I really appreciate that MS is doing this. For me, I like seeing the
progressing of the code over time...like comparing QDOS to MSDOS 1.0 to 1.1 to
2.0. The release of WinWord 1.1 was interesting but not as much to me as DOS or
even the early BASICS for the 6502/Z80 which I think used the same kind of
translation tool as they may have used for GWBasic.
For me, the next big thing to see would be Windows 1.0. That would be awesome
to see.
I've never really tried to recompile any of the released code. The Seattle
Gazelle has a tool to rebuild MS-DOS 2.0, but it functions more like an OEM
Adaptation Kit. I suppose that with enough free memory it should work. I
remember reading somewhere that Microsoft used a special SCP machine with 768k
of RAM to assemble and link certain programs.
Rich
On 5/22/20, 10:41 AM, "cctalk on behalf of Jim Brain via cctalk"
<cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org on behalf of cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 5/22/2020 3:34 AM, Rico Pajarola via cctalk wrote:
> cool, but...
>
> these are "translated" sources (presumably from some generic source that
is
> run through a tool that generates x86 asm). I just wish they had also
> released the "source of the source" and the translation tool. Because that
> was the interesting part of it.
The page notes they tried:
"Each of the assembly source files contains a header stating
|Thistranslation created 10-Feb-83byVersion4.3|
Since the Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) of the early processors
used in home and personal computers weren’t spectacularly different from
one another, Microsoft was able to generate a substantial amount of the
code for a port from the sources of a master implementation. (Alas,
sorry, we’re unable to open-source the ISA translator.)"
I'm assuming it's a language thing, but your comments seem overly
dismissive. You're essentially saying that the resulting generated ASM
is of no interest (the tool was the interesting part, you note) and
devoid of value. The comments I am sure are verbatim from the meta
source, and by investigating the source, I think folks could gain key
insights into what the tool did.
Yes, we can lament the inability to gain access to the meta-source, but
I don't think the resulting source code is uninteresting. And, if
comments like these get back to MS (some folks on this list work there),
how will the folks within the company feel about it? "Yeah, we worked
for months with Legal to cut through the red tape and get GW-BASIC
source online, but folks were dismissive we didn't give them everything,
so I'm not sure it's worth the effort to open anything else up...."
How we appreciate what is given probably dictates if we receive anything
more.
Jim
