"CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Tue Feb 5 19:38:29 CST 2008
>Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
> From: "Liam Proven" <lproven at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:19:10 +0000
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>On 03/02/2008, Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
>> > From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
>> > Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:48:33 -0500
>> > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>> >On Thursday 31 January 2008 10:07, Allison wrote:
>> >> Whats more interesting is there was nothing to prevent a termcap file
>> >> and later improved CP/M work alikes did exactly that and many more things.
>> >What sort of stuff would you put into the category of "CP/M work alikes"?
>> NOvados, DOS+, ZRdos, Zsdos and ZCPR addons to CP/M. They all could run
>> CP/M programs but added things missing from basic V2.2. The gotacha was
>> they required z80 as they were stuffing all that into the same space
>> required by V2.2.
>Fascinating stuff. I had no idea there were so many.
Actually there are more.
I left out three or four at least.
>I used to do some support work on some early, 8-bit multiuser system
>which ran something called CP/M but which wasn't, not even remotely.
>The host machine was a single integrated unit - CRT screen, floppy
>drive, CPU and optionally had a 5MB hard disk built into the console.
>This had a bunch of serial ports on the back and could support half a
>dozen or so terminals.
>The OS was called "CPM8" or something but was like nothing I've ever
>seen before. Alas, now, with the passing of some 20y, I can't remember
>make, model or anything else...
Unfamiliar to me but maybe they had somthing.
More information about the cctech