A reimplementation of the missing components needed to run MS-DOS 2.0 (MBR, DBR, DOS BIOS, FORMAT, FDISK).
https://www.durlej.net/software.html
https://github.com/p-durlej/dosbios
MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project
Re: MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project
Nice, good job!
On your site you write that MS-DOS 2.0 is closed-source, this is not true. M$ made it Open Source two years ago, and therefore publicly available:
https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/tre ... 2.0/source
Just for the records, unofficially the work-in-progress source of MS-DOS 6.0 is out too (so this is actually 5.0 with some advancements):
ftp://oscollect.old-dos.ru/Abandonware/ ... e_Code.zip
Cheers,
bzt
On your site you write that MS-DOS 2.0 is closed-source, this is not true. M$ made it Open Source two years ago, and therefore publicly available:
https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/tre ... 2.0/source
Just for the records, unofficially the work-in-progress source of MS-DOS 6.0 is out too (so this is actually 5.0 with some advancements):
ftp://oscollect.old-dos.ru/Abandonware/ ... e_Code.zip
Cheers,
bzt
Re: MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project
Nope. The closed source IBMBIO.COM is a component of PC DOS and, AFAIK, is not redistributable.bzt wrote:On your site you write that MS-DOS 2.0 is closed-source, this is not true.
Additionally, AFAIK, there was not any opensource (or even redistributable) counterpart of IBMBIO.COM (IO.SYS in MS-DOS naming convention).
Re: MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project
Strictly speaking IBMBIO.COM / IO.SYS is not part of the OS, as it provides and abstraction layer and interface to the firmware (BIOS). In theory you could run DOS on a non-IBM-PC compatible if you provide an IO.SYS for that machine (never happened as far as I know). All the rest is Open Source (including MSDOS.SYS and FORMAT etc.), so I think MS-DOS 2.0 is indeed Open Source. Regardless your IO.SYS implementation is cool, it is good we have an Open Source alternative for that too!pdurlej wrote:Nope. The closed source IBMBIO.COM is a component of PC DOS and, AFAIK, is not redistributable.
Additionally, AFAIK, there was not any opensource (or even redistributable) counterpart of IBMBIO.COM (IO.SYS in MS-DOS naming convention).
Cheers,
bzt
-
- Member
- Posts: 5568
- Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:01 pm
Re: MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project
It happened a few times before IBM-compatible hardware completely took over. Perhaps the biggest example is the NEC PC-98 series, which wasn't discontinued until 2003. You can find a copy of MS-DOS 6.2 for PC-98 pretty easily.bzt wrote:In theory you could run DOS on a non-IBM-PC compatible if you provide an IO.SYS for that machine (never happened as far as I know).
Re: MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project
It has happened. Some (if not all) Apricot computers were not fully compatible and so required a special version of DOS (basically of those files). I have (somewhere) an Apricot Portable to which this applied. I even had to patch Turbo Pascal to get it to function correctly.bzt wrote:In theory you could run DOS on a non-IBM-PC compatible if you provide an IO.SYS for that machine (never happened as far as I know).
I believe that some early Compaqs also needed a special keyboard driver.
Re: MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project
The MS-DOS 2.0 restoration project files have been updated:
- the ATTRIB command has been implemented (although it is currently limited to displaying file attributes)
- FDISK has been extended and is more like the IBM version
- MODE command from MS-DOS 1.25 is included
- several bugs were fixed
- the ATTRIB command has been implemented (although it is currently limited to displaying file attributes)
- FDISK has been extended and is more like the IBM version
- MODE command from MS-DOS 1.25 is included
- several bugs were fixed