"CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Sat Feb 2 18:06:44 CST 2008
>Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
> From: Roger Ivie <rivie at ridgenet.net>
> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:16:28 -0800 (PST)
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Allison wrote:
>>> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
>>> After having used ISIS before CP/M, I was happy to see the "lean and
>>> mean" CP/M. ISIS was verbose, clumsy and slow (e.g., :F0: instead of
>>> A: for the first floppy drive; "DELETE" instead of "ERA").
>> Also an ISIS user. The usual OS used on the shop MDS was not ISIS
>> but instead CP/M!
>I did a small amount of work with ISIS, but after I had used CP/M. I
>used an Intel PDS development system for the 8051 to debug some
>firmware; I think it was for DEC's SCSI floppy controller.
Use a MDS to bring up CP/M2.2 on a NEC PDA-80 an 8080 based FP machine
that had a remex tape punch reader. Yep configured CP/M, bolted on a
bios and punched it to PT!
>The PDS was interesting in that it was a portable system about the size
>of a Kaypro and had *two* 8085s. ISIS gave you an A> or B> prompt, but
>it indicated to which processor you were speaking rather than which
>drive was the default.
It was a bizzare little box.
>rivie at ridgenet.net
More information about the cctech