Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Salvador Mirzo Newsgroups: alt.os.development Subject: Re: z/PDOS-generic Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 09:31:00 -0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <878qpd130b.fsf@example.com> References: <87tt83besr.fsf@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:31:01 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="284b53354082a8681c403d325df2439b"; logging-data="1405261"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+iHy1OATSgPccOnoRK5f/S7U33YCfvz5g=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:AY5KuVfCJgcoUG+KwvTzp8p14P4= sha1:JaCEEFjvBAlw4BKRo6B0dcrf7M8= Xref: csiph.com alt.os.development:18759 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: > In article <87tt83besr.fsf@example.com>, > Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>Grant Taylor writes: >> >>> On 7/18/24 10:07, Paul Edwards wrote: >>>> For 35+ years I have wondered why there was no MSDOS for the mainframe. >>> >>> The answer is in the name. >>> >>> MS-DOS >>> >>> Microsoft DOS >>> >>> Micro >>> >>> micro-computers are the smallest end of the system with mainframes and >>> supers at the other end of the system. >>> >>> IBM provided a Disk Operating System for early and / or smaller >>> mainframes. >> >>And why is /Disk/ Operating System? What's so /disky/ about it? > > Simple: it drove a system with a disk. Most early mainframes > didn't have disks, so once they came along, system software had > to evolve to meet the needs of new hardware. > > IBM's DOS/360 was pretty anemic compared to it's flagship OS360. > But it was built as something of a stopgap because OS was behind > schedule. Thanks! Changing the subject a bit to the history of DOS, if that's okay. I was not quite aware that there was a mainframe DOS in the IBM world. So it seems to me tbat Microsoft found the DOS made by ``Seattle Computer Products'' the right choice to buy because they wanted to produce a system for IBM micro-computers---it makes sense in sort of keeping the same user interface. But this strategy assumes that the users of micro-computers would be the more or less the same users as IBM mainframes. Am I imagining things correctly here and did the strategy really make sense? (It could also be the case that Microsoft just didn't have any other option.) (Background: I've watched the film ``Pirates of Sillicon Valley'' a long time ago. That's how much I know about the history of MS-DOS.)