I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4.00

Discuss MS-DOS, Windows 1, 2 and 3.
buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4.00

Post by buricco »

I can't say this is 100% authentic, so I'm not calling it an OFFER, but I'll just explain what I found.

There's a set of 4.01 5.25" disk images out there - not sure where it comes from, it's called "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01 (5¼)", it's a 6 disk set. The files are in a weird format with a 512-byte header, so they're 369152 bytes long instead of 368640.

OK, that's not extraordinary.

THIS is, though: while COMMAND.COM, FDISK.EXE, FORMAT.COM, AUTOEXEC.BAT (on Install), COMMAND.COM (on Operating 1 and Operating 2), COMMAND.COM, FASTOPEN.EXE, FORMAT.COM (on Operating 3), FORMAT.COM (on Select) and COMMAND.COM (on Shell) all have later dates - and COMMAND.COM is obviously that of 4.01 - and while on investigation the same is true of IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS - the other files are all dated 10/6/88, except README.TXT is dated 10/12/88 - exactly as 16bitos reports!

So I go, check the CRC32s against the Sampo 4.00.
AUTOEXEC.BAT, COMMAND.COM, FASTOPEN.EXE, FDISK.EXE, FORMAT.COM, IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS differ; everything else is the same.

Lo and behold, that's the EXACT set of files that don't have the 4.00 date stamps.

So I look at the Shell disk - like I said - command.com is the only one with a date other than 10/6/88. Is it safe to bet that if one copied COMMAND.COM from one of the Sampo disks over this, you'd have the missing Shell disk? I think so, at least.

Keep in mind that obviously this won't give you a disk image that's authentic to anything, so I don't think such an image would be wanted here - but I think it's as valid a reconstruction as can be done right now.

os2fan2
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by os2fan2 »

What you are looking at is a copy of 4.00 with PD0255.EXE applied.

Code: Select all

Searching ZIP: PD0255.zip

 Length  Method   Size  Ratio    Date     Time    CRC-32  Attr  Name
 ------  ------   ----- -----    ----     ----   -------- ----  ----
   6350  Implode   2381  63%  31-08-1992  16:37  cac3e721 --wa  README.TXT
  46835  Implode  32915  30%  01-03-1991  12:15  d649f54e --wa  PATCH32M.EXE
  16693  Implode   9625  43%  12-01-1990  04:03  4b663e94 --wa  GRAPHICS.COM
  16718  Implode   9603  43%  07-04-1989  00:00  b27c4c5a --wa  FASTOPEN.EXE
  22875  Implode  16756  27%  07-04-1989  00:00  fc797e99 --wa  FORMAT.COM
 ------          ------  ---                                    -------
 109471           71280  35%                                          5
The copy i keep of 4.01 is unmodified since it is the original Microsoft diskettes.

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

Huh.

Well, then. ;) Fair to say copying the 4.00 command.com back over it should make it pretty genuine, then, ne?

tarlabnor
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:14 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by tarlabnor »

buricco wrote:Huh.

Well, then. ;) Fair to say copying the 4.00 command.com back over it should make it pretty genuine, then, ne?
In fact MS-DOS 4.00 (Sampo OEM) is the same thing as MS-DOS 4.00 with the only exception - missing disk 6 (DOS Shell). If you look at other OEM releases (i.e. MS-DOS 4.00 RM Nimbus OEM) and compare command.com, you'll see that both files are binary equal.

So if you replace command.com on the disk 6 technically you'll get the same release defined on 16bitOS as "MS-DOS 4.00". But it's not "The Holy Grail" of OS collectors :)

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

A complete copy of the OTHER MS-DOS 4.0, or MS-DOS 4.1, would be that, ne? (ETA: Or the mythical 2.25 which I've never seen any sort of evidence of.)

There was a port of a DOS other than 3.1 to the Nimbus? O_o You learn something new every day.

tarlabnor
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:14 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by tarlabnor »

buricco wrote:A complete copy of the OTHER MS-DOS 4.0, or MS-DOS 4.1, would be that, ne?
It's hard to say how many OEM partners have got the version 4.00 before it was updated.

There's kinda weird story with DOS 4.00 (counting IBM PC-DOS as well).

1. IBM released PC-DOS 4.00 dated "17 June 1988". This it the first "real" DOS 4.00 (the first multitasking DOS 4.00M is a totally different story).

2. Many sources claim that MS-DOS 4.00 was released in July 1988. That version from 16bitOS is dated "October 1988". Could it still be 4.00 ? The version string in command.com says: yes, it's 4.00. But what about MS-DOS 4.00 dated "xx July 1988" then ?

3. 10 August 1988. IBM releases it's first Corrective Service Disks, files have dates 1988-08-03. It's the first official bugfix for PC-DOS 4.00. This fix doesn't change OS version number, but in fact it's not "original 4.00" after this update anymore. Version numbers other than 4.00 or 4.01 we'll see only in Japanese PC-DOS J4.0xV - 4.05, 4.06, 4.07, 4.08.

4. October 1988. Ok, now we see that version from 16bitOS (or Sampo OEM which is in fact the same). Could Microsoft wait without bugfixes until October and release 4.00 once again ? Not sure. Moreover we've been told that original MS-DOS 4.00 was released in July.

So the point is to find MS-DOS 4.00 dated "xx July 1988" (if it ever existed).
(ETA: Or the mythical 2.25 which I've never seen any sort of evidence of.)
Why mythical ? As far as I remember it was a version with expanded character sets support for Japanese and Korean computers. It's hard to find such versions in the West, sure, as well as MS-DOS 2.01 with kanji support introduced at Japan Data Show in October 1983 ;)
There was a port of a DOS other than 3.1 to the Nimbus? O_o You learn something new every day.
At least 3.05, few revisions of 3.10 and 4.00. Maybe some other versions also existed.

The Distractor

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by The Distractor »

buricco wrote:There was a port of a DOS other than 3.1 to the Nimbus? O_o You learn something new every day.
No, there wasn't. That DOS 4.0x is for RM's later PC-compatible systems (some of which do share the Nimbus name).

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

"Mythical" because I've seen no evidence it existed, just claims that there was such a version that had such and such features.

tarlabnor
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:14 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by tarlabnor »

Many sources claim that MS-DOS 4.00 was released in July 1988. That version from 16bitOS is dated "October 1988". Could it still be 4.00 ? The version string in command.com says: yes, it's 4.00. But what about MS-DOS 4.00 dated "xx July 1988" then ?
Ok. I asked this question and I'm gonna answer it. I decided to do a small research using InfoWorld magazine archives (thanks to Google Books). There's enough information to restore all the chronology of IBM and Microsoft releases and to bust some myths.

The myth no.1: MS-DOS 4.00 was released in July 1988. I saw few versions of it, i.e. "released to OEM customers". Nope, it wasn't.
On the July, 19 1988 IBM announced OS/2 Extended Edition, Windows Kit for Personal System/2 and PC-DOS 4.0. On the next day (July, 20) IBM started shipping PC-DOS 4.0 (the very first version dated 1988-06-17) to major dealers. Right from the beginning a lot of bugs and incompatibilities have been found and many reviews recommended to stay away from DOS 4.0 until those bugs get fixed. At that moment Microsoft released nothing.


InfoWorld September, 5 1988:
Microsoft acknowledged the problems, however, and said that when Microsoft OEM ship their versions of DOS 4.0 - which is expected to begin by the end of 1988 - all such problems will be resolved.
...
"We started shipping [our version of] DOS 4.0 to our OEM customers more than two weeks ago," said Pascal Martin, Microsoft's product manager for MS-DOS, who added that Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, AST, Dell, Zenith and Tandy have recieved copies of DOS 4.0. "Some of the problem fixes are already done, and some are being done," said Martin. "When Microsoft's OEM customers put it out, those problems will be fixed".
So somewhen around mid-August 1988 few selected OEM customers just got preview builds of MS-DOS 4 for testing, bugfixing and adoptation. No releases yet from MS itself.


InfoWorld, September, 19 1988: "IBM ships unannounced DOS 4.01". Ok, we already know it was the first update via retail boxes and so-called "Corrective Service Disk".
Sources warn that the box is still labeled DOS 4.0, and that users must check the labeling on the diskettes themselfs to make sure they are getting the latest version.
InfoWorld, October, 3 1988:
Microsoft has urged its OEMs to wait for a bug-fixing update of DOS 4.0 code before shipping their own versions and expects to release that final version by mid-month.

Microsoft released a DOS 4.0 Binary Adaptation Kit - containing the operating system and utilities to help OEMs adapt it to their hardware - shortly after the mid-July announcement of DOS 4.0, said Russ Werner, general manager of Microsoft's DOS and Windows Business Unit. Two weeks ago Microsoft told manufacturers who distribute DOS under their own labels not to use BAK and instead to wait for the maintenance update that Microsoft expects to ship withing two weeks, he said.

The update contains several bug fixes, primarily for a problem with page frames involving EMS, Werner said. He declined to say whether the code was changed to correct some of the problems reported in IBM's PC-DOS 4.0
...
Werner said he expects every major OEM will ship his own version of DOS 4.0 within six months.

Microsoft will also release "packaged-product DOS" for bundling by clone developers who don't want to modify the package for their hardware.
So it's a start of October 1988 and still no MS "generic" DOS 4.0 released !


InfoWorld, October, 10 1988:
Microsoft to unveil "fixed" DOS 4.0

Microsoft is set to deliver a final "fixed" release of MS-DOS 4.0 by mid-October, and at least one PC maker said it will begin shipping the first commercial release around Halloween. Northgate Computer Systems announced last week it will begin selling MS-DOS 4.0 as an option with systems by the end of this month, said Robert Ryks, the company's vice president of technical development.

The version will not be renumbered 4.01, as in the "fixed" IBM release, because "as far as Microsoft is concerned, the earlier copies of DOS 4.0 were betas," Ryks said.
So ladies and gentlemen, the version from October, 6 1988 defined on 16bitOS.com as "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.00" is indeed 4.00 and there were no other production box versions earlier from MS itself. Just get Sampo OEM release, get the 6th disk (DOS Shell) from 5.25" version of 4.01, replace on it command.com with the one from Sampo and you'll get pure and nearly authentic MS-DOS 4.00.

Hopefully it will help some collectors to end the endless search of "elusive" and nearly "mythical" MS-DOS 4.00. It's already here.
Last edited by tarlabnor on Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

Thanks, that was a very enlightening read. :) :idea:

I'd known for years about the existence of single user MS-DOS 4.00 - saw it on someone's Dell back in 1992 - but for years I'd been trying to prove it to everyone else, and a lot of sites have the misinformation that "Microsoft skipped 4.00 to avoid confusion with their multitasking version". Not only that, but whenever I found images of "MS-DOS 4.00" it always turned out to be 4.01. >_<

os2fan2
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by os2fan2 »

I have here a six diskette layout of dos 4 from 1989, and a boot 720k from 1988 with fix 255 etc applied

The 4.01 set is mastered from the original diskettes.

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by Battler »

tarlabnor wrote:Just get Sampo OEM release, get the 6th disk (DOS Shell) from 5.25" version of 4.01, replace on it command.com with the one from Sampo and you'll get pure and nearly authentic MS-DOS 4.00.
The problem is, mrpijey doesn't accept that on the FTP because he claims we have no evidence that the Shell files are truly identical to 4.00. He claims they might be modified even though they have the dates and times of MS-DOS 4.00.
I know of one site which is about Commodore 64 but it had a FTP that mirrored the contents of a CD that so happened to have had MS-DOS 4.00 for PC on it. Sadly, the FTP in question now requires username and password and the owner hasn't replied to my e-mail in almost two years now, despite the fact he has the FTP listed on his website and lists his e-mail addresses for contact.
The only other person with a 4.00 is some museum site run by someone who has been on BA before and categorically insisted he does not share binaries because he follows the law to the letter. Which is sad because he also has Multitasking MS-DOS 4.1.
Main developer of the 86Box emulator.
Join the 86Box Discord server, a nice community for true enthusiasts and 86Box supports!

The anime channel is on the Ring of Lightning Discord server.

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

Battler wrote:The problem is, mrpijey doesn't accept that on the FTP because he claims we have no evidence that the Shell files are truly identical to 4.00. He claims they might be modified even though they have the dates and times of MS-DOS 4.00.
That's why I didn't offer the result. I believe it's correct, and I'm probably right, but I admit there isn't any real evidence (paper trail, SFV, MD5 checksums).
I know of one site which is about Commodore 64 but it had a FTP that mirrored the contents of a CD that so happened to have had MS-DOS 4.00 for PC on it. Sadly, the FTP in question now requires username and password and the owner hasn't replied to my e-mail in almost two years now, despite the fact he has the FTP listed on his website and lists his e-mail addresses for contact.
The only other person with a 4.00 is some museum site run by someone who has been on BA before and categorically insisted he does not share binaries because he follows the law to the letter. Which is sad because he also has Multitasking MS-DOS 4.1.
*nod*. Ain't it always the way.

I believe that preserving this stuff is more important than the letter of the law, and as the old saying goes, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

ETA: Waitasec. I wonder if we could find someone who, although he won't share 4.00, will at least give us an SFV and a page of MD5 checksums for the files on the shell disk? That should all but prove it.

tarlabnor
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:14 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by tarlabnor »

Battler wrote:The problem is, mrpijey doesn't accept that on the FTP because he claims we have no evidence that the Shell files are truly identical to 4.00. He claims they might be modified even though they have the dates and times of MS-DOS 4.00.
Dates, times and sizes are the same. The question is file contents. So the only thing we need to know is SHA1 / SHA256 / whatever hash sums of all files. Then we could compare it with what we already have.
The only other person with a 4.00 is some museum site run by someone who has been on BA before and categorically insisted he does not share binaries because he follows the law to the letter.
No need to share. Can he just calculate hashes of all files and provide us this hash-list ? It would be enough to be sure.

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by Battler »

Yes, we thought of that. We tried contacting the owner of that museum website for the hashes of all the files on Disk 6 of MS-DOS 4.00, but our e-mails got bounced back because his inbox is full.
Main developer of the 86Box emulator.
Join the 86Box Discord server, a nice community for true enthusiasts and 86Box supports!

The anime channel is on the Ring of Lightning Discord server.

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

tarlabnor wrote:Dates, times and sizes are the same. The question is file contents. So the only thing we need to know is SHA1 / SHA256 / whatever hash sums of all files. Then we could compare it with what we already have.

No need to share. Can he just calculate hashes of all files and provide us this hash-list ? It would be enough to be sure.
Mivehind.

I did CRC32 (SFV), MD5 and SHA1 checksums. You can fool one checksum algorithm...good luck fooling THREE.

Of course, that won't make the DISK authentic, but it will make the CONTENTS authentic.
Battler wrote:Yes, we thought of that. We tried contacting the owner of that museum website for the hashes of all the files on Disk 6 of MS-DOS 4.00, but our e-mails got bounced back because his inbox is full.
Oy. Guess we gotta find someone else with the disks. Still, I'm sure finding someone who'll checksum a bunch of files is easier than finding someone who'll upload them.

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by Battler »

By the way, that museum site I mentioned, is 16bitos.com . You can try contacting the guy yourself, maybe he's cleared his inbox by now. :p

Edit: The contact form on his site gives "site not found".
Main developer of the 86Box emulator.
Join the 86Box Discord server, a nice community for true enthusiasts and 86Box supports!

The anime channel is on the Ring of Lightning Discord server.

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

tarlabnor
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:14 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by tarlabnor »

buricco wrote:I did CRC32 (SFV), MD5 and SHA1 checksums. You can fool one checksum algorithm...good luck fooling THREE.
Exactly.
Personally I have no doubt those files are 100% the same, but I don't try to convince anyone :)
Of course, that won't make the DISK authentic, but it will make the CONTENTS authentic.
Yep. It's good to have 100% authentic disk, but 100% authentic contents would be enough (until original disks appear on the horizon one day).
Battler wrote:By the way, that museum site I mentioned, is 16bitos.com . You can try contacting the guy yourself, maybe he's cleared his inbox by now. :p

Edit: The contact form on his site gives "site not found".
It was up and running just yesterday :|

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

I was figuring that maybe someone else had resurrected the site. It was down for quite a while (I think DNS expired or something) and came back.

Yes, I'm familiar with 16bitos.

os2fan2
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by os2fan2 »

The dos 4.01 shell diskette looks like this:

Code: Select all

Extract NT - Extract file in wImage - V 2.10 (c) 1991-96 Gilles Vollant
Visit web page : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gvollant/extract.htm

image file : mds400_d.ima  label : SHELL V401 
CHKDSK.COM                  17787  07.04.89  00:00a 
COMMAND.COM                 37557  07.04.89  00:00a 
DISKCOPY.COM                10396  07.04.89  00:00a 
DOSUTIL.MEU                  6660  07.04.89  00:00a 
PCIBMDRV.MOS                  263  07.04.89  00:00a 
PRINT.COM                   14131  07.04.89  00:00a 
SHELL.HLP                   66527  07.04.89  00:00a 
SHELL.MEU                    4588  07.04.89  00:00a 
SHELL.CLR                    4406  07.04.89  00:00a 
SHELLB.COM                   3894  07.04.89  00:00a 
SHELLC.EXE                 153855  07.04.89  00:00a 
320064 bytes in 11 files, 36864 bytes free



This is my msdos 4.00 shell diskette with 1988 dates

Code: Select all

image file : msdos401.ima  no label
DRIVER.SYS                   5241  06.10.88  00:00a 
EGA.CPI                     49068  06.10.88  00:00a 
FASTOPEN.EXE                16718  07.04.89  00:00a 
FDISK.EXE                   60935  19.12.88  00:00a 
FORMAT.COM                  22875  07.04.89  00:00a 
GRAFTABL.COM                10239  06.10.88  00:00a 
GRAPHICS.COM                16693  06.10.88  00:00a 
GRAPHICS.PRO                 9397  06.10.88  00:00a 
HIMEM.SYS                    6261  06.10.88  00:00a 
IO.SYS                      33337  19.12.88  00:00a 
KEYB.COM                     9876  23.07.90  01:50a 
KEYBOARD.SYS                21559  22.08.90  01:31a 
LCD.CPI                     10703  06.10.88  00:00a 
MSDOS.SYS                   37376  07.04.89  00:00a 
NLSFUNC.EXE                  6878  06.10.88  00:00a 
PRINT.COM                   14131  06.10.88  00:00a 
PRINTER.SYS                 18914  06.10.88  00:00a 
RAMDRIVE.SYS                 8235  06.10.88  00:00a 
REPLACE.EXE                 19415  06.10.88  00:00a 
SELECT.DAT                  22999  06.10.88  00:00a 
SELECT.EXE                  95107  06.10.88  00:00a 
SELECT.HLP                  28695  06.10.88  00:00a 
SELECT.PRT                   1329  06.10.88  00:00a 
SHARE.EXE                   13424  06.10.88  00:00a 
SMARTDRV.SYS                10224  06.10.88  00:00a 
SYS.COM                     11456  06.10.88  00:00a 
XMA2EMS.SYS                 29211  06.10.88  00:00a 
4201.CPI                     6404  06.10.88  00:00a 
4208.CPI                      720  06.10.88  00:00a 
5202.CPI                      370  06.10.88  00:00a 
ANSI.SYS                     9105  06.10.88  00:00a 
AUTOEXEC.BAT                   39  06.10.88  00:00a 
COMMAND.COM                 37557  19.12.88  00:00a 
CONFIG.SYS                    114  01.06.90  05:51p 
COUNTRY.SYS                 12806  06.10.88  00:00a 
DISKCOPY.COM                10396  06.10.88  00:00a 
DISPLAY.SYS                 15692  06.10.88  00:00a 
683499 bytes in 37 files, 25600 bytes free


buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

Code: Select all

 Volume in drive : has no label
 Volume Serial Number is 1101-1B52
Directory for ::/

COMMAND  COM     37557 1988-12-19   0:00
CHKDSK   COM     17787 1988-10-06   0:00
DISKCOPY COM     10396 1988-10-06   0:00
PCIBMDRV MOS       263 1988-10-06   0:00
PRINT    COM     14131 1988-10-06   0:00
SHELL    CLR      4406 1988-10-06   0:00
SHELL    HLP     66527 1988-10-06   0:00
SHELL    MEU      4588 1988-10-06   0:00
SHELLB   COM      3894 1988-10-06   0:00
SHELLC   EXE    153855 1988-10-06   0:00
DOSUTIL  MEU      6660 1988-10-06   0:00
       11 files             320 064 bytes
                             36 864 bytes free
The 5.25" "4.01 shell" disk I was referencing.

jagotu
User avatar
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:03 pm
Location: Czechia
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by jagotu »

tarlabnor wrote: In fact MS-DOS 4.00 (Sampo OEM) is the same thing as MS-DOS 4.00 with the only exception - missing disk 6 (DOS Shell)
I doubt it was missing "by design", the previous owner probably lost it somewhere.

Also, what I think happened with those disks is that SAMPO just used Microsoft's master, added their sticker to it and distributed it like that. Back then, Microsoft wasn't really distributing worldwide and was counting on other companies to do the shipping for them. A lot of other (czech) Windows 3.1 floppies I have for example are marked as "Produced by Buhl Data Service GmbH", which doesn't make their content any less original.

I've probably mentioned it several times, but I still physically own these floppies and even uploaded their KF dumps, so you can all see they are perfectly authentic.
Windows TEN - Totally Erroneous Numbering
Always watching you...

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by buricco »

jagotu wrote:
tarlabnor wrote: In fact MS-DOS 4.00 (Sampo OEM) is the same thing as MS-DOS 4.00 with the only exception - missing disk 6 (DOS Shell)
I doubt it was missing "by design", the previous owner probably lost it somewhere.
Agreed.
Also, what I think happened with those disks is that SAMPO just used Microsoft's master, added their sticker to it and distributed it like that. Back then, Microsoft wasn't really distributing worldwide and was counting on other companies to do the shipping for them. A lot of other (czech) Windows 3.1 floppies I have for example are marked as "Produced by Buhl Data Service GmbH", which doesn't make their content any less original.

I've probably mentioned it several times, but I still physically own these floppies and even uploaded their KF dumps, so you can all see they are perfectly authentic.
That was pretty common and almost SOP for 3.2 and later, wasn't it?

Though, all the 5.0 3.5"s I see out there are 3x720K and all the ones I've had enter my hands IRL are 2x1440K. (I did have a 5x5.25 pass into my hands once. Lost part of it and installed the rest on my then machine, a 5160 that I really should've kept running PC DOS 3.3.)

tarlabnor
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:14 am

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by tarlabnor »

jagotu wrote:
tarlabnor wrote: In fact MS-DOS 4.00 (Sampo OEM) is the same thing as MS-DOS 4.00 with the only exception - missing disk 6 (DOS Shell)
I doubt it was missing "by design", the previous owner probably lost it somewhere.
It's possible.

SAMPO was a copmany from Taiwan that produced clones of different western computer models and sold 'em mostly in the asian region. For example it did SAMPO Color Computer - a clone of well-known Tandy TRS-80 (aka Tandy Color Computer). Later Tandy sued SAMPO due to stolen ROM code. I seriously doubt that firm who stole ROM code later did any changes in generic DOS version.
Also, what I think happened with those disks is that SAMPO just used Microsoft's master, added their sticker to it and distributed it like that.
Most probably that's how it was.

But it's still possible that SAMPO simply "removed" DOS Shell disk to reduce number of floppies and left the other 5 disks without any change.
os2fan2 wrote:The dos 4.01 shell diskette looks like this:
Yes, it's a later version. You can download MS-DOS 4.01 (5.25) from winworldpc and you'll find there a bit different disk6 (DOS Shell).

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Re: I might have recreated the missing "shell" disk of DOS 4

Post by Battler »

tarlabnor wrote:But it's still possible that SAMPO simply "removed" DOS Shell disk to reduce number of floppies and left the other 5 disks without any change.
Thing is, the Shell disk is requested by the setup program when installing DOS. So you can't just remove it - people would then call you and complain about Setup wanting a disk that is missing. :p
Main developer of the 86Box emulator.
Join the 86Box Discord server, a nice community for true enthusiasts and 86Box supports!

The anime channel is on the Ring of Lightning Discord server.

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

Post Reply