cp/m in the news - CP/M

This is a discussion on cp/m in the news - CP/M ; "MS/DOS is basically pirated CP/M, except that they got the error messages wrong..." http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/3...suit_resolved/ -- jimbo@sonic.net Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount, fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have /usr/bin?)...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: cp/m in the news

  1. cp/m in the news

    "MS/DOS is basically pirated CP/M, except that they got the error
    messages wrong..."

    http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/3...suit_resolved/

    --
    jimbo@sonic.net
    Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
    fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have /usr/bin?)

  2. Re: cp/m in the news

    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


  3. Re: cp/m in the news

    On Aug 4, 7:01 pm, 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/
    >
    > --
    > ji...@sonic.net
    > Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
    > fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have /usr/bin?)


    That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    or alteration.

    This attitude that DOS 'stole' CP/M simply smacks of
    sensationalism and the stubborn desire to believe in
    conspiracies and the like. Where does it all end?
    I guess next it will be 'revealed' that Gates is really
    one of the Great Old Ones, who uses the Illuminati
    to help desing and distribute the next version of Windows,
    which will require every hard drive to have a Unicode 0x0666
    in it's Master Boot Record, or else it will refuse to boot...

    IA, IA! Shub Niggurath! Cthluhu ftagn!!! and such,
    Tarkin


  4. Re: cp/m in the news

    Tarkin wrote:
    > On Aug 4, 7:01 pm, 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/

    >
    > That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    > published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    > MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones about
    > Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased from Seattle
    > Computing Products, and how Dos was made similar enough to CP/M
    > (86) to enable the porting of large volumes of application
    > software with little or no hand-coding or alteration.
    >
    > This attitude that DOS 'stole' CP/M simply smacks of
    > sensationalism and the stubborn desire to believe in
    > conspiracies and the like. Where does it all end? I guess next
    > it will be 'revealed' that Gates is really one of the Great Old
    > Ones, who uses the Illuminati to help desing and distribute the
    > next version of Windows, which will require every hard drive to
    > have a Unicode 0x0666 in it's Master Boot Record, or else it
    > will refuse to boot...


    All true enough, but where's the fun without Mickeysloth poking?

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: cp/m in the news

    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.

    Old Dave

  6. Re: cp/m in the news


    "Tarkin" wrote in message
    news:1186458379.301239.231230@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
    > On Aug 4, 7:01 pm, 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/
    > >
    > > --
    > > ji...@sonic.net
    > > Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
    > > fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have

    /usr/bin?)
    >
    > That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    > published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    > MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    > about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    > from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    > similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    > volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    > or alteration.
    >

    MS-DOS used to have a CP/M interface up to version 5 AFAIR. I found it in an
    article in Dr Dobbs. Worked great to get around 'security' programs that
    redirected INT21

    Wim



  7. Re: cp/m in the news

    On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:46:19 -0000, Tarkin
    wrote:

    >That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    >published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    >MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    >about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    >from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    >similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    >volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    >or alteration.
    >
    >This attitude that DOS 'stole' CP/M simply smacks of
    >sensationalism and the stubborn desire to believe in
    >conspiracies and the like. Where does it all end?
    >I guess next it will be 'revealed' that Gates is really


    Gates signed a licensing agreement with DRI for CP/M-80
    for use on the microsoft Softcard. Paterson WORKED on
    the Softcard. He WAS COVERED BY THAT AGREEMENT.

    That agreement specifically prohibited reverse engineering
    or decompiling CP/M in any way for any purpose.

    Gates, Paterson, Ballmer all violated the letter as well as the
    spirit of that Agreement. Allen admitted as much to Kildall.

    These are independantly verifiable facts. Check the dates.

    To suggest the facts are anything other than what I have
    related above is stupid and ignorant. That's what happened.
    Not speculation; not conjecture. It WAS a conspiracy.

    It is childish to wishfully think everything is exactly as it
    appears - ignore the man behind the curtain to your peril.

    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.

    Bill

  8. Re: cp/m in the news

    Patterson did not copy the CP/M code, he copied the API (and trivial
    portions of the user interface), for reasons of compatibility. The API
    was publicly documented in the CP/M Interface guide and the CP/M system
    alternation manual. No reverse engineering of the actual code was
    necessary. I don't find anything illegal in Patterson's actions. But,
    at the same time, he doesn't have grounds for a libel suit when someone
    publishes that he did copy the CP/M user interface and API.

    Bill wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:46:19 -0000, Tarkin
    > wrote:
    >
    >> That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    >> published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    >> MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    >> about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    >>from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    >> similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    >> volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    >> or alteration.
    >>
    >> This attitude that DOS 'stole' CP/M simply smacks of
    >> sensationalism and the stubborn desire to believe in
    >> conspiracies and the like. Where does it all end?
    >> I guess next it will be 'revealed' that Gates is really

    >
    > Gates signed a licensing agreement with DRI for CP/M-80
    > for use on the microsoft Softcard. Paterson WORKED on
    > the Softcard. He WAS COVERED BY THAT AGREEMENT.
    >
    > That agreement specifically prohibited reverse engineering
    > or decompiling CP/M in any way for any purpose.
    >
    > Gates, Paterson, Ballmer all violated the letter as well as the
    > spirit of that Agreement. Allen admitted as much to Kildall.
    >
    > These are independantly verifiable facts. Check the dates.
    >
    > To suggest the facts are anything other than what I have
    > related above is stupid and ignorant. That's what happened.
    > Not speculation; not conjecture. It WAS a conspiracy.
    >
    > It is childish to wishfully think everything is exactly as it
    > appears - ignore the man behind the curtain to your peril.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > Bill


  9. Re: cp/m in the news

    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

    >
    >Old Dave



  10. Re: cp/m in the news

    On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 22:23:22 +0200, "Wim Ton" wrote:

    >
    >"Tarkin" wrote in message
    >news:1186458379.301239.231230@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
    >> On Aug 4, 7:01 pm, 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/
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > ji...@sonic.net
    >> > Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
    >> > fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have

    >/usr/bin?)
    >>
    >> That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    >> published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    >> MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    >> about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    >> from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    >> similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    >> volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    >> or alteration.
    >>

    >MS-DOS used to have a CP/M interface up to version 5 AFAIR. I found it in an
    >article in Dr Dobbs. Worked great to get around 'security' programs that
    >redirected INT21


    V7 supports FCBs for devices that do not use FAT32 or long file names.
    I've used DBaseIII (old DOS version) under Win98SE (non fat32
    devices), and NT4 so support for FCBs are still in those.

    Allison


    >Wim
    >



  11. Re: cp/m in the news

    Patterson had ready access to the CP/M source code, and the
    allegation is that Patterson ran a conversion program directly
    on the CP/M code to produce QDOS. He then did a small amount
    of clean up on it.

    This was the charge, and *not* that Patterson copied the API...

    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > Patterson did not copy the CP/M code, he copied the API (and trivial
    > portions of the user interface), for reasons of compatibility. The API
    > was publicly documented in the CP/M Interface guide and the CP/M system
    > alternation manual. No reverse engineering of the actual code was
    > necessary. I don't find anything illegal in Patterson's actions. But,
    > at the same time, he doesn't have grounds for a libel suit when someone
    > publishes that he did copy the CP/M user interface and API.
    >
    > Bill wrote:
    >> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:46:19 -0000, Tarkin
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    >>> published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    >>> MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    >>> about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    >>> from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    >>> similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    >>> volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    >>> or alteration.
    >>>
    >>> This attitude that DOS 'stole' CP/M simply smacks of
    >>> sensationalism and the stubborn desire to believe in
    >>> conspiracies and the like. Where does it all end?
    >>> I guess next it will be 'revealed' that Gates is really

    >>
    >> Gates signed a licensing agreement with DRI for CP/M-80
    >> for use on the microsoft Softcard. Paterson WORKED on
    >> the Softcard. He WAS COVERED BY THAT AGREEMENT.
    >>
    >> That agreement specifically prohibited reverse engineering
    >> or decompiling CP/M in any way for any purpose.
    >>
    >> Gates, Paterson, Ballmer all violated the letter as well as the
    >> spirit of that Agreement. Allen admitted as much to Kildall.
    >>
    >> These are independantly verifiable facts. Check the dates.
    >>
    >> To suggest the facts are anything other than what I have
    >> related above is stupid and ignorant. That's what happened.
    >> Not speculation; not conjecture. It WAS a conspiracy.
    >>
    >> It is childish to wishfully think everything is exactly as it
    >> appears - ignore the man behind the curtain to your peril.
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> Bill



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

  12. Re: cp/m in the news

    Charles Richmond espoused:
    > Patterson had ready access to the CP/M source code, and the
    > allegation is that Patterson ran a conversion program directly
    > on the CP/M code to produce QDOS. He then did a small amount
    > of clean up on it.
    >
    > This was the charge, and *not* that Patterson copied the API...
    >


    Apparently, even some comments were still in place...

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  13. Re: cp/m in the news

    Somebody should ask Jerry Pournelle (http://www.jerrypournelle.com )
    what he saw when he booted up a very very early copy of DOS

    Regards marcus.


  14. Re: cp/m in the news

    On Aug 7, 4:23 pm, "Wim Ton" wrote:
    > "Tarkin" wrote in message
    >
    > news:1186458379.301239.231230@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
    >
    > > On Aug 4, 7:01 pm, 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/

    >
    > > > --
    > > > ji...@sonic.net
    > > > Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
    > > > fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have

    > /usr/bin?)
    >
    > > That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    > > published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    > > MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    > > about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    > > from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    > > similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    > > volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    > > or alteration.

    >
    > MS-DOS used to have a CP/M interface up to version 5 AFAIR. I found it in an
    > article in Dr Dobbs. Worked great to get around 'security' programs that
    > redirected INT21
    >
    > Wim


    The book I referenced, is for MS-DOS v4.0; there are more
    posts in this thread, by those more knowledgeable than
    I, as to the hows and whys of the resemblence to, and
    compatability with, CP/M and/or it's API.

    The book mentions an unnamed translation program
    to port CPM-86 application sources to DOS-compatible
    sources, which would then require little or no hand
    coding- I am unsure if this applicable to the system
    sources themselves or not.

    While there may have been questionable business
    practices, questionable ethics, or just plain dumb
    luck at work at the inception of MS-DOS, I still believe
    it's a far cry from the outright theft that is the accepted
    version of what happened, and I am of the opinion
    that that is an urban legend. YMMV.

    Wasn't there another thread that discussed the
    economic aspects of this story as well? ISTR
    that MS-DOS (which IBM rebranded as PC-DOS)
    was cheaper to license than CPM-86. But then
    again, my memory isn't what it used to be...

    TTFN,
    Tarkin


  15. Re: cp/m in the news

    I don't know that I believe that ("that Patterson ran a conversion
    program directly on the CP/M code"), nor, in a practical sense, does it
    matter (however, in a legal sense I agree that it matter).

    The code in question is trivial, only about 2k in size. And the reason
    that I don't believe that he used a code converter is that 86-DOS (at
    least version 0.33 and everything later) had a FAT file system rather
    than CP/M's FCB based file system, consequently, the DR code would have
    to have been completely rewritten anyway. Translation would not have
    worked, the underlying file systems were totally different. The API
    could have been (and was) preserved, but the internal code had to be all
    new.

    [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.]


    Charles Richmond wrote:
    > Patterson had ready access to the CP/M source code, and the
    > allegation is that Patterson ran a conversion program directly
    > on the CP/M code to produce QDOS. He then did a small amount
    > of clean up on it.
    >
    > This was the charge, and *not* that Patterson copied the API...
    >
    > Barry Watzman wrote:
    >> Patterson did not copy the CP/M code, he copied the API (and trivial
    >> portions of the user interface), for reasons of compatibility. The
    >> API was publicly documented in the CP/M Interface guide and the CP/M
    >> system alternation manual. No reverse engineering of the actual code
    >> was necessary. I don't find anything illegal in Patterson's actions.
    >> But, at the same time, he doesn't have grounds for a libel suit when
    >> someone publishes that he did copy the CP/M user interface and API.
    >>
    >> Bill wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:46:19 -0000, Tarkin
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    >>>> published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    >>>> MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    >>>> about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    >>>> from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    >>>> similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    >>>> volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    >>>> or alteration.
    >>>>
    >>>> This attitude that DOS 'stole' CP/M simply smacks of
    >>>> sensationalism and the stubborn desire to believe in
    >>>> conspiracies and the like. Where does it all end?
    >>>> I guess next it will be 'revealed' that Gates is really
    >>>
    >>> Gates signed a licensing agreement with DRI for CP/M-80
    >>> for use on the microsoft Softcard. Paterson WORKED on
    >>> the Softcard. He WAS COVERED BY THAT AGREEMENT.
    >>>
    >>> That agreement specifically prohibited reverse engineering
    >>> or decompiling CP/M in any way for any purpose.
    >>>
    >>> Gates, Paterson, Ballmer all violated the letter as well as the
    >>> spirit of that Agreement. Allen admitted as much to Kildall.
    >>>
    >>> These are independantly verifiable facts. Check the dates.
    >>>
    >>> To suggest the facts are anything other than what I have
    >>> related above is stupid and ignorant. That's what happened.
    >>> Not speculation; not conjecture. It WAS a conspiracy.
    >>>
    >>> It is childish to wishfully think everything is exactly as it
    >>> appears - ignore the man behind the curtain to your peril.
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Bill

    >
    >


  16. Re: cp/m in the news

    I probably have earlier versions of 86-DOS than Jerry every had. And my
    impression was that internally, it was totally different. CP/M was
    FCB-based, 86-DOS was FAT based. TOTALLY different.

    amouses@gmail.com wrote:
    > Somebody should ask Jerry Pournelle (http://www.jerrypournelle.com )
    > what he saw when he booted up a very very early copy of DOS
    >
    > Regards marcus.
    >


  17. Re: cp/m in the news

    RE: "The book mentions an unnamed translation program to port CPM-86
    application sources to DOS-compatible sources, which would then require
    little or no hand coding- I am unsure if this applicable to the system
    sources themselves or not."

    There were quite a few CP/M to either CP/M-86 or DOS assembly language
    source code converters, I still have a few of them. DR themselves even
    had one (for CP/M-86), which I think I have (XLT-86). They worked fine
    (mostly) for applications, but they had no applicability to the
    operating systems themselves.


    Tarkin wrote:
    > On Aug 7, 4:23 pm, "Wim Ton" wrote:
    >> "Tarkin" wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:1186458379.301239.231230@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
    >>
    >>> On Aug 4, 7:01 pm, 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/
    >>>> --
    >>>> ji...@sonic.net
    >>>> Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
    >>>> fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have

    >> /usr/bin?)
    >>
    >>> That's funny - in the book, "Advanced MS-DOS Programming",
    >>> published by Microsoft Press, the Chapter entitled "Genealogy of
    >>> MS-DOS", the author, and by extension, MS, made no bones
    >>> about Dos's descendence from CP/M, how Dos was purchased
    >>> from Seattle Computing Products, and how Dos was made
    >>> similar enough to CP/M (86) to enable the porting of large
    >>> volumes of application software with little or no hand-coding
    >>> or alteration.

    >> MS-DOS used to have a CP/M interface up to version 5 AFAIR. I found it in an
    >> article in Dr Dobbs. Worked great to get around 'security' programs that
    >> redirected INT21
    >>
    >> Wim

    >
    > The book I referenced, is for MS-DOS v4.0; there are more
    > posts in this thread, by those more knowledgeable than
    > I, as to the hows and whys of the resemblence to, and
    > compatability with, CP/M and/or it's API.
    >
    > The book mentions an unnamed translation program
    > to port CPM-86 application sources to DOS-compatible
    > sources, which would then require little or no hand
    > coding- I am unsure if this applicable to the system
    > sources themselves or not.
    >
    > While there may have been questionable business
    > practices, questionable ethics, or just plain dumb
    > luck at work at the inception of MS-DOS, I still believe
    > it's a far cry from the outright theft that is the accepted
    > version of what happened, and I am of the opinion
    > that that is an urban legend. YMMV.
    >
    > Wasn't there another thread that discussed the
    > economic aspects of this story as well? ISTR
    > that MS-DOS (which IBM rebranded as PC-DOS)
    > was cheaper to license than CPM-86. But then
    > again, my memory isn't what it used to be...
    >
    > TTFN,
    > Tarkin
    >


  18. Re: cp/m in the news

    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


  19. Re: cp/m in the news

    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.
    >


    My understanding was that Seattle Computer *and* Microsoft
    had source code licenses for CP/M. Microsoft needed it for
    some mods required for their CP/M card for the Apple II.

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

  20. Re: cp/m in the news

    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.

    2) The one by Digital Research seems to work...

    since it is the way I produced the DUMPASC.CMD program.

    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).

    (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.)

    Yours Sincerely,
    Mr Emmanuel Roche



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast