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

[Roy J. Tellason]

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 05:19, Liam Proven wrote:
> > >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.
>
> 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...

One that I'm now remembering (thought not in very much detail) that I ran 
across somewhere or other was called "RP/M".  I believe it came with source 
as well,  and am not clear on what the differences were between it and 
CP/M...

-- 
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