DOS disk interface is quite mundante. It was dependant on BIOS recognition, and its not compatible with 32 GB disk at all. An 120MB or 250MB HDD was the usual MS-DOS disk sold during the 6.22 era. The firsts GB disk ware common by 1996.
By the way, 2GB is the max recognizable partition size.
Use fdisk to create a Master Boot Record, and a 2GB partition, and try it.
I tried it with ease with old 1 GB and 512MB Compact Flash cards, but I must say CF has almost direct compatibility with IDE. SD cards require an adapter controller (you seems to have one of those, tho).
1 GRAPHICS 2+16
2 ? #6;"STAR WARS THEME"
3 ? #6;"BY JOHN WILLIAMS"
4 REM ARR. BY AARON NESS
5 REM FROM ACE NEWSLETTER, VOL.2,NO.3, MARCH 1981
8 FOR W=1 TO 500:NEXT W
9 GRAPHICS 0
10 READ S,N0,N1,N2,N3
20 IF N0=-1 THEN END
25 ? S;"|";N0;"|";N1;"|";N2;"|";N3
30 SOUND 0,N0,10,4:SOUND 1,N1,10,4
35 SOUND 2,N2,10,4:SOUND 3,N3,10,4
40 FOR X=1 TO S*150:NEXT X:GOTO 10
100 DATA .3,108,0,0,0
101 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
102 DATA .3,108,0,0,0
104 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
105 DATA .2,108,0,0,0
110 DATA 1,81,108,128,162
111 DATA 1,81,108,128,173
114 DATA 1,53,64,81,193
116 DATA 1,53,64,81,217
120 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
122 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
124 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
125 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
128 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
129 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
140 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
141 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
144 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
145 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
148 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
149 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
160 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
161 DATA .3,64,72,91,182
164 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
165 DATA 2,72,85,108,217
168 DATA .6,108,0,0,0
169 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
172 DATA .3,108,0,0,0
173 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
180 DATA 1,81,103,128,162
181 DATA 1,81,108,128,173
184 DATA 1,53,64,81,193
185 DATA 1,53,64,81,217
190 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
191 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
194 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
196 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
198 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
199 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
210 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
211 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
214 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
215 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
218 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
219 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
230 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
231 DATA .3,64,72,91,182
234 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
235 DATA 1,72,85,108,217
236 DATA .6,108,0,0,0
237 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
238 DATA .3,108,0,0,0
250 DATA 1.5,96,121,162,0
251 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
252 DATA .5,96,0,0,217
254 DATA .5,60,81,96,217
255 DATA .5,64,81,96,217
256 DATA .5,72,81,96,217
258 DATA .5,81,81,96,217
270 DATA .3,81,96,0,217
271 DATA .3,72,96,0,217
274 DATA .3,64,96,0,217
275 DATA 1,72,0,0,217
278 DATA .25,96,0,0,217
279 DATA 1,85,108,144,217
282 DATA .6,108,0,0,0
283 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
284 DATA .3,108,0,0,0
290 DATA 1.5,96,121,162,217
291 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
292 DATA .5,96,121,162,217
294 DATA .5,60,81,121,217
295 DATA .5,64,81,121,217
298 DATA .5,72,81,121,217
299 DATA .5,0,81,121,217
310 DATA .75,53,68,91,136
311 DATA .25,72,0,0,0
314 DATA 2,72,85,108,217
315 DATA .6,108,0,0,0
318 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
319 DATA .3,108,0,0,0
320 DATA 1.5,96,121,162,0
321 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
322 DATA .5,96,0,0,217
324 DATA .5,60,81,96,0
325 DATA .5,64,81,96,0
328 DATA .5,72,81,96,217
329 DATA .5,0,81,96,0
340 DATA .3,81,96,121,217
341 DATA .3,72,96,121,0
344 DATA .3,64,96,121,0
345 DATA .6,72,96,121,217
348 DATA .3,0,96,0,0
349 DATA 1,85,0,0,0
352 DATA .6,53,0,0,217
353 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
354 DATA .3,53,0,0,0
360 DATA .6,40,50,60,81
361 DATA .3,45,60,81,128
364 DATA .6,50,60,81,243
365 DATA .3,53,0,81,217
368 DATA .6,60,0,81,204
369 DATA .3,68,0,0,182
372 DATA .6,72,0,0,162
373 DATA .3,81,0,0,144
380 DATA 1,53,0,0,0
381 DATA .1,72,85,121,217
384 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
385 DATA .1,72,85,121,217
386 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
387 DATA .1,72,85,121,217
388 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
389 DATA .5,72,85,121,217
390 DATA .3,0,0,108,0
391 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
392 DATA .3,0,0,108,0
393 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
394 DATA .3,0,0,108,0
395 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
400 DATA 1,81,108,128,162
401 DATA 1,81,108,128,173
404 DATA 1,53,64,81,193
405 DATA 1,53,64,81,217
410 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
411 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
414 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
415 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
418 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
419 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
430 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
431 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
434 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
435 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
438 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
439 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
450 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
451 DATA .3,64,72,91,182
454 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
455 DATA 2,72,85,108,217
456 DATA .6,108,0,0,0
457 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
458 DATA .3,108,0,0,0
462 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
470 DATA 1,81,108,128,162
471 DATA 1,81,108,128,173
474 DATA 1,53,64,81,193
475 DATA 1,53,64,81,217
480 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
481 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
484 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
485 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
488 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
489 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
500 DATA .3,60,81,96,243
501 DATA .3,64,81,96,243
504 DATA .2,72,81,96,243
505 DATA 1,40,53,64,128
508 DATA 1,40,53,64,144
509 DATA 1,53,64,81,162
520 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
521 DATA .3,64,72,91,182
524 DATA .3,60,72,91,182
525 DATA 2,72,85,108,217
528 DATA 1,53,108,217,0
530 DATA .5,0,0,0,217
540 DATA 1,40,53,64,162
542 DATA 1,40,53,64,173
544 DATA 1,40,53,64,193
546 DATA 1,40,53,64,217
550 DATA 1,40,53,64,243
552 DATA 1,40,53,64,217
554 DATA 1,40,53,64,193
556 DATA 1,40,53,64,173
558 DATA 2,40,53,64,162
559 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
560 DATA .1,40,53,64,162
561 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
562 DATA .1,40,53,64,162
563 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
564 DATA .1,40,53,64,162
565 DATA 0,0,0,0,0
566 DATA 1.7,40,53,64,162
600 DATA 0,-1,0,0,0
Don't even have to call a library or declare a variable! Meanwhile, I can't even remember the shit you need to put in front of every C/C++ program (HREF/void.h or something; it's usually there automatically these days in some compilers, like Visual Studio).
I like this guy. If you're into retro computing, Ben Eater, who was mentioned in this video, has an awesome channel too: one of his video series involves making a computer from scratch on a breadboard using one of these bad boys (65c02, I think)
There would never have been any 32-bit versions: no Windows NT, no Windows 95; no Explorer, no Start menu or taskbars. That, in turn, might well have killed off Apple as well. No iPod, no iPhone, no fondleslabs. Twenty-first century computers would be unimaginably different.
It’s definitely fun to think about how things could’ve been different, but personally, it seems pretty silly to think that things today would be “unimaginably different”. Like don’t you think that these paradigms seem intuitive enough that multiple people could’ve independently come up with them?
This was a decent OS, came about in BeOS 5 when they started to run on intel. Just lacked apps. at least OS/4 Warp could run Windows apps, this was just a brand new OS with nothing yet. Shame it died out, but you can run an inspired version of it called Haiku.
Yep. I ran it on my 450MHz Pentium III back in the day - was incredibly fast and felt so ahead of it's time, especially it's multimedia and multitasking performance, as well as the fast boot speeds. It was my second favorite OS back then.
As it was explained to me, it could do full-motion video almost 30 years ago, it could switch around analog signals like cable TV and put them on screen in an app, it had ports for hardware hacking that you could control more low-level and directly. It was just better, by quite a lot. And Microsoft and network effects conspired to kill it before it got rooted and so it got thrown out with the trash.
Not only could it do full motion video, but it could, on a 200Mhz Pentium MMX CPU, rotate an OpenGL cube on any axis with a different video running on all six sides, and do so smoothly and without any lag or video stuttering. It was incredible what they were able to do back then. Hell I'm not entirely convinced Windows could pull that off now!
I love the label on the disk. Lately I've been developing a really strong appreciation for old computing labels, manuals, packaging, etc. It often just has a feel to it.
Something interesting, and I'm not casting aspersions here, but it should be mentioned, with respect to my link above to the Tim Paterson Wiki page.
Although it's widely known that he worked for SCP, and while there, created QDOS for S-100 based systems, it's only mentioned in a couple of minor footnotes that he actually did work for Digital Research too - CP/M related stuffs. To find that info, you'll need to rifle through some bio stuff on Gary himself. I might be able to dig up a reference or two if you can't find one.
Now, I've never seen anywhere that Gary made any disparaging remarks about Tim Paterson, but he was all over Bill Gates wrt 'stealing' parts of his code, ... Which is kinda Ironic, coz Paterson wrote the IBM PC-DOS 1.01 that was released, and those early MS-DOS versions, working at times both under contract to Microsoft as an employee of SCP and later, directly for Microsoft on DOS and other projects as well. I believe that as late as MS-DOS 3.xx that Microsoft was still compiling DOS on an S-100 system (I may be mistaken).
Anyway, I wanted to offer you a couple of my all-time fav quotes:
"Ask Bill why the string in [MS-DOS] function 9 is terminated by a dollar sign. Ask him, because he can't answer. Only I know that." - Dr. Gary Kildall.
That's one of the disparaging remarks that I found Ironic - Bill Gates didn't, AFAIK, write ANY DOS code himself in the first place - it was all Paterson. So who is Gary ultimately pointing the finger at?
And then there's this:
“IBM wanted CP/M prompts. It made me throw up.” - Tim Paterson.
Now there's a conundrum, lolz....
Tim has always maintained that the creation of DOS was a completely original and unique design of his own, choosing FAT was an important decision too on his part, but it does sill beg the question, "Why is F9 terminated by a dollar sign?"
I've received some really intuitive background info from Mike MacGirvin, @mikedev , for which I am more than grateful for, his insight as to some of the reasoning wasn't based in the least on the saga, but actual practices at the time, so it's reasonable, informed supposition, but enlightening.
Regardless, We all know why Bill gates doesn't know the answer, lolz.... all (or at least most) of that kind of work was performed by other folks while he fiddled with his baby - BASIC.
retrocomputing
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).