This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. Devolution can be mainly financial, e.g. giving areas a budget which was formerly administered by central government. However, the power to make legislation relevant to the area may also be granted.

Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute.

Federal systems, or federacies, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. Australia, Canada, India, Mexico and the United States have federal systems, and have constitutions (as do some of their constituent states or provinces). They also have territories, with less power and authority than a state or province.

Australia[link]

The Australian Capital Territory refused self-government in a 1978 referendum, but was given limited self-government by a House of Assembly from 1979, and a Legislative Assembly with wider powers in 1988.

The Northern Territory of Australia refused statehood in a 1998 referendum. The rejection was a surprise to both the Australian and Northern Territory governments.

Territory legislation can be disallowed by the Commonwealth Parliament in Canberra, with one notable example being the NT's short lived voluntary euthanasia legislation.

Canada[link]

Although Canada is a federal state, a large portion of its land mass in the North is under the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government. This has been the case since 1870. In 1870, the Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Order effected the admission of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory to Canada, pursuant to section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Rupert’s Land Act, 1868. The Manitoba Act, 1870, which created Manitoba out of part of Rupert’s Land, also designated the remaining territories the Northwest Territories (NWT), over which Parliament was to exercise full legislative authority under the Constitution Act, 1871.

Since the 1970s, the federal government has been transferring its decision-making powers to northern governments. This means greater local control and accountability by northerners for decisions central to the future of the territories. Yukon was carved from the Northwest Territories in 1898 but it remained a federal territory. Subsequently, in 1905, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created from the Northwest Territories. Other portions of Rupert's Land were added to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, taking the provinces from a narrow band around the St. Lawrence and lower Great Lakes northward. District of Ungava was a regional administrative district of Canada's Northwest Territories from 1895 to 1912. The continental areas of the District of Ungava were transferred by the Parliament of Canada with the adoption of the Quebec Boundary Extension Act, 1898 and the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912. The interior of Labrador which was believed part of Ungava was settled in 1927 by the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which ruled in favour of Newfoundland.^[1]

In 1999, the federal government created Nunavut pursuant to a land claim agreement reached with Inuit, the indigenous people of Canada’s Eastern Arctic. The offshore islands to the west and north of Quebec remained part of the Northwest Territories until the creation of Nunavut in 1999.

Since that time, the federal government has slowly devolved legislative jurisdiction to the territories. Enabling the territories to become more self-sufficient and prosperous and to play a stronger role in the Canadian federation is considered a key component to development in Canada’s North. Among the three territories, devolution is most advanced in Yukon.

Northwest Territories[link]

The Northwest Territories were governed from Ottawa from 1870 until the 1970s, except for the brief period between 1898 and 1905 when it was governed by an elected assembly. The Carruthers Commission was established in April 1963 by the government of Lester B. Pearson. The three-man membership was appointed in 1965. It conducted surveys of opinion in the NWT in 1965 and 1966 and reported in 1966. Major recommendations included that the seat of government of the territories should be located in the territories. Yellowknife was selected as the territorial capital as a result. Transfer of many responsibilities from the federal government to that of the territories was recommended and carried out. This included responsibility for education, small business, public works, social services and local government. Since the report, the transfer of the Government of Northwest Territories has taken over responsibilities for several other programs and services including the delivery of health care, administration of airports and forestry management. The legislative jurisdiction of the territorial legislature is set out in section 16 of the Northwest Territories Act.

In the past 30 years, the transfer of responsibilities to the Government of Northwest Territories has taken place for several programs and services including the delivery of health care, social services, education, administration of airports and forestry management.

Now, the Government of Canada is negotiating the transfer of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's remaining provincial-type responsibilities in the NWT. These include the legislative powers, programs and responsibilities for land and resources associated with the department's Northern Affairs Program (NAP) with respect to:

• powers to develop, conserve, manage and regulate of surface and subsurface natural resources in the NWT for mining and minerals (including oil and gas) administration, water management, land management and environmental management;
• powers to control and administer public land with the right to use, sell or otherwise dispose of such land; and
• powers to levy and collect resource royalties and other revenues from natural resources.

The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Aboriginal Summit and the Government of Canada have each appointed a Chief Negotiator to work on devolution. A Framework Agreement was concluded in 2004. The target date for the completion of devolution talks for the NWT was March 2007. However, stumbling blocks associated with the transfer of current federal employees to the territorial government, and the unresolved issue of how much money the Northwest Territories will receive for its resources has delayed the conclusion of a devolution agreement for the NWT.

Nunavut[link]

In 1966, the federal government established the Carrothers Commission to look at the issue of government in the North. After extensive study and consultation, the Commission concluded that division of the NWT was probably both advisable and inevitable. There was a recognition that Northerners wanted to run their own affairs and must be given the opportunity to do so. At the same time, however, it noted that governmental reform was required before this could happen. It recommended the establishment of a new system of representative government. As a result, in the late 1960s and in the 1970s, the federal government gradually created electoral constituencies and transferred many federally run programs to the territorial government. Northerners took on more and more responsibility for the day-to-day running of their own affairs. In 1982, a plebiscite was held in the NWT asking the question, "Do you think the NWT should be divided?" Fifty-three percent of eligible voters participated in the plebiscite, with 56.4 percent of them voting "yes." Voter turnout and support for division was particularly strong in the Eastern Arctic. The Inuit population of the eastern section of the territory had become increasingly receptive of the idea of self-government. It was viewed as the best way to promote and protect their culture and traditions and address their unique regional concerns.

Both the NWT Legislative Assembly and the federal government accepted the idea of dividing the territory. The idea was viewed as an important step towards enabling the Inuit, and other residents of the Eastern Arctic, to take charge of their own destiny. There were some reservations, however. Before action could be taken, certain practical considerations had to be addressed. First of all, outstanding land claims had to be settled. Second, all parties had to agree on a new boundary. Finally, all parties had to agree on the division of powers between territorial, regional and local levels of government. The various governments and native groups worked closely together to realize these goals. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was ratified by the Inuit in November 1992, signed by the Prime Minister of Canada on May 25, 1993, and passed by the Canadian Parliament in June of the same year. It was the largest native land claim settlement in Canadian history. It gave the Inuit title over 350,000 square kilometres of land. It also gave the Inuit capital transfers from the federal government of over $1.1 billion over the next 14 years. This money will be held in trust with the interest to be used in a variety of different projects, including financing for regional businesses and scholarships for students. The Inuit also gained a share of resource royalties, hunting rights and a greater role in managing the land and protecting the environment. The land claims agreement also committed the Government of Canada to recommend to Parliament legislation to create a new territory in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories.

While negotiations on a land claims settlement progressed, work was also taking place to determine potential jurisdictional boundaries for a new Eastern Territory. A proposal was presented to all NWT voters in a May 1992 plebiscite. Of those voting, 54 percent supported the proposed boundary. The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (the Inuit claims organization) and the federal government formally adopted the boundary for division in the Nunavut Political Accord. The final piece of the equation fit into place on June 10, 1993, when the Nunavut Act received Royal Assent. It officially established the territory of Nunavut and provided a legal framework for its government. It fixed April 1, 1999, as the day on which the new territory would come into existence.

The Government of Nunavut is currently negotiating with the Government of Canada on a devolution agreement. Nunavut Tunngavik, the organization of Inuit of Nunavut, is also a participant to negotiations to ensure that Inuit interests are represented.

Devolution over natural resources to the Government of Nunavut moved forward with the appointment of a Ministerial Representative for Nunavut Devolution. The Representative has held meetings with interested parties including the Boards established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), territorial and federal government departments in order to determine if devolution will occur and if so the future mandate of devolution. The Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik have appointed negotiators.

Yukon[link]

In 1896 gold was discovered in the Yukon beginning of what is often considered the world's greatest gold rush which saw the population of the Yukon grow rapidly. Indeed, by 1898, Dawson grew into the largest Canadian city west of Winnipeg, with a population of 40,000. In response, the Canadian government officially established the Yukon Territory in 1898. The North-West Mounted Police were sent in to ensure Canadian jurisdiction and The Yukon Act provided for a commissioner to administer the territory. The 1898 statute granted the Commissioner in Council “the same powers to make ordinances... as are possessed by the Lieutenant Governor of the North-west Territories, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly thereof.” In 1908, amendments to the Yukon Act transformed the Council into an elected body.

Over time the territorial government exercised expanded functions. Relevant developments include the following:

By the mid-1960s, schools, public works, welfare and various other matters of a local nature had come under territorial administration.

Increased authority of elected Council members over the ensuing period contributed to significant changes in the Yukon Commissioner’s role. In 1979, instructions from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Minister) directed the Commissioner to allow elected members and the Executive Council to make important policy decisions, specifying that his actions should normally be based on the advice and taken with the consent of the elected Executive Council.

Like in the Northwest Territories, federal responsibilities were transferred to the Yukon government in the 1980s. In 1988, the Minister and the Yukon Government Leader signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the parties to smooth the progress of devolution of remaining province-like responsibilities to the Yukon Government. Responsibilities transferred since then include fisheries, mine safety, intra-territorial roads, hospitals and community health care, oil and gas and, most recently, natural resources.

Discussion to transfer land and resource management responsibilities to the Yukon Government began in 1996, followed by a formal federal devolution proposal to the Yukon Government in January 1997. In September 1998, a Devolution Protocol Accord to guide devolution negotiations was signed. On August 28, 2001, a final draft of the Devolution Transfer Agreement was completed for consideration. The Yukon Devolution transfer Agreement was concluded on October 29, 2001, with the Government of the Yukon enabling the transfer of remaining province-like responsibilities for land, water and resource management to the Government of the Yukon on April 1, 2003.

Mexico[link]

The Federal District[link]

All constituent states of Mexico are fully autonomous and comprise a federation. However, the Federal District, originally integrated by Mexico City and other municipalities, was created in 1824 to be the capital of the federation. As such, it was governed directly by the central or federal government and the president of Mexico appointed its governor or executive regent. Even though the municipalities within the Federal District were autonomous, their powers were limited. In 1928, these municipalities were abolished and transformed into non-autonomous delegaciones or boroughs and a "Central Department", later renamed as Mexico City. In 1970 this department was split into four new delegaciones, and Mexico City was constitutionally defined to be synonymous and coterminous with the entire Federal District.^[2] (As such, the boroughs of the Federal District are boroughs of Mexico City).

In the 1980s, the citizens of the Federal District, being the most populated federal entity in Mexico, began to demand for home rule; a devolution of autonomy in order to directly elect their head of government and to set up a Legislative Assembly. In 1987, an Assembly of Representatives was created, by constitutional decree, whose members were elected by popular vote. The devolution of the executive power was not granted until 1997 when the first head government was elected by popular vote. Finally, in 2000, power was devolved to the delegaciones, though limited: residents can now elect their own "heads of borough government" (jefes delegacionales, in Spanish), but the delegaciones do not have regulatory powers and are not constituted by a board of trustees, like the municipalities of the constituent states.

The autonomy, or home rule, of the Federal District, was granted by the federal government, which in principle, has the right to remove it. The president of Mexico still holds the final word in some decisions (e.g. he must approve some posts), and the Congress of the Union reviews the budget of the Federal District and sets the limit to its debt.^[3]

Some left-wing groups and political parties have advocated, since the 1980s, for a full devolution of powers by transforming the Federal District into the thirty-second constituent state of the Federation (with the proposed name of "State of the Valley of Mexico", to be distinguished from the state of México. Another proposed name is "State of the Anahuac").

Indigenous peoples[link]

In a recent amendment to the Constitution of Mexico, the country was defined as a "pluricultural nation" originally founded upon the "indigenous peoples".^[4] They are granted "free-determination" to choose the social, economical, cultural and political organization for which they are to elect representatives democratically in whatever manner they see fit, traditionally or otherwise, as long as women have the same opportunities to participate in their social and political life. There are, however, no prescribed limits to their territories, and they are still under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and states in which they are located; the indigenous peoples can elect representatives before the municipal councils. In practice, they are allowed to have an autonomous form of self-government, but they are still subject to the rights and responsibilities set forth by the federal constitution and the constitution of the states in which they are located.

France[link]

In the late 1980s a process of decentralisation was undertaken by the French government. Initially regions were created and elected regional assemblies set up. Together with the departmental councils these bodies have responsibility for infrastructure spending and maintenance (Schools and highways) and certain social spending. They collect revenues through property taxes and various other taxes. In addition a large part of spending is provided by direct grants to such authorities.

Local government spending in France represents 19% (189 billion euros) of total government spending.

Spain[link]

The Spanish Constitution of 1978 granted autonomy to the nationalities and regions of which the Kingdom of Spain is composed. (See also autonomous communities and cities of Spain)

Under the "system of autonomies" (Spanish: Estado de las Autonomías), Spain has been quoted to be "remarkable for the extent of the powers peacefully devolved over the past 30 years"^[5] and "an extraordinarily decentralised country", with the central government accounting for just 18% of public spending; the regional governments 38%, the local councils 13% and the social-security system the rest.^[6]

United Kingdom[link]

In the United Kingdom, devolved government was created following simple majority referenda in Wales and Scotland in September 1997. In 1998 the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly were established by law. England was left un-devolved. In addition to the newly established assemblies of Wales and Scotland much spending is devolved to the councils and shires of the United Kingdom. In addition to taxes collected locally the government provides grants for services such as the police, fire service and ambulance service which are under the authority of local elected government.

Local government spending in 2010 represented 25.6% of total government spending or £173 billion.^[7]

United States[link]

District of Columbia[link]

In the United States, the District of Columbia offers an illustration of devolved government. The District is separate from any state, and has its own elected government; in many ways, on a day-to-day basis, it operates much like another state, with its own laws, court system, Department of Motor Vehicles, public university, and so on. However, the governments of the 50 states have a broad range of powers reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution, and most of their laws cannot be voided by any act of U.S. federal government. The District of Columbia, by contrast, is constitutionally under the sole control of the United States Congress, which created the current District government by statute. Any law passed by the District legislature can be nullified by Congressional action, and indeed the District government could be significantly altered or eliminated entirely by a simple majority vote in Congress.

The states[link]

In the United States only the federal government, state governments, and federally recognized American Indian tribal nations are recognized by the United States Constitution, so local governments are subdivisions of states. Theoretically, a state could abolish all local governments within its borders.

Local governments such as municipalities, counties, parishes, boroughs, school districts, and other types of local government and political subdivision entities are devolved. They are established, regulated, and subject to governance by the constitutions or laws of the state in which they reside. Many local governments are given some degree of home rule, depending on the state. U.S. state legislatures, in most cases, have the power to change laws that affect local government structures. In some states, the governor may also have power over local government affairs.

Movements calling for devolution[link]

Movements calling for devolution in other areas also exist. There is a strong movement for devolution to Cornwall, with a Cornish Constitutional Convention being set up in 2001. Also in the United Kingdom, the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) was formed in 1998 as a direct consequence of Scotland and Wales being given devolution referenda and England being left out. The CEP is largely responsible for putting English devolution on the political and social agenda. There is a regional devolution movement in Yorkshire as well as historic English Regions such as Wessex and Mercia although these groups command very little support and are very much on the fringe of local politics.

In Northern Italy, there is a political movement led by the Lega Nord, for the home rule of Padania. In France, there are groups calling for devolution or full independence for Occitania, the Basque Country, Alsace, and Brittany.

List of unitary states with devolution[link]

Other meanings of the term devolution[link]

In some hierarchical churches, especially Anglican churches including the Church of England, devolution is a bishop's appointment of a person to a benefice (e.g. a parish) when the ordinary patron or collator (i.e. the person or body with the right to appoint) has failed to do so, either because an improper candidate has been nominated or because no candidate could be found

Cardinal Albino Luciani, also known as Pope John Paul I, was the author of initiatives such as the devolution of one per cent of each church's entries for the poor churches in the Developing World.

Under United States estate tax provision, "devolution" may occur when a deceased obtains "incidents of ownership" under the Estate Tax Regulation 20.2042-1(c)2 in a fiduciary capacity from an independent transaction creating a trust for benefit of another party. See IRC 2042 & Revenue Ruling 84-179 example.

See also[link]

• Decentralisation
• Federalism in China; tiao-kuai
• Home rule
• Principle of conferral
• Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom)
• Scotland Act 2012
• Subsidiarity
• West Lothian question

Notes[link]

External links[link]

Look up devolution in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Economic and Social Research Council Devolution and Constitutional Change research programme
• An Article from the BBC describing the transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to the Welsh Assembly

Rebecca Ferguson is the name of:

• Rebecca Ferguson (singer) (born 1986), English singer
• Rebecca Ferguson (actress) (born 1983), Swedish actress

This disambiguation page lists articles about people with the same name. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

MS-DOS

64px
An example of MS-DOS's command-line interface, this one showing that the current directory is the root of drive C.
Company / developer	Microsoft Corporation
Programmed in	Assembly language[1]
OS family	DOS
Working state	Discontinued/Historic
Source model	Closed source
Initial release	1981
Latest stable release	8.0 / September 14, 2000; 11 years ago  (2000-09-14)
Available language(s)	Multilanguage
Available programming languages(s)	C, Pascal, QBasic, Batch, etc.
Supported platforms	x86
Kernel type	Monolithic kernel
Default user interface	Command-line interface, Text user interface
License	Proprietary

MS-DOS ( /ˌɛmɛsˈdɒs/ EM-es-DOSS; short for Microsoft Disk Operating System) is an operating system for x86-based personal computers. It was the most commonly used member of the DOS family of operating systems, and was the main operating system for IBM PC compatible personal computers during the 1980s to the mid 1990s, until it was gradually superseded by operating systems offering a graphical user interface (GUI), in particular by various generations of the Microsoft Windows operating system.

MS-DOS grew from a 1981 request by IBM for an operating system for its IBM PC range of personal computers. Microsoft quickly bought the rights to QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), also known as 86-DOS,^[2] from Seattle Computer Products, and began work on modifying it to meet IBM's specification. The first edition, MS-DOS 1.0, was launched in 1982.^[3] The version shipped with IBM's PCs was called PC DOS. Although MS-DOS and PC DOS were initially developed in parallel by Microsoft and IBM, the two products eventually went their separate ways.

During its life, several competing products were released for the x86 platform,^[4] and MS-DOS itself would go through eight versions, until development ceased in 2000. Ultimately it was the key product in Microsoft's growth from a programming languages company to a diverse software development firm, providing the company with essential revenue and marketing resources. It was also the underlying basic operating system on which early versions of Windows ran as a GUI.

History[link]

MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS – informally known as the Quick-and-Dirty Operating System or Q-DOS^[3] – owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Paterson.^[3] Microsoft needed an operating system for the then-new Intel 8086 but it had none available, so it bought 86-DOS for $75,000 and licensed it as its own then released a version of it as MS-DOS 1.0.^[3] Development started in 1981, and MS-DOS 1.0 was released with the IBM PC in 1982.^[3] (86-DOS, in turn, was a clone of Digital Research's CP/M (for 8080/Z80 processors), ported to run on 8086 processors and with two notable differences compared to CP/M, an improved disk sector buffering logic and the introduction of FAT12 instead of the CP/M filesystem. This became possible because of the increased availability of RAM compared to what was typically available when CP/M was designed originally.)

Originally MS-DOS was designed to be an operating system that could run on any 8086-family computer. Each computer would have its own distinct hardware and its own version of MS-DOS, similar to the situation that existed for CP/M, and with MS-DOS emulating the same solution as CP/M to adapt for different hardware platforms. To this end, MS-DOS was designed with a modular structure with internal device drivers, minimally for primary disk drives and the console, integrated with the kernel and loaded by the boot loader, and installable device drivers for other devices loaded and integrated at boot time. The OEM would use a development kit provided by Microsoft to build a version of MS-DOS with their basic I/O drivers and a standard Microsoft kernel, which they would typically supply on disk to end users along with the hardware. Thus, there were many different versions of "MS-DOS" for different hardware, and there is a major distinction between an IBM-compatible (or ISA) machine and an MS-DOS [compatible] machine. Some machines, like the Tandy 2000, were MS-DOS compatible but not IBM-compatible, so they could only run software written exclusively for MS-DOS without dependence on the peripheral hardware of the IBM PC architecture.

This design would have worked well for compatibility, if application programs had only used MS-DOS services to perform device I/O, and indeed the same design philosophy is embodied in Windows NT (see Hardware Abstraction Layer). However, in MS-DOS's early days, the greater speed attainable by programs through direct control of hardware was of particular importance, especially for games, which often pushed the limits of their contemporary hardware. Very soon an IBM-compatible architecture became the goal, and before long all 8086-family computers closely emulated IBM's hardware, and only a single version of MS-DOS for a fixed hardware platform was needed for the market. This version is the version of MS-DOS that is discussed here, as the dozens of other OEM versions of "MS-DOS" were only relevant to the systems they were designed for, and in any case were very similar in function and capability to the same-numbered standard version for the IBM PC, with a few notable exceptions.

While MS-DOS appeared on PC clones, true IBM computers used PC DOS, a rebranded form of MS-DOS. Ironically, the dependence on IBM-compatible hardware caused major problems for the computer industry when the original design had to be changed. For example, the original design could support no more than 640 kilobytes of memory (the 640 KB barrier), because IBM's hardware design reserved the address space above this limit for peripheral devices and ROM. Manufacturers had to develop complicated schemes (EMS and XMS, and other minor proprietary ones) to access additional memory. This limitation would not have been a problem if the original idea of interfacing with hardware through MS-DOS had endured. (However, MS-DOS was also a real-mode operating system, and the Intel x86 architecture only supports up to 1 MB of memory address space in Real Mode, even on Pentium 4 and later x86 CPUs, so for simple access to megabytes of memory, MS-DOS would have had to be rewritten to run in 80286 or 80386 Protected Mode.) Also, Microsoft originally described MS-DOS as "an operating system for Intel 8086-based microcomputers", and the 8086 CPU (and its cousin the 8088) itself has only 1 MiB of total memory address space.

Versions[link]

Microsoft licensed or released versions of MS-DOS under different names like Lifeboat Associates "Software Bus 86"^[5] aka SB-DOS,^[4] COMPAQ-DOS,^[5] NCR-DOS or Z-DOS^[4] before it enventually enforced the MS-DOS name for all versions but the IBM one, which was originally called "IBM Personal Computer DOS", later shortened to IBM PC DOS. (Competitors released compatible DOS systems such as DR-DOS and PTS-DOS that could also run DOS applications.)

The following versions of MS-DOS were released to the public:^[6][7]

• MS-DOS 1.x
  • Version 1.12 (OEM) - Compaq release of PC DOS 1.10
  • Version 1.19 (OEM)^[8] - Zenith OEM
  • Version 1.25 (OEM) - Microsoft repackaging of PC DOS 1.10
• MS-DOS 2.x - Support for 10 MB hard disk drives and tree-structure filing system
  • Version 2.0 (OEM)
  • Version 2.1 (OEM)
  • Version 2.11 (OEM)
  • Version 2.2 (OEM)
  • Version 2.21 (OEM)
• MS-DOS 3.x
  • Version 3.0 (OEM) - Support for FAT16
  • Version 3.1 (OEM) - Support for Microsoft Networks
  • Version 3.2 (OEM)
  • Version 3.21 (OEM)
  • Version 3.25 (OEM)
  • Version 3.3 (OEM)
  • Version 3.3a (OEM)
  • Version 3.3r (OEM)
  • Version 3.31 (OEM) - Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 supports FAT16B and larger drives.
  • Version 3.35 (OEM)
• MS-DOS 4.x - includes a graphical/mouse interface.
  • Version 4.00 (OEM)
  • Version 4.01 (OEM) - IBM patched Version 4.00 before Microsoft released it. First version to introduce volume serial number when formatting hard disks and floppy disks (Disk duplication also).^[9]
  • Version 4.01a (OEM)
• MS-DOS 5.x
  • Version 5.0 (Retail) - includes a full-screen editor. A number of bugs required reissue.
  • Version 5.0a (Retail) - With this release, IBM and Microsoft versions diverge.
  • Version 5.0.500 (WinNT) - All Windows NT 32-bit versions ship with files from DOS 5.0
• MS-DOS 6.x
  • Version 6.0 (Retail) - Online help through QBASIC. Disk compression and antivirus included.
  • Version 6.1 (none) - IBM and Microsoft alternate DOS 6 versions. IBM released 6.3 also.
  • Version 6.2 (Retail) - Scandisk as replacement for CHKDSK. Fix serious bugs in DBLSPACE.
  • Version 6.21 (Retail) - Stacker-infringing DBLSPACE removed.
  • Version 6.22 (Retail) - New DRVSPACE compression.
• MS-DOS 7.x
  • Version 7.0 (Win95,95A) - Support for VFAT long file names. New editor. JO.SYS is an alternative filename of the IO.SYS kernel file and used as such for "special purposes". JO.SYS allows booting from CD-ROM to hard disk.
  • Version 7.1 (Win95B-Win98SE) - Support for FAT32 file system. Last general purpose DOS to load Windows.
• MS-DOS 8.0
  • Version 8.0 (WinME) - Integrated drivers for faster Windows loading. Four different kernels (IO.SYS) observed.
  • Version 8.0 (WinXP) - DOS boot disks created by XP and later contain files from WinME. The internal command prompt still reports version 5.0

Microsoft DOS was released through the OEM channel, until DRI released DR-DOS 5.0 as a retail upgrade. With PC DOS 5.00.1, the IBM-Microsoft agreement started to end, and IBM entered the retail DOS market with IBMDOS 5.00.1, 5.02, 6.00 and PC DOS 6.10, 6.30, 7.00 and 2000.

A number of beta versions have surfaced on the Internet, such as 5.0 (a ten-diskette version in the same vein as 4.0), 7.00 beta 1 (based on 6.00), 7.00 beta 2 (based on 6.22). An OEM source package for 6.00, and a late release of 6.2(b) have also been seen. These are not retail versions.

Competition[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)

On microcomputers based on the Intel 8086 and 8088 processors, including the IBM PC and clones, the initial competition to the PC DOS/MS-DOS line came from Digital Research, whose CP/M operating system had inspired MS-DOS. In fact, there remains controversy as to whether Q-DOS was more or less plagiarised from early versions of CP/M code. Digital Research released CP/M-86 a few months after MS-DOS, and it was offered as an alternative to MS-DOS and Microsoft's licensing requirements, but at a higher price. Executable programs for CP/M-86 and MS-DOS were not interchangeable with each other; much applications software was sold in both MS-DOS and CP/M-86 versions until MS-DOS became preponderant (later Digital Research operating systems could run both MS-DOS and CP/M-86 software). MS-DOS originally supported the simple .COM, which was modelled after a similar but binary incompatible format known from CP/M-80. CP/M-86 instead supported a relocatable format using the file extension .CMD to avoid name conflicts with CP/M-80 and MS-DOS .COM files. MS-DOS version 2.0 added a more advanced relocatable .EXE executable file format.

Most of the machines in the early days of MS-DOS had differing system architectures and there was a certain degree of incompatibility, and subsequently vendor lock-in. Users who began using MS-DOS with their machines were compelled to continue using the version customized for their hardware, or face trying to get all of their proprietary hardware and software to work with the new system.

In the business world the 808x-based machines that MS-DOS was tied to faced competition from the Unix operating system which ran on many different hardware architectures. Microsoft itself sold a version of Unix for the PC called Xenix.

In the emerging world of home users, a variety of other computers based on various other processors were in serious competition with the IBM PC: the Apple II, early Apple Macintosh, the Commodore 64 and others did not use the 808x processor; many 808x machines of different architectures used custom versions of MS-DOS. At first all these machines were in competition. In time the IBM PC hardware configuration became dominant in the 808x market as software written to communicate directly with the PC hardware without using standard operating system calls ran much faster, but on true PC-compatibles only. Non-PC-compatible 808x machines were too small a market to have fast software written for them alone, and the market remained open only for IBM PCs and machines that closely imitated their architecture, all running either a single version of MS-DOS compatible only with PCs, or the equivalent IBM PC DOS. Most clones cost much less than IBM-branded machines of similar performance, and became widely used by home users, while IBM PCs had a large share of the business computer market.

Microsoft and IBM together began what was intended as the follow-on to MS-DOS/PC DOS, called OS/2. When OS/2 was released in 1987, Microsoft began an advertising campaign announcing that "DOS is Dead" and stating that version 4 was the last full release. OS/2 was designed for efficient multi-tasking — an IBM speciality derived from deep experience with mainframe operating systems — and offered a number of advanced features that had been designed together with similar look and feel; it was seen as the legitimate heir to the "kludgy" DOS platform.

MS-DOS had grown in spurts, with many significant features being taken or duplicated from Microsoft's other products and operating systems. MS-DOS also grew by incorporating, by direct licensing or feature duplicating, the functionality of tools and utilities developed by independent companies, such as Norton Utilities, PC Tools (Microsoft Anti-Virus), QEMM expanded memory manager, Stacker disk compression, and others.

During the period when Digital Research was competing in the operating system market some computers, like Amstrad PC1512, were sold with floppy disks for two operating systems (only one of which could be used at a time), MS-DOS and CP/M-86 or a derivative of it. Digital Research produced DOS Plus, which was compatible with MS-DOS 2.11, supported CP/M-86 programs, had additional features including multi-tasking, and could read and write disks in CP/M and MS-DOS format.

While OS/2 was under protracted development, Digital Research released the MS-DOS compatible DR-DOS 5, which included features only available as third-party add-ons for MS-DOS (and still maintained considerable internal CP/M-86 compatibility). Unwilling to lose any portion of the market, Microsoft responded by announcing the "pending" release of MS-DOS 5.0 in May 1990. This effectively killed most DR-DOS sales until the actual release of MS-DOS 5.0 in June 1991. Digital Research brought out DR-DOS 6, which sold well until the "pre-announcement" of MS-DOS 6.0 again stifled the sales of DR-DOS.

Microsoft had been accused of carefully orchestrating leaks about future versions of MS-DOS in an attempt to create what in the industry is called FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) regarding DR-DOS. For example, in October 1990, shortly after the release of DR-DOS 5.0, and long before the eventual June 1991 release of MS-DOS 5.0, stories on feature enhancements in MS-DOS started to appear in InfoWorld and PC Week. Brad Silverberg, Vice President of Systems Software at Microsoft and General Manager of its Windows and MS-DOS Business Unit, wrote a forceful letter to PC Week (November 5, 1990), denying that Microsoft was engaged in FUD tactics ("to serve our customers better, we decided to be more forthcoming about version 5.0") and denying that Microsoft copied features from DR-DOS:

"The feature enhancements of MS-DOS version 5.0 were decided and development was begun long before we heard about DR-DOS 5.0. There will be some similar features. With 50 million MS-DOS users, it shouldn't be surprising that DRI has heard some of the same requests from customers that we have." – (Schulman et al. 1994).^[10]

The pact between Microsoft and IBM to promote OS/2 began to fall apart in 1990 when Windows 3.0 became a marketplace success. Much of Microsoft's further contributions to OS/2 also went in to creating a third GUI replacement for DOS, Windows NT.

IBM, which had already been developing the next version of OS/2, carried on development of the platform without Microsoft and sold it as the alternative to DOS and Windows.

Legal issues[link]

As a response to Digital Research's DR DOS 6.0, which bundled SuperStor disk compression, Microsoft opened negotiations with Stac Electronics, vendor of the most popular DOS disk compression tool, Stacker. In the due diligence process, Stac engineers had shown Microsoft part of the Stacker source code. Stac was unwilling to meet Microsoft's terms for licensing Stacker and withdrew from the negotiations. Microsoft chose to license Vertisoft's DoubleDisk, using it as the core for its DoubleSpace disk compression.^[11]

MS-DOS 6.0 and 6.20 were released in 1993, both including the Microsoft DoubleSpace disk compression utility program. Stac successfully sued Microsoft for patent infringement regarding the compression algorithm used in DoubleSpace. This resulted in the 1994 release of MS-DOS 6.21, which had disk-compression removed. Shortly afterwards came version 6.22, with a new version of the disk compression system, DriveSpace, which had a different compression algorithm to avoid the infringing code.

Prior to 1995, Microsoft licensed MS-DOS (and Windows) to computer manufacturers under three types of agreement: per-processor (a fee for each system the company sold), per-system (a fee for each system of a particular model), or per-copy (a fee for each copy of MS-DOS installed). The largest manufacturers used the per-processor arrangement, which had the lowest fee. This arrangement made it expensive for the large manufacturers to migrate to any other operating system, such as DR DOS. In 1991, the U.S. government Federal Trade Commission began investigating Microsoft's licensing procedures, resulting in a 1994 settlement agreement limiting Microsoft to per-copy licensing. Digital Research did not gain by this settlement, and years later its successor in interest, Caldera, sued Microsoft for damages. It was believed that the settlement ran in the order of $150m, but was revealed in November 2009 with the release of the Settlement Agreement to be $280m.^{[citation needed]}

Use of undocumented APIs[link]

Microsoft also used a variety of tactics in MS-DOS and several of their applications and development tools that, while operating perfectly when running on genuine MS-DOS (and PC DOS), would break when run on another vendor's implementation of DOS. Notable examples of this practice included:

• Microsoft's QuickPascal released in early 1989 was the first MS product that checked for MS-DOS by modifying the program's Program Segment Prefix using undocumented DOS functions, and then checked whether or not the associated value changed in a fixed position within the DOS data segment (also undocumented). This check also made it into later MS products, including Microsoft QuickC v2.5, Programmer's Workbench and Microsoft C v6.0.^[10]
• The (once infamous) AARD code, a block of code in the Windows 3.1 beta installer. It was XOR encrypted, self-modifying, and deliberately obfuscated, using various undocumented DOS structures and functions to determine whether or not Windows really was running on MS-DOS.^[10]
  • Note that the Windows 3.0 beta code only gave a warning that Windows would not operate properly on a "foreign" OS. It did in fact run just fine on DR-DOS 6.0.
• Interrupt routines called by Windows to inform MS-DOS that Windows is starting/exiting, information that MS-DOS retained in an IN_WINDOWS flag, in spite of the fact that MS-DOS and Windows were supposed to be two separate products.^[10]

End of MS-DOS[link]

In 2011, MS-DOS is still used in some enterprises to run legacy applications, such as this US Navy food service management system.

Today, MS-DOS is rarely used for desktop computing. Since the release of Windows 95, it was integrated as a full product used for bootstrapping, troubleshooting, and backwards-compatibility with old DOS games and no longer released as a standalone product.

Windows XP contains a copy of the Windows Me boot disk, stripped down to bootstrap only. This is accessible only by formatting a floppy as an "MS-DOS startup disk". Files like the driver for the CD-ROM support were deleted from the Windows ME bootdisk and the startup files (AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS) no longer had a content. This modified disk was the base for creating the MS-DOS image for Windows XP. Some of the deleted files can be recovered with an undelete tool.^[12] With Windows Vista the files on the startup disk are dated 18 April 2005 but are otherwise unchanged, including the string "MS-DOS Version 8 © Copyright 1981-1999 Microsoft Corp" inside COMMAND.COM.

However the only versions of DOS currently recognized as stand-alone OSs, and supported as such by the Microsoft Corporation are DOS 6.0 and 6.22, both of which remain available for download via their MSDN, volume license, and OEM license partner websites, for customers with valid login credentials.

MS-DOS is still used in embedded x86 systems due to its simple architecture and minimal memory and processor requirements. The command line interpreter of NT-based versions of Windows, cmd.exe, maintains most of the same commands and some compatibility with DOS batch files.

Windows command-line interface[link]

All versions of Microsoft Windows have had an MS-DOS like command-line interface (CLI). This could run many DOS and variously Win32, OS/2 1.x and Posix command line utilities in the same command-line session, allowing piping between commands. The user interface, and the icon up to Windows 2000, followed the native MS-DOS interface.

Consumer Windows (up to 3.11, Win9x, WinME) ran as a Graphical User Interface (GUI) running on top of MS-DOS. With Windows 95, 98, and ME the MS-DOS part was integrated, treating both operating systems as a complete package. The command line accessed the DOS command line (usually command.com), through a Windows module (winoldap.mod).

A new line of Windows, (Windows NT), boot through a kernel whose sole purpose is to load Windows. One can not run Win32 applications in the loader system in the manner that OS/2, UNIX or Consumer Windows can launch character mode sessions.

The command session permits running of various supported command line utilities from Win32, MS-DOS, OS/2 1.x and POSIX. The emulators for MS-DOS, OS/2 and POSIX use the host's window in the same way that Win16 applications use the Win32 explorer. Using the host's window allows one to pipe output between emulations.

The MS-DOS emulation is done through the NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine). This is a modified SoftPC (a former product similar to VirtualPC), running a modified MS-DOS 5 (ntio.sys and ntdos.sys). The output is handled by the console DLLs, so that the program at the prompt (cmd.exe, 4nt.exe, tcc.exe), can see the output. Command.com passes most of its commands down to the underlying processor (cmd.exe, 4nt.exe, ...), but is generally not used. If you need commands that rely on TSR programs, you must launch these from command.com. 64-bit Windows does not have either the DOS emulation, or the DOS commands (edit, debug, edlin, kbd16), that come with 32-bit Windows.

The DOS version returns 5.00 or 5.50, depending on which interrupt is used to determine it. Utilities from MS-DOS 5.00 run in this emulation without modification. The very early beta programs of NT show MS-DOS 30.00, but programs running in MS-DOS 30.00 would assume that OS/2 was in control.

The OS/2 emulation is handled through OS2SS.EXE and OS2.EXE, and DOSCALLS.DLL. OS2.EXE is a version of the OS/2 shell (cmd.exe), which passes commands down to the OS2SS.EXE, and input-output to the Windows NT shell. Windows 2000 was the last version of NT to support OS/2. The emulation is OS/2 1.30.

POSIX is emulated through the POSIX shell, but no emulated shell: the commands are handled directly in CMD.EXE.

The Command Prompt is often called the MS-DOS prompt. In part, this was the official name for it in Windows 9x and early versions of Windows NT, and in part because the SoftPC emulation of DOS redirects output into it. Some purists object to this name, because the underlying binaries are Win32 console applications, rather than DOS programs. This confusion does not exist under OS/2 because there are separate DOS and OS/2 prompts, and running a DOS program under OS/2 will launch a separate DOS window to run the application.

All versions of Windows for x86-64 and Itanium architectures no longer include the NTVDM and can therefore no longer natively run MS-DOS or 16-bit Windows applications. There are alternatives in the form of Virtual machine emulators such as Microsoft's own Virtual PC, as well as VMware, DOSBox, and others.

Legacy compatibility[link]

From 1983 onwards, various companies worked on graphical user interfaces (GUIs) capable of running on PC hardware. With DOS being the dominant operating system several companies released alternate shells, e.g. Microsoft Word for DOS, XTree, and the Norton Commander. However, this required duplication of effort and did not provide much consistency in interface design (even between products from the same company).

Later, in 1985, Microsoft Windows was released as Microsoft's first attempt at providing a consistent user interface (for applications). The early versions of Windows ran on top of MS-DOS and its clones. At first Windows met with little success, but this was also true for most other companies' efforts as well, for example GEM. After version 3.0 (1990), Windows gained market acceptance.

Later versions (Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me) used the DOS boot process to launch into protected mode. Basic features related to the file system, such as long file names, were only available to DOS when running as a subsystem of Windows. Windows NT ran independently of DOS but included a DOS subsystem so applications could run in a virtual machine under the new OS. With the latest Windows releases, even dual-booting MS-DOS is problematic as DOS may not be able to read the basic file system.

Related systems[link]

Single-user[link]

Several similar products were produced by other companies. In the case of PC DOS and DR-DOS, it is common but incorrect to call these "clones". Given that Microsoft manufactured PC DOS for IBM, PC DOS and MS-DOS were (to continue the genetic analogy) "identical twins" that diverged only in adulthood and eventually became quite different products. Although DR-DOS is regarded as a clone of MS-DOS, the DR-DOS versions appeared months and years before Microsoft's products. (For example, MS-DOS 4, released in July 1988, was followed by DR-DOS 5 in May 1990. MS-DOS 5 came in April 1991, with DR-DOS 6 being released the following June. MS-DOS 6 did not arrive until April 1993, with Novell DOS 7, DR-DOS' successor, following the next month.^[13]) What made the difference in the end was Microsoft's control of the Windows platform and their programming practices which intentionally made Windows appear as if it ran poorly on competing versions of DOS.^[10] Both IBM (DOS 5.02) and DRI (DOS 6 update) had to release interim releases to circumvent Windows limitations inserted artificially,^[10] designed specifically to provide Microsoft with an unfair competitive advantage.^[10]

• PC DOS,
• DR-DOS / Novell DOS / OpenDOS,
• GNU/DOS / FreeDOS / FreeDOS 32,
• PTS-DOS.

These products are collectively referred to as DOS. However, MS-DOS can be a generic reference to DOS on IBM-PC compatible computers.

See also[link]

• Bad command or file name
• Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems
• DOSKey, MS-DOS utility
• History of Microsoft Windows
• List of DOS commands
• List of Microsoft Windows versions
• List of MS-DOS games
• Microsoft Windows
• MS-DOS API
• Timeline of x86 DOS operating systems
• Win32 console - a text-rendering system akin to MS-DOS
• 4DOS - designed to replace the default command interpreter COMMAND.COM
• DOSBox