Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Irby, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. Irby

    AZ Nomad Guest

    Of course they did. It was QDOS (quick and dirty operating system),
    written by Seatle Computer Products.

    You're talking out of your ass. Microsoft didn't have any dealings
    with Digital Research.
    AZ Nomad, Mar 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Irby

    J. Clarke Guest

    At the time one didn't patent such things. But Xerox did later attempt
    to sue Apple. Unfortunately it was too much later.

    Incidentally, the last Xerox Star in commercial use outside of Xerox was
    taken out of service in 2001. The last one at Xerox was taken out of
    service last year. Both are still running in private hands as is at
    least one Alto. And the GUI looks just as modern today as it did 25
    years ago.
    J. Clarke, Mar 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Irby

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Yes. I worked with one of the people MS hired to do MSDOS on another
    programming project. I believe he currently works for Adobe.
    MSDOS was a beefed-up version of CP/M.
    Ron Hunter, Mar 19, 2007
  4. Irby

    Ron Hunter Guest

    NO. The system was developed for the US government, and was not owned
    by Xerox. Neither Apple, nor MS got permission to use it, not that it
    was legally required, but Atari did, just to defend against a suit by
    Apple. Kinda funny the look on Atari's owner when he talked about it.
    Ron Hunter, Mar 19, 2007
  5. I am glad to here you would like to work for me 259 jobs are riding
    your next post.
    Adsense-Support, Mar 19, 2007
  6. Irby

    J. Clarke Guest

    MS-DOS started out as a CP/M clone for a machine made by Seattle
    Computer Works--the only reason it existest at all was that Digital
    Research was very, very late out the door with CP/M-86 and Seattle was
    desparate for an operating system.

    It wasn't "beefed up", it was pretty much identical in functionality.

    Further, it was written by a guy named Tim Paterson all by his lonesome,
    long before Microsoft started negotiating with IBM.
    J. Clarke, Mar 19, 2007
  7. Irby

    J. Clarke Guest

    I think you're confused here. The GUI after which the Mac was patterned
    was developed by the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center using Xerox
    funding, and was used in the experimental Alto workstation of which
    Xerox gave away many and the commercial Star and its descendants of
    which Xerox sold tens of thousands. At no time was that GUI or any part
    of it owned by the government.

    You are the only person I have ever seen suggest that Xerox did not own
    the GUI that they developed at PARC.
    J. Clarke, Mar 19, 2007
  8. Irby

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Robert:

    I like to build my own PC's, too, and I get lots of "mileage" out of
    hardware. Been using the same AT mainboard (Tyan S1830S Tsunami),
    May of 2000, and only upgraded to Windows XP Home, last month.
    I was fully aware that Taiwan (formerly Formosa) is "Free China," so
    speak. Yet, the word, "China," itself, usually refers to the communist
    version of the country.
    Computer keyboards, in general, tend to be sheer junk. I suppose this
    is what often happens, with such "commodity" items.

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Mar 19, 2007
  9. Irby

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, CJ:

    Very charming scene you've described, but, never underestimate
    the power and versatility of the modern PC. It can enable one to
    be "creative," just as much as the Mac, if not more so.

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Mar 19, 2007
  10. Irby

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, John:

    Not surprising, as Hewlett-Packard's laser printers were also based on
    Canon print engines. :)

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Mar 19, 2007
  11. Irby

    AZ Nomad Guest

    Hardly. By the time MSDOS was out, CP/M was CCP/M (concurrent CP/M) and was
    multitasking and multiprocessing. Compupro (formerly Godbout Electronics)
    had a cool dual 8085/8086 card and a version of CCP/M that would run
    processes on both processors.

    MSDOS was a CP/M clone and a piss poor one at that.
    Application writers quickly learned that only the file system was worth using.
    For everything else, the OS was bypassed and applications worked directly with the
    AZ Nomad, Mar 19, 2007
  12. Irby

    ASAAR Guest

    I had that card (might still have it somewhere) plugged into an 18
    slot S-100 bus motherboard, also purchased from Godbout. Didn't run
    CCP/M though. Just CP/M and MSDOS v. 1.2, both booted up from 8"
    ASAAR, Mar 19, 2007
  13. Irby

    AZ Nomad Guest

    or CP/M-86 or MP/M.

    It's possible that MP/M for that board was vaporware. I only heard about it
    from compupro's advertising copy.

    My own experience with CCP/M-86 was limited to an analog devices 8086 data
    acquisition and control system back in '89. It's multitasking worked well
    although it's file system was more primitive than MSDOS 3.x -- it used 99
    areas instead of a directory higherarchy.
    AZ Nomad, Mar 19, 2007
  14. Irby

    ASAAR Guest

    Ugh. I remember those user areas from CP/M 2.x I played around
    with two other OSes, SB-80 and SB-86, both designed to be pretty
    much like CP/M and CP/M-86. If Microsoft didn't reach an agreement
    with Paterson for QDOS, SB-86 might have been the OS that eventually
    became MSDOS. Maybe not, though. Rumor was that MS would only have
    the rights to SB-86 in the USA, or possibly North America, and I
    think that Bill Gates wouldn't have accepted those terms. Now if
    Tim Paterson was temporarily unavailable because nobody could find
    him while he was out hang gliding with Gary Kildall . . . <g>
    ASAAR, Mar 19, 2007
  15. Irby

    Ron Hunter Guest

    They didn't, as it was for a project funded by the Navy. As far as I
    know, the Navy never used the product, but Xerox did not have a
    patent/copyright for it.
    Ron Hunter, Mar 19, 2007
  16. Irby

    J. Clarke Guest

    I see the source of your confusion now.

    There were two organizations with similar names, ARC and PARC, engaged
    in related but not identical research.

    ARC (Augmentation Research Center) was part of the Stanford Research
    Institute and was funded by ARPA, the government Advanced Research
    Projects Agency, and was headed by a guy named Englebart, who spent many
    years in the Navy while thinking about ways to control machinery of
    various kinds while actually being paid to run radars--the Navy however
    had no interest in his ideas and never funded his research, that funding
    came from ARPA. ARC is no longer in existence as an organization.

    ARC invented the mouse and possibly the notion of a windowed user
    interface, using text, not graphics.

    PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) is part of Xerox--its only relation to
    ARC is that after ARC went under some of the employees (not including
    Englebart) were hired by PARC. PARC is still very much in business. It
    is not government funded to any significant extent.

    PARC invented the GUI, borrowing ARCs mouse and the notion of a
    windowing, and taking it far, far beyond anything that ARC had done,
    using graphics rather than special characters to display the window and
    its contents, adding icons for various elements, etc. The Xerox
    interface allowed an accurate representation of a printed page with
    variable sized fonts and illustrations to be displayed on the screen,
    Englebarts did not.

    Xerox never had a patent on the mouse and may or may not have had one on
    various aspects of windowing, but they did hold a copyright on the GUI
    used on the Alto/Star.
    J. Clarke, Mar 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.