Talk:DOS/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I'll be reviewing this article. I'll add comments in a day or two, after I've read through the article and done a little reading around. -- Philcha (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaps in coverage
It's a big subject, and I can see you've put in a lot of work! Unfortunately I think there are some significant gaps in coverage:
 * .BAT files
 * Differences between MS-DOS and PC-DOS:
 * Some command language differences, for example PC-DOS did not support the CHOICE command, and its absence made writing menus via .BAT files harder.
 * What's the difference between MS-DOS and PC-DOS? says IBM tied PC-DOS to their hardware - I know blogs are not usually considered WP:RS but Osterman is a long-term MS designer, so I'd defend it quite happily.
 * Having some doubts about this. I recall running PC-DOS on non-IBM hw back in the day. VG &#x260E; 17:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you did, as all the "clones" wanted to prove compatibility. It was all a bit grey, for example the 1980s MS Flight Sim was regarded as a good test of BIOS compatibility with the IBM PC. -- Philcha (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article mentions Terminate and Stay Resident programs, but does not convey a picture to a reader who wasn't there. I suggest you mention SideKick, which was very big in the 1980s.
 * Graphical Environment Manager (DR GEM). In fact I'd be inclined to break out a new section on "ease of use". I remember that around the time DOS-based system became common in offices (1984 in UK) Apple introduced their "test drive a Mac" campaign to re-launch their GUI systems after the Apple Lisa was criticised for being expensive and slow. Usability for office staff and home users was a big issue at the time, see History of the graphical user interface. The Real History of the GUI may give you some points to check out, e.g. Amiga. Usability "features" on DOS machines included:
 * GUI: DR GEM.
 * Non-GUI: DOS Shell, DESQview (yes, I know it's mentioned later), GEOS (16-bit operating system) (also mentioned later).
 * Not exactly add-ons but some serious MS-DOS apps provided their own GUIs, e.g. early CASE tools.
 * I'd be tempted to include SideKick in this category.
 * And .BAT fles, especially the use of .BAT for menus.
 * Commercial significance of all this, e.g., Quarterdeck Office Systems went into decline after Win 3 and was swallowed, but Borland is still going (fairly) strong.
 * The fundamental reason for all these limitations and work-rounds - Moore's Law, which, if you run it backwards, implies that early 1980s PCs were pathetic. Job_Control_Language has some stats, with sources.
 * I also remember an ex-IBM guy saying IBM didn't want the PC to become a threat to its larger ranges, and was quite happy for PC software to have severe limitations. You might like to see of you can find sources for this.
 * There was a DOS version of MS Word (I used it) before Win 3 was released - same menu structure and ALT shortcuts.

General approach
While commenting on gaps in coverage, I've realised that we look at the subject quite differently - the article is technical / internals oriented, while I see the subject in user-oriented terms. I think for the "general reader" it would be best to explain how primitive / limited it was first, and then explain the technical causes of the limitations. I don't know what the consensus is at Wikiproject Computing about whether the dominant point of view should be technical or user-oriented, and would be happy to discuss this at Talk:DOS.

A sourcing issue
IBM's unhappiness about the licensing issue over CP/M is important, but I'm unhappy about the use of a video as the main source for this point: the sound is sometimes poor; the preamble is too long. Is there a text / HTML source that covers the same ground?

I'll produce more section-by-section comments after we've had a chance to discuss the ones above. -- Philcha (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

GA discussion
I just added a stub on batch files; of course, I hatnoted it as the main topic has some good detail. I'm not sure about implementing the MS/PC differences, as that would necessitate diferences between, for example, DR-DOS and MS-DOS, of which there are many (mostly because DR-DOS had the feature first). For example, while PC-DOS may not have the "choice" command, DR-DOS had a similar command earlier than MS-DOS, which was the "switch" command. "Doskey" in MS-DOS (and probably PC-DOS) was predated by the DR-DOS "history" command in config.sys. Basically, I worry about such a section getting way to large. Actually, I think an MS-PC comparison would be great to add to IBM PC-DOS, which is rather short.


 * You convinced me about not going into the MS/PC differences. OTOH I think the comparison stuff might be best in its own article, if ever. Thinking about it, there is a comparison article whose name I forget, but it's just a list of releases.
 * OTOH I'd regard .BAT files as an "ease of use" feature - especially as .BAT files were commonly used for menus in offices - so it's another UI improvement. To show how important menus were,  this book (1991) has a section on .BAT menus. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems. A command difference section could definitely be put there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An ease of use section is a great idea. I'm think two subsections: multitasking, where I'll put Sidekick. Later versions of DR-DOS had multitasking as well. (AFAIK MS and PC never had it, but not completely sure). Obviously, single-task was a big limitation from the user end. The second subsection will be the interface. I'll put some in about the CLI and later GUIs/TUIs that aimed to give users a more friendly experience: Geos, Desqview, Norton Commander, etc. I'll go ahead and pull the GUIs out of the software section and put them in the new section.


 * I agree about the 2 main sections of "ease of use section" being "multitasking" and "UI".
 * IIRC MS-DOS and PC-DOS never had multi-tasking. A purported MS doc form an anti-trust case backs this up, but may not be WP:RS. OTOH I think this SAMS book on Win XP is good enough. BTW remember to add page number(s) in the citation. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the source, I'll look. I would definitely like to use the interview for that citation. The peer reviewer was concerned with primary sources, but the whole IBM/DR thing has become almost folklorish in the way it's described, so a source so close to the event is a really good find. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just Say No to Microsoft (book) looks good: non-disclosure issue; licensing issue; poss origin of "Kildall out flying" urban myth. BTW remember to add page number(s) in the citation. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of moving your response inside the review line. -- Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; wasn't sure where the proper place for it was. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ease of use section and book cite for the Rolander interview added. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Make this "main article" for MS-DOS and PC-DOS
Not strictly a part of the GA review, but it would be a good idea to avoid duplication of content and research. Since DOS describes the common features, it should do the heavy lifting.

Article structure
I keep having 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. thoughts about this, because there several dimensions: historical development of MS-DOS and PC-DOS as stand-alone OSs; gradual absorption of MS-DOS into Win, which progressed at different rates in the home / client and business / server lineages of Win; add-ons to make stand-alone DOS more usable (1980s & 1990s); competitors (1980s & 1990s); continuing use of DOS-like environments (subtle wording of title to include e.g  DosBOX, freeware desk-top DOS variants, embedded variants); internals. The current structure looks fragmented to me, but producing a better alternative isn't easy.

Here are my latest thoughts. Feel free to comment, criticise, object, tell me I'm missing things, etc. Hardware supported - with example of how pathetic it was by modern standards (only floppies; the IBM PC spec cited at Job Control Language). Basic DOS kernel facilities. Files & sub-directories. CLI, preferably with horrendous example of file names including 2 levels of sub-dir. Batch files, including menus (they really were important in the 1980s and early 1990s). Link to Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems if you like, but I don't think that article lives up to its name and is just a list of versions. comment on increasing attempts by apps to provide easier UI (including but not limited to GUIs) and some multi-tasking in pre-Win apps. Can you explain why HP & Dell provide FreeDOS? Why does anyone wan to run DOS these days, apart from gamers who think some mid-1990s games are still the greatest (includes me to a degree)? But move scripting / .BAT up to "Built-in facilities" -- Philcha (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Built-in facilities (currently "Operating system structure")
 * Origins (currently "History", but you've provided content to show that DOS's history is not over).
 * Major applications that run on DOS.
 * Business applications
 * Games (PC games were huge before consoles got really good, see History of video games
 * Development tools
 * OS extenders / enhancers
 * etc.
 * DOS and Microsoft Windows
 * Continuing use of DOS-like environments
 * Emulators
 * Free and commercial desk-top look-alikes.
 * Embedded
 * Technical summary (currently "Operations")


 * I just did a massive rearrange and added a bit. As for FreeDOS being included as an OEM system, I couldn't honestly tell you why they would do that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, JeremyMcCracken, welcome back. Are you planning to do any more re-arranging? I ask because at present we seem to have very different ideas about the structure. I've written enough about my thoughts. Perhaps it would help if you could explain why you handle things in the sequence you prefer, and how each part connects to / supports later ones in that sequence. -- Philcha (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a good idea of how to flow this; I was just trying to put the relevant things together. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that structuring the article's difficult when there are are so many inter-connections between topics - I'm about to restructure my contributions to Arthropod because I've just got hold of a text-book that makes it clear what the most important connections are in that subject.
 * I admit DOS still does not flow for me. The two most common ways to deal with that kind of difficulty are to add "sign-post" sentences at the start of each section to make the connections between adjacent sections explicit, or to re-structure.
 * Either way it might be easiest to create a "sandbox" sub-page of your user page in which to try things out, and then post links on this page to your sandbox versions - have a look at how busy my sandbox has been. I recently got Small shelly fauna to GA, and the reviewer said she hadn't realised how much easier using sandbox versions made it to try out alternatives. -- Philcha (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So does the article pass or fail? I noticed this article because of how long it's been on hold. Wizardman  01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't have any new ideas on restructuring this. Unless anyone else has any idea, it's probably time to make a judgment call on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At present the article reads too much like excerpts from a programmer's guide, and gives little impression of what DOS was like from a user's point of view - and it was DOS' limitations from a user point of view that spawned other software, like TSRs (notably Sidekick) and early PC GUIs like DR's GEM.
 * It also overstates and oversimplifies the speed with which DOS was swallowed by Windows. Even Win 3.11 was effectively a co-operative multi-tasking GUI "skin" for DOS, and required a DOS-like OS underneath it. With Win 95 and 98 it was an OS in its own right (you could boot it up), and a loader and a collection of device drivers for Win. Even with NT and successors an emergency boot disk is a DOS disk. See What was the role of MS-DOS in Windows 95? - this is the blog of Raymond Chen, whose responsibility was backwards-compatibility of new Win releases.
 * There's a GA lurking in here, but it needs to be brought out. JeremyMcCracken has put alot of work into this already, and I'm willing to be patient. -- Philcha (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - End of review - - - - - -

2nd Opinion

 * Lead: remove references to Win9x since most people don't really consider them DOS, even if they included a DOS subsystem. Besides, you're not covering them at all (MS-DOS 7.x) in the rest of the article, although you do cover the newer NTVDM.
 * Design section: seems a random collection of features; no discussion why these are important. Lacks fundamental design issues like multitasking (lack thereof actually), TSR, and driver model. As mentioned in the other review, you need some transition between sections; currently this reads like a checklist.
 * Origins: fairly well written, and sufficiently comprehensive for GA. Almost reads like a different author wrote this section. The only problem is the subtitle. I would merge "Decline" with this section and call it "Timeline"; feel free to have subsections.
 * Perhaps add MS compilers and QBasic to the "Software" section, and mention non-FPS games, like Falcon 3.0, Wing Commander series, and Ultima. Also add Norton Utilities as it became popular in later days. Give a few details about the major apps; the list approach is too dry.
 * You need a section about built-in apps like the built-in editor (qedit IIRC). I know there weren't many.
 * Windows 3.x needs to mentioned as the predominant GUI of this era.
 * I would dissolve the "easy of use" section completely. Move "multitasking" into the design section, and the various apps like Norton-commander in the apps section.
 * You need some basic coverage of internals, like TSRs, interrupt handling (without diving into programming details).
 * A section on viruses (and anti-viruses) of the era would be nice.

Sorry if I used "you" instead of "the article" a lot, but I'm used to writing reviews like this in real life. Frankly the article on MS-DOS is closer to the GA standard than this article. VG &#x260E; 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the specifics. I'll be short of time for a while but I'll try to work on these whenever possible. For the built-in apps, there's currently List of DOS commands; would a hatnote suffice? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)