Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "DR-DOS" in English language version.
Last modified:
MPDOSTIP.ZIP collection maintained up to 2001 and distributed on many sites at the time. The provided link points to a HTML-converted older version of the NWDOSTIP.TXT file.) {{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link){{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Caldera […] will openly distribute the source code for DOS via the Internet as part of the company's plans to encourage continued development of DOS technologies and applications, further leveling the playing field for software developers worldwide. This effort, targeted to benefit both individual developers and industry partners, follows Caldera's commitment to embrace and fund an open software environment. Caldera also announced plans for internal development and marketing of DOS, including a new product called Caldera OpenDOS. […] Caldera plans to openly distribute the source code for all of the DOS technologies it acquired from Novell […] including CP/M, DR DOS, PalmDOS, Multi-User DOS and Novell DOS 7. Pending an evaluation and organization of the […] technologies, the source code will be made available from Caldera's web site during Q1 1997 […] Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee. Source code for proprietary third-party components of Novell DOS 7 will not be published. […]
Concurrent DOS Release 3.1 is rapidly gaining momentum and support from a wide range of microcomputer manufacturers," Wandryk said. "Some 60 hardware companies have licensed the product since it was released in early March.
{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)[…] Novells DOS 7 fuer viele die Nummer eins […] Novell-DOS 7 gilt bei vielen Fachleuten derzeit als bestes DOS. […]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)[…] FILES+FCBS […] are now grouped in 3 chunks while they were arranged in 2 chunks previously […] QEMM's DOS-UP feature does not expect this […] This results in ca. 1 Kb less conventional memory than the theoretical possible maximum under QEMM […] I once wrote a patch (a DEBUG script named IBMBIO85.SCR […]) […] which will reenable the old handle memory layout. This will free even more conventional memory under DR-DOS, but causes serious compatibility problems with Windows 3.xx when the FILESHIGH=, FCBSHIGH=, or DOS=AUTO directives are used […] because it will leave only 5 handles in low memory in contrast to the 8 handles that are required for Windows to work properly due to an extremely dangerous hack on Microsoft's side to determine the size of the […] SFT structures (this is known as "CON CON CON CON CON" hack, because Windows opens CON five times and […] scans the first 512 Kb of memory for the "CON" string to measure the displacement […] something that could be easily fooled by just placing some "CON" strings in the […] memory image with incorrect offsets from each other […]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)See footnote #19 (BDOS 1067h "DR DOS 6.0 Windows 3.1 update, April 1992"; 1992-03, 1992-04-07: "This public DR DOS 6.0 update only includes patches addressing full Windows 3.1 compatibility. There should have been a full "business update" for registered users, shipping a little bit later."), #27 (BDOS 1072h "Novell DOS 7 Panther/Smirnoff BETA 3", 1993-09: "This issue does not have workarounds for Windows 3.1 AARD code."), #29 (BDOS 1072h "Novell DOS 7 German release"; 1994-02-22: "This issue is known to have workarounds for Windows 3.1 AARD code. This should also apply to the earlier English issue.")
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)[…] DR-DOS 7.03 is compatible with Windows and Windows for Workgroups up to 3.xx (and internal versions of DR-DOS even with Windows 4.xx aka Windows 95/98/SE […]
{{cite newsgroup}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)[…] DR-DOS 7.04/7.05 (1999-08-19) […] -->
[…] DR-DOS 7.06 up to 1999-12-14 […] -->
{{cite newsgroup}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)[…] We […] have very deep experience with embedding DR DOS, and we've been making millions from that. So we are in a unique position: we are not a startup and we have funding. Our DOS product paid for all our R&D on embedded Linux. […] we are […] evolving our focus from an embedded DOS-only company to an embedded Linux company. […] We are not killing our DOS product immediately; […] the market is not killing our DOS product. There is still a high demand for embedded DOS, and we will continue to sell and market it. However, there has been an increasing demand for embedded Linux. So we are shifting our focus and renaming the company to match our longer-term revenue stream, which will be Linux-based […] as the market has requested us to do […] We will keep selling both technologies during the transition. […] we spoke to our OEM companies—not just in the U.S., but around Europe and Asia—they were interested in our DOS solution and they would […] like to switch to Linux […]
[…] MS-DOS 7.0+ […] introduced a […] for the most part undocumented RMD data structure usually located in the HMA. The kernel collects and records configuration and Real Mode Driver data during boot (type of driver, interrupts hooked by driver, CONFIG.SYS line of invocation, etc.) and stores this information in a […] complicated […] growing data structure. Presumably […] meant to be used by the Windows core to get a better picture of the loaded Real Mode drivers […] or even attempt to unhook or unload some of them, […] it is only used to a very limited extent ([…] some of the info reflected in the log files created on […] startup, and some parts of the […] configuration manager also make use of it), […] leaving room […] beyond the technical side […] because nothing of the interesting stuff is documented […]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link) {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link) {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link) {{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Furthermore, Caldera claims that Microsoft's flagship product, Windows 95, is nothing more than an "artificial tie" between its MS-DOS operating system and Windows graphic interface with no business justification other than to keep competing underlying operating systems—like Caldera's DR-DOS—off the market. To prove its point, Caldera will soon release a piece of demonstration software called "WinBolt," which, it says, will allow users to install the Windows 95 interface atop DR-DOS. The demo will show, Caldera says, that there is no significant technological advancement, or justified business efficiency, to the combination of MS-DOS with Windows in Windows 95.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)Concurrent DOS Release 3.1 is rapidly gaining momentum and support from a wide range of microcomputer manufacturers," Wandryk said. "Some 60 hardware companies have licensed the product since it was released in early March.
[…] One of the most important stimulanta for adding features was competitive pressure from DRDOS 5.0, which we first learnt of in the spring of 1990. The DRDOS feature set led us to add UMB support, task swapping, and Undelete. […] Considerable amounts of the team's management attention was diverted to new features such as file transfer software, undelete and network installation […] Eventually this situation reached a crisis point at the end of July 1990, and, led by BradS, the team's management spent an arduous series of meetings nailing down a schedule and process for closing the project down […](1+32 pages)
See footnote #19 (BDOS 1067h "DR DOS 6.0 Windows 3.1 update, April 1992"; 1992-03, 1992-04-07: "This public DR DOS 6.0 update only includes patches addressing full Windows 3.1 compatibility. There should have been a full "business update" for registered users, shipping a little bit later."), #27 (BDOS 1072h "Novell DOS 7 Panther/Smirnoff BETA 3", 1993-09: "This issue does not have workarounds for Windows 3.1 AARD code."), #29 (BDOS 1072h "Novell DOS 7 German release"; 1994-02-22: "This issue is known to have workarounds for Windows 3.1 AARD code. This should also apply to the earlier English issue.")
SCREENHZ.FNT for its $FONT.SYS.)MPDOSTIP.ZIP collection maintained up to 2001 and distributed on many sites at the time. The provided link points to a HTML-converted older version of the NWDOSTIP.TXT file.) […] Novells DOS 7 fuer viele die Nummer eins […] Novell-DOS 7 gilt bei vielen Fachleuten derzeit als bestes DOS. […]
Caldera […] will openly distribute the source code for DOS via the Internet as part of the company's plans to encourage continued development of DOS technologies and applications, further leveling the playing field for software developers worldwide. This effort, targeted to benefit both individual developers and industry partners, follows Caldera's commitment to embrace and fund an open software environment. Caldera also announced plans for internal development and marketing of DOS, including a new product called Caldera OpenDOS. […] Caldera plans to openly distribute the source code for all of the DOS technologies it acquired from Novell […] including CP/M, DR DOS, PalmDOS, Multi-User DOS and Novell DOS 7. Pending an evaluation and organization of the […] technologies, the source code will be made available from Caldera's web site during Q1 1997 […] Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee. Source code for proprietary third-party components of Novell DOS 7 will not be published. […]
Microsoft Corp. agreed to pay an estimated $275 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit by Caldera Inc., heading off a trial that was likely to air nasty allegations from a decade ago. […] Microsoft and Caldera, a small Salt Lake City software company that brought the suit in 1996, didn't disclose terms of the settlement. Microsoft, though, said it would take a charge of three cents a share for the agreement in the fiscal third quarter ending March 31 […] the company has roughly 5.5 billion shares outstanding […]
[…] Microsoft paid $280 million to Caldera to settle the case, and $35.5 million of the settlement proceeds were provided by Caldera to Novell as a so-called "royalty." […] Dissatisfied with that amount, Novell filed suit in June 2000 against Caldera (succeeded by The Canopy Group), alleging that Novell was entitled to even more. […] Novell ultimately prevailed, adding $17.7 million to its share of the monies paid by Microsoft to Caldera, for a total of more than $53 million […]
[…] Microsoft will pay to Caldera, by wire transfer in accordance with written instructions provided by Caldera, the amount of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000), as full settlement of all claims or potential claims covered by this agreement […](NB. This document of the Caldera v. Microsoft case was an exhibit in the Novell v. Microsoft and Comes v. Microsoft cases.)
Furthermore, Caldera claims that Microsoft's flagship product, Windows 95, is nothing more than an "artificial tie" between its MS-DOS operating system and Windows graphic interface with no business justification other than to keep competing underlying operating systems—like Caldera's DR-DOS—off the market. To prove its point, Caldera will soon release a piece of demonstration software called "WinBolt," which, it says, will allow users to install the Windows 95 interface atop DR-DOS. The demo will show, Caldera says, that there is no significant technological advancement, or justified business efficiency, to the combination of MS-DOS with Windows in Windows 95.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link) {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link) {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link) […] FILES+FCBS […] are now grouped in 3 chunks while they were arranged in 2 chunks previously […] QEMM's DOS-UP feature does not expect this […] This results in ca. 1 Kb less conventional memory than the theoretical possible maximum under QEMM […] I once wrote a patch (a DEBUG script named IBMBIO85.SCR […]) […] which will reenable the old handle memory layout. This will free even more conventional memory under DR-DOS, but causes serious compatibility problems with Windows 3.xx when the FILESHIGH=, FCBSHIGH=, or DOS=AUTO directives are used […] because it will leave only 5 handles in low memory in contrast to the 8 handles that are required for Windows to work properly due to an extremely dangerous hack on Microsoft's side to determine the size of the […] SFT structures (this is known as "CON CON CON CON CON" hack, because Windows opens CON five times and […] scans the first 512 Kb of memory for the "CON" string to measure the displacement […] something that could be easily fooled by just placing some "CON" strings in the […] memory image with incorrect offsets from each other […]
[…] We […] have very deep experience with embedding DR DOS, and we've been making millions from that. So we are in a unique position: we are not a startup and we have funding. Our DOS product paid for all our R&D on embedded Linux. […] we are […] evolving our focus from an embedded DOS-only company to an embedded Linux company. […] We are not killing our DOS product immediately; […] the market is not killing our DOS product. There is still a high demand for embedded DOS, and we will continue to sell and market it. However, there has been an increasing demand for embedded Linux. So we are shifting our focus and renaming the company to match our longer-term revenue stream, which will be Linux-based […] as the market has requested us to do […] We will keep selling both technologies during the transition. […] we spoke to our OEM companies—not just in the U.S., but around Europe and Asia—they were interested in our DOS solution and they would […] like to switch to Linux […]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)[…] One of the most important stimulanta for adding features was competitive pressure from DRDOS 5.0, which we first learnt of in the spring of 1990. The DRDOS feature set led us to add UMB support, task swapping, and Undelete. […] Considerable amounts of the team's management attention was diverted to new features such as file transfer software, undelete and network installation […] Eventually this situation reached a crisis point at the end of July 1990, and, led by BradS, the team's management spent an arduous series of meetings nailing down a schedule and process for closing the project down […](1+32 pages)
Microsoft Corp. agreed to pay an estimated $275 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit by Caldera Inc., heading off a trial that was likely to air nasty allegations from a decade ago. […] Microsoft and Caldera, a small Salt Lake City software company that brought the suit in 1996, didn't disclose terms of the settlement. Microsoft, though, said it would take a charge of three cents a share for the agreement in the fiscal third quarter ending March 31 […] the company has roughly 5.5 billion shares outstanding […]