will look like this:

	C:\DOS> TIME=11:07:54.23
	--] (]) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== DOS was never called DOS ==

	In spite of the title of this article, there has never been a microcomputer operating system called "DOS"; the only OS with this name was for the IBM 360 mainframe. It just became habitual to speak of DOS to group MS-DOS and PC-DOS, and later others. And the early versions of MS-DOS didn't only run on IBM-PC-compatible hardware but also on some significantly different x86 architectures (e.g., Sirius, Apricot) without the 640kB memory limit and with incompatible expansion cards.] (]) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

	:You're partly right, the official names were MS-DOS and PC-DOS. However "DOS" is a common generic term for these 2 IBM-compatible OSs: googling for "DOS games" will get you more hits than you'll want to see; I've even seen DOS games refered to as "dosser"s, mainly in discussions about how to get them to run on recent versions of Win. -- ] (]) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

	== Non-x86 ==

	A number of microcomputers had Disk Operating Systems, and it was habitual to refer to them as DOS. For example, if you read old Apple II literature, the use of DOS is often mentioned. This needs to be in an encylopaedia entry. ] (]) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Citations needed ==

	I tagged this as needing citations. Specifically, it needs sources for these sections:
	*DOS and Microsoft Windows
	*Accessing hardware under DOS
	*Reserved device names under DOS
	*The DOS boot sequence
	*Drive naming scheme (some of this is covered by citations in the main article)

	I know from my own OR that much of this is correct, but it still needs citations, and I can't find any online. Does anybody have books about DOS where this is brought up? Maybe even "DOS for Dummies" would work. ] (]) (]) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

	:I've managed to find web pages for all of this, with the exception of the hardware abstraction section, which I've {{tl\|fact}} tagged. Somebody please provide a cite for this if you have one. ] (]) (]) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

	== July 2008 ==

	There are disagreements over edit. Here are my issues:

	# "stands for 'Disk Operating System'" needs to be cited. I'd originally thought that this was backronymed, but have never found a source. I have no objections to inclusion ''if a source can be found''.
	# "These were incompatible with DOS EXE files and the MS-DOS API" is there for readers who are at a novice computer level. People with little knowledge of older computer technology aren't going to know what this DOS is, or any of the other linked systems.

	I also suspect this is part of the whole "rename this article to put MS in the title and move ] here, because DOS really means disk operating system" movement, because of . Please don't go down this road again; consensus has always been keeping it in this format. This "DOS" family had a much wider usage than the others, and is the most common application of the term. ] (]) (]) 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
	:You can probably find a source for "disk operating system" from one of these printed books: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22disk+operating+system%22&as_brr=3. — <font size="3" face="times" color="#f42c39"><strong>]</strong> (] ~ ])</font> 08:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Yep, there it is. Thanks, ] (]) (]) 00:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Problems with references ==

	The existing references are not good enough. Sources used should be both verifiable and deemed as reliable, per ] and ]. We need to be sure that sources check their facts and have a certain standard of quality. That means, blogs are no-no. At the moment, this article relies on several unreliable online sources, when there are plenty of reliable printed books on the subject.

	* is not the best way to source the history—there are published books on Gates and Kildall:
	**Wallace, James; Jim Erickson (1993). Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire. ISBN 0-88730-629-2.
	**Freiberger, Paul; Michael Swaine (2000). Fire in the Valley: The Making of the Personal Computer, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-135892-7.
	**Evans, Harold; Gail Buckland; David Lefer (2004). They Made America: From the Steam Engine to the Search Engine: Two Centuries of Innovators. Little, Brown and Co. ISBN 0-316-27766-5.
	**Manes, Stephen; Paul Andrews (1992). Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry—and Made Himself the Richest Man in America. Doubleday. ISBN 0671880748.
	* What makes http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm reliable? The author doesn't seem to have cited any sources.
	* And http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/bios/sizeGB8.html
	* And http://www.winvistatips.com/dos-games-on-vista-a102.php

	— <font size="3" face="times" color="#f42c39"><strong>]</strong> (] ~ ])</font> 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

	:I picked that history reference on purpose because it's a primary source from the co-founder of DR. That's Tom Rolander giving the interview, and it's very informative to listen to. As for the other web references, I don't own any DOS books, but I can try to glean something from the previews of g-books. Most of that I knew from my own OR, and was trying to find something through google that I can use as a source. If you know any book references right away that can replace these please do; it seems like the more technical references (like those that would inform us on DOS interrupts) don't have g-book previews. ] (]) (]) 00:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
	::I find that secondary sources are more appropriate. Who says Tom has got his facts correct, for instance? And you're also assuming people will want to watch a video (or indeed, that their computer/web browser are capable of playing it). I think the best book I know of for technical DOS details is Microsoft's MS-DOS Encyclopedia: http://www.amazon.com/MS-DOS-Encyclopedia-Versions-1-0-Through/dp/1556150490 — <font size="3" face="times" color="#f42c39"><strong>]</strong> (] ~ ])</font> 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::I see what you mean about the video. As for his facts, it's possible he's not 100%, but the circumstances surrounding DR's meeting with IBM has become almost folklore in the way it's retold (and there are a number of versions, the most common being that Kildall was "out flying"), so that seemed the best place to find the story. ] (]) (]) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Merge ==

	] should be merged here. Actually I would just leave a redirect, as that article has no verified content. It's also fairly ambiguous since one is an acronym for the other. Comments? ] (]) 09:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm undecided. The history section should definitely go. The bottom of the article is a good list explaining the difference between ] and the OSes with "DOS" in the name, that weren't related to this DOS. However, ] also has a list. ] (]) (]) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Would it be too difficult to include the "other DOSes" as a section in a single article? If that cannot be done, we should still come up with a better way to disambiguate the two topics. Borrowing from the category structure, since this article deals with a narrower scope, it might be called something like ]. ] (]) 03:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::merge should be in the other direction. MSDOS is clearly a subset of disk operating system, whence the acronym originates. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	::::Changing the name has been brought up; consensus was always to keep it. While "DOS" has been used in the names of OSes unrelated to this group, these systems (and this use of "DOS") are the most-well known. That's why it's hatnoted to the disambiguation. For example, google "DOS". Past the Misplaced Pages entry and the unrelated stuff, you see "MS-DOS help and commands", FreeDOS' home page, and an info page about this DOS. Google "DOS program", and everything relates to PC-Compatible. I like how the ] has them grouped right now; I think it's a good setup. ] (]) (]) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I redirected it to the disambig. This will cover both this article and the others with "DOS" in the name. ] (]) (]) 02:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

	{{Talk:DOS/GA1}} -- ] (]) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	content moved inside review -- ] (]) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

	==Name of this article and package structure of DOS-related articles ==
	Since OSs referred to as "DOS" appear on very different hardware and have very different architectures and feature sets, I suggest that:
	*This article be renamed "DOS (PC operating system)"
	*"DOS" should be the title of a disambiguation page, pointing to "DOS (PC operating system)", ] and any other OSs that were referred to as "DOS". If anyone finds refs that outline shared features of all these systems (which I doubt), a few paras can be added to the disambiguation page. --] (]) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	Also "DOS (PC operating system)" should handle any "core material" is covered in ] and ], leaving these articles to describe features to specific to these variants, how they came to diverge, and release history. --] (]) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	:It's been discussed a few times before (there's discussion here and at ]). The consensus so far is that this "DOS" is the most common usage, enough so that the disambiguation should be at ] and have this hatnote there. ] (]) (]) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	==Need to mention BIOS==
	The article needs to mention:
	*the dependence of ] and ] on a ] stored in the motherboard, how the BIOS became an issue in the spread of the "clones" (IBM-compatible PCs) and IBM's attempts to use claims of BIOS copyright infringements to slow down the clones' take-over of ther market.
	*how much of the BIOS functions various versions of Win took over as they reduced the role of ] / ].
	*to what extent the BIOS is still important in the provision of DOS environments in Win XP ad Vista. --] (]) 12:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	==Another push for GA?==
	Does anyone mind if I have a go a getting this to GA?

	Disclosure:
	*I GA-reviewed this a few months ago, and issued a "fail" after getting a 2nd opinion to be sure I wan't being over-demanding.
	*If I do go ahead, you possibly won't recognise the article, as I tend to re-write from the ground up and cannibalise existing content as I go. --] (]) 14:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

	==Why is “DOS” being used to refer only (or primarily) to MS-DOS and related systems?==
	The term “DOS” was around long before the IBM-PC, to refer to the disk-operating systems of a number of unrelated (to each other or to the IBM-PC) computer platforms.  I think it is incorrect for an article on “DOS” to refer only or primarily to those related variations of one such system developed for the IBM-PC, as if any of them have any more claim on the term than the DOSes that were around long before for such systems as the Apple ]] (]) 08:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
	:A really good question. Many years ago (in the 80s), there was a lot of DOSes for a lot of 8-bit microcomputers. But the only that is remembered today is MS-DOS. I think this is wrong too. ''DOS'' is just ''Disk Operating System'' and not only an operating system made by Microsoft. So, I translated the old article about ''Disk Operating System'' (it don't exist anymore) from English to ] and to ]. Today, the article exists only in three languages (aside that two, in French - but isn't a translation from the English original). - ] (]) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

	'''王敏''' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	Because the young editors don't remember the days when disks were additional equipment that most systems didn't have. Heck, for years disks -- by which is meant floppy disks -- didn't exist. There were also Drum Operating Systems, and Tape Operating Systems, and then Rigid Disks, and Flex Disks, and Removable Disks, and ... and all manner of other ways to mount your operating systems. Just ignorance. There's not much in common between AmigaDOS and MS-DOS other than those three letters in a row. ] (]) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

	== DOS 7.1 (Unofficial Release) ==

	Hi,

	I think you should also add some information about DOS 7.1, because it became quite popular. It's used from the boot (as a real DOS), and includes some improvements for DOS. The is no longer exists, but it spread on the Internet and can be downloaded from many other websites.

	] (]) 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


	"In spite of the common usage, none of these systems were simply named "DOS" (a name given only to an unrelated IBM mainframe operating system in the 1960s). A number of unrelated, non-x86 microcomputer disk operating systems had "DOS" in their name, and are often referred to simply as "DOS" when discussing machines that use them (e.g. AmigaDOS, AMSDOS, ANDOS, Apple DOS, Atari DOS, Commodore DOS, CSI-DOS, ProDOS, and TRS-DOS). While providing many of the same operating system functions for their respective computer systems, programs running under any one of these operating systems would not run under others." To which systems the "any of these operating systems" does refer to ? x86 microcomputer disk operating systems OR AmigaDOS, AMSDOS, ANDOS, Apple DOS, Atari DOS, Commodore DOS, CSI-DOS, ProDOS, and TRS-DOS as well ? Where x86 microcomputer disk operating systems' software compatible ? I cannnot guess that from the article. Tom. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


	The DOS comingled into Windows 9x carries the message Microsoft MS-DOS Version 7 (or 8). The version of MS-DOS from the mentioned site is pretty much a utility package that is superimposed onto MS-DOS 7. MS-DOS 7 and 8 do boot, but pass the boot onto Windows 9x. PC-DOS 7.1 is basically PC-DOS 7.0 with fat32 support, and a small number of utilities of interest to system builders. ] (]) 09:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

	== Design - Hardware Abstraction Layer - Pixel Graphics ==

	Not sure if this would fit here, but all DOS compatible graphic programs (eg SuperCalc, Turbo Pascal, Harvard Graphics) used Virtualised/abstracted hardware-independent graphics.

	In contrast, memory mapped graphics was used by programs written specifically for 100% PC compatibles (eg the PC version of Turbo Pascal).

	All DOS machines had virtualised/abstracted graphics at the BIOS level, INT 10/AH=0CDh (read pixel), INT 10/AH=0Ch (write pixel). Virtualised graphics ran a lot slower, but on the other hand, was often much higher resolution than IBM PC graphics. IBM had very poor graphics capability, and a lot of the DOS compatible machines, which by definition had different hardware, often had different hardware precisely so that they could offer better graphics.

	Pixel graphics reference: http://www.ctyme.com/intr/rb-0104.htm <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I'm not sure about what's your point here. Most of the more sophisticated DOS programs could be configured to either use the System BIOS calls for video output or directly work on the hardware (if they provided "drivers" for the various graphics card standards available at the time). This holds true for both text and graphics modes, and is IMHO sufficiently described with phrases such as "bypassing the ]".
	:The point, that the BIOS (in general, not only for video) is a form of hardware abstraction layer is nothing new at all, this was a concept invented by ] in the 1970s when he developed ], a DOS pre-decessor long before the term "HAL" was coined with Windows NT.
	:The IBM PC BIOS INT 10h routines do not provide virtualization, though. If graphics mode higher than those available natively on a machine were offered, this was based on a software emulation inside the corresponding application. The BIOS had nothing to do with it.
	:By the way, the Computer Tyme reference you gave is actually an online version of ]. --] (]) 13:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

	It's to do with MS-DOS compatable vs IBM compatable, an issue until AMI et al cracked the IBM Bios. ] (]) 11:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Rewrite ==

	I've rewritten 'Limitations' and 'Multitasking' because what was written there was just plain wrong, misses more than it mentions, or not a DOS issue.

	DOS, since version 2, was always a pre-emptive multitasker. That's what makes TSRs work in part. There's more to come, for example PC-DOS vs MS-DOS. It wasn't until the clone computers became IBM compatible that the MS-DOS computers (tandy etc), started to wain. ] (]) 11:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
	:OK, but... where are your ]? - ] (]) 00:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	::The perverted gyrations "Sidekick" and company had to use to work under DOS are in no stretch of the imagination evidence of a "multitasking" DOS. Interrupt handling is not multitasking. This modern generation has no idea of just how many ways there were to hose an MS DOS machine! --] (]) 01:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

	:: Many of the modern generation would not understand things like Bloatware either. Windows Seven, sprawled over 5 GB of hard drive, and using 2 GB ram, is less bloatware say, Windows 3.1, at 15 MB disk and 4 MB ram. It is because (15+3)/80 is a bigger hunk of your disk than 5/1000, also, 4GB of ram now is far cheaper than something like an 8 MB stick back in 1992. The Windows 3.1 resorce kit has a little table of what files can be safely deleted to save hard disk. No such thing existed since then, when the fraction grew smaller.

	:: It's not that DOS didn't multi-task. It provided a base for multi-tasking without much resource, but people could build multitasking, in much the same way they could build programs to join up to four fat16 disks into one, or so on. Windows 3.1 works, for example, because DOS multi-tasks: it relies on the same real-mode structures that DOS does, but hides these from the user software. Windows NT and OS/2 go through the same girations, since the trick is to create virtual 8086s in protected mode.

	:: None the same, it is multitasking. It's just that DOS leaves it to sidekick to install the wake-up watcher, and sidekick still has to follow the various dos calls before it can start swapping into memory. Many windows programs were run under standard mode: Windows 3.0 standard mode is identical to DOSSHELL in vers 5.0.

	:: Windows and OS/2 trap '0D'x with a plesent dialog box, or close down the machine. ] (]) 08:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

	::DOS was not multi-tasking. DOS was not pre-emptive. You can hack DOS to provide primitive versions of those things, but they were not features of DOS and did not come with it. It could have been, but it was not. DOS was not re-enterent, either. Where do people learn these false facts? ] (]) 05:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

	== DOS is not a multitasking OS ==
	DOS has no native multitasking functionality in its API. There is no Int 21h equivalent to something like Windows CreateProcess or CreateThread functions which allows a new process or thread to be created which runs concurrently with other processes. DOS only runs one program at a time. When a program is executed via Int 21h function 4B00h that program retains control until it is terminated via Int 21h function 4Ch (normal terminate program function), Int 20h (original terminate function), Int 21h function 31h (terminate and stay resident) or Int 27h (original TSR function). Terminate and stay resident simply means the programs memory allocations aren't released. The way something like PRINT.COM (the DOS print spooler) or Borland's SideKick works is by hooking the BIOS timer interrupt (Int 08h or Int 1Ch) which occurs every 18.2065 times per second to do background processing. This is a function of the PC architecture not DOS. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->

	Another note: the only way one could talk about true multitasking in DOS is if one is referencing the little known European MS-DOS 4.0 which was licensed to at least Siemens. This version of DOS was sone in 1986 and came between the official DOS 3.2 and 3.3 releases and should not be confused with the later PC DOS 4.0 which was done by IBM and later revved by Microsoft with MS-DOS 4.01. European MS DOS 4 did in fact support multitasking, it had extensions to the Int 21h API for this and supported device driver helper functions (DevHlp) and "NE" format executables. The DevHlp functions and NE executables were later used in OS/2 1.x.

	Some info from Microsoft on this - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2004/03/22/94209.aspx

	Again mainstream DOS (PC DOS 1.0 to 7.0, MS-DOS 1.0 to 6.22 and the MS-DOS 7.x components of Windows 9x) NEVER supported multitasking.

	: It's interesting that the above (who chooses to hide behind an IP number), supposes that DOS is not multitasking, and then turns around and gives examples of multi-tasking (background processing), based on fixed time slices (pre-emptive). In short allowing time-fixed background processes really is ''pre-emptive multi-tasking''. Simply hooking an interrupt is not multi-tasking. You have to do something with the running task too. You have to wait for the INDOS semaphore to clear.

	:: The timer interrupt is handled by the PC BIOS not by DOS. The InDOS flag only indicates that DOS is executing a system call.

	: Yes, DOS really does have something like a 'CreateProcess'. When a TSR runs, it stays active + returns control to DOS. In short it creates a fork in the running processes - or creates a new process. DOS, from version 2 onwards, really is a pre-emptive multitasker. You can write shells with standard DOS calls that can swap between different user applications etc, like back and forth, windows, or dosshell (windows 3.0 standard mode).

	:: No mainstream DOS does not
	* Int 21h function 4B00h - load and execute program - this loads and runs another program and control isn't returned to the caller until program termination.
	* Int 21h function 4B01h - load program - this loads another program into memory but does not run it and returns its CS:IP and SS:SP
	* Int 21h function 4B03h - load overlay - this loads a program overlay into memory.

	The so-called European MS-DOS 4.0 does have a mutlitasking function: Int 21h function 4B04h (load and execute in the background).

	: Even when the machine provides the call, there are a number of other calls in the Int21, which is not a machine call, but a DOS call. Thus, DOS really is a pre-empting multi-tasking OS.

	:: I never said Int 21h was a machine call, I said Int 08h and Int 1Ch are. Stop trying to twist what I said with your own technical inaccuracies. There is no Int 21h function which supports multitasking. I could list every Int 21h if you want but it would be a long list as there are functions ranging from 00h to 6Ch.

	: I restored what I wrote. ] (]) 07:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

	:: ''"DOS has no native multitasking functionality in its API. "''
	:: Your mistake is to equate this with having no multitasking functionality.
	:: DOS multitasked. It didn't offer much control of this multitasking through the API, but that's not to say that DOS wasn't doing multitasking behind the scenes. It was hard to attach user processes to this, and DOS certainly didn't offer packaged API calls for doing so, but it's still wrong to stretch this as meaning "there was no multitaking". What on earth was the 18.2 timer tick doing if that wasn't multitasking? ] (]) 15:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

	::: Your mistake is not having a good understanding what constitutes a multitasking OS. An OS like Windows, OS/2 or Linux has a built-in task scheduler which manages processes and threads and provides APIs for this. A multitasking OS will also have inter-process communications support like shared memory, named pipes and semaphores. DOS (except European MS-DOS 4.0) does not have any of this functionality.

	::: You also don't understand the different between the PC BIOS and DOS: the timer interrupt (Int 08h / IRQ0) is a BIOS interrupt handler which is executed 18.2065 timer per second due to the programming of the 8254 timer chip. This has absolutely nothing to do with DOS, this is basically a function of PC architecture.

	::: Please stop putting incorrect information in this article. As it stands the article is in serious need of a rewrite.

	::: Also please read the article on ] and also read some technical information about the PC BIOS and DOS before making any further changes to the DOS article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	Here's a LinkedIn profile of someone who worked on European MS-DOS 4 for ICL
	http://uk.linkedin.com/in/kevinraine

	The relevant entry is at the bottom of his experience list:
	"Joint project with Microsoft to extend MS-DOS 4.0 to make it multi-tasking and use ICL's proprietary hardware features, involving working in Seattle for several months"

	To '''make it''' multitasking, it was NOT before. Also it was not afterwards because none of these changes were carried forward into the mainstream DOS releases, they were specific to this one special release. Instead the ideas from this release were used in OS/2 1.0. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			}}
	One additional thing, here is an old document on Microsoft's FTP site detailing a DOS bug in which Microsoft describes DOS as "a single-tasking environment" -
			{{archive box\|auto=yes\|search= yes \|index= /Archive index \|bot= ClueBot III \|age= 90 \|
	ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/misc1/PEROPSYS/MSDOS/KB/Q82/2/16.TXT
			*]
			}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			\|age=2160
			\|archiveprefix=Talk:DOS/Archive
			\|numberstart=2
			\|maxarchsize=100000
			\|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\|minkeepthreads=4
			\|minarchthreads=1
			\|format= %%i
			}}

			== External links modified ==
	It is pretty obvious that DOS is a single-tasking single-user operating system but there is your proof from Microsoft.
	] (]) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:: Microsoft says things like "Windows 95 is an integrated system" and that there is no thunking down to 16-bit kernel. You can even find references to MS-DOS 5.02, and Windows 3.2 (not the chinese one). That IE is part of the OS etc. Many of these pronouncements are for commercial positions, not technical truths. As such, one should not rely so much on these statements. You can't believe their training, as i have seen of it. The training supposes that MSFT is the latest and greatest, even though they have generally been up to ten years behind the competition. It's all ''what we done'', and ''compared to DOS, Windows is wonderful'', etc.

			I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:: That DOS runs pipes in a series is not proof of lack of multi-tasking. It's more to do with that DOS runs on limited resources, and loading several elements of the pipe at once would cause it to run out of memory. I had to do linear piping under windows nt to get around bugs in the piping.
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20120529010945/http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/The-past-present-and-future-of-the-FreeDOS-Project/ to http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT3952799051.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025185935/http://www.freedos.org/jhall/blog/?yr=2007 to http://www.freedos.org/jhall/blog/?yr=2007
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319090122/http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs to http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629152149/http://arl.wustl.edu/~lockwood/class/cse306-s04/resources/helppc/misc.txt.html to http://www.arl.wustl.edu/~lockwood/class/cse306-s04/resources/helppc/misc.txt.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725163840/http://www.juniper.net/security/auto/vulnerabilities/vuln1043.html to http://www.juniper.net/security/auto/vulnerabilities/vuln1043.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:: '''Making it''' multitasking is more about making it '''easier''' to multitask. It's more about doing things like making calls available for multitasking, rather than having programs do it. DOS 2 is a major rewrite of DOS, including a directory tree and multi-tasking. Programs can run in background and wait for a variety of semaphores through interrupts. Once this happens, then they move into RTR mode, monitoring the INDOS flag, and then when the indos flag is clear, they can move in and swap memory etc to run their task. This is pretty much what happens in OS/2 or Windows, except that a different program does it.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:: I can't see how ''having a task scheduler'' equates to multi-tasking. It's along the lines of ''having fonts'' equates to being able to run word processors. Many of these things evolved because people (outside the vendors) wrote these things. You can have single-tasking operating systems, where you load one program, and you're in it until you unload it, and load the next. Pushing hotkeys to switch from say WP to SideKick or ScreenTheif is not much different to pushing hotkeys to switch from Word to Calendar or Paintbrush.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
	:: My point was not that dos was not multi-tasking, but that it ran in an environment where simply having several large tasks (under DOS or Windows or OS/2), was simply too much load on the system. DOS really did multi-task, it just that by the time enough memory appeared, Microsoft and IBM were pushing alternatives that did it a lot better.

			== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
	:: The average windows 3.x user used to run two or three tasks at once, the apple macintosh was running six or seven. It's kind of like saying you're not multitasking until you have eight user processes in the task line.
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2018-11-13T23:25:32.495895 \| MSDOS 5 Front.jpg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

			== Primarily consists of? ==
	:: Task managers ''could'' be written for DOS. MEM /P does a good job of listing running processes in DOS. You can write such things for OS/2 or NT (separate to the standard ones). The iPad was definitely a multitasking system with no user control over running tasks, until a release fixed this. ] (]) 07:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
			Surely DOS is a generic term - with DOS/360 probably being first - and this is referring to the PC/DOS-come-MS/DOS version only? I'm sure this page is contentious, but how about changing

			"DOS (/dɒs/, /dɔːs/) is a family of disk operating systems, hence the name. DOS primarily consists of MS-DOS and a rebranded version under the name IBM PC DOS, both of which were introduced in 1981."
	::: Would you please give it a rest already ? The fact that you do not understand that multitasking operating systems have a task scheduler and continue to incorrectly maintain that DOS is a multitasking OS makes it very clear that you do not have proper technical understanding. Nobody with any actual technical understanding would call DOS a multitasking OS. What you wrote about the MEM command also shows you simply do not know what you are talking about. Anyway please do not put this incorrect information in the DOS article again. If do you I will request moderation and quite frankly in addition to providing sourced information from Microsoft clearly stating that DOS is single-tasking, I have the background as a senior software engineer who worked on DOS and BIOS and can prove myself if I need to.
	] (]) 15:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

			to "DOS usually refers to a family of operating systems, primarily MS-DOS and a rebranded version under the name IBM PC DOS, both of which were introduced in 1981." ] (]) 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
	:::: ''"I have the background as a senior software engineer who worked on DOS and BIOS and can prove myself if I need to."''
	:::: No you don't, you're just an IP address. I think you're ] and no more than that. You don't get to claim personal reputation as ] on Misplaced Pages, and certainly not if you don't even use an identifiable account to edit from.
	:::: If we're going to play "I invented bigger and better wheels than you did", then back in the late '80s I was writing real-time machine control code, and running it on DOS PCs (mostly 286 ATs) because they were cheap. Yes, multi-tasking under DOS sucked, and real-time sucked massively (Oh for QNX, when I could get it). However within the bounds of "sucky OS that weren't at all multitasking" and "sucky OS that could just about lay claim to multitasking at some theoretically arguable level, if not anything actually useful" then DOS came down somewhat remarkably on the side of multitasking.
	:::: Your editing behaviour and attacks on other editors is also way into the trollish and boorish. Please do "request moderation", but see ] beforehand. ] (]) 15:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

			: The second version would lose the first-line link to ]s, the generic article, which seems like a poor change. ] (]) 19:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
	::::: Now I am on an account, happy now ??. A Perl script ?? Seriously, I've written technical information about DOS and PC BIOS and I've provided links to Microsoft which you and the other editor have chosen to ignore so how could a script possibly do this ? Last time I checked AI hasn't reached such an advanced level. Anyway I've been a programmer for 25+ years and I have never heard anyone describe DOS as a multitasking OS until now because it is not.

			:DOS '''is''' a generic term, and within various computer communities the term "DOS" refers to different software (e.g. Apple DOS, Atari DOS, etc.). But the the overwhelming association between "DOS" and "MS-DOS" will take time to shake. ] (]) 02:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
	::::: Also if you really want to play the experience game then you're playing with the wrong person. I was the lead developer of PC DOS 7.0 at IBM back in the 1990s. I have also worked as a PC BIOS engineer. Anyway I saw blatant technical inaccuracies in an article I know something about and decided to correct them.
	] (]) 16:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:10, 12 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DOS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

DOS was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 20, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
July 27, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
October 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

Mar 2004-Dec 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on DOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

MSDOS 5 Front.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Primarily consists of?

Surely DOS is a generic term - with DOS/360 probably being first - and this is referring to the PC/DOS-come-MS/DOS version only? I'm sure this page is contentious, but how about changing

"DOS (/dɒs/, /dɔːs/) is a family of disk operating systems, hence the name. DOS primarily consists of MS-DOS and a rebranded version under the name IBM PC DOS, both of which were introduced in 1981."

to "DOS usually refers to a family of operating systems, primarily MS-DOS and a rebranded version under the name IBM PC DOS, both of which were introduced in 1981." Number774 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The second version would lose the first-line link to disk operating systems, the generic article, which seems like a poor change. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

DOS is a generic term, and within various computer communities the term "DOS" refers to different software (e.g. Apple DOS, Atari DOS, etc.). But the the overwhelming association between "DOS" and "MS-DOS" will take time to shake. Dgpop (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories: