"CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
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.
More information about the cctalk