Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:24, 6 June 2012

	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

Computing C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Mar 2004-Dec 2007

Move January 2008

This page was moved, then moved back; see the discussion here: (old version of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DOS and MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems). If you are concerned that DOS isn't real, but should be part of the MS-DOS article, see the arguments posted at the merge request and vote for deletion, as this was the main issue of these proposals. Thanks, 69.221.152.25 (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Tnimble (talk) 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. Llama (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At least as I read what Microsoft are saying in this FAQ entry, 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... SF007 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vista isn't "DOS-based" in the sense that some might consider Windows 95/98/Me "DOS-based", but older versions of Windows NT (3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 a/k/a Windows 2000, 5.1 a/k/a Windows XP) weren't "DOS-based" in that sense, either. Guy Harris (talk) 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. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy.krieger (talk • contribs) 10:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove Path Name using prompt command

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

PROMPT 

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.Pol098 (talk) 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. -- Philcha (talk) 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. Pol098 (talk) 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. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 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 {{fact}} tagged. Somebody please provide a cite for this if you have one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

There are disagreements over this edit. Here are my issues:

1. "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.
2. "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 DOS (disambiguation) here, because DOS really means disk operating system" movement, because of this. 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. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 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. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there it is. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 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 WP:V and WP:RS. 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.

• this 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

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 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. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 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 — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 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. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Disk operating system 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? Ham Pastrami (talk) 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 DOS and the OSes with "DOS" in the name, that weren't related to this DOS. However, DOS (disambiguation) also has a list. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 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 DOS on IBM PC compatibles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by petchboo (talk • contribs)

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 disambig page has them grouped right now; I think it's a good setup. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 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. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:DOS/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing this article. I'll add comments in a day or two, after I've read through the article and done a little reading around. -- Philcha (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaps in coverage

It's a big subject, and I can see you've put in a lot of work! Unfortunately I think there are some significant gaps in coverage:

• .BAT files
• Differences between MS-DOS and PC-DOS:
  • Some command language differences, for example PC-DOS did not support the CHOICE command, and its absence made writing menus via .BAT files harder.
  • What's the difference between MS-DOS and PC-DOS? says IBM tied PC-DOS to their hardware - I know blogs are not usually considered WP:RS but Osterman is a long-term MS designer, so I'd defend it quite happily.
    • Having some doubts about this. I recall running PC-DOS on non-IBM hw back in the day. VG ☎ 17:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm sure you did, as all the "clones" wanted to prove compatibility. It was all a bit grey, for example the 1980s MS Flight Sim was regarded as a good test of BIOS compatibility with the IBM PC. -- Philcha (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• The article mentions Terminate and Stay Resident programs, but does not convey a picture to a reader who wasn't there. I suggest you mention SideKick, which was very big in the 1980s.
• Graphical Environment Manager (DR GEM). In fact I'd be inclined to break out a new section on "ease of use". I remember that around the time DOS-based system became common in offices (1984 in UK) Apple introduced their "test drive a Mac" campaign to re-launch their GUI systems after the Apple Lisa was criticised for being expensive and slow. Usability for office staff and home users was a big issue at the time, see History of the graphical user interface. The Real History of the GUI may give you some points to check out, e.g. Amiga. Usability "features" on DOS machines included:
  • GUI: DR GEM.
  • Non-GUI: DOS Shell, DESQview (yes, I know it's mentioned later), GEOS (16-bit operating system) (also mentioned later).
  • Not exactly add-ons but some serious MS-DOS apps provided their own GUIs, e.g. early CASE tools.
  • I'd be tempted to include SideKick in this category.
  • And .BAT fles, especially the use of .BAT for menus.
  • Commercial significance of all this, e.g., Quarterdeck Office Systems went into decline after Win 3 and was swallowed, but Borland is still going (fairly) strong.
• The fundamental reason for all these limitations and work-rounds - Moore's Law, which, if you run it backwards, implies that early 1980s PCs were pathetic. Job_Control_Language #Complexity has some stats, with sources.
• I also remember an ex-IBM guy saying IBM didn't want the PC to become a threat to its larger ranges, and was quite happy for PC software to have severe limitations. You might like to see of you can find sources for this.
• There was a DOS version of MS Word (I used it) before Win 3 was released - same menu structure and ALT shortcuts.

General approach

While commenting on gaps in coverage, I've realised that we look at the subject quite differently - the article is technical / internals oriented, while I see the subject in user-oriented terms. I think for the "general reader" it would be best to explain how primitive / limited it was first, and then explain the technical causes of the limitations. I don't know what the consensus is at Wikiproject Computing about whether the dominant point of view should be technical or user-oriented, and would be happy to discuss this at Talk:DOS.

A sourcing issue

IBM's unhappiness about the licensing issue over CP/M is important, but I'm unhappy about the use of a video as the main source for this point: the sound is sometimes poor; the preamble is too long. Is there a text / HTML source that covers the same ground?

I'll produce more section-by-section comments after we've had a chance to discuss the ones above. -- Philcha (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

GA discussion

I just added a stub on batch files; of course, I hatnoted it as the main topic has some good detail. I'm not sure about implementing the MS/PC differences, as that would necessitate diferences between, for example, DR-DOS and MS-DOS, of which there are many (mostly because DR-DOS had the feature first). For example, while PC-DOS may not have the "choice" command, DR-DOS had a similar command earlier than MS-DOS, which was the "switch" command. "Doskey" in MS-DOS (and probably PC-DOS) was predated by the DR-DOS "history" command in config.sys. Basically, I worry about such a section getting way to large. Actually, I think an MS-PC comparison would be great to add to IBM PC-DOS, which is rather short.

You convinced me about not going into the MS/PC differences. OTOH I think the comparison stuff might be best in its own article, if ever. Thinking about it, there is a comparison article whose name I forget, but it's just a list of releases.

OTOH I'd regard .BAT files as an "ease of use" feature - especially as .BAT files were commonly used for menus in offices - so it's another UI improvement. To show how important menus were, this book (1991) has a section on .BAT menus. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems. A command difference section could definitely be put there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An ease of use section is a great idea. I'm think two subsections: multitasking, where I'll put Sidekick. Later versions of DR-DOS had multitasking as well. (AFAIK MS and PC never had it, but not completely sure). Obviously, single-task was a big limitation from the user end. The second subsection will be the interface. I'll put some in about the CLI and later GUIs/TUIs that aimed to give users a more friendly experience: Geos, Desqview, Norton Commander, etc. I'll go ahead and pull the GUIs out of the software section and put them in the new section.

I agree about the 2 main sections of "ease of use section" being "multitasking" and "UI".

IIRC MS-DOS and PC-DOS never had multi-tasking. A purported MS doc form an anti-trust case backs this up, but may not be WP:RS. OTOH I think this SAMS book on Win XP is good enough. BTW remember to add page number(s) in the citation. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the source, I'll look. I would definitely like to use the interview for that citation. The peer reviewer was concerned with primary sources, but the whole IBM/DR thing has become almost folklorish in the way it's described, so a source so close to the event is a really good find. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just Say No to Microsoft (book) looks good: non-disclosure issue; licensing issue; poss origin of "Kildall out flying" urban myth. BTW remember to add page number(s) in the citation. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving your response inside the review line. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; wasn't sure where the proper place for it was. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ease of use section and book cite for the Rolander interview added. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Make this "main article" for MS-DOS and PC-DOS

Not strictly a part of the GA review, but it would be a good idea to avoid duplication of content and research. Since DOS describes the common features, it should do the heavy lifting.

Article structure

I keep having 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. thoughts about this, because there several dimensions: historical development of MS-DOS and PC-DOS as stand-alone OSs; gradual absorption of MS-DOS into Win, which progressed at different rates in the home / client and business / server lineages of Win; add-ons to make stand-alone DOS more usable (1980s & 1990s); competitors (1980s & 1990s); continuing use of DOS-like environments (subtle wording of title to include e.g DosBOX, freeware desk-top DOS variants, embedded variants); internals. The current structure looks fragmented to me, but producing a better alternative isn't easy.

Here are my latest thoughts. Feel free to comment, criticise, object, tell me I'm missing things, etc.

• Built-in facilities (currently "Operating system structure")
  Hardware supported - with example of how pathetic it was by modern standards (only floppies; the IBM PC spec cited at Job Control Language#Complexity). Basic DOS kernel facilities. Files & sub-directories. CLI, preferably with horrendous example of file names including 2 levels of sub-dir. Batch files, including menus (they really were important in the 1980s and early 1990s).
  Link to Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems if you like, but I don't think that article lives up to its name and is just a list of versions.
• Origins (currently "History", but you've provided content to show that DOS's history is not over).
• Major applications that run on DOS.
  comment on increasing attempts by apps to provide easier UI (including but not limited to GUIs) and some multi-tasking in pre-Win apps.
  • Business applications
  • Games (PC games were huge before consoles got really good, see History of video games
  • Development tools
  • OS extenders / enhancers
  • etc.
• DOS and Microsoft Windows
• Continuing use of DOS-like environments
  • Emulators
  • Free and commercial desk-top look-alikes.
    Can you explain why HP & Dell provide FreeDOS? Why does anyone wan to run DOS these days, apart from gamers who think some mid-1990s games are still the greatest (includes me to a degree)?
  • Embedded
• Technical summary (currently "Operations")
  But move scripting / .BAT up to "Built-in facilities"

-- Philcha (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I just did a massive rearrange and added a bit. As for FreeDOS being included as an OEM system, I couldn't honestly tell you why they would do that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, JeremyMcCracken, welcome back. Are you planning to do any more re-arranging? I ask because at present we seem to have very different ideas about the structure. I've written enough about my thoughts. Perhaps it would help if you could explain why you handle things in the sequence you prefer, and how each part connects to / supports later ones in that sequence. -- Philcha (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a good idea of how to flow this; I was just trying to put the relevant things together. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that structuring the article's difficult when there are are so many inter-connections between topics - I'm about to restructure my contributions to Arthropod because I've just got hold of a text-book that makes it clear what the most important connections are in that subject.

I admit DOS still does not flow for me. The two most common ways to deal with that kind of difficulty are to add "sign-post" sentences at the start of each section to make the connections between adjacent sections explicit, or to re-structure.

Either way it might be easiest to create a "sandbox" sub-page of your user page in which to try things out, and then post links on this page to your sandbox versions - have a look at how busy my sandbox has been. I recently got Small shelly fauna to GA, and the reviewer said she hadn't realised how much easier using sandbox versions made it to try out alternatives. -- Philcha (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• So does the article pass or fail? I noticed this article because of how long it's been on hold. Wizardman 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have any new ideas on restructuring this. Unless anyone else has any idea, it's probably time to make a judgment call on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

At present the article reads too much like excerpts from a programmer's guide, and gives little impression of what DOS was like from a user's point of view - and it was DOS' limitations from a user point of view that spawned other software, like TSRs (notably Sidekick) and early PC GUIs like DR's GEM.

It also overstates and oversimplifies the speed with which DOS was swallowed by Windows. Even Win 3.11 was effectively a co-operative multi-tasking GUI "skin" for DOS, and required a DOS-like OS underneath it. With Win 95 and 98 it was an OS in its own right (you could boot it up), and a loader and a collection of device drivers for Win. Even with NT and successors an emergency boot disk is a DOS disk. See What was the role of MS-DOS in Windows 95? - this is the blog of Raymond Chen, whose responsibility was backwards-compatibility of new Win releases.

There's a GA lurking in here, but it needs to be brought out. JeremyMcCracken has put alot of work into this already, and I'm willing to be patient. -- Philcha (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - End of review - - - - - -

2nd Opinion

• Lead: remove references to Win9x since most people don't really consider them DOS, even if they included a DOS subsystem. Besides, you're not covering them at all (MS-DOS 7.x) in the rest of the article, although you do cover the newer NTVDM.
• Design section: seems a random collection of features; no discussion why these are important. Lacks fundamental design issues like multitasking (lack thereof actually), TSR, and driver model. As mentioned in the other review, you need some transition between sections; currently this reads like a checklist.
• Origins: fairly well written, and sufficiently comprehensive for GA. Almost reads like a different author wrote this section. The only problem is the subtitle. I would merge "Decline" with this section and call it "Timeline"; feel free to have subsections.
• Perhaps add MS compilers and QBasic to the "Software" section, and mention non-FPS games, like Falcon 3.0, Wing Commander series, and Ultima. Also add Norton Utilities as it became popular in later days. Give a few details about the major apps; the list approach is too dry.
• You need a section about built-in apps like the built-in editor (qedit IIRC). I know there weren't many.
• Windows 3.x needs to mentioned as the predominant GUI of this era.
• I would dissolve the "easy of use" section completely. Move "multitasking" into the design section, and the various apps like Norton-commander in the apps section.
• You need some basic coverage of internals, like TSRs, interrupt handling (without diving into programming details).
• A section on viruses (and anti-viruses) of the era would be nice.

Sorry if I used "you" instead of "the article" a lot, but I'm used to writing reviews like this in real life. Frankly the article on MS-DOS is closer to the GA standard than this article. VG ☎ 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the specifics. I'll be short of time for a while but I'll try to work on these whenever possible. For the built-in apps, there's currently List of DOS commands; would a hatnote suffice? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) -- Philcha (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

content moved inside review -- Philcha (talk) 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)", DOS/360 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. --Philcha (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Need to mention BIOS

The article needs to mention:

• the dependence of MS-DOS and PC-DOS on a BIOS 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 MS-DOS / PC-DOS.
• to what extent the BIOS is still important in the provision of DOS environments in Win XP ad Vista. --Philcha (talk) 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. --Philcha (talk) 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 ]

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 Portuguese and to Catalan. Today, the article exists only in three languages (aside that two, in French - but isn't a translation from the English original). - Al Lemos (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

王敏 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.80.123.239 (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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. htom (talk) 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 official site of DOS 7.1 is no longer exists, but it spread on the Internet and can be downloaded from many other websites.

Galzigler (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.68.2 (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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. Wendy.krieger (talk) 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.48.76 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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 BIOS".

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 Gary Kildall in the 1970s when he developed CP/M, 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 Ralf Brown's Interrupt List. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 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. Wendy.krieger (talk) 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. Wendy.krieger (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but... where are your sources? - Al Lemos (talk) 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! --Wtshymanski (talk) 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. Wendy.krieger (talk) 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? htom (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.75.212 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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. Wendy.krieger (talk) 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? Andy Dingley (talk) 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 Computer multitasking and also read some technical information about the PC BIOS and DOS before making any further changes to the DOS article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.75.212 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.75.212 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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" - ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/misc1/PEROPSYS/MSDOS/KB/Q82/2/16.TXT

It is pretty obvious that DOS is a single-tasking single-user operating system but there is your proof from Microsoft. 67.161.75.212 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

67.161.75.212 (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2012 (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 a very small Perl script and no more than that. You don't get to claim personal reputation as WP:RS 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 WP:BOOMERANG beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2012 (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.

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.

Asmpgmr (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for using an account. It goes a long way towards encouraging collaborative working.

I've forgotten more abut DOS than I have any substantial interest in remembering. When it comes to the details here, I'm sure you will be far more familiar with them than I am now, or even than I was then (and as it happens, I was a trainer for the early MCP program too).

We seem to have two points of disagreement. The first of these is what "multitasking" is, more than what DOS did. We have no dispute over precisely what DOS did (I simply can't remember the details), merely whether that entitles it to be counted as multitasking or not. IMHO, multitasking is based on having some minimal ability to schedule more than one thing at once. This is a very low bar. It does not require the API to support multitasking (multitasking entirely internal to an OS is still multitasking). It does not require a structured representation of a "process" or a "thread", merely that more than one "thing" goes one simultaneously. An OS that's restrictive in its multitasking and that makes almost none of the subtleties or control features available to application code might be restrictive, but it's still multitasking. It's a good question as to whether pre-emptive scheduling is required, but then the 18.2 tick was pre-emptive anyway, so that is moot.

I would hope that you might agree this much. If you do, then perhaps we can go forwards by you, with your detailed knowledge, expanding the description of just what was available, and how this was so very limited (which we certainly agree upon).

Secondly, an editing style of removing large blocks with a comment along the lines of "this is all wrong" is disruptive and unlikely to encourage cooperation, no matter what the details behind it. You did this for the partition issue, on the grounds that this was a BIOS matter, thus had nothing to do with DOS. Now without disagreeing over the BIOS aspect (and similarly the timer tick), it's far from the case that this makes it an irrelevance to the DOS layer above this. By all means clarify that this service is implemented through BIOS services beneath, but the point is that as far as the application coder or the eventual user sees, DOS appears to be offering features based on it. We might even reduce this section dramatically to little more than a forward reference to a BIOS article, but removing it wholesale like this is just bad encyclopedia writing technique, in terms of the article it delivers to the readers, according to their likely expectations of what the article will answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• C-Class Computing articles
• High-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles