DOS language versions

[dongfeng]

The thread on different languages for BASIC got me thinking... what language versions of DOS were there?

Aside English, I've seen French and German versions.

Thinking about it, maybe even a Chinese one, but I really can't remember, it might just have been chinese character support in DOS, but I can't recall the language!

Any one know what languages versions IBM and MS-DOS came with?

[Zeela]

Swedish. MS did different language versions of DOS for just about every language there is...

// Z

[Anonymous Freak]

I have a sealed Spanish copy of IBM PC-DOS 7.

[tezza]

I've never seen a non-English version on MS-DOS. So I take it the commands are replaced by their non-english counterparts?

[Aeroraptor]

That's quite interesting, i wonder if a command like copy is "kopie" in german or "copia" in spanish, or if all the commands are the same and only the manuals/readmes/dialogs have changed? The latter seems more sensible, but you never know...

[carlsson]

In Swedish versions, all the commands are the same. Only the help texts and dialogs are translated. In some rare cases, even the keystrokes like Yes/No, Abort/Retry/Ignore and so on remain non-translated, while more often they are. To translate command names generally is meaningless, since few commands can be derived what they do by simply looking at their names.

[Zeela]

I've never seen a non-English version on MS-DOS. So I take it the commands are replaced by their non-english counterparts?Nope, but all error messages and text displayed are in the local language. The commands stays english.

// Z

[DoctorPepper]

Snip!

To translate command names generally is meaningless, since few commands can be derived what they do by simply looking at their names.

And it gets even more fun when you play around in Unix! :-)

[tezza]

To translate command names generally is meaningless, since few commands can be derived what they do by simply looking at their names.

If I understand you correctly, I have to disagree Anders. I found a lot of MS-DOS Commands fairly self-explanatory. In most cases they were an english verb or a shortened version of a verb, which said exactly what the command did. Admittedly, one or two like MSD were cryptic but I found they were the exception.

Compared to CP/M it was more intuitive. I mean Pip??? How did PIP get to mean copy?

Don't even get me started on the unfathomability of Unix. GREP anyone? :)

Tez

[carlsson]

Ok. I can agree that e.g. COPY, TYPE, EDIT, MORE makes sense. CD and DEL are short forms, but already here we're on deep water. Literal translations of these few commands would be KOPIERA, SKRIV (TRYCK), ÄNDRA, MER.. the last two: BK and TAB (TABORT). At the beginning perhaps MS-DOS commands are easier to learn than CP/M or UNIX. In that case foreigners get an advantage over native English people, as we from the beginning get to memorize commands with what they do, not what they are called, if you see how I mean. :-)

[Terry Yager]

Compared to CP/M it was more intuitive. I mean Pip??? How did PIP get to mean copy?

Tez

Peripheral Interchange Program (stolen from DEC, BTW). What could be simpler? What I never understood is why DOS does it backwards.

--T

[tezza]

Peripheral Interchange Program (stolen from DEC, BTW). What could be simpler?

Of course! Now why didn't I see that! :) (damm! there is no smiley icon for facetiousness)

[MikeS]

Peripheral Interchange Program (stolen from DEC, BTW). What could be simpler? What I never understood is why DOS does it backwards.

--T
---------
Sounds like flame bait to me; CP/M does it backwards and DOS & UNIX got it right! ;-)

But it actually makes sense, sort of; PIP is like BASIC etc., i.e. A=B means B is copied to A, but when the command is copy or cp then it makes more sense to copy A (to) B.

mike

[Terry Yager]

---------
Sounds like flame bait to me; CP/M does it backwards and DOS & UNIX got it right! ;-)

But it actually makes sense, sort of; PIP is like BASIC etc., i.e. A=B means B is copied to A, but when the command is copy or cp then it makes more sense to copy A (to) B.

mike

That's what I mean, CP/M sees it the same way the CPU does. In A/L, MVI M,A (destination=source) fr'instance.

--T

[carlsson]

It depends on the CPU, if it has MOVE instructions at all and which the mnemonic syntax (derived by a human being) is. On my favourite processor, all data has to go through either the accumulator or one of the two index registers. ;-)

[barythrin]

I think that's true and this is probably meant for the language thread vs the OS thread but what I imagine they did was make it more english (left to right reading) than computer syntax to make it easier for non programmers.

To be honest I still get confused in *nix when some commands have me put the output first and input second and visa versa which is one small advantage that DOS has being a single development effort not a hodge podge of end user binaries.

just my $.02 (or my $.01 if you're doing better than us currency)

[MikeS]

That's what I mean, CP/M sees it the same way the CPU does. In A/L, MVI M,A (destination=source) fr'instance.
--T
----
I don't think the CPU itself *sees* it in any particular way; CP/M follows the arbitrary assembler mnemonics of CPUs like the 8080 & the Z80. As our Swedish friend points out, different CPUs' mnemonics are the opposite; e.g. 650x TAX transfers A to X.

It just depends on whether you look at it as "let x become y" or "copy/move y to x;" both ways are used, but for myself I find "copy fileA to B" much more intuitive than "copy to B fileA," especially when copying disk files, and I don't think assembler mnemonics are very relevant at the OS command level.

All depends on what you're used to, I suppose.

m

[Terry Yager]

Not to be argumentative, but I was referring specifically to the 8080 and the CP/M which was written to run upon it. (Looks like Mike was right, this is beginning to border on flaming, isn't it?).

Anyways, the point that assembler is still a language with the mnemonics arbitrarily assigned by the programmer is a valid one, but if you take it down to a lower level, the point becomes moot, as there is no byte-level movement between registers in pure binary, only a bit at a time. (Or am I full of schiznitz? I'm not real boned-up on my binary.).

--T