Talk:86-DOS

message: Additionally, Microsoft was working on a multitasking version of DOS.  Whether it was unpolished or viewed as too complicated for mortal users, it never flew off the ground, with Windows just on its heels.  However, a few rogue copies  made it into the wild, proving this wasn't a myth.
--(unsigned) 208.20.220.69 2004-10-19T22:06:43‎
: Yes, you mean Multitasking MS-DOS 4.0 and 4.1, also known as "European MS-DOS" and not to be mixed up with the standard PC DOS 4.00 and MS-DOS 4.01. However, it is a fork of MS-DOS and has nothing to do with 86-DOS and therefore belongs in the above mentioned or in the MS-DOS article.
: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multitasking DOS 

message: "" (posted in article by 132.248.39.209)
: In my opinion anything about the UCSD P-system belongs in its article or IBM-PC. But if someone can find details about the claims relating to SCP above, great. It's my understanding that there was no "contract" except during the period that the PC was in development. After that Microsoft owned the system outright.
: --Gazpacho 02:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSD P-System 

message: There is a robot under development that will help to clear the rather enormous backlog of pages with date format errors in  citations listed at .  CS1 date format validation adheres rather strictly to WP:DATEFORMAT and to a lesser extent WP:BADDATEFORMAT.  The only all-numeric date format supported by WP:DATEFORMAT is YYYY-MM-DD.  No other ISO 8601 compliant dates are acceptable.  YYYY-MM is specifically not supported.
The , using the upcoming robot code, correctly changed dates from YYYY-MM to Mmmm YYYY format.  That edit has been reverted but should be restored.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formats in CS1 citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 86-DOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831122510/http://www.fireinthevalley.com/ to http://www.fireinthevalley.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Facts to support this position:
- Kildall refused to sue IBM and SCP only because of lack of funding. This means technical differences did not represent a blocker and he was sure about 86-dos being a clone.
- Kildall flying plane rumors, as rumors are a form of black PR. By logic of interest, rumors were spread by IBM or SCP in order to make Kildall look responsible.
- The system was entirely written solely by 24-year old person within less than a year. That individual had no previous experience in the field and had written nothing a like later. If one compares this person to Kildall and his team, then either everyone can build their own moon rocket in the backyard or the system was cloned and patched like BolgenOS: https://forum.linuxfoundation.org/discussion/6344/please-attention-new-linux-bolgenos.
89.1.182.19 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input, but this does not appear to be a reliable source of information that Wikipedia can accept. If you could find a source that corroborates your claim it should be gladly accepted as an edit. Bluefist talk 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  86-DOS was not created, its a rip off