Jump to content

Multiple versions of DOS 2.0s?


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,


We've recently come across original DOS 2.0s disks that are slightly different. One has DOS.SYS, DUP.SYS and AUTORUN.SYS files. The other has DOS.SYS, DUP.SYS and a FORMAT.BAS file.


Any thoughts on why there would be a difference? I've attached them here.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd need to double check and look at the source but I do suspect in many cases since the "Write Dos Files" option uses what's loaded in memory at the time, you can get resultant files that'll be different and therefore give different checksum, CRC32, MD5 results. My suspicion being that parts of buffers and work areas within the program will be different depending on config and what's been going on.


Also, not forgetting the well documented "POKES" such as getting rid of the near pointless "write with verify".


The flags indicating what drives are active and buffer counts etc are kept on the boot sector so should be isolated from the DOS.SYS file itself.

Edited by Rybags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the information. As I mentioned, these dumps were from original Atari disks (without a write notch). Would what you are saying still apply?


I suppose someone could have overwritten one of them with a drive that ignored the write protect sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inside Atari Dos provides some insight - and has the 2.0s source code.


Or even easier - just dump out DOS.SYS to a text file. Amazing that they used the program/workspace layout that they did, they probably could have saved 2 or 3 sectors by moving the embedded work areas to the end so that they weren't part of the loaded file.


I dumped out mine, there's a directory sector buried as well as FCB and other work areas.


So yeah, if you had a proper "virgin" copy of DOS, it might have a bunch of zeros in those areas or might have even been mastered from a "work" situation where there's remnants of a directory listing from something else.


(OK - I was doing this with DOS 2.5 but it's virtuall the same thing and I do suspect 2.0s would have the same bad habits)

Edited by Rybags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are text file dumps using hexdump -Cv. You can diff them with a diff tool to see what's different


1-dos.sys.hexdump.txt is from Master Diskette II (1980)(Atari)(US)[!].atr

2-dos.sys.hexdump.txt is from Master Diskette II (1980)(Atari)(US)[a].atr


I also included screen shots of tkdiff of the 3 different areas.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

The offset of the loaded DOS.SYS vs your dump there is +$7CC - ie those first changed bytes there at $B3E in the dump are at $130A in memory.


So you can work out the function from the assembly listing in Inside Atari Dos.

Everything different in the first dump is within work areas. When assembling using e.g. *=*+4 to allocate work areas the assembler will usually output zeroes if it's to a file but just skip over if it's going to memory. In assemblies to memory then there's the chance of getting different binaries from the exact same source code.


The second dump - we have a problem. The listing in the book has Dos ending @ $1500 but in reality there's code living well beyond that. LOMEM of a DOS 2.0s image I have here is $1CFC which even when considering buffers and stuff is more bloated than that listing would suggest.

The different values in the second dump aren't program code - my suspicion is that they've created masters from live disks that have been loaded and done some work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

as you may have referenced from writings about the subject... there were several iterations of DOS, and the example source does not cover all of them. DOS, DOS 2.0 (S and D) "that's single and double"... DOS 3.0 (black dot, no black dot) "that is bug no black, fixed black dot or whole punch) at least 3 different dos 3.0 existed but no change in the number... really bad practice... then of course DOS 2.5 and all the variants as well as hacks etc....


Both disks could be factory, a real analysis of them and using them for an extended period of time would shed some light on the subject, how does each act with early vs later 810 disk drives etc.


I have a vague recollection of this being discussed before, and hope it will be dug up and expanded on...


_The Doctor__

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...