CP/M survey

[Allison]

>
>Subject: Re: CP/M survey
>   From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
>   Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:51:01 -0700
>     To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>On 18 Apr 2007 at 12:28, Jules Richardson wrote:
>
>> I doubt there's any shortage of CP/M capable hardware owned by people on the 
>> list - there's just a shortage of CP/M "hardcore" knowledge, because the 
>> systems don't get used often enough for people to remember the real nuts and 
>> bolts.
>
>....and how many of us could assemble a CP/M capable machine from 
>what's in our junkbox?  Really, for a functional system, you'd need a 
>x80-capable processor, some RAM, a UART (if it's not already on the 
>processor chip) and an FDC (a WD1770/1772 will do just fine)--and a 
>bit of PROM to get it booted.

I could do it in hearbeat, and have.  

I'd do the bios development on one of the existing long list of systems.
All of my listed systems work especially the CP/M hardware.

>At least that would be the case for CP/M 2.2.  CP/M 3.0 (aka CP/M 
>Plus) is a bit more of a problem, as it involves support for things 
>such as time-of-day and bank-switching.  The same goes for MP/M, 
>which also requires a timer interrupt.

They will run on a minimal system but somethings will require the timer.


>What there's not a lot of knowledge for are the CP/M "add-ons" such 
>as Display Manager and Access Manager and the networking (was it 
>CP/Net or something like that?).

CPNet was a BDOSs that had complementary functions such that it would
be a good client to MPM and it didn't really specify the physical layer
(could be shared bus, serial or whatever).

>I once redid a ROM set for an IBM PC so it would boot CP/M 80 when 
>equipped with a V20 CPU.  I/O was handled in x88 mode.  Since the V20 
>supported the 8080 instruction set, did this qualify as a emulator or 
>not?

Qualifies as an 8080!  With a bunch of Pc hardware to impair it.  ;)



Allison