Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS - CP/M

This is a discussion on Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS - CP/M ; Hey guys! I was poking around at CP/M documentation, and found alot of information pertaining to the BDOS, and CP/M in general, but what I've really been looking for is something specifically focusing on the BIOS. Does anyone know of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

  1. Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    Hey guys!

    I was poking around at CP/M documentation, and found alot of
    information pertaining to the BDOS, and CP/M in general, but what I've
    really been looking for is something specifically focusing on the BIOS.
    Does anyone know of such documentation?

    Thanks,
    Craig


  2. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    On 5 Jun 2006 15:10:41 -0700, "Craig M"
    wrote:

    >Hey guys!
    >
    >I was poking around at CP/M documentation, and found alot of
    >information pertaining to the BDOS, and CP/M in general, but what I've
    >really been looking for is something specifically focusing on the BIOS.
    > Does anyone know of such documentation?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Craig


    CP/M Alteration Guide is a starting point and the reference. Another
    must have is "The Programmers CP/M handbook, Andy Johnson-Laird
    Osbone Associates".

    The first is available on line and the second is out of print but you
    may find it around.

    Allison


  3. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    The BIOS has to be written by the system implementor for the target
    hardware (where a "disk" can be any storage device at all, not
    necessarily a disk, either hard or floppy). The System Alteration
    Guide, one of the CP/M manuals, tells an experienced programmer all that
    he needs to know of what the rest of CP/M (really the BDOS) expects of
    the BIOS .... there is enough there to write a BIOS for any target
    system, but the assumption is that the reader (who is presumed to be the
    BIOS author) is a professional systems programmer and knows what he is
    doing. CP/M was never intended to be implemented by "end users".


    Craig M wrote:

    > Hey guys!
    >
    > I was poking around at CP/M documentation, and found alot of
    > information pertaining to the BDOS, and CP/M in general, but what I've
    > really been looking for is something specifically focusing on the BIOS.
    > Does anyone know of such documentation?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Craig
    >


  4. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS


    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > The BIOS has to be written by the system implementor for the target
    > hardware (where a "disk" can be any storage device at all, not
    > necessarily a disk, either hard or floppy). The System Alteration
    > Guide, one of the CP/M manuals, tells an experienced programmer all that
    > he needs to know of what the rest of CP/M (really the BDOS) expects of
    > the BIOS .... there is enough there to write a BIOS for any target
    > system, but the assumption is that the reader (who is presumed to be the
    > BIOS author) is a professional systems programmer and knows what he is
    > doing. CP/M was never intended to be implemented by "end users".
    >
    >

    Thanks to both of you guys for pointing me in the right direction! And
    also thanks for the warning, though I was pretty sure about what I'm
    getting my self into, I just couldn't find a resource that lays out
    exactly what BDOS wants.
    Thanks!


  5. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    *** top-posting fixed ***
    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > Craig M wrote:
    >>
    >> I was poking around at CP/M documentation, and found alot of
    >> information pertaining to the BDOS, and CP/M in general, but what
    >> I've really been looking for is something specifically focusing
    >> on the BIOS. Does anyone know of such documentation?

    >
    > The BIOS has to be written by the system implementor for the target
    > hardware (where a "disk" can be any storage device at all, not
    > necessarily a disk, either hard or floppy). The System Alteration
    > Guide, one of the CP/M manuals, tells an experienced programmer all
    > that he needs to know of what the rest of CP/M (really the BDOS)
    > expects of the BIOS .... there is enough there to write a BIOS for
    > any target system, but the assumption is that the reader (who is
    > presumed to be the BIOS author) is a professional systems
    > programmer and knows what he is doing. CP/M was never intended to
    > be implemented by "end users".


    When CP/M was promulgated, there were very few "end users" who were
    not also accomplished programmers.

    --
    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
    They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
    and our people, and neither do we." -- G. W. Bush.
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being
    attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
    and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way
    in any country." --Hermann Goering.


  6. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    I beg to differ. That may have been the plan, but lots of people bought
    those systems (Altair, IMSAI, Processor Tech, etc.) who had never done
    any serious programming in their entire lives.


    CBFalconer wrote:

    >
    >
    > When CP/M was promulgated, there were very few "end users" who were
    > not also accomplished programmers.
    >


  7. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    *** top-posting fixed ***
    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > CBFalconer wrote:
    >
    >> When CP/M was promulgated, there were very few "end users" who were
    >> not also accomplished programmers.

    >
    > I beg to differ. That may have been the plan, but lots of people
    > bought those systems (Altair, IMSAI, Processor Tech, etc.) who had
    > never done any serious programming in their entire lives.


    The early users bought CP/M set up for an Intellec system, and had
    to write their own bioses. I was one.

    Please do not top-post, and please do not send e-mail copies of
    newsgroup postings.

    --
    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
    They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
    and our people, and neither do we." -- G. W. Bush.
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being
    attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
    and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way
    in any country." --Hermann Goering.


  8. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS


    "Craig M" wrote in message
    news:1149557069.312898.143210@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
    >
    > Barry Watzman wrote:
    >> The BIOS has to be written by the system implementor for the target
    >> hardware (where a "disk" can be any storage device at all, not
    >> necessarily a disk, either hard or floppy). The System Alteration
    >> Guide, one of the CP/M manuals, tells an experienced programmer all
    >> that
    >> he needs to know of what the rest of CP/M (really the BDOS) expects
    >> of
    >> the BIOS .... there is enough there to write a BIOS for any target
    >> system, but the assumption is that the reader (who is presumed to be
    >> the
    >> BIOS author) is a professional systems programmer and knows what he
    >> is
    >> doing. CP/M was never intended to be implemented by "end users".
    >>
    >>

    > Thanks to both of you guys for pointing me in the right direction!
    > And
    > also thanks for the warning, though I was pretty sure about what I'm
    > getting my self into, I just couldn't find a resource that lays out
    > exactly what BDOS wants.
    > Thanks!


    After reading the System Alteration Guide, it may be helpful to look at
    a few well commented BIOS sources as examples of what the requirements
    do (and do not) mean. Besides the example BIOS in the Guide, Harold F.
    Bower's 'Banked and Portable' BIOS, Compupro and Morrow BIOS sources
    from the Commercial CP-M software Archive, and the Conkey BIOS from the
    Walnut Creek CD or the VectorBoard BBS are all fairly well commented.



  9. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:40:15 -0400, CBFalconer
    wrote:

    >*** top-posting fixed ***
    >Barry Watzman wrote:
    >> CBFalconer wrote:
    >>
    >>> When CP/M was promulgated, there were very few "end users" who were
    >>> not also accomplished programmers.

    >>
    >> I beg to differ. That may have been the plan, but lots of people
    >> bought those systems (Altair, IMSAI, Processor Tech, etc.) who had
    >> never done any serious programming in their entire lives.

    >
    >The early users bought CP/M set up for an Intellec system, and had
    >to write their own bioses. I was one.
    >
    >Please do not top-post, and please do not send e-mail copies of
    >newsgroup postings.


    Same here. Early one you could get CP/M easily for any system as long
    as it was a intel MDS. That meant the process of alteration was
    common. Even when you could get it for say a NS* MDS disk it would
    still require IO configuration if you system was not a NS* Horizon
    and early on mine was an Altair with MDS. It would be more like
    1979(mid) before systems with preconfigured CP/M would widely appear
    for those non-assembly language programmer that were more interested
    in wpplications work.

    Allison

  10. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    I will post as I damn well please, and if you don't like it you can
    print it out and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. You are not the
    God of the internet and you have no right telling other people how to
    post. If you don't like the way someone posts, no one is holding a gun
    to your head making you read it. Insistance on telling people how to
    post is far more offensive than any specific style of posting.


    CBFalconer wrote:
    > *** top-posting fixed ***
    > Barry Watzman wrote:
    >
    >>CBFalconer wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>When CP/M was promulgated, there were very few "end users" who were
    >>>not also accomplished programmers.

    >>
    >>I beg to differ. That may have been the plan, but lots of people
    >>bought those systems (Altair, IMSAI, Processor Tech, etc.) who had
    >>never done any serious programming in their entire lives.

    >
    >
    > The early users bought CP/M set up for an Intellec system, and had
    > to write their own bioses. I was one.
    >
    > Please do not top-post, and please do not send e-mail copies of
    > newsgroup postings.
    >


  11. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    CBFalconer writes:


    >The early users bought CP/M set up for an Intellec system, and had
    >to write their own bioses. I was one.


    I started with a SD-Sales single-density Floppy-Controller, which
    could do _either_ 5.25 OR 8 Inch. It was delivered with both sort
    of boot-Floppys with CP/M 1.4[*]. I got an used 8-inch drive for about
    600 US-Dollar and had to invest in an exchange-drive.belt for 50Hz.
    This was in december 1979...
    In March 1980 I got the beast working, then a collegue with a high-
    end oszilloscop found, that an 74xx241 schmitt-trigger was not a
    good quartz-oszillator...

    greetings, Holger
    [*] later I#ve read, that a 1.4-CP/M for 5.25 inch was a rarity



  12. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    *** top-posting fixed ***
    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > CBFalconer wrote:
    >> Barry Watzman wrote:
    >>>CBFalconer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> When CP/M was promulgated, there were very few "end users" who were
    >>>> not also accomplished programmers.
    >>>
    >>> I beg to differ. That may have been the plan, but lots of people
    >>> bought those systems (Altair, IMSAI, Processor Tech, etc.) who had
    >>> never done any serious programming in their entire lives.

    >>
    >> The early users bought CP/M set up for an Intellec system, and had
    >> to write their own bioses. I was one.
    >>
    >> Please do not top-post, and please do not send e-mail copies of
    >> newsgroup postings.

    >
    > I will post as I damn well please, and if you don't like it you can
    > print it out and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. You are not
    > the God of the internet and you have no right telling other people
    > how to post. If you don't like the way someone posts, no one is
    > holding a gun to your head making you read it. Insistance on
    > telling people how to post is far more offensive than any specific
    > style of posting.


    Yes, my polite request to adhere to usenet norms was extremely
    rude. The fact that your postings are a nuisance to read for all
    matters little. You should feel perfectly free to continue to be
    offensive to all.

    --
    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
    They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
    and our people, and neither do we." -- G. W. Bush.
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being
    attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
    and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way
    in any country." --Hermann Goering.


  13. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    begin oe_protect.scr
    Barry Watzman espoused:



    Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    There is brutality and there is honesty. There is no such thing as brutal
    honesty.

  14. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    Holger Petersen wrote:
    >
    > CBFalconer writes:
    >
    > >The early users bought CP/M set up for an Intellec system, and had
    > >to write their own bioses. I was one.

    >
    > I started with a SD-Sales single-density Floppy-Controller, which
    > could do _either_ 5.25 OR 8 Inch. It was delivered with both sort
    > of boot-Floppys with CP/M 1.4[*]. I got an used 8-inch drive for about
    > 600 US-Dollar and had to invest in an exchange-drive.belt for 50Hz.
    > This was in december 1979...
    > In March 1980 I got the beast working, then a collegue with a high-
    > end oszilloscop found, that an 74xx241 schmitt-trigger was not a
    > good quartz-oszillator...
    >

    "You can always tell the pioneers: they're the ones
    with the arrows in their backs." ;-)

    --
    +----------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
    +----------------------------------------------------------------+

  15. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS


    "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    news:3o3hl3-v4g.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    > begin oe_protect.scr
    > Barry Watzman espoused:
    >
    >
    >
    > Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    > ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.


    I find top-posting easier to follow, as you read each response.
    You have ignored the insulting political foot note from CBFalconer.
    Is that acceptable netiquette?

    Laurie




  16. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    Laurie Boshell wrote:
    > "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >> Barry Watzman espoused:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    >> ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.

    >
    > I find top-posting easier to follow, as you read each response.
    > You have ignored the insulting political foot note from CBFalconer.
    > Is that acceptable netiquette?


    No footnote. That was a sig, as is the following, and it varies.
    I try to confine them to known facts or actual quotes. If you
    consider that insulting, blame the actual source.

    Among other evils, top-posting leads to failure to snip, and
    excessively long articles.

    --
    Some informative links:
    news:news.announce.newusers
    http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
    http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html


  17. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    Laurie Boshell wrote:
    > "Mark Kent" wrote in message


    (snip)

    >>Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    >>ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.


    > I find top-posting easier to follow, as you read each response.
    > You have ignored the insulting political foot note from CBFalconer.
    > Is that acceptable netiquette?


    For a one line reply to a long post, and which is unlikely to need
    any follow up, top posting works better. If I can't find anything
    useful in the first or second screen, (15 lines each on my current
    browser), and sometimes only the first, I won't scroll down any further.

    Maybe others do, but if no-one is going to read it at the bottom,
    there is no point in posting it there.

    If a follow up is expected, then it should go at the appropriate point
    such that a follow up makes sense. Appropriate snipping such that one
    can follow the discussion, but such that a reasonable fraction of the
    reply is new, and it is best if some of the reply starts in the first
    15 lines.

    -- glen


  18. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:35:23 -0400, CBFalconer
    wrote:

    >Laurie Boshell wrote:
    >> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >>> Barry Watzman espoused:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    >>> ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.

    >>
    >> I find top-posting easier to follow, as you read each response.
    >> You have ignored the insulting political foot note from CBFalconer.
    >> Is that acceptable netiquette?

    >
    >No footnote. That was a sig, as is the following, and it varies.
    >I try to confine them to known facts or actual quotes. If you
    >consider that insulting, blame the actual source.
    >
    >Among other evils, top-posting leads to failure to snip, and
    >excessively long articles.
    >
    >--
    > Some informative links:
    > news:news.announce.newusers
    > http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
    > http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html



    I don't ever recall seeing calling someone out for their posting style
    produce a positive change. I wish everyone bottom posted or used
    interspersed replies - all with liberal snippage - but it won't
    happen. I do appreciate the chuckle that comes from reference to
    netiquette when "Usenetiquette" calls for a maximum of 4 lines in the
    signature. ;-)

  19. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:50:48 GMT, "Laurie Boshell"
    wrote:

    >
    >"Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >news:3o3hl3-v4g.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >> begin oe_protect.scr
    >> Barry Watzman espoused:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    >> ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.

    >
    >I find top-posting easier to follow, as you read each response.
    >You have ignored the insulting political foot note from CBFalconer.
    >Is that acceptable netiquette?
    >
    >Laurie
    >


    As a very long time poster to usenet the top post is a fairly recent
    event and propagated by the present of the evil scorge M$ and
    Outlook.

    In former years I've seen top posting get the writer flamed to a
    crisp.

    Lastly not snipping the post is as bad sometimes as top posting.
    However sometimes it can and has lead to flamewars do to lost
    context from snipped text.

    Myself I tend to do all. I'll top post if the group conventions
    allows it. I prefer to inline comment and have done that here.
    Same for bottom comment.

    Also sometimes it's just not important enough to make a
    big stink about.

    Allison


  20. Re: Documentation focusing specifically on the BIOS

    glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
    > Laurie Boshell wrote:
    >> "Mark Kent" wrote in message

    >
    > (snip)
    >
    >>> Top-posting is awful, please don't do it. Abuse is worse, and
    >>> ingnorance if netiquette is just plain rude.

    >
    >> I find top-posting easier to follow, as you read each response.
    >> You have ignored the insulting political foot note from CBFalconer.
    >> Is that acceptable netiquette?

    >
    > For a one line reply to a long post, and which is unlikely to need
    > any follow up, top posting works better. If I can't find anything
    > useful in the first or second screen, (15 lines each on my current
    > browser), and sometimes only the first, I won't scroll down any further.


    For heavens sake, just snip the non-relevant portions and
    bottom-post. A one line reply can't possibly refer to the whole of
    a long post, unless it's a me-too, and that just shouldn't be
    posted at all.

    --
    Some informative links:
    news:news.announce.newusers
    http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
    http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast