[HN Gopher] MSX-DOS
___________________________________________________________________
MSX-DOS
Author : pavlov
Score : 151 points
Date : 2023-07-20 07:08 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| 3cats-in-a-coat wrote:
| What I learned is CP/M, the first versions of MS DOS, including
| this MSX-DOS, did not have directories. Just a flat list of
| files. Weird.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Full circle, now we have cloud storage made of buckets which
| are just flat lists of keys (which sometimes pretend to have
| directories by putting slashes in the keys ...)
| toast0 wrote:
| When you've only a bit of storage, directories aren't that
| important. If you've got enough stuff, a disk as a directory
| mostly works.
|
| It's only when you start having high capacity (5mb or so) fixed
| drives that directories are really needed.
| 3cats-in-a-coat wrote:
| Makes me wonder what other ways we could've gone other than
| hierarchical.
| andrewshadura wrote:
| Well, CP/M actually had a number of "user areas", the
| default one being USER 0. Some tools actually used that to
| simulate directories (AFAIR they kept the number to name
| mapping in a hidden file somewhere).
| TillE wrote:
| Once you have the basic concept of a filesystem, mapping
| names to chunks of data, I think directories are a natural
| extension. It's an aid to both the human and the computer.
| fredoralive wrote:
| It's not an unknown limitation for floppy disc only file
| systems to not have subdirectory support, you only have
| 80-400KB[1] of data on the disc so can't have too many files on
| a disc anyway. Why waste precious RAM and disc space (either in
| FS metadata overhead, or just more DOS code) on a feature that
| isn't really vital? I think Apple II DOS 3.x is the same (and
| also on the original Mac FS although it was hidden by the UI).
| Once hard drives began to become reasonably affordable it
| became a problem so you get updated systems like MS-DOS 2,
| ProDOS etc.
|
| [1] by the time high density floppies came out newer file
| systems were available.
| p_l wrote:
| MS-DOS 2.0 bringing in hierarchical directories, pipes, and few
| other things (all credited to Unix) is considered by some the
| point where CP/M actually lost.
|
| Before, DOS was playing catch up by ease of porting from CP/M,
| afterwards it was actually bringing in new features users
| wanted.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Floppies were your directories, in a very tangible sense.
| Filesystem directories only became a relevant feature when hard
| drive support was added in MS-DOS 2.0.
| garganzol wrote:
| I knew about MSX-DOS but never realized it was CP/M compatible at
| the binary API level.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| My MSX came with both CP/M and MSX/DOS and as I recall CP/M
| programs could not be run in MSX/DOS.
|
| This is also somewhat supported by the Wikipedia article: _"To
| be able to run (slightly modified) CP /M software Microsoft
| decided to implement functionality"_
| andrewshadura wrote:
| Could it be due to a different disk format? MSX DOS is
| supposed to be able to run binaries in its own filesystem
| (FAT12), but I reckon it probably didn't support CP/M
| filesystems (which weren't unified really, each machine often
| had its own variety).
| BirAdam wrote:
| I have some more history of it here:
| https://www.abortretry.fail/p/disk-operating-systems
|
| Effectively, MS-DOS was a port of CP/M to 8086 that got some
| upgrades overtime. When it was ported to MSX, Tim Paterson used
| an ASM translator he wrote, and the CP/M compatibility was a
| natural result.
| lproven wrote:
| That's a great history.
|
| I did spot some small errors:
|
| > Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products had developed a
| reverse engineered CP/M for 8086 S-100 bus microcomputers,
| DOS-86.
|
| You have the name backwards. It was 86-DOS.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS
|
| > Lineo eventually sold to DeviceLogistics in 2002.
|
| DeviceLogics.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeviceLogics
|
| > The last versions were DR-DOS 8.1 and EDR-DOS 7.01.08 WIP
| 2011.
|
| Hang on. This is conflating 2 entirely separate lines of
| development.
|
| DrDos Inc continued work and released DR-DOS 8 and 8.1.
| However, it was shown that they used code from FreeDOS
| without giving credit and without releasing the source. The
| product was withdrawn.
|
| Earlier, in 1997, Caldera released some of the DR-DOS 7.01
| source code under a permissive but not FOSS license:
| https://www.zx.net.nz/netware/drdos/caldera.shtml
|
| It changed its mind and withdrew it again as of 7.02, which
| was once again closed source. (Apparently the company found
| some old Novell backup tapes and was able to re-incorporate
| some Novell bug fixes which had been lost.)
|
| Udo Kuhnt picked up this open source, and continued enhancing
| it. That is where Enhanced DR-DOS comes from. It's entirely
| separate and parallel to DrDos Inc's work on v8.
|
| > From Lineo forward it would appear that Udo Kuhnt was the
| lead developer/manager.
|
| He was an independent FOSS developer working on the open
| source code for the DR kernel 7.01. He had nothing to do with
| Lineo at all. (AFAIK!)
| pjmlp wrote:
| In addition, books like this one describe some of those CP/M
| APIs.
|
| Advanced Assembly Language
|
| https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=3157744535.
| ..
| anthk wrote:
| From MSX, Konami games are brilliant. Also Metal Gear 1 and 2.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| Msx wasn't cheap in South America, buy was way cheaper than IBM-
| PC.
|
| Having BASIC built-in was the easiest way to learn something
| about programming. Few books, few magazines, creativity was the
| way to go.
| geijoenr wrote:
| MSX was a Japanese home computer standard indeed, developed in
| collaboration with Microsoft, who provided the BASIC ROM
| implementation. It became very popular in Japan and in a number
| of European and South American countries. I wasn't aware that
| MSX-DOS was also started by Microsoft but I am not surprised.
| Later versions of the OS were developed by ASCII corporation in
| Japan.
|
| Fun fact is that the source was released not long ago with
| restrictions, and there is a newer version developed by an
| enthusiast called Nextor. Still in use today by many hobbicists.
| smokel wrote:
| > the source was released not long ago
|
| That sounds interesting. Could you perhaps provide a link? I
| cannot seem to find anything by myself.
| geijoenr wrote:
| Check the readme on this:
|
| https://github.com/Konamiman/Nextor
| jbverschoor wrote:
| On my Phillips MSX2, I had MSX-DOS, with an office suite called
| E.A.S.E. , also made by Philips
|
| It had all the apps, wordprocessor, spreadsheet, database,
| charts.
|
| I think there was also a DTP application, dynamic publisher
| zambal wrote:
| So many memories playing around with a Spectra Video MSX as a
| kid. Mostly playing games, occasionally trying to draw stuf or
| making sounds using Basic. Some programs could only be started
| from msx dos.
|
| Later, when most households in the Netherlands where start
| getting PCs (80286/386/486 era), I felt right at home using
| msdos.
|
| Nowadays I really appreciate vaporwave aesthetics and I'm sure
| it's because of being absorbed in the world of msx computers,
| including reading magazines and such, as a kid.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Same
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| As a MSX user, my recollection is that this was very distant
| because required a lot of hardware add-ons (at least for the
| popular Philips VG-8020).
|
| Anyone using MSX-DOS back in the day?
|
| What CP/M programs were you running?
|
| Really curious to know!
| tr352 wrote:
| Many of the later MSX models had a disk drive built in and came
| with MSX DOS. I was running MSX DOS on a Philips VG8235. I
| remember playing around with CP/M software such as Turbo Pascal
| and Wordstar.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| You didn't need hardware add-ons, only a 3.5 inch floppy drive
| (didn't run from tape). I never used cp/m programs on it, but
| there were quite a lot of cracked games that used msx-dos to
| run. And if I remember correctly, the Hitech compilers were
| .com files as well. I programmed in hex (just typing hex in
| memory addresses) with a memory monitor tool. I didn't even
| know the assembly instructions of what I was doing. I learned
| assembly & c using Hisoft. Before I switched to PC I knew how
| to create both 'bare metal' and msx-dos programs in assembly
| and c.
|
| I knew about cp/m, but never had (as far as I know) any
| software for it.
| johnea wrote:
| [flagged]
| helf wrote:
| [dead]
| garganzol wrote:
| DOS was beautiful because: 1) it was small,
| 2) it was pretty useful when compared to the raw disk access
| without any notion of a file or directory, 3) it allowed
| a software market to exist, 4) in turn, this led to
| abundance of software that otherwise would not be possible.
|
| In general, it was a dawn of the personal computer industry.
| Without it, you would not be able to write your messages now.
| pavlov wrote:
| Everybody has heard of MS-DOS, but Microsoft's backport to 8-bit
| systems is more obscure.
|
| Since MS-DOS was practically a CP/M clone for 16-bit computers,
| Microsoft realized they could port it to 8-bit and it would be a
| binary-compatible cleanroom CP/M clone. And that's what they did.
| It was sold as a standard for Japanese home computers -- MSX, a
| predecessor of Xbox in both nomenclature and target market.
|
| The person tasked with creating this 8-bit port was Tim Paterson,
| the original creator of MS-DOS. Usually the story of IBM PC and
| Microsoft paints Paterson as a victim of Gates's licensing
| machinations, but this MSX-DOS episode shows he continued to have
| a profitable relationship with Microsoft:
|
| _'On 10 August 1983, Paul Allen called Tim Paterson, original
| author of 86-DOS and MS-DOS 1.x, asking him to do a "Z80 version
| of MS-DOS" for the MSX standard. At the time, Paterson was busy
| trying to get the first product of his startup Falcon Systems
| ready to go, so he suggested a few other developers, but Allen
| said he had already asked. Allen was in a hurry to get it done
| and nobody else could meet his timeline. Allen and Paterson
| finally agreed, and on 17 August, they signed an agreement to do
| "Z80 MS-DOS 1.25" for US$100,000 and the rights for Paterson's
| company to distribute MS-DOS 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 with a hardware
| product without royalty.'_
| garaetjjte wrote:
| >Usually the story of IBM PC and Microsoft paints Paterson as a
| victim of Gates's licensing machinations
|
| I don't think that Tim Paterson is portrayed as a victim, but
| rather Seattle Computer Products owner Rob Brock.
|
| >Paul Allen negotiated an agreement with SCP owner Rod Brock in
| January, implying that Microsoft had a whole stable of
| customers eager to run 86-DOS. The deal would essentially allow
| Microsoft to act as middleman -- or, if you like, retailer --
| in these transactions. For each customer to whom they sold a
| license for 86-DOS, they would pay SCP $10,000, or $15,000 if
| the license also included the source code. They would also pay
| SCP an initial fee of $10,000 to begin the agreement. [...] In
| reality, of course, Microsoft had no stable of eager licensees.
| They had just one, the biggest fish of all: IBM. Microsoft sold
| just one license under the agreement, acquiring IBM's operating
| system for them complete with source for just $25,000.
|
| [...]
|
| Rod Brock at SCP was a disappointed man. The legion of 86-DOS
| licensees he had anticipated following the Microsoft deal
| hadn't materialized, and now he had lost Paterson, the one
| software guy at his hardware-focused company, to Microsoft.
| [...] He started to shop 86-DOS around a bit, looking for
| someone willing to take over support in return for an exclusive
| license to it. Gates pounced immediately, offering SCP a much-
| needed $50,000 for the deal -- with one crucial difference. He
| stipulated that Microsoft would not be buying an exclusive
| license, but would be buying the software itself, outright.
| They would then grant the exclusive license to SCP, essentially
| turning the deal on its head.
|
| [...]
|
| Computer Products straggled on for a few more years, but
| finally went under in 1985. Rod Brock did, however, still have
| one thing of immense value. You'll remember that Brock had sold
| 86-DOS to Microsoft outright, but had received an exclusive
| license to it in return. With his company failing, he decided
| to cash out by selling that license on the open market to the
| highest bidder. [...] The whole thing devolved into a
| complicated legal battle, one of the first of many for
| Microsoft. In the end Brock did not sell his license, but he
| did receive a settlement check for $925,000 to walk away and
| leave well enough alone.
|
| https://www.filfre.net/2012/05/the-ibm-pc-part-3/
| KingLancelot wrote:
| [dead]
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > Usually the story of IBM PC and Microsoft paints Paterson as
| a victim of Gates's licensing machinations
|
| Slight offtopic:
|
| I'm always amused by 'Gates had nothing [aside the money from
| his parents] and M$ was successful only because he ripped
| Paterson' story.
|
| When I point to what MS already did by then I only hear
| crickets.
|
| > The _1980_ year-end sales total $8,000,000. The 1980 Calendar
| Year employee headcount totals 40 people.
|
| > Other products released in _1980_ : Basic Compiler 5.3, TRS-
| DOS COBOL and Basic, muLISP and muMATH, TRS-80 Editor/Assember,
| XMacro-86 Cross Assembler, COBOL-80 Compiler 4.0, BASIC
| Interpreter for Z8000, Olympic Decathlon (game), M/SORT,
| FORTRAN & COBOL for Apple II, RAMcard (memory expander for the
| Apple II)
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/history/history-of-m...
| bombcar wrote:
| The real "trick" wasn't getting DOS licensed to give to IBM,
| it was getting IBM to allow them to sell it themselves.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| At the time it was assumed that other DOS licensees would
| be building their own architecture. There were several
| kinds of "DOS-compatible" computers, most notably the
| PC-98[0], which had MS-DOS and Windows ports but no IBM
| compatibility whatsoever.
|
| Several other companies would then try to clone the IBM PC;
| they all got shut down for copying the BIOS code. The PC
| clone market only kicked off once Compaq was able to write
| a legally distinct BIOS.
|
| Another part of the reason why Microsoft was able to sell
| IBM a nonexclusive license boils down to their existing
| business relationship. Microsoft was just their BASIC
| vendor and they sold BASIC to everyone. IBM wanted CP/M-86,
| but Digital Research was taking too long to ship it.
| Seattle Computer Products[1] was also making 8086-based
| computers but had no OS for them, so they wrote their own -
| QDOS. Microsoft was willing to buy QDOS and port it to the
| PC for IBM, which fixed IBM's biggest problem with the PC,
| so why wouldn't they take the license?
|
| In order for IBM to object to taking a nonexclusive DOS
| license, they'd have to both realize that the clone market
| was going to be huge, and that the IBM PC BIOS would not be
| enough protection against clones. Both of which were not at
| all certain when the IBM PC was under development.
| Remember, the whole point of the IBM PC was to put together
| _something_ quickly because they were playing catch-up to
| Apple and Commodore, not to build a computing empire like
| IBM 's enterprise business.
|
| [0] The machine Touhou started on. Also the machine so
| difficult to do animated graphics on that most developers
| made pornographic visual novels instead. Like to the point
| that the Japanese market would just assume PC games were
| porn.
|
| [1] A subsidiary of the SCP Foundation
| glimshe wrote:
| I don't agree with your interpretation of MSX being a XBOX
| predecessor in any way, especially in target market.
|
| It was a standard largely adopted for home and business
| computers that could run arbitrary code and, despite the strong
| game library, it wasn't meant for games. In many countries it
| was extensively used for business applications by small
| businesses and independent professionals due to the decent
| specs and low cost.
| esrauch wrote:
| I think the Xbox reference from op was just about the naming
| scheme of appending an X; it's all "Xbox one x", Xbox series
| x" etc. Not in terms of the software itself being a natural
| predecessor of Xbox.
| hahajk wrote:
| I believe Xbox is named that because it was originally,
| tragically, named the "DirectX Box". DirectX had the X
| because it was a combination of several APIs, all called
| DirectPlay, DirectSound, etc.
|
| But perhaps in a larger sense, maybe Microsoft just has a
| fetish for the letter.
| prox wrote:
| MSX was not a Japanese standard for home computers, although it
| was the home turf and simply was the most successful there. MSX
| was meant as a worldwide standard to replace the then current
| crop of computers with a interchangeable standard. (Atari and
| C64) were closed technologies.
| Inhibit wrote:
| Right. It was also popular in some Arabic language countries
| and South America at the very least.
|
| Probably more correct to say it was a computer standard
| launched in Japan.
| pier25 wrote:
| Also in Europe.
|
| I wrote my first lines of BASIC code on one as a kid.
| gallier2 wrote:
| Philips was a big proponent of MSX.
| Pamar wrote:
| That's how I remember it, too...
| cubefox wrote:
| Was MSX a standard similar to IBM Compatible?
| prox wrote:
| It was certainly marketed and envisioned as an
| international standard to have interoperability. Most
| external devices (mostly ROMs) could work between brands.
|
| But remember PCS were for businesses until about the early
| 90s when games became more popular as the decade rolled on
| and PCs became affordable as well. IBM compatible was more
| a necessity for other brands to sell their PC as compatible
| for businesses, so it became a standard by popularity, not
| from a top to bottom decision.
|
| People at home bought home computers roughly in the 80s.
| cout wrote:
| I think the games became more popular because the
| hardware became cheaper and more capable. Before the
| early-to-mid 90s a PC or compatible might cost $2000,
| outside the budget for a lot of families. Buying a
| computer just for games didn't make sense when a
| specialized game system was so much cheaper.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Kind of, MSX was designed as a standard for 8 bit
| computers, while IBM compatible happened by accident.
| smokel wrote:
| In The Netherlands, the MSX was produced by Philips. Before
| that, there was the Philips P2000, which also had a Z80
| processor and had a BASIC ROM jointly developed by Philips and
| Microsoft. I wonder if there is overlap in the code?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_P2000
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| bane wrote:
| For those not familiar with the MSX line of computers, here's an
| interesting interview with Bill Gates about it.
|
| https://shmuplations.com/billgates/
|
| The short history is that it was somewhat modeled on the "post-
| IBM" IBM-PC market dynamic, with there being an industry standard
| hardware platform that originated from a single maker (in this
| case ASCII), but available to anybody, with Microsoft supplying
| core software components. However, it was to target the 8-bit
| micro computer market, which at the time had an absolutely
| dizzying number of incompatible computers even though they often
| relied on very similar core components (Z80 or 6502 processors,
| similar audio, similar video, etc.)
|
| There was intention to bring it worldwide, and it made its way
| out of Japan and into Europe, South America, and even a few parts
| of the Middle-East. However, it never _really_ made it in the
| most competitive markets of North America and the UK. In the U.S.
| Jack Tramiel made it a point to underprice and over-feature the
| Commodore line of computers to beat the MSX and everybody else in
| the 8-bit market. And in the UK, the ultra-low priced ZX Spectrum
| line (as well as a healthy market in the BBC Micro and others)
| kept it out.
|
| Ultimately, the 8-bit market just vanished anyway and there were
| no real credible compatible upgrade paths out of it. There was a
| 16-bit MSX variant based on the R800 released (the TurboR), but
| the MSX market was dead by then.
|
| The MSX is _mostly_ well known these days as an early home for
| Konami at a similar time as the Nintendo Entertainment System.
| The MSX computers feature almost a parallel universe of high-
| quality Konami titles that either exist only on the system, or
| are alternate takes on famous NES games.
|
| If you want to see what the MSX was like, I'd suggest looking at
| MSX2 or MSX2+ games as being the closest to what NES players
| might remember. The original MSX was very similar to the
| Colecovision in terms of power and the games can be somewhat
| underwhelming.
|
| There's a number of online emulators, I'd highly suggest seeking
| out one that hosts Space Manbow, a completely unique Konami side
| scrolling shoot-em-up that's absolutely as good as anything else
| contemporary.
|
| https://www.file-hunter.com/MSX/index.php?id=spacemanbow
| anthk wrote:
| >Alternate take
|
| Metal Gear on the NES it's very inferior to Metal Gear 2 on
| MSX.
|
| Also, well, Castlevania on the NES it's a bit better than
| Drakyula in the MSX.
| NikkiA wrote:
| > The original MSX was very similar to the Colecovision in
| terms of power and the games can be somewhat underwhelming.
|
| And in fact the Coleco Adam was pretty much 95% of the way to
| being an MSX, but not quite enought to be compatible - a
| similar story to the first series of SpectraVideo machines (318
| and 328) (edit: and the Memotech MTX series)
|
| edit 2: perhaps 95% is a little overgenerous, Adam used a
| different audio chip (and didn't use MS Basic[1]), so maybe 80%
| of an MSX
|
| [1] although the basic wasn't in ROM, so in theory you could
| have msbasic loaded from an external source anyway, although I
| don't think it was ever ported to the adam. Instead it used a
| 'clone' of appleBASIC.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-22 23:00 UTC)