Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira


devel / comp.os.cpm / 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

SubjectAuthor
* 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?Rhinozz
+- Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?Rhinozz
+* Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?Udo Munk
|`* Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?Rhinozz
| `- Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?Udo Munk
`* Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?John Crane
 `- Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?Rhinozz

1
86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

<c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=2678&group=comp.os.cpm#2678

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:b82:: with SMTP id h2mr1448491qti.214.1628853673561;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:447:: with SMTP id 65mr1720555otc.197.1628853673174;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.71.87.116; posting-account=Wq6UEgoAAABKs1TKYut1XK6OvvqEqriB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.87.116
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?
From: rhinozzo...@gmail.com (Rhinozz)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 11:21:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Rhinozz - Fri, 13 Aug 2021 11:21 UTC

Hey all, I'm new here.

I'm currently researching QDOS/86-DOS, Tim Paterson's OS from 1980-1981 that later became MS-DOS. My research is currently stuck on 2 questions.

1. Did 86-DOS/QDOS 0.2 ever exist?
Context: The version number has never been named in official 86-DOS documents, to my knowledge. It seems to have been a random name some Wikipedia editor created. A version is known to exist between QDOS 0.11 and 86-DOS 0.3, but I have my doubts on that as well. 86-DOS 0.3 is known to be real (a user named BetaCollector has it), but the date given (November 15, 1980) is the date on manuals also labelled 0.3. Could version 0.3 have been this elusive version?

2. Does anyone have any other versions of 86-DOS/QDOS?
Context: I'm not asking for a dump, just asking if you have them. It's greatly beneficial to know that they exist, and that they're not just from someone's brain. The current known ones are 0.3 (as mentioned above), 0.33 and 0.34 (owned and sold by the late Barry Watzman), 1.00 (which has been dumped), and 1.14 (which has also been dumped). There's a big gap there. If you own any other versions not on that list, I beg you to tell me, it would be incredibly helpful.

Thank you in advance to anyone who answers!

Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

<04194c1e-f8b2-4fd1-b1a7-042538565a39n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=2679&group=comp.os.cpm#2679

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1090:: with SMTP id g16mr1743049qkk.202.1628854721534;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:63d6:: with SMTP id e22mr1772906otl.169.1628854721281;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.71.87.116; posting-account=Wq6UEgoAAABKs1TKYut1XK6OvvqEqriB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.87.116
References: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <04194c1e-f8b2-4fd1-b1a7-042538565a39n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?
From: rhinozzo...@gmail.com (Rhinozz)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 11:38:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Rhinozz - Fri, 13 Aug 2021 11:38 UTC

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 7:21:14 AM UTC-4, Rhinozz wrote:
> Hey all, I'm new here.
>
> I'm currently researching QDOS/86-DOS, Tim Paterson's OS from 1980-1981 that later became MS-DOS. My research is currently stuck on 2 questions.
>
> 1. Did 86-DOS/QDOS 0.2 ever exist?
> Context: The version number has never been named in official 86-DOS documents, to my knowledge. It seems to have been a random name some Wikipedia editor created. A version is known to exist between QDOS 0.11 and 86-DOS 0.3, but I have my doubts on that as well. 86-DOS 0.3 is known to be real (a user named BetaCollector has it), but the date given (November 15, 1980) is the date on manuals also labelled 0.3. Could version 0.3 have been this elusive version?
>
> 2. Does anyone have any other versions of 86-DOS/QDOS?
> Context: I'm not asking for a dump, just asking if you have them. It's greatly beneficial to know that they exist, and that they're not just from someone's brain. The current known ones are 0.3 (as mentioned above), 0.33 and 0.34 (owned and sold by the late Barry Watzman), 1.00 (which has been dumped), and 1.14 (which has also been dumped). There's a big gap there. If you own any other versions not on that list, I beg you to tell me, it would be incredibly helpful.
>
> Thank you in advance to anyone who answers!
Quick correction: my theory about 86-DOS 0.3 being 0.2 is incorrect due to the below article in BYTE Magazine, in which Tim Paterson mentions the next version was made a week after 0.11, and 0.3 was released in December.

https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1983-06/1983_06_BYTE_08-06_16-Bit_Designs#page/n245/mode/2up

Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

<236e28ad-8936-44df-ba73-52405caa1ce9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=2680&group=comp.os.cpm#2680

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:108a:: with SMTP id a10mr1670326qtj.14.1628856304790;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1d6f:: with SMTP id l15mr1839286oti.188.1628856303805;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.245.78.124; posting-account=RHtB3AoAAABZlu_FJY7ySUmJrtfW41bO
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.245.78.124
References: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <236e28ad-8936-44df-ba73-52405caa1ce9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?
From: udo.m...@freenet.de (Udo Munk)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1818
 by: Udo Munk - Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05 UTC

I would suggest to use some common sense. No one starts with some software release
out of the blue with some funny number. If there is a release 0.3 there also was 0.2 and
0.1 of course.
If no one has them that doesn't mean they won't exist. If Paterson never gave them to
anyone, and no one broke into his place and stole on of this releases, then just no one
has them of course.

For example I can tell you something about z80pack releases, because this I know for sure.
Available are releases 1.6 - 1.37. So did releases before exists? Sure, I did not start with
some funny number, there have been 1.0 - 1.5 before.
Can I have one of those: No.
Can you tell me whats in there: No.

Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

<0b89abc9-ed8f-418a-aa75-36cfed0a079cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=2682&group=comp.os.cpm#2682

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9e55:: with SMTP id h82mr3029659qke.42.1628888218926;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:bcf:: with SMTP id o15mr3711391oik.118.1628888218558;
Fri, 13 Aug 2021 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <236e28ad-8936-44df-ba73-52405caa1ce9n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.71.87.116; posting-account=Wq6UEgoAAABKs1TKYut1XK6OvvqEqriB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.87.116
References: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com> <236e28ad-8936-44df-ba73-52405caa1ce9n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0b89abc9-ed8f-418a-aa75-36cfed0a079cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?
From: rhinozzo...@gmail.com (Rhinozz)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 20:56:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Rhinozz - Fri, 13 Aug 2021 20:56 UTC

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 8:05:05 AM UTC-4, Udo Munk wrote:
> I would suggest to use some common sense. No one starts with some software release
> out of the blue with some funny number. If there is a release 0.3 there also was 0.2 and
> 0.1 of course.
> If no one has them that doesn't mean they won't exist. If Paterson never gave them to
> anyone, and no one broke into his place and stole on of this releases, then just no one
> has them of course.
>
> For example I can tell you something about z80pack releases, because this I know for sure.
> Available are releases 1.6 - 1.37. So did releases before exists? Sure, I did not start with
> some funny number, there have been 1.0 - 1.5 before.
> Can I have one of those: No.
> Can you tell me whats in there: No.
Polite answer you got there.

> I would suggest to use some common sense.
Of course I have. 0.2 is a perfectly reasonable number to be that version's, but as it is with everything, *you never know*.

> No one starts with some software release out of the blue with some funny number.
The known releases between 0.3 and 0.60 are 0.33, 0.34, 0.42, and 0.56. It's possible it was at the directive of Microsoft, but from my research it does not seem that way. It's impossible to assume things like that.

> If there is a release 0.3 there also was 0.2 and 0.1 of course.
Even though there's 0.80 and 1.00, there's no 0.90.

> If no one has them that doesn't mean they won't exist.
That's not my point. If someone has something, that means that 1. the version numbering is correct and 2. that it was shipped to people. If they are able to give more information about it, that's even better.

TL;DR: You can never be sure.

Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

<1505b9cd-b164-4249-a7d9-c682ed948e4an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=2684&group=comp.os.cpm#2684

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1090:: with SMTP id g16mr6998546qkk.202.1628941446347;
Sat, 14 Aug 2021 04:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:b402:: with SMTP id y2mr5168408oon.89.1628941446114;
Sat, 14 Aug 2021 04:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 04:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0b89abc9-ed8f-418a-aa75-36cfed0a079cn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.245.78.124; posting-account=RHtB3AoAAABZlu_FJY7ySUmJrtfW41bO
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.245.78.124
References: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
<236e28ad-8936-44df-ba73-52405caa1ce9n@googlegroups.com> <0b89abc9-ed8f-418a-aa75-36cfed0a079cn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1505b9cd-b164-4249-a7d9-c682ed948e4an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?
From: udo.m...@freenet.de (Udo Munk)
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 11:44:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Udo Munk - Sat, 14 Aug 2021 11:44 UTC

> The known releases between 0.3 and 0.60 are 0.33, 0.34, 0.42, and 0.56. It's possible it was at the directive of Microsoft, but from my research it does not seem that way. It's impossible to assume things like that.

What a surprise, not, between 0.3 and 0.6 there was 0.4 and 0.5

> > If there is a release 0.3 there also was 0.2 and 0.1 of course.
> Even though there's 0.80 and 1.00, there's no 0.90.

That is something completely else.

In the past until today for every software there always was a release 1, maybe followed by a release 2,
maybe followed by more releases. Won't happen with digital on/off machines that out of nowhere
some release 3 comes into existence.

If you make a new major version from 0.x, to 1.x because of new milestones then 0.x might stop
at 0.8 and you are done with it. We still do this all the time. So that part cannot be guessed, if
there was a 0.9 or not, if not someone shows up with it.

> TL;DR: You can never be sure.
Don't know about you, I can be sure about several things.

Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

<169b45d8a83304e5$1$1753940$e2dda862@news.thundernews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=2685&group=comp.os.cpm#2685

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Subject: Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
References: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
From: john_cra...@yahoo.com (John Crane)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:21:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <169b45d8a83304e5$1$1753940$e2dda862@news.thundernews.com>
Lines: 27
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!2a07:8080:119:fe:f19b:d5b2:4545:7979.MISMATCH!news.thundernews.com!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 20:21:27 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 2368
Organization: Thundernews - www.thundernews.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@thundernews.com
 by: John Crane - Sat, 14 Aug 2021 20:21 UTC

On 8/13/21 6:21 AM, Rhinozz wrote:
> Hey all, I'm new here.
>
> I'm currently researching QDOS/86-DOS, Tim Paterson's OS from 1980-1981 that later became MS-DOS. My research is currently stuck on 2 questions.
>
> 1. Did 86-DOS/QDOS 0.2 ever exist?
> Context: The version number has never been named in official 86-DOS documents, to my knowledge. It seems to have been a random name some Wikipedia editor created. A version is known to exist between QDOS 0.11 and 86-DOS 0.3, but I have my doubts on that as well. 86-DOS 0.3 is known to be real (a user named BetaCollector has it), but the date given (November 15, 1980) is the date on manuals also labelled 0.3. Could version 0.3 have been this elusive version?
>
> 2. Does anyone have any other versions of 86-DOS/QDOS?
> Context: I'm not asking for a dump, just asking if you have them. It's greatly beneficial to know that they exist, and that they're not just from someone's brain. The current known ones are 0.3 (as mentioned above), 0.33 and 0.34 (owned and sold by the late Barry Watzman), 1.00 (which has been dumped), and 1.14 (which has also been dumped). There's a big gap there. If you own any other versions not on that list, I beg you to tell me, it would be incredibly helpful.
>
> Thank you in advance to anyone who answers!
>

Just adding this tidbit...
Usually, not always, but usually, version numbers less than one are
prototypes. People usually shoot for version 1.0 to be the first
'released' commercial version.

What that means is, the likelihood of anyone having a version number
less than one is far less than an officially released version.

The caveat is: hackers/hobbyists/open_source, etc. are a coding crowd,
so you see more prototypes released to these types of people than in the
commercial software realm.

-J

Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?

<e9f4e212-27da-4c97-8201-a27090546ef2n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=2688&group=comp.os.cpm#2688

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:24b:: with SMTP id c11mr13918811qtx.272.1629122946871; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5316:: with SMTP id h22mr10786416oib.13.1629122946446; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <169b45d8a83304e5$1$1753940$e2dda862@news.thundernews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.71.87.116; posting-account=Wq6UEgoAAABKs1TKYut1XK6OvvqEqriB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.87.116
References: <c2fff219-48c1-48c6-87ac-74005709a394n@googlegroups.com> <169b45d8a83304e5$1$1753940$e2dda862@news.thundernews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e9f4e212-27da-4c97-8201-a27090546ef2n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 86-DOS - are some of these versions even real?
From: rhinozzo...@gmail.com (Rhinozz)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:09:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 44
 by: Rhinozz - Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:09 UTC

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 4:21:28 PM UTC-4, John Crane wrote:
> On 8/13/21 6:21 AM, Rhinozz wrote:
> > Hey all, I'm new here.
> >
> > I'm currently researching QDOS/86-DOS, Tim Paterson's OS from 1980-1981 that later became MS-DOS. My research is currently stuck on 2 questions.
> >
> > 1. Did 86-DOS/QDOS 0.2 ever exist?
> > Context: The version number has never been named in official 86-DOS documents, to my knowledge. It seems to have been a random name some Wikipedia editor created. A version is known to exist between QDOS 0.11 and 86-DOS 0..3, but I have my doubts on that as well. 86-DOS 0.3 is known to be real (a user named BetaCollector has it), but the date given (November 15, 1980) is the date on manuals also labelled 0.3. Could version 0.3 have been this elusive version?
> >
> > 2. Does anyone have any other versions of 86-DOS/QDOS?
> > Context: I'm not asking for a dump, just asking if you have them. It's greatly beneficial to know that they exist, and that they're not just from someone's brain. The current known ones are 0.3 (as mentioned above), 0.33 and 0.34 (owned and sold by the late Barry Watzman), 1.00 (which has been dumped), and 1.14 (which has also been dumped). There's a big gap there. If you own any other versions not on that list, I beg you to tell me, it would be incredibly helpful.
> >
> > Thank you in advance to anyone who answers!
> >
> Just adding this tidbit...
> Usually, not always, but usually, version numbers less than one are
> prototypes. People usually shoot for version 1.0 to be the first
> 'released' commercial version.
>
> What that means is, the likelihood of anyone having a version number
> less than one is far less than an officially released version.
>
> The caveat is: hackers/hobbyists/open_source, etc. are a coding crowd,
> so you see more prototypes released to these types of people than in the
> commercial software realm.
>
> -J
You're correct. Paterson said in an email to fellow member bill_h that he considers every version before 1.00 a beta version.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.cpm/c/6jBost41zj0/m/nt-SbRolEgIJ

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor