OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows - CP/M

This is a discussion on OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows - CP/M ; Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay with low starting price and no reserve. http://cgi.ebay.com/Historic-Early-V...QQcmdZViewItem A real rarity in almost new condition Thanks ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

  1. OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    with low starting price and no reserve.
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Historic-Early-V...QQcmdZViewItem


    A real rarity in almost new condition

    Thanks for looking.

    Norm


  2. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    wrote:

    >Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    >based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    >with low starting price and no reserve.
    > http://cgi.ebay.com/Historic-Early-V...QQcmdZViewItem
    >
    >
    >A real rarity in almost new condition
    >
    >Thanks for looking.
    >
    > Norm


    Cripes. I still have my Windows/386, too. And Windows/286. And
    Windows 3.0, and 3.1. I even have Windows 2.0, but it wasn't worth
    playing with -- a mere toy in my experience. The first version that
    actually was decently usable was /386, I think. I have my old
    Microsoft C compilers, BASIC compilers, etc. Quite a shelf of boxes
    with books and floppies. Along with my 4-volume IBM PC/AT Technical
    Reference set, which I won't part with.

    Jon

  3. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows


    Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    > >based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    > >with low starting price and no reserve.
    > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Historic-Early-V...QQcmdZViewItem
    > >
    > >
    > >A real rarity in almost new condition
    > >
    > >Thanks for looking.
    > >
    > > Norm

    >
    > Cripes. I still have my Windows/386, too. And Windows/286. And
    > Windows 3.0, and 3.1. I even have Windows 2.0, but it wasn't worth
    > playing with -- a mere toy in my experience. The first version that
    > actually was decently usable was /386, I think. I have my old
    > Microsoft C compilers, BASIC compilers, etc. Quite a shelf of boxes
    > with books and floppies. Along with my 4-volume IBM PC/AT Technical
    > Reference set, which I won't part with.


    I have a copy of windows 1.0 that will install on a floppy. It is fun
    to play with.

    >
    > Jon



  4. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    On 7 Feb 2006 12:48:34 -0800, "Bill H" wrote:

    >
    >Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
    >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    >> >based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    >> >with low starting price and no reserve.
    >> > http://cgi.ebay.com/Historic-Early-V...QQcmdZViewItem
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >A real rarity in almost new condition
    >> >
    >> >Thanks for looking.
    >> >
    >> > Norm

    >>
    >> Cripes. I still have my Windows/386, too. And Windows/286. And
    >> Windows 3.0, and 3.1. I even have Windows 2.0, but it wasn't worth
    >> playing with -- a mere toy in my experience. The first version that
    >> actually was decently usable was /386, I think. I have my old
    >> Microsoft C compilers, BASIC compilers, etc. Quite a shelf of boxes
    >> with books and floppies. Along with my 4-volume IBM PC/AT Technical
    >> Reference set, which I won't part with.

    >
    >I have a copy of windows 1.0 that will install on a floppy. It is fun
    >to play with.


    My memory fades at this point, as to whether I have 1.0. I might, if
    I rummaged my attic for it. But I can't be sure. It wasn't until I
    started using Windows/286 and /386, that I found some programs and
    development on it tolerable, speedwise and crash-wise, and could even
    start to consider the idea of writing applications for it.

    Having to write Windows programs back then (and the low level docs
    that Microsoft was forced to provide then) gave me a clear picture of
    the core design that made later understanding of MFC both trivial as
    well as knowing how to dig into the MFC code to find what I needed to
    know when Microsoft's docs failed or to modify it for competitive
    programs when Microsoft was trying to push "users" into rather less
    competitive and commonly-used paths of MFC (which they made easy to
    access, but which wasn't so often a good way of handling things.)
    Today, it is nearly impossible to find the kinds of really good docs
    on those basic concepts which still apply in general concept at a very
    low level and are still available to those who care about it.

    Jon

  5. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    > A real rarity in almost new condition

    I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.



  6. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:31:37 -0500, "JohnH"
    wrote:

    >> A real rarity in almost new condition

    >
    >I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.


    Well, in the past Microsoft has guaranteed to me the ability to secure
    replacement floppies, should they be unreadable. It was for a
    different product and it has been some years since I last needed to
    ask about such things. But the product was old then and no longer
    sold. So I would consider it at least a remote possibility, if one
    can demonstrate ownership to their satisfaction.

    Jon

  7. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    "JohnH" wrote in message
    news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
    >> A real rarity in almost new condition

    >
    > I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.


    John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer because I
    wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I just
    checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DOS Tech Reference Manual
    I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year old Dell. That's from 1987 and
    both products were stored in the same offices for over 15 years.

    Norm


  8. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    wrote:

    >Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    >based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    >with low starting price and no reserve.


    What MADE Windows was running PROTECTED MODE.

    And KEY to getting it to do THAT was something called SST.

    Scroll Systems Tracer. You wanna collect, you NEED this.

    The author was up to Redmond for another project; they
    told him the troubles they were having; he used SST to
    convert chunks of code ON THE FLY, and ms? I heard
    they hired him on the spot. He disappeared. Pity. Used
    to was a nice guy. My son dated one of his daughters.

    You hadda been there.

    Bill


  9. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    wrote:

    >Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    >based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    >with low starting price and no reserve.
    > http://cgi.ebay.com/Historic-Early-V...QQcmdZViewItem
    >
    >
    >A real rarity in almost new condition
    >
    >Thanks for looking.
    >
    > Norm


    I have V1, V2 and V3.0 3.1 and 3.11. The copy of 3.1 I'd gotten
    those many years ago had the bits needed if you wanted to run it on
    8088(not very useful but it ran). At one point V1 and V2 were on
    the net, they may still be as an intem of historical interrest. Trom
    a practical standpoint it was 3.1 as a first as the useful and stable
    version.

    Interesting but it aint CP/M.

    Allison


  10. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    Norm Dresner wrote:
    > "JohnH" wrote in message
    > news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
    >>> A real rarity in almost new condition

    >>
    >> I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

    >
    > John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer
    > because I wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I
    > just checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DOS
    > Tech Reference Manual I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year
    > old Dell. That's from 1987 and both products were stored in the same
    > offices for over 15 years.
    > Norm


    Sounds good. I've had varying success with old diskettes myself; then again
    most of mine have doubled at some point as coasters



  11. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows


    wild bill wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    > >based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    > >with low starting price and no reserve.

    >
    > What MADE Windows was running PROTECTED MODE.
    >
    > And KEY to getting it to do THAT was something called SST.
    >
    > Scroll Systems Tracer. You wanna collect, you NEED this.
    >
    > The author was up to Redmond for another project; they
    > told him the troubles they were having; he used SST to
    > convert chunks of code ON THE FLY, and ms? I heard
    > they hired him on the spot. He disappeared. Pity. Used
    > to was a nice guy. My son dated one of his daughters.
    >
    > You hadda been there.
    >
    > Bill

    One of the people involved left MS last year, see
    http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/...02/365635.aspx
    Phil


  12. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:59:26 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    wrote:

    >"JohnH" wrote in message
    >news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
    >>> A real rarity in almost new condition

    >>
    >> I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

    >
    >John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer because I
    >wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I just
    >checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DOS Tech Reference Manual
    >I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year old Dell. That's from 1987 and
    >both products were stored in the same offices for over 15 years.


    You really should check the disks

    Also, ideally back up images of them onto a CD

    I wrote an old dos utility for doing that

    http://www.jerryfrench.co.uk/utils/diskdup.zip

    Somehow I doubt that MS would provide new copies

  13. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    "J French" wrote in message
    news:43e9b945.74256993@news.btopenworld.com...
    > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:59:26 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"JohnH" wrote in message
    >>news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
    >>>> A real rarity in almost new condition
    >>>
    >>> I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

    >>
    >>John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer because
    >>I
    >>wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I just
    >>checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DOS Tech Reference
    >>Manual
    >>I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year old Dell. That's from 1987
    >>and
    >>both products were stored in the same offices for over 15 years.

    >
    > You really should check the disks
    >
    > Also, ideally back up images of them onto a CD
    >
    > I wrote an old dos utility for doing that
    >
    > http://www.jerryfrench.co.uk/utils/diskdup.zip
    >
    > Somehow I doubt that MS would provide new copies


    As a paying MSDN member, I can get new copies of DOS 5.0 - 6.22 and Windows
    3.1, 3.11, and WfW 3.11 just by downloading them -- if I don't already have
    the disks as part of my subscription. They don't have any older versions on
    the website, but I'm going to ask about it in their newsgroup.

    Norm


  14. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:44:32 GMT,
    Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:

    >>Windows/386 came between ......


    >
    >Interesting but it aint CP/M.


    Wannabet? (I'd call it a derivative, not a copy or clone)

    And derivative is just as much a Copyright Violation.

    Sort of like, following a blockbuster movie with 'the
    rest of the story'.... ie sequels, that sort of thing.

    Somedays, daydreaming, I wonder what a trial on this
    issue might be like. Too bad Kildall didn't want to pursue
    it. Too bad 'discovery' documents are sealed. Too bad
    we're left with speculations and guesses. But on the whole
    there's no other explantion for what facts are known.

    Didn't anybody else notice that mr paterson dropped
    his infamous lawsuit (for being called a thief) against
    Harold Evans six months ago? What's that tell you?

    Bill


  15. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    In article <18kku1501dhu9rpito66jekdnj06ieiavp@4ax.com>,
    wild bill writes:
    > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:44:32 GMT,
    > Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    >
    >>>Windows/386 came between ......

    >
    >>
    >>Interesting but it aint CP/M.

    >
    > Wannabet? (I'd call it a derivative, not a copy or clone)
    >
    > And derivative is just as much a Copyright Violation.
    >
    > Sort of like, following a blockbuster movie with 'the
    > rest of the story'.... ie sequels, that sort of thing.
    >
    > Somedays, daydreaming, I wonder what a trial on this
    > issue might be like. Too bad Kildall didn't want to pursue
    > it.


    Didn't his death have something to do with his loss of interest in
    pursuing things?

    > Too bad 'discovery' documents are sealed. Too bad
    > we're left with speculations and guesses. But on the whole
    > there's no other explantion for what facts are known.
    >
    > Didn't anybody else notice that mr paterson dropped
    > his infamous lawsuit (for being called a thief) against
    > Harold Evans six months ago? What's that tell you?


    Don't know that one, I'll have to look it up.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  16. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows


    Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
    > >based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
    > >with low starting price and no reserve.
    > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Historic-Early-V...QQcmdZViewItem
    > >
    > >
    > >A real rarity in almost new condition
    > >
    > >Thanks for looking.
    > >
    > > Norm

    >
    > I have V1, V2 and V3.0 3.1 and 3.11. The copy of 3.1 I'd gotten
    > those many years ago had the bits needed if you wanted to run it on
    > 8088(not very useful but it ran). At one point V1 and V2 were on
    > the net, they may still be as an intem of historical interrest. Trom
    > a practical standpoint it was 3.1 as a first as the useful and stable
    > version.
    >
    > Interesting but it aint CP/M.


    Supposedly Dos was based on CP/M enough that software would run on
    both. How close are they to each other? Could you run a copy of Windows
    1.0 on CP/M 86 (are the dos and cp/m bios calls the same)?

    >
    > Allison



  17. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    > Supposedly Dos was based on CP/M enough that software would run on
    > both. How close are they to each other? Could you run a copy of Windows
    > 1.0 on CP/M 86 (are the dos and cp/m bios calls the same)?


    No. The calling sequences are similar but there's no software that would
    run on both.
    The Op Codes are totally different between the 8080 and the 8088/8086. The
    mnemonics are quite close so if you had the ASM source, it was a trivial
    matter to
    reassemble it to run on the new system but the object code wasn't
    compatible.

    Tom Lake



  18. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    Bill H wrote:

    > Supposedly Dos was based on CP/M enough that software would run on
    > both. How close are they to each other? Could you run a copy of Windows
    > 1.0 on CP/M 86 (are the dos and cp/m bios calls the same)?


    No, it was close enough that cp/m 80 source code can be assembled to run on
    ms-dos, by automatic translation from 8080 assemble source to 8086. Ms-dos
    even has the bdos entry point at 0005h adress in the psp to allow that.
    Compatibility with cp/m 86 never existed in ms-dos, only in Digital
    Research later products that mixed cp/m 86 and dos compatibility.

    --
    Salu2

  19. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    >I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

    SS 5.25" floppy formats will NOT be readable under XP due to limitations in the OS.
    This includes 160k and 180k formats. I have a 2G FAT16 partition with DOS 6.22
    so I can read the old single-sided floppies when needed (rarely).

    In general, any of the NT-ish OSes (NT/2000/XP) are pretty bad at floppy handling,
    at least under 95/98 one could lock the drive and use DOS utils, but even a minor
    CRC error in the file slack will stop XP dead in it's tracks. DOS will allow
    utilities that can read through errors to allow data recovery. So the other use
    for the DOS partition is to deal with floppies in general, formatting & reading
    and verifying -- by really re-reading the darn thing. ;-)

  20. Re: OT -- FA -- Ancient version of Microsoft Windows

    >> Supposedly Dos was based on CP/M enough that software would run
    >> on both. How close are they to each other? Could you run a copy
    >> of Windows 1.0 on CP/M 86 (are the dos and cp/m bios calls the
    >> same)?


    Tom Lake wrote:
    > No. The calling sequences are similar but there's no software that
    > would run on both. The Op Codes are totally different between the
    > 8080 and the 8088/8086.


    Ah, but there *were* programs that ran on both CP/M-86 and DOS. I have a
    copy of Mark Hersey's MODEM86 for example; it could be renamed .COM or
    ..CMD to run on either DOS or CP/M-86. As I recall, he had some
    auto-detect code in the program that figured out which operating system
    it was in, and made its calls appropriately.
    --
    Ring the bells that still can ring
    Forget the perfect offering
    There is a crack in everything
    That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
    --
    Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast