The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Marc McDonald . j⚛e decker^talk 19:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MIDAS (operating system)[edit]

MIDAS (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased operating system by Microsoft which appears to be non-notable. For a while this article was thought to be a hoax. Only two sources appear to discuss this topic:

• Duncan, Ray (1988). The MS-DOS Encyclopedia - version 1.0 through 3.2. Microsoft Press. ISBN 1-55615-049-0.
• Manes, Stephen; Andrews, Paul (1993). Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry—and Made Himself the Richest Man in America. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-42075-7.

Both appear to contain bare passing mentions. The article also lists some technical manuals by Microsoft as references, but without any information as to where they were published (if at all) and no ISBN numbers, so I think we should consider them broken (or even fabricated) citations. A merger into MS-DOS#History has been explicitly rejected at Talk:MS-DOS. — Keφr 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by people that are supposed to know what is going on; either historians, researchers or people intimetaly involved with the subjects. MDOS was a real written OS; I contain some of the only surviving documents (mentioned in the column) from the time when I worked at DRI's European office and inherited all the documentation, computers, S-100 boards, development software etc etc, and as such, the entry for MDOS is for completeness. And encyclopedia is supposed to be a correct reference. It seems to me that the people that decided to have this entry up for deletion obviously were not involved in the beginning of microcomputers. When I get a chance, I will upload images of the documentation concerned. This documentation should be in the Archives of Microsoft. -- 2014-10-13T09:25:25‎ Petervee

You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by literally anyone who can figure out how to do it. And those people may have good intent or evil intent, they may have a clue, or be completely misguided, they may be careful, cautious and stick to reliable information, or they may be gullible, jump to conclusions, and add rumours. Which means we should apply some scepticism to their additions.

The world is full of hoaxes, and the DOS world is not any different. On the Internet, I can find an ISO image of "MS-DOS 7.1". Here is how the installer looks like: it tells me that MS-DOS 7.1 has been released by Microsoft under the GNU GPL. Should I add it to the article? You can say any idiot can upload a video to YouTube, but then any idiot can upload scanned pictures to Wikipedia. Why should I assume User:MarcMcd is actually Marc MacDonald? Why should I believe some random "Petervee", someone impersonating the developer of this OS, and some guy whose name coincides with a DR-DOS developer's? How can I be justified in assuming the scans you upload are not fake? (Never mind they would be deleted in short order because of copyright issues.) For all I know, you might be a dog. There is nothing that convinces me otherwise.

The whole point of using previously published sources is that it does not matter whether you are a dog or not; claims in articles are justified by citations, not by editors claiming authority on the topic. If the Essjay controversy taught us anything, it is that we should not rely on an individual editor's claims of authority.

(Apologies for approaching User:Matthiaspaul levels of verbosity.) — Keφr 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or Merge into Marc McDonald). While I agree that little is known about Microsoft's MDOS aka MIDAS, it clearly is no hoax. The fact that some obviously uninformed readers confused it with MS-DOS and assumed it to be a hoax in the past is hardly a valid argument against it - after all we are here to preserve and provide knowledge to those interested. We can't do that by deleting relevant information. MIDAS might not have been a great OS in itself (I really don't know), but it is notable historically for two reasons:

a) After Standalone Disk BASIC-80, which hardly can be called an operating system in itself, it was the first operating system utilizing the FAT file system. Marc McDonald, the developer of MIDAS, is also the inventor of the FAT file system.

b) MIDAS is also an interesting stepping-stone in the history of Microsoft operating systems for microcomputers. This becomes particularly apparent in the context of 86-DOS, MS-DOS and MSX-DOS. Tim Paterson's 86-DOS was a clone of Digital Research's CP/M-80 ported to 8086 16-bit processors with FAT file system support added (after Standalone Disk BASIC and MIDAS). 86-DOS later became MS-DOS. And while Digital Research added an MS-DOS emulator to its CP/M-86 port for 16-bit processors in DOS Plus (and later DR DOS), Microsoft for some time went the other direction when they (Paterson, actually) developed MSX-DOS, a sort of MS-DOS clone for 8080 8-bit processors. In this view, MIDAS is important as it can be seen as one of the origins for the technology. Marc McDonald also once mentioned that MIDAS (or technology derived from it) was used in some Japanese computers.

While we already discuss some of these aspects in various related articles, it makes sense to also have a "central" article about MIDAS itself in order to avoid too much redundancy in other articles and to properly establish logical connections between pieces of information.

Regarding notability, I think, the fact that MIDAS is mentioned in several books is enough to meet our notability criteria per WP:N. Given enough time, I might be able to locate a few more WP:RS. According to the article, Microsoft even had several volumes of reference documentation for this operating system (I cannot verify this, since I do not own these documents, but I also do not have reasons to doubt they existed - the fact that they can't be found via Google is hardly relevant as the majority of docs pre-dating Google cannot be found this way). The fact, that these documents don't carry ISBNs is hardly relevant either, as most printed product documentation does not carry ISBNs - actually, only a small fraction of documents from the pool qualifying as RS carries ISBNs in general. Some while back Marc McDonald himself also offered to provide copies of MIDAS reference documentation from his archive. So, we have at least two sources (one internal, and one external of Microsoft) indicating that a full set of documentation existed for this operating system - sooner or later it might pop up in someone's archive and/or put online, so it is premature to call them "broken" or "fabricated". WP:V does require verifiability, not personal access to the sources to verify the information by oneself.

To sum it up, while I think that it may take another couple of years before the article will have become more than a stub, I think, MIDAS is important and notable enough to deserve an article of its own and meet our basic notability criteria - so give it the necessary time to grow. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Wikipedia still has many years (decades?) to grow and mature. (Alternatively, the information should be moved into the Marc McDonald article.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Without accessible references there is not enough information about MDOS to keep this article. Assuming it existed, it should be documented as part of Microsoft's history, then a WP article can be justified. Many companies have internal developments that may be documented on internal documents, but unless information is published and notable then these are inappropriate topics. 81.129.132.171 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If MIADS was the first operating system to use FAT, then at least some of the article should be merged into FAT filesystem. Otherwise, this may be a Delete. It would however be a shame to lose the content as it may have some historical value in 200 years time. Is there somewhere we can submit this data to? TheDragonFire (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about being "the first operating system to use FAT" is unreferenced. The only thing that seems to be verifiable is "it existed, and it was some sort of influence on MS-DOS". — Keφr 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary of what Kephir is trying to make believe, this is well referenced in several sources. Let me cite a few sentences from Ray Duncan's "MS-DOS encyclopedia":

"[...] During this same period, Marc McDonald also worked on developing an 8-bit operating system called M-DOS (usually pronounced "Midas" or "My DOS"). [...]"

or

"[...] M-DOS was a true multitasking operating system modeled after the DEC TOPS-10 operating system. M-DOS provided good performance and, with a more flexible FAT than that built into BASIC, had a better file-handling structure than the up-and-coming CP/M operating system. At about 30 KB, however, M-DOS was unfortunately too big for an 8-bit environment and so ended up being relegated to the back room. [...]"

or

"[...] At that meeting, Paterson was introduced to Microsoft's M-DOS, which he found interesting because it used a system for keeping track of disk files - the FAT developed for Stand-alone Disk BASIC - that was different from anything he had encountered. [...]"

or

"[...] So for fast, efficient file handling [in 86-DOS], he [Paterson] used a file allocation table, as Microsoft had done with Stand-alone Disk BASIC and M-DOS. [...]"

It's a pity that some individuals seem to be more obsessed with getting stuff they obviously don't like deleted by all means (including making false claims or attacking and trying to discredit constructive editors) than to actually help building an encyclopedia. The project is going to fail if we allow this kind of destruction to happen on a broader scale. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragon: That's somewhat in line with the points I made as well, although I came to somewhat different conclusions. Microsoft's MIDAS is notable for the context it existed in and for being the first operating system to implement FAT (excluding Stand-alone Disk BASIC, which wasn't a true operating system)) even before the advent of 86-DOS and MS-DOS. Some of that information is already discussed in the FAT article, as you suggest, but there are considerable differences between the FAT implementations of Stand-alone Disk BASIC (8-bit), MIDAS (8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, 16-bit), 86-DOS (12-bit) and MS-DOS (12-bit originally). These differences are important to know for historians and technicians to better understand how and why FAT was developed the way it was - including some otherwise unexplainable peculiarities. That's too much information to add this all to the FAT article, so the implementation-specific aspects should ideally be discussed in the context of their respective implementations (as it already happens for 86-DOS, MS-DOS and MSX-DOS). I plan to add similar information to Stand-alone Disk BASIC (for which I have collected enough reliable sources to go for it when time allows - but it took me several years actively searching for sources to find them) and MIDAS (for which I do have the information, but not yet the desired sources), so that we'd have a carefully rounded out discussion of the various related topics in the end, on which technical historians can reliably base their research on in the future. If we delete the MIDAS article, there is no place to put the information any more - and it is unlikely that it will be recreated given that the people in the know on such already historical topics are slowly dying out.

While the MIDAS article is still a stub and lacking, it has already grown over the years. And it already has five references, and from what I know about MIDAS does not contain wrong information. This makes me confident, that we'll have enough information for a neat article on this piece in a couple of years if we continue to develop it. If we delete it, we get nothing, and the net outcome for Wikipedia is negative. We cannot develop something by deleting it for being immature while still being developed, as some deletionists seem to believe. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is an area where wp has and should continue to have comprehensive coverage. The practical aspects of computer science were our earliest strength, and w remain perhaps the best current reference. Articles on topics of possible historic importance should be kept, even though they may have relatively weak documentation. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting Unreleased article or O/S is nott policy of WP AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already publicly readable. Its topic being an unreleased OS is not a problem in itself. The real problem is the scarcity of reliable sources. — Keφr 10:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kephir:Then we must search for reliable source,help it for expanding and if necessary mark it as stub rather then deleting.AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 12:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We searched, we failed. The only two sources found are the two listed above: for all we know, there are no others. You will be struggling to write a paragraph based on that. Keeping it marked as "stub" indefinitely is out of the question. What else? Merge maybe? Where? — Keφr 12:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadline (WP:DEADLINE and WP:TIAD) - since developing articles is an incremental process and sometimes those knowledgable enough to further develop an article are few and far between and they may stop by here only by accident, I would have absolutely no problems to keep it as stub for a decade or longer, for as long as it can at least provide a little bit of useful and reliable information on a topic - and, I think, it already does that even in its currently very basic form - most people don't know anything about it, so having an entry for MIDAS explaining what it was (and that it's not the same as MS-DOS) is already much better than not discussing it at all. It's normal for an encyclopedia to have short as well as long entries - not every article needs to become a great or featured article in the end.

Regarding sources, in addition to the two sources mentioned above we do already have at least three more published sources (and have at least two independent Wikipedians (User:MarcMcd and User:Petervee), who claim to own copies of them and offered to make them available):

• Microsoft Disk Operating System (MDOS), Copyright 1979 Microsoft, Bellevue, WA
• Microsoft Disk Operating System Technical Manual (MDOS), Copyright 1979, Microsoft, Bellevue, WA
• Microsoft Interrupt Driven Asynchronous System, User's manual, Copyright 1980 Microsoft

While these are primary sources and may not be written from a neutral point of view, we can at least derive undisputable basic technical information from them like a description of the operating system's architecture or its command set, information you just deleted from the article claiming they were unferenced and broken ([1]) although they weren't ([2]). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deadline, and it is expiring as we speak. Those are published sources? Point me to a library where I can read them. Or a book store. Please. — Keφr 12:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Marc McDonald. Did multiple runs of several main databases (PQ/LN/JSTOR) and historical databases (Historical Abstracts, EBSCO History of Science, Technology, Medicine). Other than the two books mentioned above, the only other real hit is:

"TECHNOLOGY; Back to the Fold for a Former Microsoft Employee." The New York Times. January 12, 2001 Friday . Date Accessed: 2014/10/25. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

which is to say that we don't have much on this topic, and the stuff that we do have is centered around McDonald. Theoretically, more content may exist in a box somewhere, but as it stands, this topic doesn't meet the significant coverage part of the GNG and would be best displayed in McDonald's article (perhaps as its own section). This merge would not preclude later expansion (or subsequent summary style spin-out) but is more about giving a home for this content proportional to the information available about it. (After the merge, I also recommend redirecting M-DOS and My DOS to MDOS (disambiguation) to save the hatnote confusion.) Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Marc McDonald per Czar - sourcing is thin and centered around McDonald, but exists.Dialectric (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Marc McDonald per Czar. Thin sourcing for this article, but it is important that we keep it as it is very interesting relevant and accurate information. Maybe add a redirect incase anyone is looking for it. --Obsidi (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.