Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Louis Parks — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:56:00 GMT

Wasn't MS-DOS / PC-DOS also a joint deal with IBM?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

pjm — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:38:00 GMT

Did you just make this up, or did you read something someone else had just made up?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

pjm — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:39:00 GMT

see http://www.acad.humberc.on.ca/~frig8279/osessay/dos/history

or just search google for "history of dos"

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Engmar — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:01:00 GMT

@pjm
"Did you just make this up, or did you read something someone else had just made up?"

So, you know Mr. Osterman has worked for Microsoft since the mid-80's right? And that he started there, on the DOS 4 project? You might want to check his bio.

Where to get it?

joeljkp — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:13:00 GMT

Is there anywhere to get a copy of this nowadays?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

pjm — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:21:00 GMT

@engmar

Feh. The story is uncorroberated BS.

Didn't see any mention of working for MS on his site, and you'd certainly think he'd of mentioned this in his 'article.' Feh. The story is uncorroberated BS.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:54:00 GMT

pjm, Actually I have worked at Microsoft since 1984. Here's my bio from the first post: http://weblogs.asp.net/exchange/articles/85057.aspx

The timeline you quoted above is the official timeline, it doesn't include either multitasking MS-DOS 4.0 or multitasking MS-DOS 4.1. But they did exist, primarily for the OEMs that had contracted it. I couldn't find a reference for the Goupil contract, but here's a reference to DOS 4.1 which was done for ICL: http://www.presentd.demon.co.uk/linear-cv.html

Just because you're not familiar with a product doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Louis: Actually the relationship between MS-DOS and PC-DOS is somewhat complicated. I'll try to write about that tomorrow.

first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Testy — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:35:00 GMT

I have Xenix.

I also have a *manual* for DOS 4.0.
When DOS 3.1 came out for the AT, I heard about the task switching stuff, ( that the DOS 5.0 shell did ), and had my friend get me a maunal from Daharan. No software, but I did get the manual. Later, DOS 5.0 had the features.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Paul — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:48:00 GMT

I have a vague memory of using this. It would have been in 1988 when I was working at STL for the summer - STL was the research part of STC (who owned ICL and was later taken over by Nortel ). Some of the ICL PCs at STL had a multitasking DOS4 on them.

LSN WebLog » Did you know that OS/2 wasn’t Microsoft’s first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

TrackBack — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:20:00 GMT

LSN WebLog » Did you know that OS/2 wasn’t Microsoft’s first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Steve — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:51:00 GMT

I used MS-DOS 4.0 as a kid in Hong Kong in the late 80's when/where piracy was thriving. There's a computer shopping centre called Golden and I remember there were about 20 shops sharing the same OEM copy of MS-DOS 4.0!

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

martin ward — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:30:00 GMT

if i remember correctly, Apricot also had this version of DOS as an OEM product, they were later taken over by Mitsubishi

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

J65 — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:25:00 GMT

I remember that Microsoft was kind of annoyed/surprised when IBM shipped PC DOS 4.0. IIRC the main reason/feature for/of IBM's DOS 4.0 was the >32MB partition support.

Digital Research had a multi-user version of their CP/M-86. In 1989 we used a multi-user DOS clone made by a another American company, which I don't remember anymore. We used it for a dial-in server with about 4 modems.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Variac — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:24:00 GMT

I have MS-DOS 4.01, but for sure is the one that in reality is 9.x right?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Variac — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:25:00 GMT

3.x excuse me :)

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Conrad.TDI — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:36:00 GMT

Hmmm.....anyone else run a multi-tasking, multi-line BBS under Qemm/DESQview? By the way, 4DOS was the Command shell of choice for that beauty. There was an amazing power under DOS in that environment.

I wouldn't be surprised at what MS had hidden in a box, given that most of the stuff we used Qemm 'stealth', etc....all ended up absorbed by MS or Symantec.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Robbie Foust — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:45:00 GMT

Yep I ran a multi-line BBS using Qemm/Desqview. I remember thinking how cool it was to be able to run two programs at one time! :-)

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:33:00 GMT

Steve,
My guess is that you used the Microsoft version of PC-DOS 4.0 instead of multitasking MS-DOS 4.0 - Multitasking DOS 4.0 was only delivered to Goupil in France to my knowledge, It'd surprise me immensely if it made it outside there.

Minor Correction

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:42:00 GMT

You mention that NT ran on the MIPS R8800 which never existed, the NT kernel was developed on R3000 and R4000 before being ported to other architectures.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:43:00 GMT

You're right j, I got the numbers wrong :(.

What about NT for PowerPC?

Pinback — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:05:00 GMT

Wasn't there a version of NT for PowerPC as well? I thought it ran on the RS/6000 43p?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:06:00 GMT

Sure, that was NT 3.51. But my listing above was in operating system families, not the specific versions of the various operating systems - I'd almost certainly get it wrong so...

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Junfeng Zhang — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:17:00 GMT

In case you don't know, osnews.com links your weblog to their main page.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6452

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

AdamW — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:02:00 GMT

The way you write it sounds like Microsoft more or less decided to quit developing DOS and work on OS/2 (and then of course Windows), and just finished up a "DOS 4.0" to fulfill a contract (I remember the DOS 4 that shipped as an appallingly buggy piece of crap)...so how did DOS 5 then 6 come about? Sorry if this is answered elsewhere, haven't poked around yet.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:13:00 GMT

Nope, there was parallel development.

The product known as multi-tasking MS-DOS 4.0 lived on as OS/2, while the product known as MS-DOS 3.1 continued on in parallel through DOS 3.2, DOS 3.3, DOS 4.0, DOS 5.0 and DOS 6.0.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Catatonic — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:55:00 GMT

So there are two different products called DOS 4? One regular version and one "amazing" version? Clear as mud.

re: Larry Osterman's Bio

You Had Me At EHLO... — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:52:00 GMT

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Jack — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 01:52:00 GMT

Is Dos 4.0 and 4.1 freewhare now, if so, whare can i download it? Also, is Xenix still sold?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Diego Vega — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:34:00 GMT

I guess nobody believed what John Christian stated in his <a href="http://www.presentd.demon.co.uk/linear-cv.html">Curriculum Vitae</a> until today. You have done something good for him! ;-)

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Diego Vega — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:26:00 GMT

Sorry for the ugly link. I though you were supporting tags.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Woody — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:39:00 GMT

I had a dodgy crap version of DOS 4.0, That DOS version was the first with "MEMMAKER". I upgraded from DOS 3.3, to DOS 4.0 and then to DOS 5.0.

You can download DOS 6.0 -> DOS 6.22 from MS MSDN site. I think I still have DOS 4.0 Disks floating around somewhere.

BTW, I ended up ditching DOS altogether and Used OS/2 2.1, which ran my Windows 3.x apps faster than Win3x did.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Woody — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:40:00 GMT

Sorry, I also have SCO's version of Xenix with MS Word for Xenix.

MMMM. Imaging Windows like Mac OS X, Win on Unix. That would be great.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

scrabble — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:49:00 GMT

Why use an acient architecture? I'd prefer BeOS approach of a complete rewrite.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:58:00 GMT

An ancient architecture?

Um. We're talking about 1984 here. It wasn't ancient back then.

BeOS is a much more recent vintage OS and it had the advantage of a processor that had virtual memory protection.

NT WAS a complete rewrite with a modern architecture.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Peter Ibbotson — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:39:00 GMT

I remember being somewhat amazed when PCDOS4.0 shipped, certainly the guys from MS UK who I'd bump into at trade shows (I worked for Borland at the time) all knew about the multi-tasking MSDOS4 since it went to ICL for OEM use so I thought the naming was terrible.
I seem to remember being told that the multi-tasking was limited to one task that had the screen & keyboard with other tasks being limited in functionality, I didn't realise you could use it swap the foreground task around.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:45:00 GMT

You're 99.9% accurate Peter, I'm impressed that anyone remembered :)

The version of DOS that ICL used didn't have screen swapping - that functionality was there but not exposed on the ICL machines because they didn't require it. When the DOS 4 project was modified for the remaining customers, we removed a bunch of stuff that they weren't interested in, including the screen swapping stuff.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Rajiv — Tue, 25 May 2004 09:12:00 GMT

Can we download MS-Dos now ?

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

Larry Osterman — Tue, 25 May 2004 17:58:00 GMT

Not to my knowledge.

Just because a product has reached it's End-of-life for support doesn't mean that Microsoft's going to make it available all of a sudden for free.

And it would be an absolute support nightmare to have an MS-DOS download - DOS requires machines have floppy disks, but many computers (including the one I'm writing on right now) don't have them.

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

nonoy — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:37:00 GMT

where can i download OS/2. is there aby freeware or shareware available

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

nonoy — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:39:00 GMT

if there is, can share it to me at miranda_abonzo@yaho.com my email

thank you very much

nonoy
miranda_abonzo@yaho.com

re: Did you know that OS/2 wasn't Microsoft's first non Unix multi-tasking operating system?

communist — Sat, 19 Jun 2004 07:46:00 GMT

If you want OS/2, download eComStaion on ur fav p2p.

os/2 warp 4 is a little harder to find (all the version floating around are german or dutch) but it can be found, and so can advanced server.

Workers of the world unite!

re: Seventeen years ago today

Larry Osterman's WebLog — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:38:00 GMT

Larry Osterman s WebLog Did you know that OS 2 wasn t Microsoft s | Joint Pain Relief

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:55:30 GMT

PingBack from http://jointpainreliefs.info/story.php?id=664

Larry Osterman s WebLog Did you know that OS 2 wasn t Microsoft s | Quick Diets

Larry Osterman s WebLog Did you know that OS 2 wasn t Microsoft s | Quick Diets — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:10:01 GMT

PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=2479