cp/m in the news - CP/M

This is a discussion on cp/m in the news - CP/M ; Re: "Dos from day zero had FCB support" I think you misunderstand the situation. Yes, DOS supported FCB's in APPLICATIONS PROGRAMS to open, read and write files. That, however, is not the point. In CP/M, the file system is FCB ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: cp/m in the news

  1. Re: cp/m in the news

    Re: "Dos from day zero had FCB support"

    I think you misunderstand the situation.

    Yes, DOS supported FCB's in APPLICATIONS PROGRAMS to open, read and
    write files.

    That, however, is not the point.

    In CP/M, the file system is FCB based; this has nothing to do with FCBs
    in the API. It means that the DISKS have FCBs on them, that file
    allocation of space on the disk is via FCB.

    That is not true, was never true, with ANY version of 86-DOS or MS-DOS.
    86-DOS and MS-DOS use FAT tables on the media to allocate disk space.
    Consequnelty, the code itself has to be totally (and I mean totally,
    night-and-day difference) different. 86-DOS and DOS NEVER used an FCB
    file system on the disk media for disk file space allocation, they never
    supported it, ever, in any version.

    Do not confuse FCB support in the API with the use of FCBs in the disk
    file system. Those two things are totally, and I mean totally,
    different. And no version of 86-DOS or MS-DOS ever supported an FCB
    based file system.

    no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:13:17 -0400, Barry Watzman
    > wrote:
    >
    >> [Also, fwiw, re: "Patterson had ready access to the CP/M source code";
    >> well, everyone had ready access to the CP/M source code. It had been
    >> disassembled, commented and widely published (in the CP/M user's group
    >> among other places) by about 1978.]

    >
    > This is the only thing of all the hype and wail that is certain and
    > true, CP/M-80 had been disassembled early on if only for bug fixes.
    > Soon after getting V2.2 I obtained a copy of such a disassembly to fix
    > a few bugs.
    >
    > However simply passing it through an ISIS 8080 to 8086 code translater
    > would not work as there were a bunch of byte/word things that if not
    > handled portably in 8080 would produce really broken code for 8086.
    > I never had anything ported that way work without considerable hand
    > work to debug it.
    >
    > Dos from day zero had FCB support and last version I checked for it
    > (V8) still had it if the filesystem was FAT16. The code to support
    > FAT32 apparently dumped it and FAT16 isn't normally installed for
    > large (over 500mb) drives without some threats and hammers
    > (except in NT4).
    >
    > Only other thing that memory recalls is that DOS2.0 and 4.any were
    > by far the most broken versions ever.
    >
    > Allison
    >


  2. Re: cp/m in the news

    Bill wrote in
    news:rrqhb3dohukmj8hcdgi5aq75lvp4kj2kjm@4ax.com:

    > In the end, history will recognize Kildall for what he contributed;
    > Gates for what he took...both from Kildall, and all the rest of us.


    You guys are foolish from the very beginning for getting into a pissing
    contest with a Google Groups poster. 9 to 1 says it's a troll.

    --
    A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
    Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

  3. Re: cp/m in the news

    On Aug 10, 1:35 am, elaich wrote:
    > Bill wrote innews:rrqhb3dohukmj8hcdgi5aq75lvp4kj2kjm@4ax.com:
    >
    > > In the end, history will recognize Kildall for what he contributed;
    > > Gates for what he took...both from Kildall, and all the rest of us.

    >
    > You guys are foolish from the very beginning for getting into a pissing
    > contest with a Google Groups poster. 9 to 1 says it's a troll.
    >
    > --
    > A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
    > Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


    It's not just a contest. Rebutting erroneous, misguided,
    or otherwise essentially incorrect information helps keep
    the quality of information high, especially in a focused group
    such as coc. In addition, what starts out as flame-bait or
    trolling often winds up sparking excellent and insightful
    debate- which also keeps information quality and content
    high (though not always).

    Besides, I'm a Google Groups poster, and resent the sterotype
    that ALL ggp's are trolls. So there :^P

    TTFN,
    Tarkin


  4. Re: cp/m in the news




    Tarkin wrote:

    >Besides, I'm a Google Groups poster, and resent the sterotype
    >that ALL ggp's are trolls. So there :^P


    Its the 99.9% of Google Groups posters who are idiots and/or
    trolls that give the rest of you a bad name.





  5. Re: cp/m in the news

    On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 05:48:34 -0700, roche182@laposte.net wrote:

    >On 8 août, 21:38, no.s...@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    >
    >> However simply passing it through an ISIS 8080 to 8086 code translater
    >> would not work as there were a bunch of byte/word things that if not
    >> handled portably in 8080 would produce really broken code for 8086.
    >> I never had anything ported that way work without considerable hand
    >> work to debug it.

    >
    >Hello, Allison!
    >
    >Well... Just 2 remarks:
    >
    >1) There are, in fact, two "XLT-86" running under CP/M-86.


    That wasnt what I said. I was talking about tool under ISIS
    as thats what we had pre CP/M-86!

    >2) The one by Digital Research seems to work...
    >
    >since it is the way I produced the DUMPASC.CMD program.


    Dumpasc is a trivial program. Try something challenging like
    porting an 8080 based 8086 cross assembler.

    >That is to say: this CP/M-86 (Plus) program is an automatic
    >translation of a CP/M-80 program (whose code goes back (at least) to
    >CP/M 1.4, since it is based on the DUMP program provided as sample in
    >the CP/M manuals).


    Not likely without a little hand help. Besides the cources for
    CP/M-80 V1.4 were PLM and likely there could have been a direct PLM
    to x86 translation and more likely to work the first time.

    >(Since then, I have done a total rearrangement of the modules, as part
    >of a research on how to write good 8086 code, but this version has not
    >been distributed.)


    Not important enough to comment.

    Allison


    >Yours Sincerely,
    >Mr Emmanuel Roche
    >



  6. Re: cp/m in the news

    no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:30:12 -0700, Dave Brockman
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>MikePcw wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 5 ago, 01:01, Jim Bianchi wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"MS/DOS is basically pirated CP/M, except that they got the error
    >>>>messages wrong..."
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/3...suit_resolved/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Hi all,
    >>>
    >>>Yes, but the justice comes too late... unfortunately...
    >>>
    >>>Regards,
    >>>
    >>>Miguel
    >>>

    >>
    >>Yet, CP/M is basically a pirated OS/8 (DEC), is it not? It's the tradition.

    >
    >
    > It has similar features but not even close internally. It's also
    > similar to TOPS10 and RT11 at the command line level but
    > internally there is no resemblence.
    >
    > Allison
    >



    I should have said "had it roots in" since Gary had DEC experience iirc.
    My my memory has faded. Didn't OS/8 have a BIOS which was installed in a
    manner similar to CP/M? I mean like MOVCPM and all that rigamarole one
    had to go thru to create a system. I can't really remember anymore.

    Old Dave

  7. Re: cp/m in the news

    On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:03:03 -0700, Dave Brockman
    wrote:

    >no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
    >> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:30:12 -0700, Dave Brockman
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>MikePcw wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On 5 ago, 01:01, Jim Bianchi wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"MS/DOS is basically pirated CP/M, except that they got the error
    >>>>>messages wrong..."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/3...suit_resolved/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Hi all,
    >>>>
    >>>>Yes, but the justice comes too late... unfortunately...
    >>>>
    >>>>Regards,
    >>>>
    >>>>Miguel
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Yet, CP/M is basically a pirated OS/8 (DEC), is it not? It's the tradition.

    >>
    >>
    >> It has similar features but not even close internally. It's also
    >> similar to TOPS10 and RT11 at the command line level but
    >> internally there is no resemblence.
    >>
    >> Allison
    >>

    >
    >
    >I should have said "had it roots in" since Gary had DEC experience iirc.
    >My my memory has faded. Didn't OS/8 have a BIOS which was installed in a
    >manner similar to CP/M? I mean like MOVCPM and all that rigamarole one
    >had to go thru to create a system. I can't really remember anymore.


    No. It did have discrete drivers that had to fit in one or two pages
    (page=128 12 bit words).

    MovCP/M is a relocator specific to CP/M. Under OS/8 you did a system
    build. Very different procedures.

    Owing to the very great differences from PDP-8 and 8080, even if yu
    copied OS/8 it would only be an outward copy. Functionally they would
    have to work differently to accomodate the archetecture difference.
    Same for PDP10.

    Allison



    Allison

    >
    >Old Dave



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2