"CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
lproven at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 04:19:10 CST 2008
On 03/02/2008, Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
> > From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
> > Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:48:33 -0500
> > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> >On Thursday 31 January 2008 10:07, Allison wrote:
> >> Whats more interesting is there was nothing to prevent a termcap file
> >> and later improved CP/M work alikes did exactly that and many more things.
> >What sort of stuff would you put into the category of "CP/M work alikes"?
> NOvados, DOS+, ZRdos, Zsdos and ZCPR addons to CP/M. They all could run
> CP/M programs but added things missing from basic V2.2. The gotacha was
> they required z80 as they were stuffing all that into the same space
> required by V2.2.
Fascinating stuff. I had no idea there were so many.
I used to do some support work on some early, 8-bit multiuser system
which ran something called CP/M but which wasn't, not even remotely.
The host machine was a single integrated unit - CRT screen, floppy
drive, CPU and optionally had a 5MB hard disk built into the console.
This had a bunch of serial ports on the back and could support half a
dozen or so terminals.
The OS was called "CPM8" or something but was like nothing I've ever
seen before. Alas, now, with the passing of some 20y, I can't remember
make, model or anything else...
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com • MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk • Skype: liamproven • ICQ: 73187508
More information about the cctalk