Posts by Richard Plinston

Re: Interesting times

> pitching Microsoft port of AT&T Unix (Xenix) for IBM's Personal Computer.

That is extremely unlikely, and most likely false. IBM wanted their PC to compete with Apple II plus Z80 softcard running BASIC and CP/M, not with mini-computers*. Xenix required at least 512Kb, a hard disk, and was multiuser, the PC was to be sold with as little as 16Kb running ROM BASIC and using the cassette port - just like the minimum Apple II. In fact the first 5150 model A could not be fitted with more than 256Kb (if anyone could afford that). The model B (which I have here) as indicated by a blue letter B in a circle on the back panel was revised to cater for the full 640Kb. There was no hard disk interface until the IBM PC XT (though Xibec did develop one later).

Also IBM went to Microsoft for the BASIC ROM (and other language compilers). The knew that they wanted CP/M which Microsoft also sold with their Z80 softcard for the Apple II.

* completely the wrong division within IBM.

> It is also worth mentioning that Windows was initially developed on Xenix and ported to DOS after initial testing.

In the 1980s almost all software for CP/M and MS-DOS (including CP/M and MS-DOS) was developed on mini-computers running Unix/Xenix or DEC systems. Micro-computers (at 4.77KHz) were completely inadequate to be used by a development team (small disks, no network, slow compiling, edlin?). Yes, Windows would have been written and compiled on a Xenix multi-user system with green-screen terminals, probably using vi. This does not mean that it would have been run on Xenix.

Even as late as when the started work on Windows NT the Intel PC was not suitable for developing it. It was done on MIPS workstations and later ported to x86.

Re: Too much credit

> In reality the error was, I believe, due to MS deliberately using a result from a DOS call ...

It was called the AARD code if you want to search for accurate details.

Re: Too much credit

> Since MS refused to sell DOS at retail

MS had a contractual moratorium on selling MS-DOS at retail for 10 years with IBM. This expired and MS released MS-DOS 5 for retail sales.

> A much smaller number of us purchased DR-DOS and reaped the benefits of an arguably better DOS than DOS.

It was significantly better that the contemporary MS-DOS 4.01 and had a 20 month lead on MS-DOS 5.

Allegedly it reached a 20% market share until MS brought in illegal per-box pricing and bundled MS-DOS+Windows at Windows price.

Re: Too much credit

> Itsy Bitsy Morons always had a schizophrenic attitude towards PCs and to a lesser extent minis at the time. They worshipped big iron and could not understand why people would want a "toy" or "crippled iron".

You write as if IBM were one thing. It was divided up into several divisions, each with their own sales and marketing and each competing against the others. The mainframe division (360/370) wanted a small computer to counter the Apple IIs with Visicalc, Z80 softcard and CP/M software invading their sites. The IBM-PC was designed to be 20% better than the Apple II (160Kb floppies instead of 120Kb etc) and also act as a terminal (which is why the IBM PC has DTE serial ports while other micros had DCE) while running the same software. There were also 3740 (terminal) PCs and 360 emulating PCs (with Motorola 68x00 co-processor boards) for developers to use to write mainframe software.

The mainframe division did look down on the Series One, System 3, System 36 and System 38 (AS400) and other divisions, but did not see the IBM PC as any threat at all. They did want to exclude other brands though.

Re: Too much credit

> MS-DOS was never free. Unless you stole it.

After per-box pricing* was declared illegal, MS came up with another scheme where MS-DOS and Windows were bundled together at the price of Windows alone. Effectively this was MS-DOS for free to stop DR-DOS being installed. At the time it was MS-DOS 4.01 versus DR-DOS 5 which was infinitely superior and it took MS 20 moths to nearly catch up with MS-DOS 5, at which point DR released DR-DOS 6 with task switching. MS took another year to almost catch up with MS-DOS 6.

* OEMs were contracted to pay Microsoft for MS-DOS on every box sold regardless of whether it had MS or DR-DOS (or other) installed. This was to strangle DR-DOS sales. The alternative to accepting this contract was to never sell any MS products ever again.

Re: Too much credit

> MS-DOS was never free. Unless you stole it.

When SCP sold 86-DOS to Microsoft for development into PC-DOS and MS-DOS (MS had previously licenced it from SCP) the agreement was that SCP would have as many copies of MS-DOS as they wanted for free as long as they were shipped with a computer (SCP built the Zebra range of S-100 based computers).

After the fire in the SCP factory, which stopped them building computers, they started selling V20 chips (faster clone of the 8088* with 8085 emulation built in) and V30 chips (ditto 8086) with a free copy of MS-DOS. MS bought out the agreement for a reputed $1million.

* swap this for the 8088 to get a 20% faster machine that could also run CP/M software (with suitable loader).

Re: Ah... Concurrent DOS...

> IBM did actually use DR Concurrent DOS 286 - but in their 4680 Point-of-sale (described often as a real P.O.S. by those of us who used it) OS.

Yes, that was a DRI product but it was not Concurrent-DOS it was FlexOS. This shared code with MP/M-86, as did Concurrent-DOS (neither of which had an 80286 product) but was 80286 based. The main difference was that FlexOS would not run MS/PC-DOS programs and Concurrent-CP/M-86 / Concurrent-DOS would run several of them at once (as well as CP/M-86 programs).

DRI had pre-emptive multi-user, multi-tasking systems since 1978 with MP/M which ran on 8085 and Z80 micros with bank switched memory (I have a couple of RAIR Blackbox/ICL PC1s here and an ICL PC2 8085AH2 with 512Kbyte). MPM2 and MP/M-86 (for the 8086) were released around 1980. Concurrent-CP/M-86 with multiple virtual screens ran on an IBM-PC (and other machines - I have a stack of 8086 ICL PC2) and could used EEMS memory cards such as AST RamPage to get several Mbytes of memory and do context switching with just a handfull of register moves.

Concurrent-CP/M-86 was demonstrated the same month as MS-DOS 2 was released. It had pre-emptive multi-tasking (and multiuser with serial terminals). The virtual screens were just a keystroke away so one could run SuperCalc, Wordstar, and other programs at the same time and just flick between them - even on the serial terminals.

Later, this was developed for 386 into DR-Multiuser-DOS from which DR-DOS 5 and 6 were derived.

There was a FlexOS-386 which had an enhanced GEM-X but it was dropped to concentrate on the Concurrent range.

Re: A tiny bit more

> Even Microsoft was strongly pushing IBM in this direction.

Microsoft had developed its own 286 versions of MS-DOS: 4.0 and 4.1 (not to be confused with the much later 4.01). These was also known as European DOS because the were used by Siemans, ICL (where I worked) and Wang. These versions supported a limited multitasking of background tasks and one foreground program. I have a manual here on how to write 'family' applications that would run on 8086 MS-DOS or in protected mode on 80286 MS-DOS 4.x.

It was dumped when they switched to writing OS/2 with IBM.

Re: The UK had the best tech for personal computers at the time

> It's just such a shame that Acorn lacked any international marketing savvy then.

And yet Acorn became a worldwide powerhouse chip design expert that currently sells licences for billions of chips every year. Even before phones started using them ARM were selling tens of millions of licences for chips to power embedded equipment (modems, routers, PABX, ...).

ARM = Acorn RISC Machines

> So even then the estimate of five was way out.

Actually he was speculating on the sales of the particular model that they were currently building. He was counting the number of government agencies that would be able to afford them and find them useful.

It was only much later that anyone tried to use computers for commercial purposes that would find them a place in businesses: LEO - Lyons Electronic Office was developed for payroll, stock distribution and manufacturing (of cakes).

In the 1950s the British government were deciding where _the_ computer would go. They chose a town that was a major railway junction because then the train loads of punch cards could easily be shipped to it.

Re: GEM

> Didn't it also come bundled on some Amstrad PCs ?

Yes. They came with both DRI's DOS+ and GEM and MS-DOS.

It was in all Atari 512 (and derivatives) running on TOS, which was written by DRI. It also came with BBC Master 512 which ran DRI's DOS+ and GEM on an 80186 (or was it 80188?) processor.

Re: Although technically OS/2 is still around

> BTW let's not forget what a PoS Windows 2.0 was or how the 286 was so retarded that the MS tech who worked out how to switch it from real to virtual mode and back was hailed a f**king genius.

It was an IBM tech that worked out how to switch the 80286 back to 8086 mode using the keyboard IF chip, there was a standard instruction to switch it to protected mode. The mechanism was incorporated into OS/2 1.0, MS stole that for Windows/286.

Re: succesful standard

> HDMI is designed for TV's and has a licensing cost.

But it is trivial, as evidenced by the Raspberry Pi Zero having HDMI and they sell retail for $5.00 (if you can find them).

Re: Too much credit

> and why the world needed to ditch the free OS that came with their PC

MS-DOS and Windows were never free*. When you bought a computer with Windows installed, and sometimes when Windows was _not_ installed, money went from the OEM to Microsoft. That cost was part of the price.

* actually there was a 'free' version: 'Windows with Bing' that no one wanted.

Re: Interesting times

> OS/2 had a single applications message queue,

It was Windows 1 through 3.11 that "had a single applications message queue".

"""Preemptive multitasking has always been supported by Windows NT (all versions), OS/2 (native applications), Unix and Unix-like systems (such as Linux, BSD and macOS), VMS, OS/360, and many other operating systems designed for use in the academic and medium-to-large business markets."""

> But despite IBM asserting it could also support Win32 applications, it never did,

OS/2 Windows 3.x did support Win32s applications by loading in the win32s module, just like Windows 3.1 could do. However, Microsoft added a completely spurious access to virtual memory beyond the 2Gbyte limit of OS/2 (Windows supported 4Gbyte accesses) just to stop OS/2 using that beyond a particular version. Microsoft then required the new version in their software.

Exactly what you would expect from Microsoft, and still should do.

> But OS/2 was just a part of the PS/2 equation - PS/2 and MCA boards were really too expensive compared to clones

OS/2 ran fine on PC clones and ISA boards. The link between PS/2 and OS/2 was entirely spurious.

Re: Yes, they look beautiful

> That's rubbish, it's the Venturi effect that keeps a plane up, whereby air moving quickly over the top of the wing exhibits less pressure than the slower air moving under the wing, thus sucking the plane upwards. Nothing to do with pushing air downwards (like a rocket)

I can tell that you have never stood, or lay down, at the end of a runway.

> 0/10.

I am not sure whether that is a score you are giving to your post or a prediction of the up/down votes that you will get. Perhaps it is dual purpose.

Re: @Headley_Grange - small planes with long range

> a car that gets 200 mpg

They did say that if cars had been developed as fast as computers the cars would cost $500, would do 500mph and 200mpg, ... but would be 6 inches long.

Re: Yes, they look beautiful

> It has to do with the lift-to-draft ratio,

You are think about beer too much. How much draft do you lift of an evening?

Re: Yes, they look beautiful

> You are constantly being slowed down so you are actually constantly accelerating to maintain speed, i.e constantly changing velocity.

If you are maintaining speed (and direction) then you are _not_ accelerating at all (see definition).

What you are missing is that the plane's movement through the air is accelerating parts of that air in various directions, mostly downwards. The energy required to do this is opposed by the thrust of the engines.

Re: Yes, they look beautiful

> That's almost exclusively caused by friction.

In the case of a car, then yes, there is friction in the bearings, in the tires. But the main drag in a car moving fast is the result of pushing the air aside, accelerating it from stationary to some velocity, compressing it slightly at some points, and not being able to recover the energy expended in doing so.

> If you are actually still puzzled at this point: why does an object flying in vacuum (in the absence of forces) keep constant speed? Hint: no friction.

'Flying' in a vacuum is an oxymoron.

> Classical mechanics, about week two.

Classical, as in Aristotelian.

Re: Yes, they look beautiful

> Simple frictional force

Aerodynamic 'Drag' is not 'friction' (though there may be a small amount of actual friction*). Drag is the result of accelerating the air in various directions, mainly downwards (otherwise the plane would fall out of the sky). The force required to do this imparts an 'equal and opposite' force on the structure (see Newton).

* aerodynamic heating, especially in supersonic flight, is mainly not caused by 'friction', it is because compressing a gas, as happens at the leading edge, raises it temperature (see Gay-Lussac).

Re: It's dead, Jim

> You mean Windows Mobile 6, which was a very different beast.

I think that Microsoft's 40+% of the smartphone market was before WM6 (there is a reason that the number 6 is there). But, yes, WM6 was a very different beast, as were its predecessors and successors, and that is exactly where Microsoft's phone problems lie. Every generation or two MS has thrown out the baby with the bathwater, has dumped the developers and the development tools and started anew. After that happened two or three times the developers knew it would happen again and so moved on.

Microsoft is trying to do that again with desktop systems. All Windows Win32 programs and tools are now 'legacy' as MS tries to get developers onto UWPs so that MS can collect 30% of all software revenue.

Re: Why is this Google's responsibility?

> Apple and Google are your only two options here. Microsoft SHOULD have been a third option,

Microsoft killed Symbian/Belle, Microsoft killed Maemo/Meego (N9 and N950). Microsoft killed Nokia-X. Microsoft killed Asha. Microsoft killed Meltemi. Microsoft killed Windows Phone.

> Remove PCs from the equation and Android effectively ceases to exist.

You seem to have this idea that 'PC' means something specific when it is just 'personal computer'. The first device advertised as a 'personal computer' was the Apple II in 1978. The most personal of personal computers is now the one you carry in your pocket, and there are now more of them than of all desktop computers (most of them derived from the IBM PC).

Your claim is just nonsense, and pointless. While the Intel/AMD x86-64 box running desktop Windows may decline, there will be newer devices replacing these, as in fact is already occurring: all-in-ones, transformers, phone/dock, ... These may run any of several OSes, even Android itself.

But the format of the current desktop (or mini-tower) 'PC' will not go away, just as mainframes and rack systems have not.

> So if the world's PC manufacturers give up and stop producing them, from where are we going to get hardware to run Android Studio? There's some server-oriented ARMs coming out of Qualcom, AMD, etc. They'd probably make quite good workstation CPUs. No real sign anywhere of them being built into workstations.

Raspberry Pi4 ? (and a whole host of similar SBCs that are as cheap). Just as the Apple II and other microcomputers (later the IBM PC) was a disruptive technology that was sneered at by 'real computer (mainframe and mini)' people, The phones, tablets, SBCs and USB sticks are disrupting the 'desktop micro' market.

Initially, most micro computer software was developed on mini computers such as DEC or Unix using cross compilers. Those developers also claimed that mini-computers would always be needed.

> They're making handsets too these days, so Samsung, etc (who are all now competitors to Google, not partners) will be told to go hang themselves, or pay up.

That is not quite true. In fact Google sold Motorola so it was _not_ 'making handsets'. You may be referring to the Nexus range which are not made by Google. My Nexus 10 is actually made by Samsung. Other Nexus devices are made by several other makers.

Microsoft contracted with Nokia, and later bought them, which along with Surface made them competitors to their own OEMs. They had the advantage of 'loyalty' discounts so they could force them to continue doing their bidding.

> There's already a couple of EU investigations into Google's dominance of search, Web advertising, and Android (Play Services).

Mostly because Microsoft (and lackies) have been whining and not winning. It is not Google that is shutting down competitors, it is Microsoft*.

* Microsoft killed Symbian/Belle, Asha, Meltemi, Maemo/Meego (all by contract with Nokia), Nokia X, WebOS (by waving WoA/RT and 'loyalty' discounts), and Windows Phone (by incompetence).

Re: Not Dead Yet

> The same Google who requires integration of their services in what was once an open source operating system...

The usual misinformation. Google does not require any Android maker to use their services at all. This is evidenced by Amazon, Nokia/Microsoft X, and many Chinese makers who sell Android phones with other services. It is only when the OEM wants to include Google services that they are required to follow Google's requirements. Users, of course, can access Google services or not, even if the maker did not include them.

> The same Google who have (ab)used their monopoly over search results to make their browser the #1...

I am not sure of the relationship that you are attempting to draw here. Google search is widely used because it gives the best results. There is no requirement to use any particular browser to access any search, nor does Chrome do a Google search any better than any other browser. The only reason that people choose to use Chrome is because it is better for their needs than the others. I use Firefox because it happens to suit my needs.

> * I always loved the way with the anti-Microsoft-brigade that it's "spying on people" when it's Windows 10, but with Google it's "that's the way their business works and I'm happy to exchange my privacy to use their services"...

That is a personal choice. There is no requirement to use Google services, no lock-in, there are many other similar services that can be used. Google data collection and ads are easy to block if that is preferred.

> That's why you can't run Linux executables (technically GNU/Linux, Stallman fans) on Android

Yes you can. You just need some GNU libraries, such as provided by Terminal-IDE or many others.

> or Android executables on Linux

Technically _all_ Android executables run on Linux (the kernel). You probably mean something like: "or Android apps on RedHat or Ubuntu ...". Whether Android apps are useful on a desktop system with no typical phone sensors (location, motion, compass, touch, camera, ...) is arguable.

Android apps do run on ChromeOS - another desktop Linux.

> how many android developers develop their apps exclusively on their android tablet/phones? None?

It is entirely possible to develop on Android, and there are many apps that cater for developing in many different languages. eg AIDE-IDE and

https://android.appstorm.net/roundups/developer/15-apps-for-programming-on-android/

Re: its not rocket science chaps...

> Preferably more that one because if you have only one person on staff with intimate knowledge of all the customisations you have made to your OS (whichever OS it happens to be), you are leaving yourself in a very precarious position.

How is this different from Windows in an enterprise where they are running their own update server and have centralised configuration control? Do you think that that requires zero persons?

> This is going to cost money

Do you think that controlling and testing Windows updates, configuring profiles, monitoring licences, and all the other tasks doesn't cost money? And then there is the odd million a year on licence costs.

> will probably also include clauses limiting their liability

Do you think that Microsoft doesn't "include clauses limiting their liability" ?

Re: Apple's -n- Orange's

> Is it valid to compare roll-their-own LiMux OS with, say, the tried and true benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux?

RHEL is a server OS and Munich may well be using that or CentOS for its servers.. Limux is a desktop system based on Ubuntu, which is a desktop system.

> Seems a bit like heralding MS Windows but then installing ReactOS.

Not at all. Limux is based on a mainstream distro and it gets the patches and updates from upstream. It is an in-house configuration and distribution of the latest long term support versions.

Re: Replacing Linux with Windows, based on *cost*?

> IF you mean set it and forget it, yes. But enterprises need centralised control for scheduled deployments of selected patches to specified machine groups, reporting, etc. etc.

That is why Munich developed Limux. They control their own repository(s) while getting patches and updates from upstream distros, probably Ubuntu and/or Debian. Thus they get the latest fixes into the repository while maintaining their own configurations and applications and can control deployments.

Re: Replacing Linux with Windows, based on *cost*?

> You can install them when convenient to you, but yes some types of Windows updates still need a reboot which is rather sucky.

> Allegedly this will be fixed when a patent that Oracle? has regarding live kernel patching expires - or Microsoft manage to engineer another method...

No. You are wrong. The reason for Windows rebooting for an update is that the file system cannot delete or replace a file while it is open. The directory entry contains the filename and the start of the file data block chain. This means that a file that is to be updated/replaced cannot while it is open (such as a driver or a DLL). The file has to be written to disk as a different file and a script added to for action on reboot.

The reboot runs the script and does the actual file update/replace.

Novell Netware did live kernel patching.

Re: its not rocket science chaps...

> They don't care about the choice provided by thousands of distros and things forking into a million directions, gaining and losing support at the whim of people outside of their org.

That is why they have they own distro based on upstream systems (so they get the updates) but with choices and configurations limited to what is suitable for their users' needs.

Re: The thing about Linux Desktop

> Not all programs that exist in Linux support KDE and so on. Making this a rather big problem.

GUI programs are written to use a GUI library. KDE (and other DEs) are written to use a GUI library. As long as the library is installed (and they all can be) the program will run and this is independent of which DE is being used. It is a trivial problem, primarily because the appropriate libraries are installed as dependencies when the program is installed.

Re: The thing about Linux Desktop

> You are so right. Businesses don't care that you can choose from 3 desktop environment and a gazillion window managers, all with different features broken or missing. They need one, to standardize on.

That is exactly why Munich has Limux. They use upstream repos for much of the OS and have chosen software and configured their distro where necessary to provide a standard desktop that suits their needs. The users don't get to choose different DEs and WMs.

Re: Replacing Linux with Windows, based on *cost*?

> That could be part of the problem. Their preferred distribution is Linmux, an in-house concoction, as you say, which means that their IT department is busy packaging it, testing updates, checking software compatibilities etc.

Compared to Windows where they would be testing updates, checking software compatibilities, etc.

> No just chucking Ubuntu onto a PC. They are writing scripts to set things up and configure the environment themselves. I would guess that that is pretty much a full-time job for several people, just keeping the patches documented, integrated and tested.

There are several distros that use Ubuntu as an upstream repo, in fact Ubuntu uses Debian. This distributes the effort required and thus Limux only requires effort for the differences.

> Standard Windows 10 + WSUS would probably save a lot of time and money. They just need to test the patches, before they roll them out.

Whether W10 + WSUS 'saves a lot of time and money' requires information that you do not have. The 'just' is a simplification that may not exist in reality. They also need to test software compatibility with each patch.

> That is just supposition, but running standard Windows 10 is going to be simpler than rolling your own distro.

'Rolling your own distro' may be as simple as doing a Windows 7 to Windows 8 'update' or a Windows 8 to Windows 10 'update' over the complete site.

If Windows had been retained they would have gone from W2K to XP, then to 7, 8, and now to 10. They would have gone from Office 1997 to several newer versions. All these would have required several IT staff testing, checking compatibility, deploying, retraining, ...

Re: Replacing Linux with Windows, based on *cost*?

> Anything different causes problems.

Exactly. Windows 10 is unfamiliar to >80% of the population. Even Windows 8 is unfamiliar to the majority.

Re: Replacing Linux with Windows, based on *cost*?

> Maybe they felt they needed a relatively more expensive PC to run Windows well than to run Linux well back in 2004, but now the cheapest possible PC will run either well?

Munich had many machines running W2K. They needed to be replaced to run XP but could be recycled to run Limux. This was a significant cost saving (ignored by TheVogan and the Microsoft funded HP report).

It is likely that any move to Win10 will require new machines plus extensive retraining costs for those used to Limux/OOo and/or Win7/Office2007 or so.

Of course Microsoft may well buy the business (ie bribes and free stuff) just for the publicity.

Re: First it's optional...

> It's for the Cloud edition. Head over to Windows Central to read what's going on.

The Cloud edition will not be able to install programs that are not in the MS store. There is no option for that.

The standard W10 editions will have the option to disable installs that were not in the store. Whether this becomes set by default or set permanently (as the cloud edition is) is a matter of speculation.

I am not sure why you think this is 'anti-MS rhetoric'.