From: psychonaut@nothingisreal.com   
      
   Greetings.   
      
   On 25/01/2020 14.34, Lawrence Woodman wrote:   
   > I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but one thing that they did do is bring   
   > a common platform to million's of computers at a relatively low cost   
   > compared to CP/M.   
      
      
   I take it you're referring to the huge difference in price IBM was   
   charging for the two operating systems: according to Ars Technica [1],   
   this was $40 for PC-DOS (a licensed version of Microsoft's MS-DOS)   
   versus $240 for Digital's CP/M-86.  But the same article suggests that   
   the overpricing of CP/M-86 may have been IBM's decision rather than   
   Digital's.  At least, this is what Gary Kildall believed.  So Microsoft   
   may not have been responsible for making their OS available at a   
   "relatively" low cost.   
      
   Regards,   
   Tristan   
      
   [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/07/ibm-pc-history-part-2/   
      
   --   
   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-   
                     Tristan Miller   
   Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist   
                https://logological.org/   
   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)