IBM Clown "Easter Egg" - CP/M

This is a discussion on IBM Clown "Easter Egg" - CP/M ; "Udo Munk" wrote in message news an.2007.10.11.17.29.43.502805@unix4fun.org... > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:01:39 -0400, Tom Lake wrote: > >> OK, I give up. What's an "IBM Clown"? Is it like Pennywise >> without the humor? >> >> Tom Lake ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

  1. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"



    "Udo Munk" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.10.11.17.29.43.502805@unix4fun.org...
    > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:01:39 -0400, Tom Lake wrote:
    >
    >> OK, I give up. What's an "IBM Clown"? Is it like Pennywise
    >> without the humor?
    >>
    >> Tom Lake

    >
    > No, with the humor. This IBM PC came with an OS cloned from CP/M 2 and
    > later the machine also was cloned it self by other manufacturers. The
    > whole machine and the OS just was a joke, no one would do such a bad
    > design intentionally. And how much did we laugh about the joke, that no
    > one ever would need the whole 640KB memory. Very funny when you run Z80H
    > machines twice as fast than that IBM machine and with AM90xx math
    > processor and 1MB memory and then someone tells jokes like that ;-) And
    > because this was so funny the machine is called an IBM Clown, pun intended
    > (clone).


    But think about the mainstream computers of 1981: The TRS-80
    (48K, 1.78 MHz Z-80), PET (32K 1 MHz 6502) Apple II (48K 1 MHz 6502),
    generic CP/M machines (64K, 4MHz Z-80). Certainly computer hobbiests had
    better machines but the vast majority of computer users were limited to
    the above (or similar) machines. 640K was at least ten times the memory
    in the most commonly available hardware and 4.77 MHz was quite
    adequate speed. The fact that it used 16-bit instructions (with hardware
    multiply and divide yet!) was gravy.

    The statement that 640K should be enough was no joke. It certainly seemed
    like it would be plenty for the foreseeable future back then.

    Tom Lake


  2. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:03:25 -0800, glen herrmannsfeldt
    wrote:

    >roche182@laposte.net wrote:
    >
    >(snip)
    >
    >> Regarding LLL: Never forget that it is dated 1975, and we all know
    >> that Gary Kildall had already PL/M running in 1972/3 (I gave the exact
    >> dates in one of my messages).

    >
    >For the 8008? I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >
    >-- glen


    The i8080 announcement was late 1973 and first parts were early 1974.

    First parts were white ceramic, gold eutetic lid with gold kovar side
    brazed leads.


    Allison

  3. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:14:30 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    wrote:

    >
    >"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    >news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >> Donald Harris wrote:
    >>
    >> (I wrote)
    >>>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.

    >>
    >>> A friend showed me the first 8080 in 1973. I don't think it
    >>> had been announced yet.

    >>
    >> The Altair 8800 was announced in the January 1975 Popular
    >> Electronics, which, as usual came out in December 1974.
    >> (I remember mailing away for the PC board plans just before
    >> we went away for christmas.)


    I ordered mine in December 1974 around the 11th. Those that
    remember PE also remember if the mail was good the average
    issue would arrive a month before the cover date.

    I jumped on the MITS crate as I'd already had info on 8080 chip
    and new of it.


    >> I would expect that the 8080 wasn't announced long before
    >> that, or there would have been many 8080 based computers.
    >>
    >> -- glen
    >>

    >We received our copy from Intel of the original "Preliminary Release"
    >documentation dated March 1974, and several samples of the P8080 in ceramic
    >package with gold leads by mid to late summer of that same year. It took
    >time to take in the power that this new technology provided, and with
    >Intel's release of the MDS system (of which we were of the first to
    >receive), it followed in short order that a common bus structure would be
    >agreed upon (originally announced in the January 1975 issue of Poplar
    >Electronics), credited to Ed Roberts and cohort Bill Yates, later to be
    >known as the S-100 bus.
    >


    Back then to even proto a machine took months so the tiime scale is
    definately cosistant.

    Allison


  4. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:31:12 -0400, "Tom Lake"
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >"Udo Munk" wrote in message
    >newsan.2007.10.11.17.29.43.502805@unix4fun.org...
    >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:01:39 -0400, Tom Lake wrote:
    >>
    >>> OK, I give up. What's an "IBM Clown"? Is it like Pennywise
    >>> without the humor?
    >>>
    >>> Tom Lake

    >>
    >> No, with the humor. This IBM PC came with an OS cloned from CP/M 2 and
    >> later the machine also was cloned it self by other manufacturers. The
    >> whole machine and the OS just was a joke, no one would do such a bad
    >> design intentionally. And how much did we laugh about the joke, that no
    >> one ever would need the whole 640KB memory. Very funny when you run Z80H
    >> machines twice as fast than that IBM machine and with AM90xx math
    >> processor and 1MB memory and then someone tells jokes like that ;-) And
    >> because this was so funny the machine is called an IBM Clown, pun intended
    >> (clone).


    First I despise the term IBM clown, once is cute, twice is boorish and
    after that it's use is childish. The terms PC or clone in this day
    and age are already loaded enough to convay some level of disdain.

    >But think about the mainstream computers of 1981: The TRS-80
    >(48K, 1.78 MHz Z-80),


    Intrroduction date more like 1977.

    > PET (32K 1 MHz 6502) around the same time



    Apple II (48K 1 MHz 6502), Also 1977-78

    >generic CP/M machines (64K, 4MHz Z-80).


    Around late 77 and after for most.

    The point being that by 1981 those market segments were mature
    and moving toward the next generation. Added to that some of those
    systems were becomming fairly sophisticated, for example:

    TRS80 LDOS OS, and double denity two side storage.
    CP/M systems going to larger memory models , extended memory,
    hard disks, improved reengineered versions of CP/M (ZCPR).

    Leading up to the IBM PC introduction. IBM name legitimized the idea
    of a computer being personal and for the massses. It also pointed
    the way to one possible 16bit implementation. It didn't however sweep
    the others away due to it's high cost, lack of software and DOS was
    no real improvent over CP/M or LDOS.


    >better machines but the vast majority of computer users were limited to
    >the above (or similar) machines. 640K was at least ten times the memory
    >in the most commonly available hardware and 4.77 MHz was quite
    >adequate speed. The fact that it used 16-bit instructions (with hardware
    >multiply and divide yet!) was gravy.

    It's that 4.77mhz was half the speed of the 808x of the day. It was
    not fast and compared to Z80 at 4mhz it was at best as fast. Since
    addressing was segmented that 640k was more of an illusion. More
    hype than reality as few could afford that full boat for a few more
    years. However if you had 8088 and started programming it the you
    discovered segmentation and it's overhead. Also large memory
    space as CP/M S100 crates of the day could address 1MB (some 16mb)
    were not unknown. The typical single board Z80s were typically Z80h
    (6 or 8mhz), 128k or 256k with memory management. The speed cost
    for Z80 memory management is no worse or better but the Z80s were
    typically pushing faster than 4.77mhz. It didn't hurt that S100 and
    8088 were also easily done and most were faster too.

    The harsh reality was that theearly 8088/8086 PC was competing
    against more mature systems often with as good or better software. It
    was not cheap either.

    >The statement that 640K should be enough was no joke. It certainly seemed
    >like it would be plenty for the foreseeable future back then.


    Bloat and segmentation. Most everyone forgets that going to the
    large model always seemed a bit slower due to segment management
    costs.


    Allison

  5. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"


    wrote in message
    news:v0qug39dn5n0hgoj2fssn5cp01g6fosh6u@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:14:30 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    >>news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>> Donald Harris wrote:
    >>>
    >>> (I wrote)
    >>>>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >>>

    (snip)
    >
    >>> I would expect that the 8080 wasn't announced long before
    >>> that, or there would have been many 8080 based computers.
    >>>
    >>> -- glen
    >>>

    >>We received our copy from Intel of the original "Preliminary Release"
    >>documentation dated March 1974, and several samples of the P8080 in
    >>ceramic
    >>package with gold leads by mid to late summer of that same year. It took
    >>time to take in the power that this new technology provided, and with
    >>Intel's release of the MDS system (of which we were of the first to
    >>receive), it followed in short order that a common bus structure would be
    >>agreed upon (originally announced in the January 1975 issue of Poplar
    >>Electronics), credited to Ed Roberts and cohort Bill Yates, later to be
    >>known as the S-100 bus.
    >>

    >
    > Back then to even proto a machine took months so the tiime scale is
    > definately cosistant.
    >
    > Allison
    >

    Allison-

    I expected you to correct me for using the wrong designation for the first
    Intel 8080 chips; the actual imprint for the first parts in the white
    ceramic package was C8080, not "P" as I had earlier posted. The C8080
    required a third-overtone crystal and external pi filter consisting of two
    caps and an inductor for the overlapping clock circuitry. If memory serves
    me, the later C8080A had an improved die design and would now run with a
    cheaper and more plentiful fundamental crystal of 2 MHz. The early IMSAI
    MPU-A boards can be spotted by the larger crystal and yellow inductor. We
    continued to use up remaining parts in inventory until summer of 1976 when
    we now provided the smaller crystal and dropped the inductor from the
    circuitry.

    Regards,



  6. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    > It's that 4.77mhz was half the speed of the 808x of the day. It was
    > not fast and compared to Z80 at 4mhz it was at best as fast. Since
    > addressing was segmented that 640k was more of an illusion. More
    > hype than reality as few could afford that full boat for a few more
    > years. However if you had 8088 and started programming it the you
    > discovered segmentation and it's overhead. Also large memory
    > space as CP/M S100 crates of the day could address 1MB (some 16mb)
    > were not unknown. The typical single board Z80s were typically Z80h
    > (6 or 8mhz), 128k or 256k with memory management. The speed cost
    > for Z80 memory management is no worse or better but the Z80s were
    > typically pushing faster than 4.77mhz. It didn't hurt that S100 and
    > 8088 were also easily done and most were faster too.


    Again, you're talking about high-end machines that most people
    didn't have. By 1981, S-100 machines were well in decline (again
    I'm talking about us typical users, not hobbyists).
    In 1981, there were more 16K-48K TRS-80s in use
    than all other microcomputers combined. As I said, the vast
    majority of users thought that 640K was almost a fantasyland of excess.

    Tom Lake

  7. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:03:07 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    wrote:

    >
    > wrote in message
    >news:v0qug39dn5n0hgoj2fssn5cp01g6fosh6u@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:14:30 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    >>>news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>>> Donald Harris wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> (I wrote)
    >>>>>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >>>>

    >(snip)
    >>
    >>>> I would expect that the 8080 wasn't announced long before
    >>>> that, or there would have been many 8080 based computers.
    >>>>
    >>>> -- glen
    >>>>
    >>>We received our copy from Intel of the original "Preliminary Release"
    >>>documentation dated March 1974, and several samples of the P8080 in
    >>>ceramic
    >>>package with gold leads by mid to late summer of that same year. It took
    >>>time to take in the power that this new technology provided, and with
    >>>Intel's release of the MDS system (of which we were of the first to
    >>>receive), it followed in short order that a common bus structure would be
    >>>agreed upon (originally announced in the January 1975 issue of Poplar
    >>>Electronics), credited to Ed Roberts and cohort Bill Yates, later to be
    >>>known as the S-100 bus.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Back then to even proto a machine took months so the tiime scale is
    >> definately cosistant.
    >>
    >> Allison
    >>

    >Allison-
    >
    >I expected you to correct me for using the wrong designation for the first
    >Intel 8080 chips; the actual imprint for the first parts in the white
    >ceramic package was C8080, not "P" as I had earlier posted.


    Why? I try not to get that pendantic, hence my use of the i8080
    generic form. On the bright side you didn't correct my typing
    induced spelling flubs.

    > The C8080
    >required a third-overtone crystal and external pi filter consisting of two
    >caps and an inductor for the overlapping clock circuitry. If memory serves
    >me, the later C8080A had an improved die design and would now run with a
    >cheaper and more plentiful fundamental crystal of 2 MHz.


    Actually the 8080 didn't use a crystal as clock generation was
    external and delivered as a non overlaping two phase 12V signals.

    the 8224 was the clock generator and used the 18.mumble mhz crystal
    to generate 2mhz. Availability and cost lead to most early designs
    using some form of TTL osc of the two gate variety, 2mhz crystal and
    oneshots to create the needed timing. Many variations were used to
    get those TTL based oscillators to behave. The usual problem with
    that design was either not oscillating at all or taking off at the 2nd
    or even third harmonic of the crystal mucking up timing.

    My altair had most of those clock ills. My first pass was replacing
    the TTL osc with a two transistor design that was stable and provided
    a clean signal. Second pass was sorting out oneshot timing. Third
    pass was rip it all up and put down an 8224. I still avoid oneshots
    to this day from that.

    >The early IMSAI
    >MPU-A boards can be spotted by the larger crystal and yellow inductor. We
    >continued to use up remaining parts in inventory until summer of 1976 when
    >we now provided the smaller crystal and dropped the inductor from the
    >circuitry.


    It was fun back then.


    Allison


  8. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:31:12 -0400, "Tom Lake"
    wrote:

    > > It's that 4.77mhz was half the speed of the 808x of the day. It was
    >> not fast and compared to Z80 at 4mhz it was at best as fast. Since
    >> addressing was segmented that 640k was more of an illusion. More
    >> hype than reality as few could afford that full boat for a few more
    >> years. However if you had 8088 and started programming it the you
    >> discovered segmentation and it's overhead. Also large memory
    >> space as CP/M S100 crates of the day could address 1MB (some 16mb)
    >> were not unknown. The typical single board Z80s were typically Z80h
    >> (6 or 8mhz), 128k or 256k with memory management. The speed cost
    >> for Z80 memory management is no worse or better but the Z80s were
    >> typically pushing faster than 4.77mhz. It didn't hurt that S100 and
    >> 8088 were also easily done and most were faster too.

    >
    >Again, you're talking about high-end machines that most people
    >didn't have.


    I did see that there were the small systems of just barely proportions
    and [people trying to do things with systems that had significant
    hardware. If you could not afford the bigger systems the PC was out
    of reach!

    >By 1981, S-100 machines were well in decline (again
    >I'm talking about us typical users, not hobbyists).


    I feel and believe based on being ther that that was more like 1984-5
    being the decline for S100. However in '81 there appeared more
    integrated single board systems with all the meat of a S100 crate.

    >In 1981, there were more 16K-48K TRS-80s in use
    >than all other microcomputers combined.


    That may be true, but it's sounds biased. Most were 16k
    as the expansion was expensive and early ones very flakey.
    Also many were scared off by the Tandy prices for things that
    lagged market prices. That made TRS80 appear expensive.
    But a small integrated system that was less hardware hacker
    and more software was clearly pointed out by TRS80 and Apple
    success.

    If anything I'd say by 1981 there were more systems (all forms)
    running CP/M with Apple running #2. though Apple also had the
    Softcard (Z80) and ran CP/M adding to the CP/M pile. Even TRS80
    could fun either teh relocated CP/M flavor or have a mod to relocate
    memory for standard CP/M map. My point here is not so "CP/M is the
    king" but more like people don't like to be isolated and an OS
    that could remove that wall was a desireable thing.

    What's interesting to me is the sometimes brand-centric views.
    I was clearly exception by 1981. I was not alone and there were many
    out there with hardware that dwarfed mine. I had three S100
    machines, NEC PDA80 (8080) running CP/M, COSMAC ELF,
    National SC/MP, 6800D1, Technico superstarter system (ti9900),
    TRS80 (two of them), PDP-11 (LSI-11/03), IMSAI Imp48(8035) and this
    made my views less married to one vendor or style. What I saw was a
    desire for practical computing that was driving cost/performance in a
    direction that was helpful to all.

    It was clear that 16bits, megabyte memory addressing, and faster
    cpus and lower cost were on the way and there was a need/market.
    What wasn't clear was what the average joe would do with it. We
    needed Lisa and the Mac to force the next level battles.

    What is clear and history is there. By 1981 most systems mentioned
    are mature hardware. The market growth rates were flattening out a
    bit. If users werent at the mature loaded system level it's likely
    more factor of when they jumped in and not how far. Also for those
    users that were "moving up" to larger ssytems the mature or beyond
    the next step was a whole lot of fuzzy choices. Lest we forget in
    1981 we had Motorola 68000, Zilog Z8000 and Intel 8086 in a marketing
    war for the 16bit and later markets. Also that that battle was
    around 2 years old by then.

    > As I said, the vast majority of users thought that 640K was almost
    > a fantasyland of excess.


    I was there, we[the group I knew] thought it to be more odd that they
    sucked up 384k for rom. The idea of megabyte sized ram was more a
    cost issue for most and the prices were dropping fast. Then again I
    was already hit and crossed over the 64k barrier then. By 1981 S100
    static ram boards were in the under $150 range and dropping. And I
    would have three in the system before the end of the year. Most of us
    viewed 640k as not a fantasyland but the next step and something
    to exploit. We had been working with 64k (address space) and finding
    that room to work was critical and that programming was segmenting
    work so that disks were carrying the big files that never fit in ram
    at that point.


    Allison
    >
    >Tom Lake



  9. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    wrote in message
    news:l72vg3lpjenn9da7mlal3udghkgk113h08@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:03:07 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> wrote in message
    >>news:v0qug39dn5n0hgoj2fssn5cp01g6fosh6u@4ax.com...
    >>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:14:30 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    >>>>news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>>>> Donald Harris wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> (I wrote)
    >>>>>>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >>>>>

    >>(snip)
    >>>

    >>I expected you to correct me for using the wrong designation for the first
    >>Intel 8080 chips; the actual imprint for the first parts in the white
    >>ceramic package was C8080, not "P" as I had earlier posted.

    >
    > Why? I try not to get that pendantic, hence my use of the i8080
    > generic form. On the bright side you didn't correct my typing
    > induced spelling flubs.


    Gotta be honest... I have long wondered how you managed to code without
    excruciating delays in debugging due to typos. But seems like you managed
    pretty darn well! I often watched IMSAIs former Chief Prgrammer Rob Barnaby
    code; his fingers FLEW! I don't think I ever saw anyone near as fast. How
    accurate is something I can't say with certainty, but he would occasionally
    break his demon pace in an obvious effort to correct an error. This was
    back when the primitive editors followed paper tape convention of using the
    "RUBOUT" routine rather than "BACKSPACE", usually several additional
    keystrokes.
    >
    >> The C8080
    >>required a third-overtone crystal and external pi filter


    (snip)

    > Actually the 8080 didn't use a crystal as clock generation was
    > external and delivered as a non overlaping two phase 12V signals.
    > the 8224 was the clock generator and used the 18.mumble mhz crystal
    > to generate 2mhz. Availability and cost lead to most early designs
    > using some form of TTL osc of the two gate variety, 2mhz crystal and
    > oneshots to create the needed timing. Many variations were used to
    > get those TTL based oscillators to behave. The usual problem with
    > that design was either not oscillating at all or taking off at the 2nd
    > or even third harmonic of the crystal mucking up timing.


    Absolutely correct! My error and oversight!
    >
    > My altair had most of those clock ills. My first pass was replacing
    > the TTL osc with a two transistor design that was stable and provided
    > a clean signal. Second pass was sorting out oneshot timing. Third
    > pass was rip it all up and put down an 8224. I still avoid oneshots
    > to this day from that.


    We pretty much followed the Intel-suggested architecture as did most others
    back then. One of the major frustrations was the single source of the Intel
    parts and subsequent shortages. We sold a large number of the 8028-based
    Priority Interrupt Controller boards (the IMSAI PIC-8), although I seldom
    saw a system come in for service that used one as such. Eventually, Intel
    licensed NEC, then AMD to second-source parts. This helped to a point.
    However, the first NEC parts (white ceramic with round steel lid) had a
    microcode bug that affected a register flag when using the DAA instruction.

    We found this out when a few purchasers in early 1977 brought this to our
    attention. Since we had a large inventory of the NEC parts and a tight
    market for availability of Intel or AMD parts, the resolution was to use the
    buggy chips in the IMSAI IFM Intelligent controller used with our
    first-generation floppy disk system. The IFM firmware code didn't require
    the DAA instruction, so we weathered that problem without too much grief.
    >
    >>The early IMSAI
    >>MPU-A boards can be spotted by the larger crystal and yellow inductor. We
    >>continued to use up remaining parts in inventory until summer of 1976 when
    >>we now provided the smaller crystal and dropped the inductor from the
    >>circuitry.

    >
    > It was fun back then.
    >


    And still is today! Regards, :<]


    >
    > Allison
    >




  10. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:29:46 +0200, Udo Munk
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:01:39 -0400, Tom Lake wrote:
    >
    >> OK, I give up. What's an "IBM Clown"? Is it like Pennywise
    >> without the humor?
    >>
    >> Tom Lake

    >
    >No, with the humor. This IBM PC came with an OS cloned from CP/M 2 and
    >later the machine also was cloned it self by other manufacturers. The
    >whole machine and the OS just was a joke, no one would do such a bad
    >design intentionally. And how much did we laugh about the joke, that no
    >one ever would need the whole 640KB memory. Very funny when you run Z80H
    >machines twice as fast than that IBM machine and with AM90xx math
    >processor and 1MB memory and then someone tells jokes like that ;-) And
    >because this was so funny the machine is called an IBM Clown, pun intended
    >(clone).
    >
    >Udo Munk


    The joke at the time was that IBM stood for "Inferior, But
    Marketable."

    Anyone who thinks that superior engineering beats out superior
    marketability is himself vying for "clown" status. ;-)


  11. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"



    "Jim Higgins" wrote in message
    news:2d7vg3p1r6id5do5hs43k7cskika8d2mms@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:29:46 +0200, Udo Munk
    > wrote:
    >
    > Anyone who thinks that superior engineering beats out superior
    > marketability is himself vying for "clown" status. ;-)


    Not I! Just look at Beta vs. VHS or HP vs. Texas Instruments
    calculators to see two examples of inferior products doing better
    than superior ones due to skillful marketing. (Some would extend the
    example to include Windows vs. Linux, too)

    Tom Lake


  12. was Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg" - source code from Andy J-L's CP/M book

    On Oct 7, 4:33 am, roche...@laposte.net wrote:
    > Several months ago, there was a discussion in the comp.os.cpm
    > Newsgroup mentioning that Gary Kildall had shown something (an "easter
    > egg") to Jerry Pournelle, leading him to believe that CP/M had been
    > copied. Well, I just encountered a paragraph that seems to support
    > that feeling. See below.
    >
    > Yours Sincerely,
    > Mr Emmanuel Roche
    >
    > Contributor
    > Andy Johnson-Laird
    >
    > Date Joined
    > June 1977
    >
    > Job Description
    > I was an independent consultant (the joining and departing dates are
    > therefore just an approximation) who worked closely with DRI and was
    > also a personal friend of Gary Kildall's.


    M. Roche's note motivated me to pull out my copy of Andy's "The
    Programmer's CP/M Handbook". I found two things I had forgotten about
    - first, an insert with 2 pages of program listing that had been
    omitted from the original printing (to follow p.261), and second, a
    notice that the source listings were available form AJL on an SSSD IBM
    3740 format 8-inch diskette for 50 1983 dollars.

    I remembered the book being quite useful some 20+ years ago but I had
    never ordered the code. A brief exchange of emails ensued and Andy
    sent me a .zip file with the source and permission to distribute it
    for non-commercial use. I've added Andy's release as well as his brief
    dedication to Gary Kildall and sent the package on to Gaby. It should
    be appearing on her website soon.

    Jack


  13. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    > >Again, you're talking about high-end machines that most people
    > >didn't have.

    >
    > I did see that there were the small systems of just barely proportions
    > and [people trying to do things with systems that had significant
    > hardware. If you could not afford the bigger systems the PC was out
    > of reach!
    >
    > >By 1981, S-100 machines were well in decline (again
    > >I'm talking about us typical users, not hobbyists).

    >
    > I feel and believe based on being ther that that was more like 1984-5
    > being the decline for S100. However in '81 there appeared more
    > integrated single board systems with all the meat of a S100 crate.
    >
    > >In 1981, there were more 16K-48K TRS-80s in use
    > >than all other microcomputers combined.

    >
    > That may be true, but it's sounds biased. Most were 16k
    > as the expansion was expensive and early ones very flakey.
    > Also many were scared off by the Tandy prices for things that
    > lagged market prices. That made TRS80 appear expensive.
    > But a small integrated system that was less hardware hacker
    > and more software was clearly pointed out by TRS80 and Apple
    > success.
    >
    > If anything I'd say by 1981 there were more systems (all forms)
    > running CP/M with Apple running #2. though Apple also had the
    > Softcard (Z80) and ran CP/M adding to the CP/M pile. Even TRS80
    > could fun either teh relocated CP/M flavor or have a mod to relocate
    > memory for standard CP/M map. My point here is not so "CP/M is the
    > king" but more like people don't like to be isolated and an OS
    > that could remove that wall was a desireable thing.
    >
    > What's interesting to me is the sometimes brand-centric views.
    > I was clearly exception by 1981. I was not alone and there were many
    > out there with hardware that dwarfed mine. I had three S100
    > machines, NEC PDA80 (8080) running CP/M, COSMAC ELF,
    > National SC/MP, 6800D1, Technico superstarter system (ti9900),
    > TRS80 (two of them), PDP-11 (LSI-11/03), IMSAI Imp48(8035) and this
    > made my views less married to one vendor or style. What I saw was a
    > desire for practical computing that was driving cost/performance in a
    > direction that was helpful to all.
    >
    > It was clear that 16bits, megabyte memory addressing, and faster
    > cpus and lower cost were on the way and there was a need/market.
    > What wasn't clear was what the average joe would do with it. We
    > needed Lisa and the Mac to force the next level battles.
    >
    > What is clear and history is there. By 1981 most systems mentioned
    > are mature hardware. The market growth rates were flattening out a
    > bit. If users werent at the mature loaded system level it's likely
    > more factor of when they jumped in and not how far. Also for those
    > users that were "moving up" to larger ssytems the mature or beyond
    > the next step was a whole lot of fuzzy choices. Lest we forget in
    > 1981 we had Motorola 68000, Zilog Z8000 and Intel 8086 in a marketing
    > war for the 16bit and later markets. Also that that battle was
    > around 2 years old by then.
    >


    Just to provide another set of data points, I started personal
    computing in 1972 on a PDP-11 as a graduate student but I was an
    "enduser" - all I needed to know about the machine was how to toggle
    in the boot sequence to load my disk pack and start FORTRAN. I may
    have reconfigured a jumper or two to set baud rates but that was about
    it. We got a Cromemco Z2 with 5MB Morrow hard drive somewhere around
    1975/6 and that was my introduction to CP/M. Looked kind of like a
    junior version of RT11, with semifamiliar stuff like 'dir' and 'pip',
    though Microsoft FORTRAN was noticeably inferior and buggy to the DEC
    offering.

    By 1979, graduate school and I were done with each other and I was
    getting hungry so I started consulting (probably a familiar refrain
    here). I was looking at possible home systems and was trying to decide
    between among a PET, an Apple II with CP/M card and a TRS-80 but then
    the Osborne1 was announced and I got the second or third unit from the
    Chicago ComputerLand in 1981(?). Kind of a step down from the Cromemco
    system I was used to using but for $1200 it was a real deal,
    especially since it included $1000 worth of "free" software. I started
    doing a fair amount of dBase II programming and soon found the Osborne
    pretty limiting in speed and storage capacity to say nothing of the
    tiny screen. I was able to replace it with a nice IMSAI setup -
    Godbout Z80, Tarbell DD controller, 64K of RAM and a SOROC terminal.
    Going from the tiny Osborne disks to 1.2MB Qumes was one big advantage
    as was having a really nice display and keyboard for programming work.
    Adding a 512K Semidisk really made things fly. I've still got some
    198? correspondence with Todd Fischer relating to that system.

    During that time, my dBase clients included CP/M users with S100
    systems, Altos boxes and early PC users. It seems like I spent as much
    time with MDM7 as I did with dBase, moving files back and forth across
    different operating systems and disk formats but it all worked pretty
    well. My IMSAI system was faster, more reliable and easier to use than
    anything else I dealt with. I was also, very briefly, a Columbia Data
    Systems dealer, selling one of the very first PC clones. An early
    trouble call came from an MS-DOS 1.0 user who didn't understand the
    idea of subdirectories. Exceeding 128 files in the root directory
    completely broke the system.

    In 1984, I started working at USRobotics as their first "IS Guy". The
    company had started out with a TRS-80 Model 2 and then moved to a
    couple Dynabyte MP/M systems, basically single-board multiuser systems
    in very '70s faux wood grain boxes. There were lots of problems with
    both the boxes and the software. I moved to a set of Godbout S100
    systems and ran MP/M II on 100% CompuPro hardware. The systems were
    joined using CP/NET running over ARCNET hardware. A little later, we
    moved to dual processor systems and ran CDOS (DRI Concurrent DOS,
    integrated by the Gifford brothers), first on the CompuPro dual
    processors - 8080/8085 - and later on Lomas or Macrotech Z80/286
    boards.

    This was really the last gasp though - driven by the need for more
    sophisticated manufacturing software and an enterprise level multiuser
    database system, we gave up on these systems and moved on to an HP3000
    running MPE, but the fact remains that until this migration, we were
    running a $12M company on a very solid and reliable S100 system until
    the mid-1980s.

    Jack


  14. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    Thomas "Todd" Fischer wrote:
    > wrote in message
    > news:v0qug39dn5n0hgoj2fssn5cp01g6fosh6u@4ax.com...
    >
    >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:14:30 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> "glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    >>> news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>>
    >>>> Donald Harris wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> (I wrote)
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >>>>>>

    > (snip)
    >
    >>>> I would expect that the 8080 wasn't announced long before
    >>>> that, or there would have been many 8080 based computers.
    >>>>
    >>>> -- glen
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> We received our copy from Intel of the original "Preliminary Release"
    >>> documentation dated March 1974, and several samples of the P8080 in
    >>> ceramic
    >>> package with gold leads by mid to late summer of that same year. It took
    >>> time to take in the power that this new technology provided, and with
    >>> Intel's release of the MDS system (of which we were of the first to
    >>> receive), it followed in short order that a common bus structure would be
    >>> agreed upon (originally announced in the January 1975 issue of Poplar
    >>> Electronics), credited to Ed Roberts and cohort Bill Yates, later to be
    >>> known as the S-100 bus.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Back then to even proto a machine took months so the tiime scale is
    >> definately cosistant.
    >>
    >> Allison
    >>
    >>

    > Allison-
    >
    > I expected you to correct me for using the wrong designation for the first
    > Intel 8080 chips; the actual imprint for the first parts in the white
    > ceramic package was C8080, not "P" as I had earlier posted. The C8080
    > required a third-overtone crystal and external pi filter consisting of two
    > caps and an inductor for the overlapping clock circuitry. If memory serves
    > me, the later C8080A had an improved die design and would now run with a
    > cheaper and more plentiful fundamental crystal of 2 MHz. The early IMSAI
    > MPU-A boards can be spotted by the larger crystal and yellow inductor. We
    > continued to use up remaining parts in inventory until summer of 1976 when
    > we now provided the smaller crystal and dropped the inductor from the
    > circuitry.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >

    I have three MPU-A Rev-4 Boards with the Large Crystal and a Yellow Cap
    Along side. Two Have C8080a White Ceramics the other has The Other has a
    C8080a Gold and Brown top. Marked IMSAI 1973. Don't know if they work
    Now if I could only find a Front Panel and other goodies
    Bob in Wisconsin

  15. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:17:18 -0400, "Tom Lake"
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >"Jim Higgins" wrote in message
    >news:2d7vg3p1r6id5do5hs43k7cskika8d2mms@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:29:46 +0200, Udo Munk
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> Anyone who thinks that superior engineering beats out superior
    >> marketability is himself vying for "clown" status. ;-)

    >
    >Not I! Just look at Beta vs. VHS or HP vs. Texas Instruments
    >calculators to see two examples of inferior products doing better
    >than superior ones due to skillful marketing. (Some would extend the
    >example to include Windows vs. Linux, too)
    >
    >Tom Lake


    On Beta vs VHS I agree with you, but in the HP vs TI and Windows vs
    Linux arena I'd say that some serious usability issues involving the
    average potential consumer is/was the main factor making HP and Linux
    unpopular with the average potential consumer.

    HP uses RPN logic and school kids learn to think using algebraic
    notation. Most aren't willing to make the switch. While arguably
    technically superior - logically and mechanically - the HP calcs
    simply aren't marketable to the masses. I've used HP calculators
    since they were introduced, but they aren't everyone's cup of tea.

    Going back a few years, I used to really enjoy it when folks wanted to
    borrow my HP41CV calculator - not noticing what it was. First thing
    I'd notice is that they hit the first couple of keystrokes pretty hard
    and then immediately backed off and used a light touch because the HP
    keys have tactile feedback. TI's don't (or didn't at the time). The
    next thing was the most fun - when it came time to press the "=" key
    they couldn't find it. Their index finger would hover over and swirl
    around the keyboard in search of it to no avail. By then the
    keystroke sequence was hopelessly wrong to achieve the result they
    wanted anyhow. I'm probably going to Hell for all the joy I got from
    loaning that calc without warning.

    And Linux... Linux is simply a geeks dream that makes no serious
    pretense of even trying to woo the average computer user - the current
    crop of GUIs for it notwithstanding. There are umpteen incompatible
    (on the application code level) versions that require programs to be
    recompiled from source before they'll run. There is no serious,
    concerted effort from the Linux community to make an OS that the
    masses would be able to deal with. I'd call Linux an OS that while
    technically superior, is all but unmarketable to the masses that
    embrace Windows. From some viewpoints that isn't such a bad thing and
    I wouldn't disagree with those who might feel that way. I'd like to
    see Linux rise in popularity, but not if it means making the
    sacrifices to stability and security that was made to make Windows
    popular with the masses.

  16. Re: was Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg" - source code from Andy J-L's CP/M book


    "JackRubin" wrote in message
    news:1192276804.232534.281300@y27g2000pre.googlegr oups.com...

    > M. Roche's note motivated me to pull out my copy of Andy's "The
    > Programmer's CP/M Handbook". I found two things I had forgotten about
    > - first, an insert with 2 pages of program listing that had been
    > omitted from the original printing (to follow p.261), and second, a
    > notice that the source listings were available form AJL on an SSSD IBM
    > 3740 format 8-inch diskette for 50 1983 dollars.
    >
    > I remembered the book being quite useful some 20+ years ago but I had
    > never ordered the code. A brief exchange of emails ensued and Andy
    > sent me a .zip file with the source and permission to distribute it
    > for non-commercial use. I've added Andy's release as well as his brief
    > dedication to Gary Kildall and sent the package on to Gaby. It should
    > be appearing on her website soon.


    Nice job. Never spotted the missing pages before!




  17. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:48:12 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    wrote:

    > wrote in message
    >news:l72vg3lpjenn9da7mlal3udghkgk113h08@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:03:07 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> wrote in message
    >>>news:v0qug39dn5n0hgoj2fssn5cp01g6fosh6u@4ax.com...
    >>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:14:30 -0700, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer"
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
    >>>>>news:0KSdnVq3tqJLNpPanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>>>>> Donald Harris wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> (I wrote)
    >>>>>>>> I thought the 8080 came out in 1974.
    >>>>>>
    >>>(snip)
    >>>>
    >>>I expected you to correct me for using the wrong designation for the first
    >>>Intel 8080 chips; the actual imprint for the first parts in the white
    >>>ceramic package was C8080, not "P" as I had earlier posted.

    >>
    >> Why? I try not to get that pendantic, hence my use of the i8080
    >> generic form. On the bright side you didn't correct my typing
    >> induced spelling flubs.

    >
    >Gotta be honest... I have long wondered how you managed to code without
    >excruciating delays in debugging due to typos. But seems like you managed
    >pretty darn well! I often watched IMSAIs former Chief Prgrammer Rob Barnaby


    IT's PC keyboards with no feel what so ever. The latest good one died
    and the current one ahs very light springs. When you used to VT100
    and the better DEC terminals which I stull use this thing I type on is
    horrid. The other is I do type fast, sometimes I think I have a
    problem with the way PC keyboards are scanned. However if it's not an
    outright spelling error I have known keyboard aflictions.

    Hte = The, Hwoever=however, ahve=have and missing e's are examples of
    that.

    I do not seem to make the same errors on systems like my S100 or With
    VT320 or Kaypro 4/84 that see use.

    >code; his fingers FLEW! I don't think I ever saw anyone near as fast. How
    >accurate is something I can't say with certainty, but he would occasionally
    >break his demon pace in an obvious effort to correct an error. This was
    >back when the primitive editors followed paper tape convention of using the
    >"RUBOUT" routine rather than "BACKSPACE", usually several additional
    >keystrokes.


    The magic of a good screen editor and LSE editors are really a great
    help. Also I've done thing like preprocessors to search for obvious
    flubs like opcode neumonics that are wrong [MIV = MVI] or things like
    labels or other text that are similar but not same.

    >>
    >>> The C8080
    >>>required a third-overtone crystal and external pi filter

    >
    >(snip)
    >
    >> Actually the 8080 didn't use a crystal as clock generation was
    >> external and delivered as a non overlaping two phase 12V signals.
    >> the 8224 was the clock generator and used the 18.mumble mhz crystal
    >> to generate 2mhz. Availability and cost lead to most early designs
    >> using some form of TTL osc of the two gate variety, 2mhz crystal and
    >> oneshots to create the needed timing. Many variations were used to
    >> get those TTL based oscillators to behave. The usual problem with
    >> that design was either not oscillating at all or taking off at the 2nd
    >> or even third harmonic of the crystal mucking up timing.

    >
    >Absolutely correct! My error and oversight!
    >>
    >> My altair had most of those clock ills. My first pass was replacing
    >> the TTL osc with a two transistor design that was stable and provided
    >> a clean signal. Second pass was sorting out oneshot timing. Third
    >> pass was rip it all up and put down an 8224. I still avoid oneshots
    >> to this day from that.

    >
    >We pretty much followed the Intel-suggested architecture as did most others
    >back then. One of the major frustrations was the single source of the Intel
    >parts and subsequent shortages. We sold a large number of the 8028-based
    >Priority Interrupt Controller boards (the IMSAI PIC-8), although I seldom
    >saw a system come in for service that used one as such. Eventually, Intel
    >licensed NEC, then AMD to second-source parts. This helped to a point.
    >However, the first NEC parts (white ceramic with round steel lid) had a
    >microcode bug that affected a register flag when using the DAA instruction.


    Only the D8080, the later D/C 8080AF had the bug fixed. NEC did not
    (process differnce) use intel masks and designed to the functional
    samples they had and also to Intel Docs. Such was industry at the
    time. I have some of the early NEC D8080 as well as later 8080AFC.

    >We found this out when a few purchasers in early 1977 brought this to our
    >attention. Since we had a large inventory of the NEC parts and a tight
    >market for availability of Intel or AMD parts, the resolution was to use the
    >buggy chips in the IMSAI IFM Intelligent controller used with our
    >first-generation floppy disk system. The IFM firmware code didn't require


    I have the NEC PDA80 proto for the IFM using the D372 FDC.

    >the DAA instruction, so we weathered that problem without too much grief.


    It was a minor bug but important. It set a tone for later years
    amoung all the vendors regarding CPU and peripheral chips that had to
    be second source right down to any quirks! So NEC D780 (aka Z80) is
    not a mask copy but an exact functional duplicate right down to the
    high order address bump during certain cycles and all of the
    instructions even the ones Zilog says nothing about. It's also why
    every body that sourced the 8085 (even in CMOS) exactly duplicated
    the "undocumented instructions" that every one was willing to
    document if needed.

    >>>The early IMSAI
    >>>MPU-A boards can be spotted by the larger crystal and yellow inductor. We
    >>>continued to use up remaining parts in inventory until summer of 1976 when
    >>>we now provided the smaller crystal and dropped the inductor from the
    >>>circuitry.

    >>
    >> It was fun back then.

    >
    >And still is today! Regards, :<]


    Yes, it is!

    Allison

  18. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:52:02 -0700, JackRubin
    wrote:

    >
    >Just to provide another set of data points, I started personal
    >computing in 1972 on a PDP-11 as a graduate student but I was an
    >"enduser" - all I needed to know about the machine was how to toggle


    I had time with PDP-8, PDP10 and some CM2200 byt then.

    >in the boot sequence to load my disk pack and start FORTRAN. I may
    >have reconfigured a jumper or two to set baud rates but that was about
    >it. We got a Cromemco Z2 with 5MB Morrow hard drive somewhere around
    >1975/6 and that was my introduction to CP/M. Looked kind of like a


    Cromemco was more like '77 -78ish. The 5MB Morrow disk was definately
    no earlier than early '77. While cromemco was fairly early The
    Dazzler color video baord was introduced at PCC 76. However they
    didn't sell systems till a bit after that. However their S100
    systems were very good!

    >junior version of RT11, with semifamiliar stuff like 'dir' and 'pip',
    >though Microsoft FORTRAN was noticeably inferior and buggy to the DEC
    >offering.


    Yes by '78 I was around PDP-11s and RT-11. DEC had many more years
    and at least three major CPUs (PDP-8, PDP10, PDP11) to hone their
    language skills on.

    >By 1979, graduate school and I were done with each other and I was
    >getting hungry so I started consulting (probably a familiar refrain
    >here). I was looking at possible home systems and was trying to decide


    Summer if '79 I was an apps engineer for NEC microcomputers and
    peripheral chips.

    >between among a PET, an Apple II with CP/M card and a TRS-80 but then
    >the Osborne1 was announced and I got the second or third unit from the
    >Chicago ComputerLand in 1981(?). Kind of a step down from the Cromemco
    >system I was used to using but for $1200 it was a real deal,
    >especially since it included $1000 worth of "free" software. I started
    >doing a fair amount of dBase II programming and soon found the Osborne
    >pretty limiting in speed and storage capacity to say nothing of the
    >tiny screen. I was able to replace it with a nice IMSAI setup -
    >Godbout Z80, Tarbell DD controller, 64K of RAM and a SOROC terminal.
    >Going from the tiny Osborne disks to 1.2MB Qumes was one big advantage
    >as was having a really nice display and keyboard for programming work.
    >Adding a 512K Semidisk really made things fly. I've still got some
    >198? correspondence with Todd Fischer relating to that system.


    Between 76 and 82 the world of computers in a word "changed".

    The biggest thing after a usable OS was storage that was both big
    and reasonably fast. it was Late 81 that I did the TELTEK disk
    controller and a 5mb (Woo ha!) ST506. Still ahve both and they still
    work though the 5MB has been retired (as functional) and a Pair of
    Quantum D540s as they are faster and 31mb!

    >During that time, my dBase clients included CP/M users with S100
    >systems, Altos boxes and early PC users. It seems like I spent as much
    >time with MDM7 as I did with dBase, moving files back and forth across
    >different operating systems and disk formats but it all worked pretty
    >well. My IMSAI system was faster, more reliable and easier to use than
    >anything else I dealt with. I was also, very briefly, a Columbia Data
    >Systems dealer, selling one of the very first PC clones. An early
    >trouble call came from an MS-DOS 1.0 user who didn't understand the
    >idea of subdirectories. Exceeding 128 files in the root directory
    >completely broke the system.


    ;0 Turns out that even at V5 over 1024 files can really slow the
    system to useless status.

    >In 1984, I started working at USRobotics as their first "IS Guy". The
    >company had started out with a TRS-80 Model 2 and then moved to a
    >couple Dynabyte MP/M systems, basically single-board multiuser systems
    >in very '70s faux wood grain boxes. There were lots of problems with
    >both the boxes and the software. I moved to a set of Godbout S100
    >systems and ran MP/M II on 100% CompuPro hardware. The systems were
    >joined using CP/NET running over ARCNET hardware. A little later, we
    >moved to dual processor systems and ran CDOS (DRI Concurrent DOS,
    >integrated by the Gifford brothers), first on the CompuPro dual
    >processors - 8080/8085 - and later on Lomas or Macrotech Z80/286
    >boards.
    >
    >This was really the last gasp though - driven by the need for more
    >sophisticated manufacturing software and an enterprise level multiuser
    >database system, we gave up on these systems and moved on to an HP3000
    >running MPE, but the fact remains that until this migration, we were
    >running a $12M company on a very solid and reliable S100 system until
    >the mid-1980s.


    A former employer was doing the same and then gradually migrated to
    CCPM and 386 machines in the late 80s to mid 90s.

    We can easily say if you didn't need fancy graphics or results faster
    than a thunderclap most business of the small side could easily
    support office and billing on modest CP/M systems and did!

    Allison


  19. Re: was Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg" - source code from Andy J-L'sCP/M book

    JackRubin wrote:

    (snip)

    > M. Roche's note motivated me to pull out my copy of Andy's "The
    > Programmer's CP/M Handbook". I found two things I had forgotten about
    > - first, an insert with 2 pages of program listing that had been
    > omitted from the original printing (to follow p.261), and second, a
    > notice that the source listings were available form AJL on an SSSD IBM
    > 3740 format 8-inch diskette for 50 1983 dollars.


    I recently bought the book used after reading about it in
    this newsgroup. Mine seems to be one with the missing page.

    > I remembered the book being quite useful some 20+ years ago but I had
    > never ordered the code. A brief exchange of emails ensued and Andy
    > sent me a .zip file with the source and permission to distribute it
    > for non-commercial use. I've added Andy's release as well as his brief
    > dedication to Gary Kildall and sent the package on to Gaby. It should
    > be appearing on her website soon.


    I would like a copy. Is this different than the other available 2.2
    source files?

    -- glen


  20. Re: IBM Clown "Easter Egg"

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:15:15 -0700, s_dubrovich wrote:

    ....
    > http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Docs/86_dos_prog.pdf
    >
    > http://www.patersontech.com/dos/Softalk/Softalk.html

    ....
    Had to read the stuff again and think about it first.

    ....
    Much stuff deleted from the link above, can't see anything suspect in
    there.
    ....
    > "I'm into bottom-up programming. You know that you're going to need
    > certain functions later in the program. I build tools on which to make
    > the next layer.
    >
    > "When you're programming top-down, it's stepwise refining going from
    > general actions to smaller actions. With my method there isn't a lot of
    > diagramming. Bottom-up programming is definitely legitimate, it just
    > doesn't get a lot of press."
    > "
    > --Note that in the above--
    > "


    What do you want me to note? I've done both, bottom-um and top-down
    programming as every other programmer probably too. I don't get the point,
    sorry.

    > At the end of May 1979, Paterson went to Microsoft to work with Bob
    > O'Rear there.
    > "
    > Some have said that Paterson was to work on Microsoft's Apple Softcard
    > for CP/M, to which Microsoft had obtained OEM licensing for CP/M, and
    > that License carried restrictions about reverse engineering, etc. That
    > restriction would affect microsoft employees, among whom is Bob O'Rear.
    > Thus, perhaps, the issue is not an 'Easter Egg' but this 'smoking gun'.


    What exactly was an OEM license? Did that include the whole sources? Why
    and for what? Lots of work was put into isolating hardware dependent stuff
    from the inner workings of the OS. Even that movcpm relocator was written
    to make the whole thing field applicable by just modifying the BIOS. An
    OEM sure got the licensing tool too, which end users didn't get of course.
    I have had an Apple ][ with Z80 card and 80 character display card. The
    only fascinating thing was that Microsoft made an m80 for Z80/6502. That
    was needed because only the 6502 hat access to the I/O bus, for any I/O
    you had to switch between the CPU's. Otherwise there wasn't anything
    special which would have required all the sources to get the Z80 card
    going.
    Of course Microsoft might have had all the sources. Early, before that DOS
    thing started it seems that DRI and Microsoft have had friendly
    cooperation. So one could suspect that Microsoft gave them to Paterson to
    speed up development of the vaporware they've sold to IBM. With the
    sources out in the public I have some doubts about that has happened.
    Reading and understanding the CP/M sources needs quit some time, while an
    average programmer could re-program the few thousand lines just from the
    documentation, without the need to understand the assembler thinking of a
    Gary Kildall.

    > --also, this seems an odd comment--
    >
    > "I was waiting for Digital to come out with CP/M-86. I thought they
    > would have it real soon. If they had beat me I wouldn't have taken the
    > trouble."


    Whats odd about this? A lot of software was re-written because
    someone couldn't get what he wanted. All the UNIX clones are a good
    example too.

    > Odd, because DRI approached SCP to see if they could borrow a board to
    > test CP/M-86 on, they didn't get one, but microsoft did, as Paterson
    > says.


    So? The have sold vaporware to IBM and got a lot of pressure to deliver
    something. They knew that DRI also was working on CP/M-86. Why give them
    a board then anyway?

    ....
    > All FAT does is remove the Disk Map from the FCB and congregate those in
    > a linked list in a separate area before the Disk Directory, and Paterson
    > had access to the source to FAT.


    No that is not all, documentation for FAT12 up here:
    http://www.patersontech.com/dos/Byte/InsideDos.htm

    The directory entry looks very different from a FCB and the blocks are
    keeped in a linked list. A bit more stolen from UNIX filesystems than from
    CP/M, kinda poor mans UNIX filesystem that is.
    The FCB in DOS were optional, only needed for CP/M converted applications.
    The number of FCB's could be configured in config.sys, remember? No FCB's
    no old CP/M appliaction software, only new DOS software.

    > I can't find collaboration of Gary placing it into the public domain.


    What is this here then?
    http://www.retroarchive.org/cpm/cdro...15/CATALOG.005

    Eubanks and Kildalls programs, both dated 1975 on one and the same disk?
    Vol 5, that has been a very early one. And as far as I know at that time
    they uploaded software which the wanted to be public to BBS systems, same
    as we do nowadays with the Internet. The various disk volumes were done
    by user groups as a service to those, who couldn't access the networks,
    same is done today.

    > Nor that it was developed with public funds. So, is that notion an
    > 'urban legend'? I think the first printed notion I saw of it was an


    Hm, read here a bit:
    http://www.gaby.de/ekildall.htm

    "
    As partial payment for his work, Gary received a development system of his
    own, which he immediately set up in the back of his classroom. This
    allowed him to combine his new obsession with microcomputers and his love
    of teaching. The system in the back of the classroom became the Naval
    Postgraduate School's first if not the world's first academic
    microcomputer lab.

    And academic it was. This was not just Gary's toy; he used it to teach
    students about the technology, and encouraged them to explore it. His
    curious students took him up on it, spending hours after class tinkering
    with the machine. When Intel upgraded this Intellec-8 from an 8008 to its
    new 8080 processor and gave Gary a display monitor and a high-speed paper
    tape reader, he and his students were working with a system comparable
    to favorably comparable to the early Altair computer before the Altair was
    even conceived.
    "

    They weren't writing chess programs there, they worked on assemblers,
    editors, debuggers, filesystems. Stuff that later would become CP/M.
    Did you notice that the bdos.plm source we today describe as CP/M 1 was at
    version 3 already?

    > article quoting Adam Osborne. Gary wrote an article in DDJ detailing
    > the advent of PL/M for Intel, and CP/M which followed. No mention is
    > made in the article of his teaching at the Naval Academy, or his service
    > in the Navy. He mentions his consulting to Intel for PL/M, first for


    Yep, at that time a company was founded already, working on CP/M 1.3 or
    1.4 don't know. Why the work at the Narval Academy isn't mentioned in this
    article I don't know, but there are other articles about the computer Lab
    there. And CP/M wasn't written for Intel, like PL/M, they didn't wanted
    it, that was Kildalls thing.

    ....

    > Gary goes on to mention the first licensing of CP/M to Lawrence
    > Livermore Laboratories in 1975. Is this the meaning behind the
    > reference in bdos.plm, re:
    > ?LLL V.3?
    >
    > /* FDOS LLL V.3 11/21/75
    > CON DEVICE 3 IS TI SILENT 700.
    > OCT IS READER DEVICE 3 OR 4. */
    > 3200H: DECLARE BOOT LITERALLY '0H';
    >
    >
    > /* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S)
    >
    > COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL
    > JUNE, 1975
    >
    > */


    Two file headers? And at version 3 already? Where was the programming done
    between 1973 and 1975 which lead to this version 3?

    > Now, I know this source is available on the old simtel archives in one
    > place or another, but when was it placed there, I wonder.


    Unfortunately it is not anymore, it must have been taken out at a much
    later time by the fileserver admins, because of stricter and stricter
    copyright laws. I know that it still was on the Vol 5 disk in 1986 from
    here:
    http://www.stcarchiv.de/hc1986/10_pdprogrammier.php
    Don't bother to read, it's a german computer magazine article. Not that
    interesting, just reviews about public domain software. Vol 5 is mentioned
    with Eubanks Basic AND with Kildalls 1975 CP/M sources.

    Udo Munk
    --
    The real fun is building it and then using it...


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