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

[Roy J. Tellason]

On Friday 01 February 2008 03:36, Jim Battle wrote:
(Snip)
> Also, people did *plenty* of ugly stuff to save a few bytes back then,
> as you know.  RST1 isn't particularly ugly anyway.  And if for some
> reason one did find it unpleasant, you could use a macro to make it to
> your liking.

Yup...

(Snip)
> we agree.  :-)  I had a vague recollection of a faint memory of hearing
> third hand that CP/M was ported to some heathkit machine, but that the
> machine already had a ROM in low memory, and so instead of "CALL 0005H",
> one had to use "CALL 2005H" or some such.  CP/M programs could be very
> easily reassembled/patched for this, but stock CP/M binaries wouldn't
> work.  rather than repeating this slanderous story, I didn't bring it up
> and pretended it was just a supposition.  ooops, but now the cat is out
> of the bag.

I believe the H-8 did indeed have a ROM at low memory.  Never worked with that 
machine,  though.  There were also some TRS-80 boxes that I seem to recall 
having a need of a special version of CP/M as well.

-- 
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space,  a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed.  --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James 
M Dakin