Jump to content

Talk:Multiuser DOS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concurrent CP/M Release 3.1 and Concurrent DOS Release 3.1 appear to be the same product

[edit]

Introduced as the "PC-MODE" module at December 1983 COMDEX, scheduled for release in March 1984, "shipped early" on Feb. 21, 1984, or "released in early March" – unclear "who" it was shipped or released to (manufacturer, marketing department or actual OEM customers). Then rebranded and re-anounced in May 1984 as Concurrent DOS Release 3.1. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the very difference is the inclusion of the PC-MODE module, which was an optional part of Concurrent CP/M-86 3.1 in late 1983, whereas it was included in Concurrent DOS 3.2 since 1984. Until some years ago, I was living under the impression that the BDOS 3.1 system was always called Concurrent CP/M-86 (with or without PC-MODE) whereas the BDOS 3.2 system was called Concurrent DOS. However, the sources I found a while back indicate that at least for a short period of time, BDOS 3.1 systems with PC-MODE were already called Concurrent DOS as well, at least after a certain date. So, yes, Concurrent CP/M-86 3.1 plus PC-MODE is the same product as Concurrent DOS 3.1 minus a few minor improvements/fixes (probably). There are no variants of Concurrent DOS without PC-MODE, and PC-MODE is also included in DOS Plus, DR DOS, and Multiuser DOS, of course. However, the API emulator was still an optional module - it wasn't included, for example, in Personal CP/M-86. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XVCPI support in Concurrent DOS 386

[edit]

Does someone have any information (announcements, documentation, or other bits) in regard to XVCPI (Extended Virtual Control Program Interface) support in Concurrent DOS 386 since ca. 1989? This was apparently a parallel effort to DPMI to enable the full memory management and multitasking capabilities of the 386 in which Intel, Digital Research, Interactive Systems and other parties seem to have played a role. Very little is known about this, so if you know anything about it, your comments or contributions to the VCPI article or talk page would be highly welcome. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Multiuser DOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multiuser DOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story behind

[edit]

From a former employee: "When you booted the original IBM AT, it said on the screen "IBM Multi-user System". What was the IBM Multi-user System? Why the IBM AT was NOT designed to run msdos, it was designed to run a new multiuser OS. The AT would ship with 16 port serial cards, and Wyse has a PC emulation built into their dumb terminals that allowed a single AT to be used as computers for a whole room of people. It was a multitasking operating system that would have made a really large difference in the computing landscape. What happened? The sad story there is that Intel was having problems with the 286 chips. The prototype chips that IBM was using for development worked fine, but the yields were low for the chips, so Intel had to redesign the CPU die to improve yields for the production runs for the AT. When IBM finally got the redesigned chip, that had been testing their systems using the prototype chips, and didn't spot a problem the new chip created until the warehouse was full of assembled systems. It turns out the new 286 chips had an issue with running protected mode instructions, so in an 11th hour decision, IBM execs decided to open all of the boxes, remove the OS kit, and replace it with a dos disk... In one fatal moment, a spec change caused the new OS to be temporarily pulled. The OS did get used, but it was only used in IBM brand grocery store scanner registers, it never found use as the major advance in dos technology that it was. Eventually DR named the new OS Concurrent Dos and put it up for sale next to DR Dos" It needs to be checked. I couldn't completely clarify. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History summary wrong, CCPM-86 started at version 1.0

[edit]

The text state "CP/M-86 1.1 (with BDOS 2.2) and MP/M-86 2.1 were merged to create Concurrent CP/M-86 3.0 (also known as CCP/M-86) with BDOS 3.0 in late 1982". This is wrong, the merge resulted in version 1.0 in '82, version 2.0 in '83, and 3.1 in '84. There was also a version 2.1, and presumably a version 3.0.

These cam be found here: 

 https://winworldpc.com/product/concurrent-cpm-86/1x
 https://winworldpc.com/product/concurrent-cpm-86/2x
 https://winworldpc.com/product/concurrent-cpm-86/3x

The Users guides for versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.1 are dated Aug 82, May 83, and Jan 84 respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.14.23 (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multiuser_DOS&oldid=1203588481"