If anyone out there has the IBM Aptiva Master CD , or disk image of it, I would be appreciated if you posted it on these file sharing sites (rapidshare, mediafire, 4shared, etc.)

NOTE: Megaupload has been seized by the FBI.

slowpoke.jpg Any particular model of Aptiva you're looking to get the Master CD for?

Aptiva - 2144-M31

you need to try the support site

slowpoke.jpg Any particular model of Aptiva you're looking to get the Master CD for?[/quote]

The Master CD is like the Recovery CD for Aptiva 2144 series.

hmm i got a few ibm aptiva cds somewhere , ill take alook at them

I have all of the disks for an old Aptiva, I can't remember what model, but I made images and they're on an old external HDD some where. If I find the drive I'll let you know. =)

My experience with the t30 and t40 thinkpads, is that IBM used a series of archive files with passwords. You really can't unpack the stuff direct, but have to install it onto an acceptable computer to make it work.

The initial boot also cleans up the install files, but if you intercept this by way of BartPE, you can scavage some interesting things. The boot disks are interesting too. The t30 disk runs on PC-DOS 7.1, while the t40 uses win98 with odds and ends from IBM (such as rexx.exe). They're not that overly interesting though unless you're into doing fancy programming stuff.

Are you really talking about the same Thinkpad T30 and T40? The T30 came out around 2011 and has a Pentium 4 Mobile, the T40 came out 2003 and has a Pentium M CPU, IBM did not ship PC-DOS 7.1, nor did T40 come with Windows 98...

Or do you mean the actual recovery discs booted with those? I have these discs as work so I can check, but I would find it odd that IBM used Windows 98 to put in Windows 2000 or XP which was standard on the T40...

Well, as for the recovery CD-ROMs that os2fan2 is talking about, I have one from later in 1995, with the entire bundle on it, and it is also password protected. However, I'm not sure whether I actually cracked it or not (by guessing the password); this was many years ago now (I came across the CD-ROM in around September to October 2003, by the way, which is also about the time in 1995 as when it was apparently compiled).

The password was either something like "restore" or "recovery", if I remember correctly. The CD-ROM itself is not truely bootable though; this means that it almost certainly used a boot disk (either that, or the system BIOS had some way of booting the system without any media, so that it could then proceed to load the system recovery program from the CD-ROM, which I highly doubt).

EDIT: My particular recovery CD-ROM is for an IBM Aptiva PS/1 (I hope I typed the name correctly, and that it wasn't just plain "IBM PS/1").

My recovery disks have windows xp on it.

It boots ms-dos 7.10 from windows 98se, with a mix of ibm and microsoft stuff. The other one boots pc-dos 7.10.

Never heard of such thing...

Actually, as far as my own recovery CD-ROM is concerned, although I might have indeed randomly guessed the password, I think I might also remember finding the password within a command string that was contained within one of the .EXE files (apparently, it was the command string that was executed by the .EXE file itself to run PKUNZIP).

This is an OEM style DOS, not intended for general availability. It appears, for example, in Norton ghost.

1.01, 1.10, 1.19. 1.29 1.30 has boot files (ibmbio.com, ibmdos.com and command.com) only

1.26 has boot files + himem.sys

1.28 has boot files + himem.sys + format32.com

1.32 has bldlevel, debug, dynaload, fdisk32, format, format32, himem.sys, ibmcdet, mscdex, and noint25.

The password for the archives on the Aptiva PS/1 master-cd WinPC mentioned is "magic". ;D

DeFacto, I believe PC-DOS 7.10 is actually entirely based on the MS-DOS 7.1 that shipped in Windows 9x, it could be stripped down to DOS 7 after all =)

PC-DOS 7.1 is actually based on PC-DOS 7.0, with some form of support for fat32 partitions added on it. It does not resemble MS-DOS 7.1 in any way.

it's based on MS-DOS, but it doesn't have any ms-dos programs, and uses different commands. if I remember correctly (probably not likely) you could add some dos files and it would run dos programs, but I might have been thinking of somyhing else... msdos 7.1 didn't support fat32 very well, I can't even remember anymore. I should really look at the cd again as I havn't used it for 10 years. I'm going to stop arguing with you as you probably don't want me bothering you over this, which is understandable.

PC-DOS 7.1 is PC-DOS 7.0 with some features hacked into the boot block and kernel, including support for fat32.

None of the new commands that appear in MS-DOS io.sys (eg accdate, dos=noauto) or command.com (lock, lfnfor), appear in pc-dos 7.10. On the other hand, new features for pc-dos 7.0 (like running rexx scripts in batch files), exist in pc-dos 7.1.

You can run DOS utilities from one dos to another, if the dos versions by func 30h are identical. So you can swap between MS-DOS 5.0 and PC-DOS 5.0, (5.00), between 6.00 DOS's (IBMDOS 6.0, PC-DOS 6.1 and MS-DOS 6.0), 7.00 (PC-DOS 7.0, Windows 95), and 7.10 (Win95B+, Win98, PC-DOS 7.1).

fat32 is a file system. MS-DOS 7.1, PC-DOS 7.1 and ROMDOS 7.1 all support this. lfn is an extension which requires Windows to be loaded, is not supported without the aid of third-party drivers, except in ROMDOS.

Ever since version 5.0, PC-DOS had nothing to do with MS-DOS anymore. Totally sepparate project by IBM exclusively... So PC-DOS 7.1 (if it actually exists) was defiently not based on MS-DOS 7.1, but rather PC-DOS 7.0.

actually PC-DOS 5.0 still had something in common with MS-DOS 5.0, it's by 6.3 that they became totally different.

that explains it, I havn't really used PC-DOS after about version 4 or so. but originally Microsoft and IBM were working on PC-DOS, and at one point IBM took over the whole thing.

like they did with OS/2 (after 1.3, IBM took over the development of OS/2)

I remember installing OS/2 from Microsoft diskettes, it said microsoft OS/2 for IBM Computers (or somthing like that) and I think Microsoft was mad that IBM took over OS/2 and gave them no credit, so they said "too bad, you can no longer use MS-DOS source for pc dos." I'm guessing thats similar to how it went, I don't really know. IBM seemed to do that a lot...

IBM does indeed have rights to the code and product of PC-DOS, and Windows 3.1 (which is Win-OS/2).

DOS 5.0 is the last commonly shared code. OS/2 and Windows NT rely on this particular DOS, it's never been updated in either (except for OS/2 for the PPC, which is DOS 6.3). OS/2 still sports a WinOS2 3.1. Apparently they have some rights to code of Chicago too.

In stage 1 of the breakup, IBM were allowed to compete in the update market, which meant we start seeing retail packages of IBMDOS 5.01, 5.02, 6.00 and PC-DOS 6.1, 6.3, 7.0 and 7.01. While they could make DR-DOS look flaky by using the AARD test, it doesn't work on PC-DOS. Also, PC-DOS is optimised for the 386.

MS-DOS 6 was released to the OEMs as 'MS-DOS and additional tools'. The 'additional tools' is not the 'supplemental disks', but rather 'things in DOS 6 not in DOS 5, with a bit of fuzz' ie add the supplemental files to DOS 6, and then compare with IBMDOS 6. The common files (including interlnk, dosshell) are 'MS-DOS', the difference (including QBASIC), are 'additional tools'. IBM provided a full version of PC-TOOLS utilities, and an internal E editor in place of a cut-back Norton Utilities sampler.

In stage 2 (1994.01.01), is the break. We see for the first time, a package of Wfw 3.11 and DOS 6.22 the documents preferring NT servers to OS/2 ones. Also some features were incompatible with OS/2 for Windows, and required fixes from both sides (the MSFT fix consists of a downgrade to 3.10, a reverse of W0981 upgrade fix).

DOS 7 was released after the second break, with clear differences in packaging. Many SAA features made it into DOS 7, and a number of rather useful utilities (rexx, acalc, dynaload) made it to PC-DOS.

Microsoft abandoned collecting royalties for Win-OS/2 as part of the settlement.