"CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?

Allison ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Tue Feb 5 06:05:54 CST 2008


>
>Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
>   From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
>   Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:20:29 -0500
>     To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>On Monday 04 February 2008 14:48, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> I wanted to add a "put that diskette back" alarm to my CP/M
>> implementation when there were files opened for writing
>
>:-)

Fortunately it at least did a check for a changed disk.

>> It was then that I discovered that CP/M made no attempt to track open
>> files and indeed, the behavior of many programs depended on this.
>
>It wasn't really much of an OS,  compared to a lot of what else was out there.

I'd argue that CPM is barely an OS annd a should be catagorized as a 
filesystem and monitor.  there are thing it doesn't manage.  For some 
without all the IO bells implemented the IO is notably poor.

Allison



More information about the cctalk mailing list