Difference between revisions of "Talk:MS-DOS"

From Computer History Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Article cleanup)
(Article cleanup: My take)
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)

Revision as of 00:36, 22 May 2023

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)