![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
I do not know if this would be of any use to TDF/LO, or any of the users of this list, but I thought this was something that might be interesting reading and a "first" for Microsoft.
"The source code for MS DOS 1.1 and 2.0 is available for download here. Word for Windows 1.1a can be found here."
Looks to me like they're playing it safe, to say the least. Despite being prehistoric as well, they didn't even dare release the source code of version 6.20 or even 3.20!
As for Word 1.1a I doubt it could be of any practical interest, given the file formats are usually backwards incompatible from one version to the next... 
So yes, it all might be techinically quite interesting, but in the end I think it's nothing more than a publicity stunt.
BTW, interesting news nonetheless, thanks for mentioning it.
I'm not sure my first response was received.
CAUTION: As I understand what MS has done, the code has NOT been released to the Public Domain. Viewing it could pollute products of the Open Source Software movement.
Software
Judging from the following two points, among the first ones presented in
the licence agreement one lands on when clicking on the link in the
article, I reckon the source code basically stays "secret", or at least
is light-years away from "free" as in FLOSS:
* You may not distribute or publish the software or Derivative Works.
* You may publish and present papers or articles on the results of your
research, and while distribution of all or substantial portions of the
software is not permitted, you may include in any such publication or
presentation an excerpt of up to fifty (50) lines of code for
illustration purposes.
Given such a restrictive licence, they could as well have published
substantial parts of Windows 95 or Word of that era with some confidence...
Caution: Simply viewing this code _could_ pollute the products of the open source movement. As I understand their action, MS is not releasing this code to the Public Domain.
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe either DOS
(before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written by Microsoft. I seem to
recall that both were purchased and re-branded.
Word for MS-DOS was typical of the approach Microsoft would perfect over
many subsequent years. Its success (actually not all that great) was based
almost entirely on marketing.
In its heyday, almost all word processors for the MS-DOS / PC-DOS platform
were at least as good as Word, and many were far superior. WordPerfect (4.x
and later) were far more suitable for anyone actually attempting to create a
document. Word, for instance, took up fully half of the available (80x25)
screen space with typically "intuitive" menus (isn't it obvious to a new
user that Esc-File-Transfer is the appropriate sequence for saving a file? -
and weren't most users pretty new back then?).
And as for printing, one needed to have a Microsoft "approved" (as opposed
to "supported;" even then, arrogance was one of their hallmarks) printer
(nothing wrong with Epson and Okidata, of course, but remember when the HP
LaserJet first appeared?) to get any output. Most of its competitors
supported many more devices. My recollection is that Microsoft Word's
support for the LaserJet (we had both where I worked when that first
appeared) came a good six months after WordPerfect's.
I remember training secretaries on an IBM standalone word processor machine
(can't recall the model, but it used 8" floppies); this effort went quite
smoothly. When we later began introducing those PC things, I had a devil of
a time training those same secretaries on Word (we fell for the OS-WP
compatibility argument), it was a disaster. We then shifted gears to
WordPerfect which had an even higher learning curve initially, but most
caught on to its way of thinking very quickly.
When WordPerfect 5.x arrived, there was even the ability to display a
graphic preview (almost WYSIWYG) display of the printed output on a normal
character screen - and this was available not only for DOS versions, but on
a wide variety of platforms such as the then popular DEC and DG terminals.
Since most other machines had standard VT-100 emulation, life was good for
WordPerfect users.
In those days as I recall, I only ran into a minority of businesses that
used Word. There were a good number of other pretty capable word processors
in use, a number of which also included "database" and other such modules
(too primitive to call them "suites," I suppose, but the idea was there. But
I think the combination of WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 was far more common
than Word and (uh-oh, Excel didn't come along until later).
Sorry for the trip down memory lane, but I agree that this is undoubtedly
some sort of publicity stunt. Call me cynical, but I can't help wondering
what's up their sleeve with this.
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe either DOS
(before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written by Microsoft. I seem to
recall that both were purchased and re-branded.Word for MS-DOS was typical of the approach Microsoft would perfect over
many subsequent years. Its success (actually not all that great) was based
almost entirely on marketing.In its heyday, almost all word processors for the MS-DOS / PC-DOS platform
were at least as good as Word, and many were far superior. WordPerfect (4.x
and later) were far more suitable for anyone actually attempting to create a
document. Word, for instance, took up fully half of the available (80x25)
screen space with typically "intuitive" menus (isn't it obvious to a new
user that Esc-File-Transfer is the appropriate sequence for saving a file? -
and weren't most users pretty new back then?).
PC-Write had more text space and less menu space.
And as for printing, one needed to have a Microsoft "approved" (as opposed
to "supported;" even then, arrogance was one of their hallmarks) printer
(nothing wrong with Epson and Okidata, of course, but remember when the HP
LaserJet first appeared?) to get any output. Most of its competitors
supported many more devices. My recollection is that Microsoft Word's
support for the LaserJet (we had both where I worked when that first
appeared) came a good six months after WordPerfect's.
I use to write printer "driver" files for PC-Write. So any printer with a good manual could have a printer file made for it. Every office seemed to have ordered a different printer so I was kept busy for a month of so, along with my computer center gig.
I remember training secretaries on an IBM standalone word processor machine
(can't recall the model, but it used 8" floppies); this effort went quite
smoothly. When we later began introducing those PC things, I had a devil of
a time training those same secretaries on Word (we fell for the OS-WP
compatibility argument), it was a disaster. We then shifted gears to
WordPerfect which had an even higher learning curve initially, but most
caught on to its way of thinking very quickly.
Do not remember 8 inch ones. I remember 10 inch, and then the 5.x inch ones. [single sided and then double sided]
When WordPerfect 5.x arrived, there was even the ability to display a
graphic preview (almost WYSIWYG) display of the printed output on a normal
character screen - and this was available not only for DOS versions, but on
a wide variety of platforms such as the then popular DEC and DG terminals.
Since most other machines had standard VT-100 emulation, life was good for
WordPerfect users.
WordPerfect and PC-Write were the standard for the places I worked till Word 95 came along.
In those days as I recall, I only ran into a minority of businesses that
used Word. There were a good number of other pretty capable word processors
in use, a number of which also included "database" and other such modules
(too primitive to call them "suites," I suppose, but the idea was there. But
I think the combination of WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 was far more common
than Word and (uh-oh, Excel didn't come along until later).Sorry for the trip down memory lane, but I agree that this is undoubtedly
some sort of publicity stunt. Call me cynical, but I can't help wondering
what's up their sleeve with this.
"If we do not remember the past, we are bound to repeat it" was a popular quote for a while.
MS needs a good publicity stunt or two to help with their mess with Win 8.x I read an article today that they are now going to add a function where it will look more like Win7 and be better at keyboard/mouse operation. They are also going to offer Win8.x to device makers [not desktops or laptops makers though] for free, since they can get Android for free. MS really is hurting over Android's market share for these hand held devices. Well there is also a movement to port Android to the Laptop. That would really mess with MS's market share.
What is up their sleeve? A billy club, knife, gun, and many other items that they can try to convince the public that they are the best to know what the market needs and what people have to have to be a happy computer device user. Their OS and office suite monopoly is over and they do not like it.
Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe either DOS
(before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written by Microsoft. I
seem to
recall that both were purchased and re-branded.
DOS was bought from Seattle Computer Products and it was originally
intended to be a hardware test system, while waiting for CP/M-86, rather
than a proper OS.
Do not remember 8 inch ones. I remember 10 inch, and then the 5.x
inch ones. [single sided and then double sided]
The first floppies, as invented by IBM, were 8". There never were 10"
floppies.
8", 5-1/4", then 3-1/2". The first Winchester drives were 10", IIRC.
DOS *was* originally designed and written by SCP, but I do not recall
it being a "test" system. Digital Research was essentially ignoring
the new Intel processors, and the people that formed SCP finally got
tired of waiting for something that showed no signs of ever
happening, and created what became DOS. That was half of a
double-screw up by Gary Kildall, who formed and led DRI. The 2nd
screw-up (this story is apocryphal) was him leaving visitors from IBM
to meet with his wife, rather than him. IBM decided DRI was not
serious, stopped in to see Gates, Gates bought "DOS," and the rest is
history. So is DRI.
I still have a well-thumbed and somewhat yellowed CP/M 1.4 User's
Manual on my bookshelf Says "Distributed by Lifeboat Associates"
on it. Anybody remember them?
Regards,
Jim
Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe
either DOS (before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written
by Microsoft. I seem to
recall that both were purchased and re-branded.DOS was bought from Seattle Computer Products and it was originally
intended to be a hardware test system, while waiting for CP/M-86,
rather than a proper OS.Do not remember 8 inch ones. I remember 10 inch, and then the 5.x
inch ones. [single sided and then double sided]The first floppies, as invented by IBM, were 8". There never were
10" floppies.8", 5-1/4", then 3-1/2". The first Winchester drives were 10", IIRC.
Maybe I got confused. I thought my "10 inch" was from a DEC system. It was sure big. Maybe they used a different type. I donated it to a college teaching staff for demoing old tech, along with my samples of a punched card program, and some paper tape.
DOS *was* originally designed and written by SCP, but I do not recall
it being a "test" system. Digital Research was essentially ignoring
the new Intel processors, and the people that formed SCP finally got
tired of waiting for something that showed no signs of ever
happening, and created what became DOS. That was half of a
double-screw up by Gary Kildall, who formed and led DRI. The 2nd
screw-up (this story is apocryphal) was him leaving visitors from IBM
to meet with his wife, rather than him. IBM decided DRI was not
serious, stopped in to see Gates, Gates bought "DOS," and the rest is
history. So is DRI.I still have a well-thumbed and somewhat yellowed CP/M 1.4 User's
Manual on my bookshelf
on it. Anybody remember them?Regards,
Jim
I hated CP/M and had to deal with an early college computer center that had IBM [brand and not clones] PC-XTs and a few of them actually had a graphics card and not the original 80x40 characters type of display. They all were double single-sided floppy 5.25 inch. The other rooms had old Apple [before Macs] and they had CP/M OS options, and the next room had DEC terminals to the mini-mainframes. While I was there a math professor brought in the "new" Apple computer called a Macintosh. We also a 10 inch screen portable PC-AT or XT that weighted over 40 pounds.
The next college center had both DEC terminals and a few dual floppy PCs that were connected to the DEC system via a terminal emulator called Kermit, if my memory is correct. I used its upload/download abilities to save all my work for that college onto the floppies and also did some editing at home. My first PC I had at home was a "clone" from a kit that cost about half of the IBM prices.
Those were the days of the early home PC market and the beginning of a PC in every home idea. Before them, most home computer devices were toys.
[snip]
I hated CP/M
[snip]
It was nearly indistinguishable from DOS, or DOS was nearly
indistinguishable from it, depending upon ones perspective.
The other rooms had old Apple [before Macs] and they had
CP/M OS options, ...
[snip]
No, they didn't. Early Apple PCs ran the MOS Technologies (later:
Mostek) 6502. CP/M never ran on anything but the Intel 8080 and
Zilog Z80. (And only on the latter because it was a superset of the
former.) Eventually, Kildall realized the 8-bit processors' days were
numbered (duh) and created CP/M-86, but, by then, it was way, way too
late.
The shame of Kildall's mistake was that going from the 8080 to the
8086 instruction set would have been a boringly trivial exercise,
since the 8086/8088 family was essentially an 8080 on steroids.
Those were the days of the early home PC market and the beginning
of a PC in every home idea. Before them, most home computer
devices were toys.
People did some truly useful things with those "toys." My "toy"
computer ran inventory and purchasing control for the company for
which I worked, at the time 
Regards,
Jim
Thanks for all the comments -
By the way, are you the same Jim Seymour who used to have a column in PC-Mag
(I think that was it - along with Dvorak and others)?
Frank
I have to correct myself...
[snip]
No, they didn't. Early Apple PCs ran the MOS Technologies (later:
Mostek) 6502. CP/M never ran on anything but the Intel 8080 and
Zilog Z80. (And only on the latter because it was a superset of the
former.) Eventually, Kildall realized the 8-bit processors' days
were numbered (duh) and created CP/M-86, but, by then, it was way,
way too late.
[snip]
As I was checking my dates, I was reminded there was also a
CP/M-68k. But I don't *believe* Apple ever ran CP/M-68k on their
computers. Searching for it, I'm reminded of the Sage 68k system,
which did, and how I wanted one of those in the *worst* possible way
at the time
Regards,
Jim
Somebody *just* asked me that question, here, a couple weeks ago.
No. That "Jim Seymour" passed on a few years ago.
Regards,
Jim
No need to apologise. FWIW, I really enjoyed reading your post.
Marcello
Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
Maybe I got confused. I thought my "10 inch" was from a DEC system.
It was sure big. Maybe they used a different type. I donated it to a
college teaching staff for demoing old tech, along with my samples of
a punched card program, and some paper tape.
No, DEC floppies were 8" too. Back when I was a computer tech, I used
to maintain some VAX 11/780 systems. On them, the CPU needed to have
the microcode loaded, before it could do anything. This was done by an
LSI-11 (microprocessor version of the PDP-11), which loaded the
microcode from a floppy and loaded it into the CPU.
I hated CP/M and had to deal with an early college computer center
that had IBM [brand and not clones] PC-XTs and a few of them actually
had a graphics card and not the original 80x40 characters type of
display. They all were double single-sided floppy 5.25 inch. The
other rooms had old Apple [before Macs] and they had CP/M OS options,
and the next room had DEC terminals to the mini-mainframes. While I
was there a math professor brought in the "new" Apple computer called
a Macintosh. We also a 10 inch screen portable PC-AT or XT that
weighted over 40 pounds.The next college center had both DEC terminals and a few dual floppy
PCs that were connected to the DEC system via a terminal emulator
called Kermit, if my memory is correct. I used its upload/download
abilities to save all my work for that college onto the floppies and
also did some editing at home. My first PC I had at home was a
"clone" from a kit that cost about half of the IBM prices.Those were the days of the early home PC market and the beginning of a
PC in every home idea. Before them, most home computer devices were
toys.
I only used CP/M on a Supercalc course I took. My first computer, an
IMSAI 8080 could run CP/M, *IF* you had floppy drives, which I didn't.
I used audio cassettes. When I was taking a Fortran course, I used
Procomm+ as a terminal emulator to connect to the school computer. I
also had an XT clone.
Jim Seymour wrote:
No, they didn't. Early Apple PCs ran the MOS Technologies (later:
Mostek) 6502. CP/M never ran on anything but the Intel 8080 and
Zilog Z80. (And only on the latter because it was a superset of the
former.) Eventually, Kildall realized the 8-bit processors' days were
numbered (duh) and created CP/M-86, but, by then, it was way, way too
late.
There was a Z80 CP/M card available for Apple computers that was made by
Microsoft. There were also clones of that card available.
"CVAlkan":
When WordPerfect 5.x arrived, there was even the ability to display a
graphic preview (almost WYSIWYG) display of the printed output on a normal
character screen - and this was available not only for DOS versions, but on
a wide variety of platforms such as the then popular DEC and DG terminals.
You are trying to defend a text processor which stores text in a proprietary encoding in the obscured format. Comparing to this, MS Word which used easy and open file format was a clear winner.
Urmas wrote:
Comparing to this, MS Word which used easy and open file format was a
clear winner.
Gee... I coulda sworn April 1st was last week.