On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 12:00, Cini, Richard wrote:
> "In the last few days of 1980, a new version of the DOS was released, now
> known as 86-DOS version 0.3. Seattle Computer passed this new version onto
> Microsoft, which had bought the non-exclusive rights to market 86-DOS and
> had one customer for it at the time."
>
> "In April 1981, Seattle Computer Products released 86-DOS version 1.00,
> which was very similar to the versions of MS-DOS that are widely distributed
> today."
Thanks! I shoudl have read out the thread before replying.
And the standalone basic thread...
RTFM!!
tomj
>
> So, who invented the FAT filesystem we know today? Microsoft
> (through Stand-Alone Disk BASIC)? Seattle Computer (through 86-DOS)?
>
> To paraphrase Artie Johnson..."Very interesting".
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org
> [mailto:cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
> Festival
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: FAT file system now licensed by MS ?
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Fred N. van Kempen wrote:
>
> > To my own laughter and surprise, Microsoft now claims to have the
> > rights to the FAT file system, and intends to execute on a licensing
> > program for it, with obvious results.
> >
> > Wasnt FAT done (in crude format) by MP/M or CP/M86 already *before*
> > Microsoft? They claim it was developed by them in 1976, but I seem
> > to recall it being mentioned before that, around 1974-ish or so,
> > by homebrew people (such as CP/M et al.) ??
> >
> > --f (who runs FAT on his own PDP-11 OS ;-)
>
> It's a total joke. First of all, the patents referenced on their FAT
> licensing website:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
>
> ...are for long filenames. They have no patent on FAT, and for good
> reasons: 1) software patents were not allowed at the time that FAT was
> implemented in MS-DOS, and 2) FAT was basically lifted from another OS.
>
> I have no idea why MS would be so stupid as to think people are going to
> fall for this, which is basically a sad-assed ruse. Also, I highly
> question the history they are promulgating. They claim they developed FAT
> in 1976. That seems a bit early. I could be wrong.
>
> Damn losers.
Received on Thu Dec 04 2003 - 17:57:19 GMT