Talk:MS-DOS

DOS 3.3

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

Article cleanup

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? 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? 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. 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. Rayrayemu (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2023 (CEST)