Did Bill Gates Steal the Heart of DOS? article

[Chuck(G)]

A long, long time ago (back in the 80s) a very talented DRI programmer showed me where in a copy of MSDOS the DRI copyright, and actual DRI serial number of the program that was incorporated into MSDOS resided.

To this day, I don't know where to find it on a early copy of MSDOS or where to even look for it. Heck, I still don't know how to find the serial number embedded in CPM 2.2, though more than one person has shown me how and where they can be found.

The same programmer showed me a DRI developed icon based GUI running on a CPM68K S-100 based system, years before Microsoft started selling Windows. I may still have copies of that OS in the closet somewhere.

So, while I don't personally have the tools/skills to be able to show you where the DRI copyright and serial number are in a copy of MSDOS 1.0, they are there, I've seen them, and I'm convinced.

Sorry, but I've got to call "Urban Legend" on this one. I was with an OEM at the time working with DOS 1.25 getting out own IO.SYS going with it. Microsoft tells its OEM developers more than the end user. At no time was DRI ever mentioned. We were, however, told that with MS-DOS 2.00, the goal was to unify DOS and Xenix to a common as-yet-unspecified product. (I still have a copy of that document).

Secondly, I don't see what the hubbub is all about. MS-DOS brought in a new file system which was very different from that of CP/M (DRI eventually copied it for Concurrent DOS). And what is CP/M at its heart if not a file management system? True, there's some console and printer I/O APIs in it, but they're very primitive and many applications bypass them because of that.

It's a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me.


DRI beat Microsoft out on the bidding for the OS for the Atari ST and the API and file system is a virtual copy of the MS-DOS API. I didn't see Microsoft suing over that one.

 

[Caluser2000]

The same programmer showed me a DRI developed icon based GUI running on a CPM68K S-100 based system, years before Microsoft started selling Windows.

GEM? Lee Jay Lorenzen joined DRI from Xerox PARC so its not surprising graphical enviroment was developed.http://www.retrotechnology.com/dri/GEM.html

A nice 1985 review- http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue60/175_1_GEM_A_New_Look_For_IBM_And_Atari.php

 

[Chuck(G)]

Also, from my 1982 OEM DRI price schedule, a 10K unit license for CP/M-86 could be had for $75K; each additional 10K would have cost $37.5K. Source was included, as were documentation reprint rights. Concurrent CP/M-86 was available for $100K for a 10K license. Support was free. Compared to what MS was getting, this was probably a bargain.

As far as CP/M-80, source could be purchased from DRI for $5K if you were an OEM.

 

[Caluser2000]

Did you get the GEM programmers tool kit Chuck?

 

[Chuck(G)]

I'd have to look; I may have had it, but I may also have tossed it a long time ago.

 

[SpidersWeb]

With regards to DRI code in DOS (and by that I mean the original), I remember seeing a clip where Gary talks about weird undocumented junk code that was left in CP/M, which he remembered writing and recognised the assembly in parts of the SCP/MS product. Haven't heard any mention of "DRI" strings or copyrights though.

But the product was close enough that If it wasn't for that deal in IBM's office to allow the Microsoft product to sell, DRI would have shut it down with a lawsuit. IBM and MS knew that at the time - hence the offer - DRI gets the contract but it doesn't have to be an in-house IBM only thing - and MS could sell their CP/M clone - let the market decide says Gary! Then MS sold it's cheaply aquired package for 1/5 the price at launch (well consumer license anyway), and DRI got left in the cold.

If you think I'm wrong on that, let me know, I'll go try and hunt up my resources. It's been a while since I've done any reasearch on the topic, that's just what was floating in my mind when I spotted this thread and the recent post about DRI code in MS DOS.

 

[Ole Juul]

With regards to DRI code in DOS (and by that I mean the original), I remember seeing a clip where Gary talks about weird undocumented junk code that was left in CP/M, which he remembered writing and recognised the assembly in parts of the SCP/MS product. Haven't heard any mention of "DRI" strings or copyrights though.

If you're interested, there's a pretty good showing of the "junk code" (slack space) on the page I gave earlier. It seems like all kinds of stuff could get left in there which nevertheless would not be "infringing" in this context. More on slack space evidence here.

I like the list of MS and IBM employees with their names in the code.

 

[barythrin]

..these sites start to read like a conspiracy theories page. Hard to tell what's fact or fabricated fact. (They used the command DIR which if you reverse the last two letters you'd see that clearly this is DRI and..) ok not that bad but it starts to read that way after a while to me.

 

[xprt]

The article was Slashdotted,
and sort of reviewed in The Register:

The IEEE is the professional association for American engineers. With the publication of this article, it has not only managed to smear the reputation of one of the computer industry's greatest pioneers, but also insult the intelligence of its readers.

 

[Chuck(G)]

If you're interested, there's a pretty good showing of the "junk code" (slack space) on the page I gave earlier. It seems like all kinds of stuff could get left in there which nevertheless would not be "infringing" in this context. More on slack space evidence here.

You mean it took someone until 2008 to figure out how to use SEEJUNK? (I wrote that after looking at a Microsoft floppy, finding all sorts of interesting stuff in the "slack" space.)

 

[krebizfan]

The article was Slashdotted,
and sort of reviewed in The Register:

I gave up on the Register piece after encountering two obvious mistakes: first, DOS and CP/M do not have the same first 26 functions; DOS skips several including the CP/M version function and second, CP/M-80 and CP/M-86 did not use Int 21h at all. The earliest DRI code to make use of Int 21h didn't ship until 1984 which would be difficult for Tim Paterson to copy in 1980. I do find it amusing that the same author has multiple articles on the SCO litigation where he is in favor of APIs being reused without copyright issues, a principle tossed aside to get a few digs in at Microsoft.

 

[Chuck(G)]

My reaction to the article, as a longtime IEEE member was pretty negative; why did Spectrum (the general magazine of the IEEE) publish it--because the IEEE Computer staff couldn't stop laughing long enough to give him a coherent answer?

@Kre, if memory serves, DRI didn't use Int 21h until they were trying to compete with MS-DOS. CP/M-86 uses Int 0E0h (224). One thing that I've always wondered about it that there's a statement in the CP/M-86 System Guide that states something to the effect of "Interrupt 224 has been reserved by Intel Corporation for interfacing to CP/M-86"--which completely blows me away. Is there any Intel documentation that so states?

 

[Ole Juul]

Update:

From The Register

The IEEE's Spectrum magazine has admitted that a recent contributor, who wrote an eyebrow-raising revisionist history of MS-DOS, is paid by Microsoft.

Editor’s Note: Upon publication, this article failed to properly disclose the connection between its author, Bob Zeidman, and Microsoft Corp., a key subject of the story. Mr. Zeidman is currently retained by Microsoft as an expert witness in Motorola Mobility v. Microsoft. IEEE Spectrum regrets the omission.