From: kludge@panix.com
yeti wrote:
>"internetado" writes:
>
>> Had Digital Research, the company CP/M
>> creator Gary Kildall set up to sell CP/M, accepted the deal with IBM
>> to make CP/M the default operating system for the then newly-created
>> IBM PC, we'd be living in a very different world today.
You could get CP/M-86 with the PC for a small fee, or PC-DOS for free,
or a couple other options including the UCSD P-System. Most people got
MS-DOS because they didn't have a need or know about the software available
already for CP/M-86. Note that what was available for CP/M-86 was a tiny
fraction of what was available for CP/M 2.2 on the 8080, even if it was a
lot more than was available for CP/M-68K.
>CP/M was reimplemented by Seattle Computer Products as "Quick and Dirty
>Operation System"[0] and later Microsoft bought it and stripped the
>"Quick and" and kept DOS as name. Shouldn't that once and forever
>explain how to read the "D" of "DOS"? o;-)
I wouldn't call Q-DOS and the later PC-DOS reimplementations of CP/M.
The user interface was more or less modelled on CP/M but with a lot of
important things done wrong because the people who did it didn't really
understand CP/M and because engineers shouldn't write code.
It does have lineage from CP/M but less than the lineage CP/M has from
RT-11. Notice that you use the PIP command to copy files in CP/M like
in RT-11 while PC-DOS introduces COPY, for instance.
>I used CP/M-Z80 for a while and when MSDOS appeared, I avoided it for a
>long time, but when I finally had to do some stuff on it, I immediately
>felt kind of at home due to the similar structure of the OS function
>calls. That felt strange. Maybe even a bit shady.
It's less like RT-11, sadly. And the memory map is very strange to someone
used to writing CP-M 2.2 code.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
