Regarding #4, if you look at the releases source code for DOS 2.0 you will see compilation switches for PCD and MSD. I would need to look again but some were control code things, plus sign-on messages. I know IBM shipped different tools than MS too.
http://www.classiccmp.org/cini Long Island S100 User’s Group Get Outlook<https://aka.ms/qtex0l> for iOS ________________________________ From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 12:44:26 PM To: Will Senn via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: IBM PC-DOS 2.10 explorations On 10/3/20 8:38 AM, Will Senn via cctalk wrote: > Some questions I have related to the exploration: > > 1. I'm curious if there are other folks out there doing similar stuff? > 2. Most of the Assembly examples use DOS interrupt 21 for output. Is > this typical of assembly programs of the time, or did folks use other > methods? > 3. I was able to find a lot of 5150/5160 and other manuals, but I > couldn't find an IBM Macro Assembler 2.0 manual (there are plenty of IBM > Macro Assembler/2 manuals, but those are for OS/2, not DOS). Does anyone > know where I can find one online? > 4. In y'all's view, what are the significant differences between IBM > PC-DOS 2.10 and it's brother MS-DOS 2.x? > 5. I'm thinking of moving on to 3.3 at some point, in your view, what > are the advantages? > 6. I'm happy to post here, but if y'all know of a more appropriate > venue, please suggest it? 1 and 6:The folks at vcfed.org are far more involved into things PC; I would recommend that venue. 2. Interrupt 21 is the most hardware-independent way to perform console output. It is neither the fastest nor most flexible. Most MSDOS programs needing fast or full-screen control revert to writing into display memory directly, which is a bit more involved, but worth the effort. There are also INT 10h calls, but again, for text output, they can be very slow. 3. Can't address that one--I have 1.0 and 4.0 and later in my library; I'm not sure if I have the "gap" ones. MASM 1.0 was a huge mess; the product really didn't start to mature until 4.0. 4. MS-DOS 2.x had numerous variations, such as that employed for the NEC PC98 series of machines, as well as numerous other non-IBM PC platforms. As far as I know, PC-DOS was configured only to be compatible with IBM's own product line. 5. 3.3 was very popular in the day; one thing that it provided was a way to avoid some of the storage limitations of earlier versions. It also introduced quite a number of API additions (see Ralf Brown's interrupt list for details). --Chuck
