PC-DOS could technically be provided for free I think, but it would be still copyrighted and under the terms of IBM's server toolkit.

Why is it technically free?

IBM released it (v7.1) as part of their server toolkit at no cost and with no hardware specific riders that I've found. Included in the documentation is a copyright, limitation of liability and trademark notifications. Seemingly nothing else. I invite other opinions, of course, especially if anyone is an expert.

https://www-947.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/ … ocid=MIGR-53564

I'm not going to read through all that. But as a rule of thumb, especially when it concerns big companies, software offered for free does not equal the right to offer the software for free yourself.

I agree, that is the safest course. The most sure solution would be to have instructions and perhaps an extraction script so the user can download the software themselves while not creating any liability for redistribution.

gdjacobs wrote:

IBM released it (v7.1) as part of their server toolkit at no cost and with no hardware specific riders that I've found. Included in the documentation is a copyright, limitation of liability and trademark notifications. Seemingly nothing else. I invite other opinions, of course, especially if anyone is an expert.

https://www-947.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/ … ocid=MIGR-53564

Never re-release someone elses software, regardless of the license. That's why malware persists to this day. The only software that anyone turns a blind eye to are empty boot disks, because it was and still is standard fare to create boot floppies (now CD's and USB sticks) to diagnose and troubleshoot systems, or bulk-install site-license software on hardware with no network. Someone obviously has a license to the DOS used, but every, single, place I've worked for without question until the floppy disk drive was no longer standard had dozens of boot floppies kicking around. It's just not considered practical to buy a new copy of DOS for every one-off use, even though the way Microsoft licensed DOS was effectively "you make make ONE backup copy."

MS DOS 1 and 2 are available http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/microsof … ly-source-code/
http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/microsof … sdos-v1-1-v2-0/ note, you can use it on simulators, but you can not redistribute it.

What I want to see out there is a serious attempt at accurately emulating the 8088/8086/80286 4.77/6/8Mhz so games designed to run at that speed run at the intended speed. You can fudge it somewhat:

But an actual XT had 1.0's across the board.
http://www.reenigne.org/misc/xt_mips.jpg
http://www.reenigne.org/misc/xt_si6.jpg

Most 386+ stuff has been done already http://bochs.sourceforge.net/ , and software designed to run on a 386+ often doesn't rely on having accurate CPU speed and can deal with pseudo-calibration using https://web.archive.org/web/20031010100028/ht … p://syschk.com/ SysChk 2.45 to the speed you want it to feel like.

leileilol wrote:

PC-DOS is still present in this "copyright free" emulator 🙄.

No it is not, unless I accidentally uploaded one of the wrong archives. What I specifically provided was FreeDOS, an operating system similar to PC-DOS and MS-DOS but which is free of any copyright-infringing code. That was the whole point of providing it. If I made a mistake in uploading the archive, then please feel free to point it out; otherwise, please stop automatically accusing me of every last thing without actually checking it out for yourself. Your line of thinking goes exactly like this: "It had an A:\> prompt, therefore the person still included PC-DOS and is a hypocrite.".

I will check it out later just to be "sure", but if I am correct, then that means that you obviously don't know the difference between PC-DOS and FreeDOS. There are many other cases of where such work-a-likes were created (such as the COMPAQ ROM BIOS and even the Phoenix ROM BIOS, both of which imitated much of the functionality of the IBM PC BIOS), yet were 100% legal. I specifically provided FreeDOS in order to comply with the rules of the site, but if you want to go on accusing me of providing the copyrighted PC-DOS just because it looks the same, then you're quite honestly making a great big fool of yourself.

Also, an update: I am currently working on the following features:
One is support for the original COMPAQ Portable and Portable Plus. While I will eventually provide emulation of the original system board and adapter boards as a faithful emulator should, at the moment I already have the Revision C ROM image working with the IBM PC Model 5150 system board and IBM CGA adapter (in the emulator, obviously).

Getting a copy of the ROM image (though I won't supply it here, in order to comply with the site rules) was an adventure in itself, thanks to one person who I requested it from (who will remain unnamed). The idiot insulted me in return for the asking by telling me to shut up (essentially), basically making me out to be a "kid" demanding that people give him things without giving anything in return (which is laughable considering how I'm doing it to build an emulator), and for that I sent a rather angry message in return telling him to stop attacking people for requesting anything from them. Obviously I am not talking about software copyrights here since that is a completely separate issue; I'm instead talking about people's attitudes towards other people's work. Needless to say, he won't be part of any development team of mine, so it's his loss really.

Of course, I was originally planning on making the machine configuration file available with a listing of the files for the machine's original version of COMPAQ DOS, as well as the name of the correct ROM image file (you can ask Jeff Parr of the PCjs Project to send it to you, but I won't link to it here since once again it would go against the rules of the site), but thanks to people's (apparent) attitudes, I'm not sure that these people even deserve to have a copy of the machine at all, let alone a fully working emulator. If people are so nasty towards others like that, then I feel like I am the one doing things without anything being offered in return.

As far as the COMPAQ machines are concerned, I'm also working on the display adapter (by that, I mean working with the actual source code). The display adapter in the original COMPAQ's was a hybrid between the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter (MDA) and Color Graphics Adapter (CGA), and from what I've seen, it's either closer to the IBM CGA, or the BIOS detects the presence of CGA features and fails to continue if it can't find them, since attempting to run the COMPAQ BIOS with an IBM MDA adapter results in a "501" error which was COMPAQ's way of saying that the video board was non-functional. Running the COMPAQ BIOS with an IBM CGA adapter, however, allows it to pass all tests and run as it normally would, though the high-resolution characters are displayed on top of each other until you press the CTRL+ALT+< key combination to switch the display into low-resolution CGA mode. I am trying my best to build in support for the actual COMPAQ display adapter but as you can probably imagine, the documentation for it is not easily available as it is with IBM's products, so I am forced to rely on the code that is already present for the IBM MDA and CGA adapters, as well as some information that I found here:
http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/compaq.html
That said, if someone here can provide me with better documentation then it would certainly help me, since otherwise I don't have much at all to go by.

Another feature that I am working on for the next build, as I already explained previously, is matching the technical manuals for each device with the source code itself. Already, I have now made it as far as much of the IBM Enhanced Graphics Adapter manual from August 2nd, 1984, and once I'm finished with the IBM EGA, I will repeat the same process for the IBM VGA.

The upcoming build is Release A001. For Release A002, I am already planning even more new features, such as having the COMPAQ system board enabled by default for the COMPAQ Portable/Portable Plus, as well as some early work on the IBM PC/AT and IBM PS/2 series before the emulated 80386 CPU is even complete, let alone ready to be tested, since I really need to catch up with my development of new machines, especially considering that they involved many other areas of the machine itself besides the CPU, such as upgraded interrupt controllers, DMA controllers, and so on. Also, I plan on beginning some early work on the IBM 8514/A and IBM XGA, as well as adding MCGA support for the IBM PS/2 Model 25/30 configuration that I provided.

SoftPCMuseum_ wrote:

Yes, but are you sure that the Intersil 80C88 is the same as the Intel 80C88? Remember that different manufacturers did have differences between CPUs even for ones that were otherwise quite similar - one such example would be to compare the IBM/Cyrix 386SLC/DLC and 486SLC/DLC against the Intel 80386/80486 counterparts, or even to compare the IBM and Cyrix chips against each other since there were differences even between those (such as the LOADALL instruction still being supported on the IBM 486SLC/DLC while being unsupported on the Cyrix counterpart). Therefore, just because the two companies produced similar chips does not stop them from implementing instructions differently, especially where it would violate Intel's trademarks.

your talking two different things. with the 8088/80c88 etc, Intersil was a second source (along with amd and others). that means they fab it for intel so places like the US gov and other mfg's like IBM dont rely on a single supplier. Second Sourcing. They did NOT create their own verison, they fab intels part.

With the cyrix SLC, that was not a second source design, they was their own design, hence all the problems.

Two very different things.

Well, here it is everyone, finally, at last, Release A001 of The Virtual Computer Collection.

New features:
- IBM PC Technical Reference manuals matched with source code: This will make it easy to develop new machines for the emulator since each and every source code function is now matched with the IBM PC Technical Reference manuals for the original PC (Model 5150/5160), since each manual for the next machine can be easily compared against the comments in the source code rather than keeping two different Technical Reference manuals open at the same time.
- COMPAQ Portable/Portable Plus: Note that the COMPAQ system board and Video Display Unit are disabled by default in the compiled binaries until someone can verify that they actually work, especially since the COMPAQ display adapter in particular is still in its early stages and may or may not work correctly; enabling either of these features requires re-enabling them in the source code and recompiling from there. The COMPAQ machines will still work with the IBM PC (Model 5150) system board and/or the IBM CGA display but will lack certain features that were specific to the COMPAQ machines.
- References to "PCE" now changed to "The Virtual Computer Collection". Note that certain areas may still refer to "PCE", such as in the documentation. Please do not submit bug reports on those references.
The download links have been updated in the main post. Please see the link for details.

For the next build, I am currently working on the beginnings of adding IBM PC/AT, XT/286, and PS/2 series support into the emulator itself. At the moment, what I have is a placeholder which currently consists of copied-over IBM PC source code but which is where the IBM PC/AT and higher machines eventually will go once they begin development for real. The reason for why I am doing any of this is so that I can test the newly revised build system in order to make sure that everything compiles and functions correctly before adding in everything else, so that if I ever had any problems getting the new machines to work then I would immediately be able to rule out compile errors as being the cause. As such, I will be posting my progress here shortly. John Elliott should also be helping me out with this as he did with compiling the first build if I ever had any problems, but once everything is working correctly, then I will start developing the new machines from there.

I am also announcing the opportunity to become a developer of this emulator. While the code is already open-source to begin with, becoming a developer earns such a user extra "features" of the project, such as early access to the source code for the next build before it is finally finished, as well as the ability to collaborate regularly with development on new and upcoming features such as new machines, new CPUs, and other products to be emulated in the future, and even to manage it to some extent. Remember that this status is only given to those who have clearly earned the project's trust, so any requests to "become" a developer will automatically be ignored. Anyone else can still use the source code for their own purposes, but in the end it will be up to us "developers" whether to accept any of it into our own project.

At the moment, the first user to be added to the developer list is John Elliott for both, his excellent assistance with the project (such as helping to compile the first build and even helping greatly to add in support for the COMPAQ machines), as well as his excellent work on developing display adapters for PCE and even writing his own emulator (QDAE), along with providing the "Vintage PC Pages" which also helped me a great deal when adding in support for the COMPAQ Video Display Unit.

A new "release", and yet.... PC-DOS is still present.

leileilol wrote:

A new "release", and yet.... PC-DOS is still present.

Do you seriously think that you can keep attacking me in every thread and every breath of discussion possible?

I thought that I made it perfectly clear that I was NOT bundling ANY of the copyrighted IBM PC-DOS software, so nice try there, accusing me of being a hypocrite. This is FreeDOS, as in, a completely legal free and open-source recreation of MS-DOS WITHOUT infringing on any of the copyrighted code. Got that now?

If by any chance I accidentally uploaded any of the PC-DOS versions then by all means report them, and I'll promptly remove them from the archive. But if all that you can go on is the fact that I SPECIFICALLY bundled "FreeDOS" instead of PC-DOS, then you sure don't even know much about such software at all (despite what you appear to "claim"), do you...

And by the way, if you still don't want to actually read up on the facts (a.k.a. not automatically accusing everyone of being a hypocrite over things that you know nothing about), then by all means, please feel free to read this link:
http://www.freedos.org/

And I'll add on to that note even further: If you don't want to even seriously bother reading the above link, then I've got a copy of it all for you below to see (or more like in this case, avoid missing):

FreeDOS is a complete, free, DOS-compatible operating system that you can use to play classic DOS games, run legacy business software, or develop embedded systems. Any program that works on MS-DOS should also run on FreeDOS.

It doesn’t cost anything to download and run FreeDOS. Even better, you can view and edit our source code. All FreeDOS programs are distributed under the GNU General Public License or a similar open source software license.

If you had done your research, you would have seen that I had SPECIFICALLY replaced IBM PC-DOS with FreeDOS. But no, you had to accuse me of hypocrisy to the point of public shaming. Or, better yet, tell that to the authors of FreeDOS; they'll just laugh at you for being a complete fool.

SoftPCMuseum_ wrote:

Do you seriously think that you can keep attacking me in every thread and every breath of discussion possible? […]
Show full quote

leileilol wrote:

A new "release", and yet.... PC-DOS is still present.

Do you seriously think that you can keep attacking me in every thread and every breath of discussion possible?

I thought that I made it perfectly clear that I was NOT bundling ANY of the copyrighted IBM PC-DOS software, so nice try there, accusing me of being a hypocrite. This is FreeDOS, as in, a completely legal free and open-source recreation of MS-DOS WITHOUT infringing on any of the copyrighted code. Got that now?

If by any chance I accidentally uploaded any of the PC-DOS versions then by all means report them, and I'll promptly remove them from the archive. But if all that you can go on is the fact that I SPECIFICALLY bundled "FreeDOS" instead of PC-DOS, then you sure don't even know much about such software at all (despite what you appear to "claim"), do you...

And by the way, if you still don't want to actually read up on the facts (a.k.a. not automatically accusing everyone of being a hypocrite over things that you know nothing about), then by all means, please feel free to read this link:
http://www.freedos.org/

And I'll add on to that note even further: If you don't want to even seriously bother reading the above link, then I've got a copy of it all for you below to see (or more like in this case, avoid missing):

FreeDOS is a complete, free, DOS-compatible operating system that you can use to play classic DOS games, run legacy business software, or develop embedded systems. Any program that works on MS-DOS should also run on FreeDOS.

It doesn’t cost anything to download and run FreeDOS. Even better, you can view and edit our source code. All FreeDOS programs are distributed under the GNU General Public License or a similar open source software license.

If you had done your research, you would have seen that I had SPECIFICALLY replaced IBM PC-DOS with FreeDOS. But no, you had to accuse me of hypocrisy to the point of public shaming. Or, better yet, tell that to the authors of FreeDOS; they'll just laugh at you for being a complete fool.

What the fuck is this then?

Love your condescending implying i'm a blind idiot act btw. Not arrogant at all.🙄

Thread locked. Download links in first topic removed.

I've had enough. SoftPCMuseum, you have been repeatedly been warned that including copyrighted material is not ok. leileilo was in all cases *correct* to point that out and each time you threw a tantrum and called lei names. This is not ok.

If you *CANNOT* keep your releases free of copyrighted material, please don't post that anymore.

If you want to discuss it in civilized manner, please pm me or the boss qbix.