Talk:MS-DOS - Revision history

Rayrayemu: Forgot to tag

2023-05-22T03:08:26Z

Forgot to tag

Rayrayemu: /* Article cleanup */

2023-05-22T03:07:41Z

‎Article cleanup

Jnc: /* Article cleanup */ My take

2023-05-21T22:36:14Z

‎Article cleanup: My take

Jnc: /* Article cleanup */

2023-05-21T20:31:29Z

‎Article cleanup

Rayrayemu at 20:18, 21 May 2023

2023-05-21T20:18:21Z

Rayrayemu at 05:27, 21 May 2023

2023-05-21T05:27:55Z

Rayrayemu: Created page with "Wasn't MS-DOS 3.3 the first retail edition of MS-DOS, not 4.0? Rayrayemu (talk)"

2023-05-20T19:17:30Z

Created page with "Wasn't MS-DOS 3.3 the first retail edition of MS-DOS, not 4.0? Rayrayemu (talk)"

New page

Wasn't MS-DOS 3.3 the first retail edition of MS-DOS, not 4.0? [[User:Rayrayemu|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu|talk]])

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:08, 22 May 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:
	: I disagree that DOS's are "possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd (1965-1971) and 4th (1972-~1980) generation computers". 'Importance' can be measured in two ways: i) most widely used, or ii) most influential in future developments. For 3rd generation, that would select i) [[OS/360]], and ii) [[CTSS]] or [[Multics]]; for 4th generation, i) MS-DOS (I think; I'd have to check the numbers on things like [[CP/M]] and [[Apple DOS]]) and ii) [[UNIX]]. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 00:34, 22 May 2023 (CEST)		: I disagree that DOS's are "possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd (1965-1971) and 4th (1972-~1980) generation computers". 'Importance' can be measured in two ways: i) most widely used, or ii) most influential in future developments. For 3rd generation, that would select i) [[OS/360]], and ii) [[CTSS]] or [[Multics]]; for 4th generation, i) MS-DOS (I think; I'd have to check the numbers on things like [[CP/M]] and [[Apple DOS]]) and ii) [[UNIX]]. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 00:34, 22 May 2023 (CEST)

−	::I like your idea about a DOS within a DOS category. Also, I wasn't aware of the Compatible PC naming convention. I will keep that in mind in all I do. As far as the term DOS and it's importance in the 3rd Generation, I was going on an article (I don't remember the source) that put a lot of importance on DOS/360 being the first disk operating system to be called "DOS" and how that term would be a triumph for IBM again a little of 15 years later. As far as as DOS-11, I was again using its "first" significance as being the first disk-based system for the PDP-11. You could say, I was basing this in a marketing and which came first kind of situation. As far as Apple DOS, I will admit that it is probably the most famous DOS to be released: before MS/PC-DOS.	+	::I like your idea about a DOS within a DOS category. Also, I wasn't aware of the Compatible PC naming convention. I will keep that in mind in all I do. As far as the term DOS and it's importance in the 3rd Generation, I was going on an article (I don't remember the source) that put a lot of importance on DOS/360 being the first disk operating system to be called "DOS" and how that term would be a triumph for IBM again a little of 15 years later. As far as as DOS-11, I was again using its "first" significance as being the first disk-based system for the PDP-11. You could say, I was basing this in a marketing and which came first kind of situation. As far as Apple DOS, I will admit that it is probably the most famous DOS to be released: before MS/PC-DOS. [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]]) 05:08, 22 May 2023 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 22 May 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	: I could live with having a [[:Category:DOS]] (into which DOS-11 - and others - could go), with a sub-category [[:Category:DOS (Compatible PCs)]], for MS-DOS, PC-DOS, etc.		: I could live with having a [[:Category:DOS]] (into which DOS-11 - and others - could go), with a sub-category [[:Category:DOS (Compatible PCs)]], for MS-DOS, PC-DOS, etc.
	: I disagree that DOS's are "possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd (1965-1971) and 4th (1972-~1980) generation computers". 'Importance' can be measured in two ways: i) most widely used, or ii) most influential in future developments. For 3rd generation, that would select i) [[OS/360]], and ii) [[CTSS]] or [[Multics]]; for 4th generation, i) MS-DOS (I think; I'd have to check the numbers on things like [[CP/M]] and [[Apple DOS]]) and ii) [[UNIX]]. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 00:34, 22 May 2023 (CEST)		: I disagree that DOS's are "possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd (1965-1971) and 4th (1972-~1980) generation computers". 'Importance' can be measured in two ways: i) most widely used, or ii) most influential in future developments. For 3rd generation, that would select i) [[OS/360]], and ii) [[CTSS]] or [[Multics]]; for 4th generation, i) MS-DOS (I think; I'd have to check the numbers on things like [[CP/M]] and [[Apple DOS]]) and ii) [[UNIX]]. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 00:34, 22 May 2023 (CEST)
		+
		+	::I like your idea about a DOS within a DOS category. Also, I wasn't aware of the Compatible PC naming convention. I will keep that in mind in all I do. As far as the term DOS and it's importance in the 3rd Generation, I was going on an article (I don't remember the source) that put a lot of importance on DOS/360 being the first disk operating system to be called "DOS" and how that term would be a triumph for IBM again a little of 15 years later. As far as as DOS-11, I was again using its "first" significance as being the first disk-based system for the PDP-11. You could say, I was basing this in a marketing and which came first kind of situation. As far as Apple DOS, I will admit that it is probably the most famous DOS to be released: before MS/PC-DOS.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 21 May 2023
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I would like to lay down every I would to do with a complete overhaul of DOS. First of all, the version history of MS-DOS and PC-DOS are intertwined, overlapping and over muddled. So, I would like to make separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS article with mostly version information and a brief history plus OEM information for early MS-DOS. Then I would like to create an article entitled [[DOS (PC Compatible)]] which covers a more in-depth history plus some information on some of the commands that aren't used as much with the NT CMD command processor such as prompt and edlin. Then, I would like to cover the legacy of DOS. Lastly, I would like to make a category called DOS under operating systems which would not only cover PC compatible DOS but also DOSes such as ProDOS, DOS-11, TRSDOS, and Commodore DOS. In my opinion, DOS, not just the those derived from 86-DOS are possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd and 4th generation computers and should get as much coverage as possible. What do you all think? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]]) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (CEST)		I would like to lay down every I would to do with a complete overhaul of DOS. First of all, the version history of MS-DOS and PC-DOS are intertwined, overlapping and over muddled. So, I would like to make separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS article with mostly version information and a brief history plus OEM information for early MS-DOS. Then I would like to create an article entitled [[DOS (PC Compatible)]] which covers a more in-depth history plus some information on some of the commands that aren't used as much with the NT CMD command processor such as prompt and edlin. Then, I would like to cover the legacy of DOS. Lastly, I would like to make a category called DOS under operating systems which would not only cover PC compatible DOS but also DOSes such as ProDOS, DOS-11, TRSDOS, and Commodore DOS. In my opinion, DOS, not just the those derived from 86-DOS are possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd and 4th generation computers and should get as much coverage as possible. What do you all think? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]]) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (CEST)
		+
		+	: Doing separate [[MS-DOS]] and [[PC-DOS]] articles sounds good to me. Also having a separate general article, to cover the general history, etc.
		+	: Although I'd use [[DOS (Compatible PC)]] for the title: 'PC Compatible' could be read as 'compatible ''with'' PCs'; we have used the term 'Compatible PC' here as the canonical short form of 'IBM-compatible PC' (e.g. [[:Category:Compatible PCs]]).
		+	: I will have to go think about the categories. I do not like putting [[DOS-11]] in the same category as [[MS-DOS]]; they have little in common other than the name. (In functionality terms, ''many'' operating systems from the 1960s and 1970s for small computers had basically the same level of functionality as DOS-11 - e.g. [[OS/8]], the [[Alto]] OS - to pick just a few from a long list. Are we to put them all in the same category?)
		+	: I could live with having a [[:Category:DOS]] (into which DOS-11 - and others - could go), with a sub-category [[:Category:DOS (Compatible PCs)]], for MS-DOS, PC-DOS, etc.
		+	: I disagree that DOS's are "possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd (1965-1971) and 4th (1972-~1980) generation computers". 'Importance' can be measured in two ways: i) most widely used, or ii) most influential in future developments. For 3rd generation, that would select i) [[OS/360]], and ii) [[CTSS]] or [[Multics]]; for 4th generation, i) MS-DOS (I think; I'd have to check the numbers on things like [[CP/M]] and [[Apple DOS]]) and ii) [[UNIX]]. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 00:34, 22 May 2023 (CEST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Wasn't MS-DOS 3.3 the first retail edition of MS-DOS, not 4.0? [[User:Rayrayemu|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu|talk]])
 I would really like to revamp the whole MS-DOS section to separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS and include Third-Party DOSes as well. What does everyone think? [[User:Rayrayemu|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu|talk]]) 07:27, 21 May 2023 (CEST)
 I would like to lay down every I would to do with a complete overhaul of DOS. First of all, the version history of MS-DOS and PC-DOS are intertwined, overlapping and over muddled. So, I would like to make separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS article with mostly version information and a brief history plus OEM information for early MS-DOS. Then I would like to create an article entitled [[DOS (PC Compatible)]] which covers a more in-depth history plus some information on some of the commands that aren't used as much with the NT CMD command processor such as prompt and edlin. Then, I would like to cover the legacy of DOS. Lastly, I would like to make a category called DOS under operating systems which would not only cover PC compatible DOS but also DOSes such as ProDOS, DOS-11, TRSDOS, and Commodore DOS. In my opinion, DOS, not just the those derived from 86-DOS are possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd and 4th generation computers and should get as much coverage as possible. What do you all think? [[User:Rayrayemu|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu|talk]]) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 21 May 2023
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I would really like to revamp the whole MS-DOS section to separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS and include Third-Party DOSes as well. What does everyone think? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]]) 07:27, 21 May 2023 (CEST)		I would really like to revamp the whole MS-DOS section to separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS and include Third-Party DOSes as well. What does everyone think? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]]) 07:27, 21 May 2023 (CEST)
		+
		+	I would like to lay down every I would to do with a complete overhaul of DOS. First of all, the version history of MS-DOS and PC-DOS are intertwined, overlapping and over muddled. So, I would like to make separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS article with mostly version information and a brief history plus OEM information for early MS-DOS. Then I would like to create an article entitled [[DOS (PC Compatible)]] which covers a more in-depth history plus some information on some of the commands that aren't used as much with the NT CMD command processor such as prompt and edlin. Then, I would like to cover the legacy of DOS. Lastly, I would like to make a category called DOS under operating systems which would not only cover PC compatible DOS but also DOSes such as ProDOS, DOS-11, TRSDOS, and Commodore DOS. In my opinion, DOS, not just the those derived from 86-DOS are possibly the most important operating systems for 3rd and 4th generation computers and should get as much coverage as possible. What do you all think? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]]) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:27, 21 May 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Wasn't MS-DOS 3.3 the first retail edition of MS-DOS, not 4.0? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]])		Wasn't MS-DOS 3.3 the first retail edition of MS-DOS, not 4.0? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]])
		+
		+	I would really like to revamp the whole MS-DOS section to separate MS-DOS and PC-DOS and include Third-Party DOSes as well. What does everyone think? [[User:Rayrayemu\|Rayrayemu]] ([[User talk:Rayrayemu\|talk]]) 07:27, 21 May 2023 (CEST)