CP/M BBS Systems - CP/M

This is a discussion on CP/M BBS Systems - CP/M ; Jim Bianchi wrote: > > Citadel was intended for use on MS/DR-DOS systems. I ran it on a > Tandy 2000 (80186 CPU) using DR-DOS v4. It was compiled C code. I found it > had two major features: 1) ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: CP/M BBS Systems

  1. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    Jim Bianchi wrote:
    >
    > Citadel was intended for use on MS/DR-DOS systems. I ran it on a
    > Tandy 2000 (80186 CPU) using DR-DOS v4. It was compiled C code. I found it
    > had two major features: 1) when the caller entered the email area (to read


    Wow, that's some hugely wrong Citadel info there.

    Citadel was originally written by Cynbe Ru Taren (Jeff Prothero(sp)) in
    1981. It was run on an H-89 and compiled with BDS C.

    You can download the source code for Citadel here:
    http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/softwa...M/CPM/CITADEL/

    g.



  2. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    Jim Bianchi wrote:
    >
    > So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten the name
    > 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I meant all
    > right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100 box, PBBS would be
    > ideal (either that or HBBS).
    >


    For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of compiled
    MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or MBYE to build
    a nice RCP/M system.

    g.


  3. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    Bill wrote:
    > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:23:36 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>ISTR that the very first BBS (Christensen's CBBS) was actually on a CPM
    >>system, circa 1980, and, hope not to be really wrong, that I have find
    >>the actual BASIC code of it

    >
    > Christensen wrote in assembler, not basic.
    >
    > Try 1977-1978 for a time frame
    >
    > There was an article in Byte about that first system
    >
    > Bill


    ....and if you want the sources to v3.5, gimme a couple of days to find out
    what happened to it.

    g.


  4. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
    news:_eKdnf8p_YuunvzVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:

    > Jim Bianchi wrote:
    >>
    >> So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten
    >> the name
    >> 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I
    >> meant all right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100
    >> box, PBBS would be ideal (either that or HBBS).
    >>

    >
    > For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of compiled
    > MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or MBYE to build
    > a nice RCP/M system.
    >
    > g.
    >

    Are you implying that PBBS was not a "true" authentic CP/M BBS? I
    think not!

    Ian

  5. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    Ian Cottrell wrote:
    > geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
    > news:_eKdnf8p_YuunvzVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:
    >
    >> Jim Bianchi wrote:
    >>>
    >>> So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten
    >>> the name
    >>> 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I
    >>> meant all right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100
    >>> box, PBBS would be ideal (either that or HBBS).
    >>>

    >>
    >> For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of compiled
    >> MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or MBYE to build
    >> a nice RCP/M system.
    >>
    >> g.
    >>

    > Are you implying that PBBS was not a "true" authentic CP/M BBS? I
    > think not!
    >


    Oh by no means did I mean that! My choice of words was rather poor I
    suppose.

    My memory is fuzzy, but PBBS was self-hosted, correct? Didn't need BYE
    to handle the modem? 99% of the CP/M boards I called back in the day were
    RCP/M systems or other types that required BYE to handle the communication
    layer. Self-hosted systems like ROS, PICS, Citadel, etc. were not as
    common, at least in the 206 area.

    If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my mind.

    g.


  6. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:12:22 -0500
    geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote:

    > If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my
    > mind.


    It shouldn't, Gene. Ian sent me a copy and I brought it up with
    ZBYE very easily. I had intended to set up a BBS with it in the
    mid-90s, but got busy on other things. In the time when PBBS was
    one of the best systems around, nearly everyone wrote in assembly.
    Only a few used high-level languages for system-level software like
    this.

    Hal

  7. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
    news:yZydncTJydhbPv7VnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:

    > Ian Cottrell wrote:
    >> geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote in
    >> news:_eKdnf8p_YuunvzVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.conne ctcorp:
    >>
    >>> Jim Bianchi wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> So it's all YOUR fault, eh? [grin] Seriously, I'd forgotten
    >>>> the name
    >>>> 'PBBS' when I wrote about HBBS (and Irv Hoff), but that's what I
    >>>> meant all right. And yeah, for a smiple CP/M BBS on, say, an S100
    >>>> box, PBBS would be ideal (either that or HBBS).
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> For a "true" authentic CP/M BBS, you can't beat any number of
    >>> compiled MBASIC bbs programs like RBBS coupled with either BYE or
    >>> MBYE to build a nice RCP/M system.
    >>>
    >>> g.
    >>>

    >> Are you implying that PBBS was not a "true" authentic CP/M BBS? I
    >> think not!
    >>

    >
    > Oh by no means did I mean that! My choice of words was rather poor I
    > suppose.
    >
    > My memory is fuzzy, but PBBS was self-hosted, correct? Didn't need
    > BYE to handle the modem? 99% of the CP/M boards I called back in the
    > day were RCP/M systems or other types that required BYE to handle the
    > communication layer. Self-hosted systems like ROS, PICS, Citadel,
    > etc. were not as common, at least in the 206 area.
    >
    > If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my mind.
    >
    >
    > g.
    >

    As Hal has already pointed out, PBBS DID run on top of BYE (or ZBYE for
    Z-System users). I spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that
    the setting for PBBS did NOT overlap with those for BYE and that,
    once BYE was running properly, PBBS wouldn't not futz with it.

    And, as Hal also pointed out, most major undertaking were written
    in assembler in those days. Some systems only had 48K of TPA and
    2 MHz systems did not have a lot of horsepower. Assembler was a
    must!

    No offence taken, Gene. Just wanted to set the record straight.

    Ian


  8. Re: CP/M BBS Systems

    Hal wrote:
    > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:12:22 -0500
    > geneb@deltasoft.com (Gene) wrote:
    >
    >> If memory serves, PBBS was 100% assembly and that STILL blows my
    >> mind.

    >
    > It shouldn't, Gene. Ian sent me a copy and I brought it up with
    > ZBYE very easily. I had intended to set up a BBS with it in the
    > mid-90s, but got busy on other things. In the time when PBBS was
    > one of the best systems around, nearly everyone wrote in assembly.
    > Only a few used high-level languages for system-level software like
    > this.
    >

    The reason I think it's unique is that as far as I know, there are no more
    than 3 BBS programs written in 100% assembly for any platform and all
    three lived on CP/M.

    g.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2