On 28 Apr 2006 05:24:21 -0700
"pbetti" wrote:

> I am preparing my system for a migration from CP/M 2.2 standard to
> (nzcom) Z-System.
> Apart from the usage of ZCPR 3.3/3.4 the question is: as a substitute
> for the BDOS is better to use ZSDOS or Z80DOS? Which of the two could
> be considered better for the Z-System (or better in general) ?

While I am biased, I would recommended ZSDOS since it was written to be
compatible with nzcom (and tested), and offers more flexibility than
Z80DOS. The non-banked ZSDOS version 1.x is what you want for this, not
the ZSDOS2 for the B/P Bios which is banked.

Hal

Hal wrote:

>On 28 Apr 2006 05:24:21 -0700
>"pbetti" wrote:
>
>> I am preparing my system for a migration from CP/M 2.2 standard to
>> (nzcom) Z-System.
>> Apart from the usage of ZCPR 3.3/3.4 the question is: as a substitute
>> for the BDOS is better to use ZSDOS or Z80DOS? Which of the two could
>> be considered better for the Z-System (or better in general) ?
>
>While I am biased, I would recommended ZSDOS since it was written to be
>compatible with nzcom (and tested), and offers more flexibility than
>Z80DOS. The non-banked ZSDOS version 1.x is what you want for this, not
>the ZSDOS2 for the B/P Bios which is banked.
>
I'll vouch for Hal's and
Cam's work too -- definitely
the ultimate DOS package for
CP/M 2.2 compatible Z-System.
The source is quite an
exercise in sound-but-clever
coding techniques too -- a
whole lot of functionality is
packed into those 3.5 kbytes!



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Hal wrote:
> "pbetti" wrote:
>
>> I am preparing my system for a migration from CP/M 2.2 standard
>> to (nzcom) Z-System.
>> Apart from the usage of ZCPR 3.3/3.4 the question is: as a substitute
>> for the BDOS is better to use ZSDOS or Z80DOS? Which of the two could
>> be considered better for the Z-System (or better in general) ?
>
> While I am biased, I would recommended ZSDOS since it was written to
> be compatible with nzcom (and tested), and offers more flexibility
> than Z80DOS. The non-banked ZSDOS version 1.x is what you want for
> this, not the ZSDOS2 for the B/P Bios which is banked.

And I have similar biases for DOSPLUS 2.5, which the associated
CCPLUS. I wrote these because I was highly dissatisfied with the
methods of configuring ZCPR, and the features available. My system
is dynamically configurable, and does not require any reassemblies,
yet it fits in the exact space of the original BDOS/CCP, but
requires a Z80. You can find out all about it with various
downloads from:



which gives you full binaries, source, auxiliaries, etc. It gives
you most of the features of CP/M 3, and much better security.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at:
Also see

CBFalconer wrote:

>Hal wrote:
>> "pbetti" wrote:
>>
>>> I am preparing my system for a migration from CP/M 2.2 standard
>>> to (nzcom) Z-System.
>>> Apart from the usage of ZCPR 3.3/3.4 the question is: as a substitute
>>> for the BDOS is better to use ZSDOS or Z80DOS? Which of the two could
>>> be considered better for the Z-System (or better in general) ?
>>
>> While I am biased, I would recommended ZSDOS since it was written to
>> be compatible with nzcom (and tested), and offers more flexibility
>> than Z80DOS. The non-banked ZSDOS version 1.x is what you want for
>> this, not the ZSDOS2 for the B/P Bios which is banked.
>
>And I have similar biases for DOSPLUS 2.5, which the associated
>CCPLUS. I wrote these because I was highly dissatisfied with the
>methods of configuring ZCPR, and the features available. My system
>is dynamically configurable, and does not require any reassemblies,
>yet it fits in the exact space of the original BDOS/CCP, but
>requires a Z80.

Exactly the same in those
respects as ZSDOS/ZDDOS,
except that ZS/ZD are
distributed in the ".ZRL"
relocatable form required
by NZCOM and are designed
to interact correctly with
the ZCPR 3.4 command
processor and all the
Z-System conventions that
evolved over the years. I
think the most relevant
difference is that Hal and
Cam worked in coordination
with all the other major
Z-System developers while
C.B. gestated his babies
independently -- which if
one is already committed
to NZCOM is a disadvantage
for his undoubtedly fine
work.

>You can find out all about it with various
>downloads from:
>
>
>
>which gives you full binaries, source, auxiliaries, etc. It gives
>you most of the features of CP/M 3, and much better security.




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Thanks to all for the suggestions!
I've switched to ZSDOS successfully and implemented some assembling
scripts that i think to publish on the web next days. Nothing so
exceptional but a way to switch easily from one OS component to
another, cross assembling source code on a Linux machine with zmac
(linux zmac not the cp/m one).
Unfortunately ZSDOS migration shows up a bug in deblocking routines
that i'm trying to fix these days (well... nights is more
appropriate...).
I'm also experiencing some strangeness in ZSDOS utilities. COPY
program, for an example, do absolutely nothing on startup, doesn't show
initial signon message and return to the prompt immediately.
Some suggestion on this would be really appreciated !!!