Talk:Digital Research

Fair use rationale for Image:Drinc.gif

Image:Drinc.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Digital Research Forth

DR did a Forth for one or more of their OSes? Really? I remember (and probably still have somewhere, the Basics, Pascal etc, but I cannot find any mention of them doing a Forth. Citation please. Lovingboth (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen various Forth implementations for CP/M, but none of them was developed and copyrighted by Digital Research. Therefore, I removed the entry until someone actually finds a reliable sources for this.

I did, however, add FORTRAN to the the list as there actually was a Digital Research FORTRAN for CP/M.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

XVCPI support in Concurrent DOS 386

Does someone have any information (announcements, documentation, or other bits) in regard to XVCPI (Extended Virtual Control Program Interface) support in Concurrent DOS 386 since ca. 1989? This was apparently a parallel effort to DPMI to enable the full memory management and multitasking capabilities of the 386 in which Intel, Digital Research, Interactive Systems and other parties seem to have played a role. Very little is known about this, so if you know anything about it, your comments or contributions to the VCPI article or talk page would be highly welcome. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No mention of CP/M-68 and little mention of GEM

This article is missing of a significant aspect of DRI's output - the Atari ST running GEM and underlying supporting OS called GEMDOS, which was basically CP/M-68K hacked about to support the MS-DOS hooks that were needed to run GEM (established as running on MS-DOS as its primary OS by then). GEM was built on top of the GEM VDI system, which I think was a virtual device system built on top of GSX. The AES (Application Environment Services) handled the higher level stuff. The system call parameters were incompatible between the two (for example, rectangles in VDI were TLBR whereas in AES they were TLWH). Atari called this entire system TOS, and as developers, we didn't disagree.

I believe Atari sold upwards of two million STs; in the heyday of the bog-standard Z-80 64K CP/M machine, sales couldn't have been much more than 100K units a year. In terms of revenue, I doubt Uncle Jack was paying very much per machine, but in terms of installed base this has to be the most common DRI product.

Do I have references for any of this? Probably not, unless you count the paper listings of GEMDOS I think I probably still have in the attic. However, most of the people who were there at the time are still alive. (And most seem to be working for Microsoft, apart from me). And as for anecdotes about Gary Kildall... well they're just anecdotes.

Someone needs to fill in the gaps. If I have time, I might.

Fjleonhardt (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hacked Digital Research website

www.digitalresearch.biz appears to have been hacked. Could someone please remove all references to this site (I tried but seemed to be making a mess of the article, so I gave up). Thanks. StefanosPavlos (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Digital Research. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003140504/http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html to http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003140504/http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html to http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003140504/http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html to http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Check and fixed the mess created by bot. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

COI tag (August 2024)

I've skimmed through edit history and edit pattern of some contributors is indicative of public relations editing, possibly for some of past key personnel of the company Graywalls (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I am not sure where you're seeing evidence of COI. Matthiaspaul has contributed the lion's share of the prose of this article and he is not, to the best of my research, a former employee of DR. As any book on the subject will tell you, Digital Research was very influential and pivotal in the history of microcomputing. The article is going to reflect that stature; it is not necessarily puffery. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@DigitalIceAge:, I didn't specify who specifically. Looking at the EDIT PATTERN, of some of the accounts, there are certain things about them that's suggestive of public relations editing. Very strange things include such things as a ref bombing after the part where it says "in 1991"w which shouldn't need that many sources and including unreasonable granularity of number of employees by the year. Graywalls (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul is the one who introduced the ref-bombing. Not a fan of it either, I think it makes the article hard to read but that's not ipso-facto proof of COI. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the tag carefully. Emphasis added by me. "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2024)" it is not "it has been proven that a major contributor of this article HAS A CLOSE CONNECTION". So to phrase it different, it's like a reasonable suspicion. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Per the instructions on {{COI}}: In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor. What is the "specific, articulatable, fixable problem" here? That there's ref-bombing? I can fix that fairly quickly. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And the editorial decision by whoever who edited this article based on what THEY WANT to include as opposed to what's based on independent, SECONDARY sources. This imparts importance in the perspective of wiki editor/their interest, which may have a conflict with encyclopedic goal. The prominence of coverage of such in independent secondary sources helps assess whether such coverage in article is due/undue. There's considerable amount of contents within the article that's not inline cited.

People can do a mind dump and write about what they know, because it's important to them. Emphasis on something that's important to them can be conflict of interest. Graywalls (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "writing what you know"/going off lived experience with your subject matter constitutes COI automatically—the policy page even states that COI is not simply bias—but whatever. Certainly it's original research, which should be and indeed is tagged, but not necessary COI. I plan on rewriting the History section once Newspapers.com access through the Wikipedia Library stops sucking and lets me log in. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)