Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #32855 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-26 00:34 -0400 |
| Last post | 2021-09-03 02:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 00:34 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-08-26 05:05 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:57 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:12 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 02:43 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 09:28 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-01 00:13 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-01 08:52 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:29 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:49 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2021-09-09 21:56 +0200
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:36 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:08 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 01:32 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-26 12:26 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-08-26 19:49 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 21:06 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:58 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-27 13:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-27 11:26 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 01:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 09:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 02:08 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-28 12:11 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 01:08 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-29 04:01 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 23:32 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 00:51 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-30 00:06 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 14:03 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 01:25 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:37 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 09:40 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-28 12:20 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> - 2021-08-29 00:55 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 01:58 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-31 06:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 23:47 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-01 07:52 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2021-09-02 01:49 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2021-09-02 02:39 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 01:29 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 01:10 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-02 14:51 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-09-02 13:25 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-02 21:24 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 03:38 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:14 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:01 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-03 12:13 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 03:19 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-03 14:00 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-03 17:44 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 14:11 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-03 19:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-03 13:59 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 20:18 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 02:14 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:47 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-09-05 10:00 -0500
Re: real programmers, was HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-09-05 22:16 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-09-05 12:05 -0400
Re: fine old languages, HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-09-05 22:20 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 23:00 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 20:12 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 16:27 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 18:30 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 00:17 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:50 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-09-06 11:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-09-06 15:04 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2021-09-09 02:04 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 01:40 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:38 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-05 10:49 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 11:22 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-05 11:31 +0100
OT : Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-05 11:38 +0100
Re: OT : Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 12:15 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 20:12 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-07 22:05 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-09-05 10:13 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 09:50 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:18 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 22:38 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-06 08:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-05 12:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-09-03 19:34 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-03 19:57 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-03 08:27 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 01:03 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-05 15:25 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 14:03 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-05 19:27 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:14 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-06 00:53 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:58 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-06 12:36 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 00:44 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 17:51 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 01:48 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 10:16 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 00:21 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-26 19:53 +0200
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:33 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:01 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 04:40 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 00:15 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 06:02 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 02:37 -0400
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 00:34 -0400 |
| Subject | HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox |
| Message-ID | <1vGdnQotD_JChLr8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. Even found an ancient Aztec 'C' compiler that'll make CP/M executables AND the (rather extensive) manual. Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't keep track of how many bytes were in play. WAY back in the day I wrote some large apps that depended on BASCOM for speed. Gotta see if they'll still compile. ALSO found DOS versions of LogiTech Modula-2 (they DID do more stuff before mice and such). A decided Blast From The Past - fun, fun, fun ! Gotta find something cool to write for CP/M-86 ... mail server maybe ? There are also ancient Linux versions out there, if you want to play. I bought the first one, RedHat I think, that had any kind of xorg GUI WAY on back. SUSE came along shortly afterwards and was better. May still have the floppies somewhere, but the download was easier.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 05:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$2108260051@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #32855 |
In comp.os.linux.misc, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: > Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques > on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 > compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL > and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the > IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - > IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the > closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... > got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. Even found an ancient > Aztec 'C' compiler that'll make CP/M executables AND > the (rather extensive) manual. Check if it is at archive.org and if not, upload it. I see several versions of the Aztec C Compiler manual scanned. This looks like the earliest: https://archive.org/details/Aztec_C_1.05_User_Manual_Dec82 > A decided Blast From The Past - fun, fun, fun ! Gotta > find something cool to write for CP/M-86 ... mail server > maybe ? Not too hard, unless you need encryption support. > There are also ancient Linux versions out there, if > you want to play. I bought the first one, RedHat I think, > that had any kind of xorg GUI WAY on back. SUSE came > along shortly afterwards and was better. May still > have the floppies somewhere, but the download was > easier. I remember playing around with MGR, a non-X11 GUI that came with my first Redhat distro. (There was X11, too, but it was provided as an alternative.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManaGeR I see no one has yet run it in emulation to provide a screenshot for the article. Richard Kettlewell, in this group, answered my question in 2012 when I said I remembered that program but couldn't remember it's name. I noted the lack of screenshot in my reply then (message ID <eli$1311091452@qz.little-neck.ny.us> ). Elijah ------ betting no one has ported MGR to 64 bits, and that a port is needed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 20:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ZN2dnexGqKL6pbX8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32856 |
On 08/26/2021 01:05 AM, Eli the Bearded wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >> Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques >> on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 >> compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL >> and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the >> IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - >> IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the >> closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... >> got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. Even found an ancient >> Aztec 'C' compiler that'll make CP/M executables AND >> the (rather extensive) manual. > > Check if it is at archive.org and if not, upload it. > I see several versions of the Aztec C Compiler manual scanned. > This looks like the earliest: > > https://archive.org/details/Aztec_C_1.05_User_Manual_Dec82 > >> A decided Blast From The Past - fun, fun, fun ! Gotta >> find something cool to write for CP/M-86 ... mail server >> maybe ? > > Not too hard, unless you need encryption support. Encryption is math ... but naturally you'd have to write your own stuff in those ancient systems. They didn't really do processes back then alas, everything was very linear. The IBM-C talks about what we'd call "semaphores" and other subprocess/ subthread related stuff so MAYBE it's possible in DOS. I remember some "hotkey" programs that absolutely ran as background processes ... >> There are also ancient Linux versions out there, if >> you want to play. I bought the first one, RedHat I think, >> that had any kind of xorg GUI WAY on back. SUSE came >> along shortly afterwards and was better. May still >> have the floppies somewhere, but the download was >> easier. > > I remember playing around with MGR, a non-X11 GUI that came with my > first Redhat distro. (There was X11, too, but it was provided as > an alternative.) Yea, X11 was "experimental" way back in the beginning, and I recall it had lots of weird issues. Got better. The first Linux I tried, I think I selected X11 mostly because it "sounded cool" - had an "X" in it :-) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManaGeR > > I see no one has yet run it in emulation to provide a screenshot for > the article. Richard Kettlewell, in this group, answered my question > in 2012 when I said I remembered that program but couldn't remember > it's name. I noted the lack of screenshot in my reply then (message ID > <eli$1311091452@qz.little-neck.ny.us> ). > > Elijah > ------ > betting no one has ported MGR to 64 bits, and that a port is needed > Some things are destined to just fade away. However I *know* that some DOS apps are still in use, running in DOS with "older" hardware - one place has a large old database it does NOT want to try and port over to anything newer (a multi-value PICK-like DB that doesn't fit the MSSQL flat-file schema very well). Too much work. I think some places are even running emulated System 360s because they have some vital big old COBOL programs they just are NOT gonna pay anybody to re-write. If it works .... A year or two ago, DeGaulle airport in Paris had a ground-traffic control problem. Turned out the box running the custom app was WIN-3.11 Still working after decades. Apparently they got it up and going again ... Oh, and I came across an article recently on implementing Unix-V on an emulated PDP-11, on a rPI .... There's the "good old stuff", and then just "old stuff".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-27 02:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sg9e5v$87n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32903 |
On 27/08/2021 01:57, SixOverFive wrote: > However I *know* that some DOS apps are still in use, > running in DOS with "older" hardware It's a remarkably good OS if you have for example a PC running instrumentation...pretty real time even if only single tasking, easy to write a custom interrupt based driver for to handle IO, and enough UI to allow a decent screen base on VGA standards to be constructed. In short if you just uses it as a program loader its OK. -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 02:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xYednbd_P-8YUrD8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32909 |
On 08/26/2021 09:12 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/08/2021 01:57, SixOverFive wrote: >> However I *know* that some DOS apps are still in use, >> running in DOS with "older" hardware > > It's a remarkably good OS if you have for example a PC running > instrumentation...pretty real time even if only single tasking, easy to > write a custom interrupt based driver for to handle IO, and enough UI to > allow a decent screen base on VGA standards to be constructed. > > In short if you just uses it as a program loader its OK. No, you can use it for Real Programs ... within its inherent limitations. Semi-RealTime, old irreplacable databases, device management, microcontroller programming, it's actually very capable - all in a TINY low-horsepower environment. The old UNIX's were theoretically better, but they were far more expensive and were memory hogs. Best suited to host a bunch of serial terminals/thin-clients. It's at WINDERS that it all went wrong .... SOMEWHERE in the Great Heap I have Windows 1 (maybe 1.10 or 1.11) floppies. An old boss bought it, played with it for a few days, and then threw it. In some act of prescience I rescued it from the trash bin. But I can't *find* it ! Maybe when I retire I'll go thru the Great Heap. Frankly, Win-1 was horrible. Jobs just had to rip-off Xerox and Bill just had to rip-off Apple, badly. I think all of the Winders were just basically extended-memory GUIs that ran on top of DOS at least thru Win-ME. The NT line was a little better, but not much. Seems you spent as much time at the command-line as you spent in the GUI. My fav was Win-2k. According to sources that was the very LAST time any MS employee actually held the entire system in his head - and could thus predict all interactions (change 'a' and it'll do 'x' to 'b'). I have a Win-2k VirtualBox machine - and DO play with it from time to time. There's actually a fair amount of software in it including an old FileMaker DB I'm STILL exporting data from. Oh yea, look thru the Win2k registry - search for "NSA" :-) Tried DosBox and DosBox-X (an improved version) over the past few days. CAN load and run IBM-C v1.00, but for some reason IBM-Pascal v2.00 won't run. Had to compile DosBox-X from source ... normally they want you to run it from some weird 'cloud' environment called FlatPak. I wanted a DEB. I don't like cloud environments, never know WHAT else they're up to. Found MicroSoft-C v??? and MicroSoft Pascal v4??? on WinWorld ... I'll try to install them. STILL want to run IBM PL/I though. COBOL, well, not so much ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sgkp7e$8dr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33016 |
On 31/08/2021 07:43, SixOverFive wrote: >> >> In short if you just uses it as a program loader its OK. > > No, you can use it for Real Programs ... within its > inherent limitations. I think you meant "Yes, you can use it for Real Programs ... within its inherent limitations." Real programs can be written in assembler to run without any operating system but all of them have to be loaded somehow.,.. -- Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-01 00:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <F6Cdnb0XctGdY7P8nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33017 |
On 8/31/21 4:28 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 31/08/2021 07:43, SixOverFive wrote: >>> >>> In short if you just uses it as a program loader its OK. >> >> No, you can use it for Real Programs ... within its >> inherent limitations. > > I think you meant > > "Yes, you can use it for Real Programs ... within its inherent > limitations." Um ... I was sort of contradicting your assessment, so the "No" had a proper place. I'm surprised we don't see "DOS-On-Chip" microcontrollers. Basically burn DOS 5/6/7 into the thing so you have a capable, yet compact/fast/capable, programming environment. It's probably an issue with MS - though there IS "FreeDOS". > > Real programs can be written in assembler to run without any operating > system but all of them have to be loaded somehow.,.. Yea, I've written a bunch of those on 'microcontrollers'. PIC to Arduino. No-OS. There was an outfit that sold a minimal, but free, 'C' compiler for PIC chips. I'd use it for the NASTY - interrupt-aware serial comms - and do the rest in ASM. Those are really cool little chips - the 8-pin jobbies can replace a lot of those old ICs and give more versatility for almost the same price. Need to divide an inputo signal by 17 .., and tweak that with an analog dial ? Easy. I've always thought the "No-OS" approach might be best for things like voting machines. As best I can tell, a lot of the current units are basically recycled Winders laptop boards. A dedicated program, burnt into eproms, offers a LOT fewer backdoors, maybe none. Get it right, solder-in the chips, use some sort of minimalist markup language to build the on-screen ballots. Do they still make "fuse" PROMS ? Even better ... you don't re-write THOSE :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-01 08:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sgnbgm$4g0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33044 |
On 01/09/2021 05:13, SixOverFive wrote: > Do they still make "fuse" PROMS ? Even better ... you > don't re-write THOSE :-) well FPGAS are sort of usable as that design your won processor and its microcode... -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 20:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j_ednRj4QqZk_aj8nZ2dnUU7-enNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33048 |
On 9/1/21 3:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 01/09/2021 05:13, SixOverFive wrote: >> Do they still make "fuse" PROMS ? Even better ... you >> don't re-write THOSE :-) > > well FPGAS are sort of usable as that design your won processor and its > microcode... Do any of them still use fusible link memory ? I'll have to check. My guess is "no" - it's all "field RE-programmable" these days. I did get a hit for more traditional fusible-link chips, they CAN still be purchased. Most are measured in BYTES though, a few had KBs. If it just HAS to work, just HAS to be unchangable, those are your ticket. Wouldn't be surprised if the bootstrap in some of those space probes use that kind of memory. Radiation/heat/cold isn't going to do much to those little metal wires. Never got into FPGAs for some reason, though they are pretty neat. Guess there was never a NEED in the stuff I was doing. It'd be cool to emulate certain old CPUs using them - or "improve" on them. How about a 64-bit PDP-11 ? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 08:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh4h68$nhj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33147 |
On 06/09/2021 01:29, SixOverFive wrote: > On 9/1/21 3:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 01/09/2021 05:13, SixOverFive wrote: >>> Do they still make "fuse" PROMS ? Even better ... you >>> don't re-write THOSE :-) >> >> well FPGAS are sort of usable as that design your won processor and >> its microcode... > > Do any of them still use fusible link memory ? I couldn't find any on a cursory search. I'll have > to check. My guess is "no" - it's all "field RE-programmable" > these days. Yep. Flash mainly > > I did get a hit for more traditional fusible-link chips, they > CAN still be purchased. Most are measured in BYTES though, > a few had KBs. If it just HAS to work, just HAS to be > unchangable, those are your ticket. Wouldn't be surprised > if the bootstrap in some of those space probes use that > kind of memory. Radiation/heat/cold isn't going to do much > to those little metal wires. > Fusible link was good - we used UV erasable until the code was stable, then blew the PROMS. Typically this would be what was in a PC BIOS: I guess today that is Flash on most motherboards. Upgrades were done by removing them and plugging in new PROMS > Never got into FPGAs for some reason, though they are > pretty neat. Guess there was never a NEED in the stuff > I was doing. It'd be cool to emulate certain old CPUs > using them - or "improve" on them. How about a 64-bit > PDP-11 ? :-) -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sgmv3d2jto@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #33016 |
On 2021-08-31, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > On 08/26/2021 09:12 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 27/08/2021 01:57, SixOverFive wrote: >> >>> However I *know* that some DOS apps are still in use, >>> running in DOS with "older" hardware >> >> It's a remarkably good OS if you have for example a PC running >> instrumentation...pretty real time even if only single tasking, >> easy to write a custom interrupt based driver for to handle IO, >> and enough UI to allow a decent screen base on VGA standards to >> be constructed. >> >> In short if you just uses it as a program loader its OK. > > No, you can use it for Real Programs ... within its > inherent limitations. Semi-RealTime, old irreplacable > databases, device management, microcontroller programming, > it's actually very capable - all in a TINY low-horsepower > environment. The old UNIX's were theoretically better, but > they were far more expensive and were memory hogs. Best > suited to host a bunch of serial terminals/thin-clients. > > It's at WINDERS that it all went wrong .... Nah, MS-DOS had plenty of warts, most of which Windows inherited. > SOMEWHERE in the Great Heap I have Windows 1 (maybe > 1.10 or 1.11) floppies. An old boss bought it, played > with it for a few days, and then threw it. In some act > of prescience I rescued it from the trash bin. But > I can't *find* it ! Maybe when I retire I'll go thru > the Great Heap. > > Frankly, Win-1 was horrible. Jobs just had to rip-off > Xerox and Bill just had to rip-off Apple, badly. I think > all of the Winders were just basically extended-memory > GUIs that ran on top of DOS at least thru Win-ME. The NT > line was a little better, but not much. At the height of the look-and-feel lawsuits, a cartoon appeared showing one lawyer saying to another: "You look like I feel." > Seems you spent as much time at the command-line as you > spent in the GUI. You make this sound like a bad thing. > My fav was Win-2k. According to sources that was the > very LAST time any MS employee actually held the > entire system in his head - and could thus predict > all interactions (change 'a' and it'll do 'x' to 'b'). > I have a Win-2k VirtualBox machine - and DO play > with it from time to time. There's actually a fair > amount of software in it including an old FileMaker > DB I'm STILL exporting data from. Oh yea, look thru > the Win2k registry - search for "NSA" :-) IMHO Windows' usability (such as it is) peaked somewhere between 2000 and XP, and it's been going downhill ever since. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jak <nospam@please.ty> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 21:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shdouc$8tb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #32903 |
Il 27/08/2021 02:57, SixOverFive ha scritto: > On 08/26/2021 01:05 AM, Eli the Bearded wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.misc, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >>> Drifting around today I found a few interesting antiques >>> on the net. One was DOS-6.22 ... and a Turbo Pascal 6 >>> compiler that ran on it. Also got the MS Fortran/Pascal/COBOL >>> and BASCOM for it. Even more interesting, remember when the >>> IBM-PCs first came out ? They came with TWO floppies - >>> IBM-DOS and CP/M-86. The originals had CP/M 1.0 while the >>> closely-following PC-XTs came with CP/M 1.10 ... >>> got BOTH to run inside VirtualBox. Even found an ancient >>> Aztec 'C' compiler that'll make CP/M executables AND >>> the (rather extensive) manual. >> >> Check if it is at archive.org and if not, upload it. >> I see several versions of the Aztec C Compiler manual scanned. >> This looks like the earliest: >> >> https://archive.org/details/Aztec_C_1.05_User_Manual_Dec82 >> >>> A decided Blast From The Past - fun, fun, fun ! Gotta >>> find something cool to write for CP/M-86 ... mail server >>> maybe ? >> >> Not too hard, unless you need encryption support. > > > Encryption is math ... but naturally you'd have to > write your own stuff in those ancient systems. > They didn't really do processes back then alas, > everything was very linear. The IBM-C talks about > what we'd call "semaphores" and other subprocess/ > subthread related stuff so MAYBE it's possible > in DOS. I remember some "hotkey" programs that > absolutely ran as background processes ... > > Sorry, just a clarification: Hotkey activated dos programs, otherwise called TSR (terminate and stay resident) programs, are not background processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminate_and_stay_resident_program > > >>> There are also ancient Linux versions out there, if >>> you want to play. I bought the first one, RedHat I think, >>> that had any kind of xorg GUI WAY on back. SUSE came >>> along shortly afterwards and was better. May still >>> have the floppies somewhere, but the download was >>> easier. >> >> I remember playing around with MGR, a non-X11 GUI that came with my >> first Redhat distro. (There was X11, too, but it was provided as >> an alternative.) > > Yea, X11 was "experimental" way back in the beginning, > and I recall it had lots of weird issues. Got better. > The first Linux I tried, I think I selected X11 mostly > because it "sounded cool" - had an "X" in it :-) > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManaGeR >> >> I see no one has yet run it in emulation to provide a screenshot for >> the article. Richard Kettlewell, in this group, answered my question >> in 2012 when I said I remembered that program but couldn't remember >> it's name. I noted the lack of screenshot in my reply then (message ID >> <eli$1311091452@qz.little-neck.ny.us> ). >> >> Elijah >> ------ >> betting no one has ported MGR to 64 bits, and that a port is needed >> > > Some things are destined to just fade away. > > However I *know* that some DOS apps are still in use, > running in DOS with "older" hardware - one place has > a large old database it does NOT want to try and port > over to anything newer (a multi-value PICK-like DB > that doesn't fit the MSSQL flat-file schema very well). > Too much work. I think some places are even running > emulated System 360s because they have some vital > big old COBOL programs they just are NOT gonna pay > anybody to re-write. If it works .... > > A year or two ago, DeGaulle airport in Paris had a > ground-traffic control problem. Turned out the box > running the custom app was WIN-3.11 Still working after > decades. Apparently they got it up and going again ... > > Oh, and I came across an article recently on implementing > Unix-V on an emulated PDP-11, on a rPI .... > > There's the "good old stuff", and then just "old stuff".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 10:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sg7lci$ica$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32855 |
On 26/08/2021 05:34, SixOverFive wrote: > Gotta > find something cool to write for CP/M-86 TCP/IP stack? -- “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” Herbert Spencer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 20:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oJOdneAoXtsVrrX8nZ2dnUU7-d1QAAAA@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32865 |
On 08/26/2021 05:03 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 26/08/2021 05:34, SixOverFive wrote: >> Gotta >> find something cool to write for CP/M-86 > > TCP/IP stack? It can be done on an Arduino (probably easier on the Mega with more RAM). They DO make a network card, you CAN implement a (very VERY slow) web page. So, it can be done in DOS and even CP/M for sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-27 02:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sg9du1$5rj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32902 |
On 27/08/2021 01:36, SixOverFive wrote: > On 08/26/2021 05:03 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 26/08/2021 05:34, SixOverFive wrote: >>> Gotta >>> find something cool to write for CP/M-86 >> >> TCP/IP stack? > > It can be done on an Arduino (probably easier > on the Mega with more RAM). They DO make a > network card, you CAN implement a (very VERY > slow) web page. So, it can be done in DOS > and even CP/M for sure. TCP/IP stacks existed in DOS back in the day. Used to sell them... No sure you would get one for a z80 running CP/M though - ISTR the smallest was around 45Kbytes -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 01:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lP-dnVhdTqVohrb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32908 |
On 08/26/2021 09:08 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/08/2021 01:36, SixOverFive wrote: >> On 08/26/2021 05:03 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 26/08/2021 05:34, SixOverFive wrote: >>>> Gotta >>>> find something cool to write for CP/M-86 >>> >>> TCP/IP stack? >> >> It can be done on an Arduino (probably easier >> on the Mega with more RAM). They DO make a >> network card, you CAN implement a (very VERY >> slow) web page. So, it can be done in DOS >> and even CP/M for sure. > > TCP/IP stacks existed in DOS back in the day. Used to sell them... > No sure you would get one for a z80 running CP/M though - ISTR the > smallest was around 45Kbytes A number of Z80 boards were set up to handle at least one extra 64kb page of memory. It was a clunky, sometimes proprietary, paging system. Early DOS/86 wasn't much better. It's why the 68000 series drew so many fans with its "flat" memory space. Anyway, a TCP stack could be done in DOS, with its 64kb pages, and therefore in CP/M-80/86. But, I'm not going to TRY it at this time :-) For now I want my retro-computing to be FUN, not hard WORK. Recently acquired an Apple 2-E with dual drives. It DOES boot. Just wondering what to DO with it. I can't help but wonder if there may still be valid uses for some of these 'antique' systems. They were SO simple/unconnected that there was often no good way to hack them - yet they were a lot easier than super- dedicated assembler programming. Machine-control systems maybe, traffic-control, embedded, voting-machines ... ? It's why Intel put MINIX micro-machines inside their chips - but that was a BAD choice. If the Intel boyz could get at them then so could anyone else. And they DID.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 12:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <874kbc18bn.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #32855 |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:34:38 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: > > Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually > safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't > keep track of how many bytes were in play. MS-DOS did? I admit I have no idea, but always thought CP/M was superior to MS-DOS; even that MS-DOS was more or less a clone. And not forget CP/M was the first operating system for micros, running on many system architectures, as long as they ran a 8080, Z80 or X68. The software library is so huge that many manufacturers, even Commodore, offered CP/M cards to give their customers access to it. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 19:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <sg8gn8$78h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32877 |
On 26.8.21 19.26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:34:38 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >> >> Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually >> safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't >> keep track of how many bytes were in play. > > MS-DOS did? I admit I have no idea, but always thought CP/M was superior > to MS-DOS; even that MS-DOS was more or less a clone. And not forget CP/M > was the first operating system for micros, running on many system > architectures, as long as they ran a 8080, Z80 or X68. The software > library is so huge that many manufacturers, even Commodore, offered CP/M > cards to give their customers access to it. CP/M had bookkeeping in 128 byte extents, not more accurate. The extent size was also the sector size of a basic single-density 8 inch diskette, with 77 tracks of 26 sectors each. -- -TV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-26 21:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <LZmdnU0zIfsmp7X8nZ2dnUU7-L_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32881 |
On 08/26/2021 12:49 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote: > On 26.8.21 19.26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:34:38 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >>> >>> Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually >>> safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't >>> keep track of how many bytes were in play. >> >> MS-DOS did? I admit I have no idea, but always thought CP/M was superior >> to MS-DOS; even that MS-DOS was more or less a clone. And not forget CP/M >> was the first operating system for micros, running on many system >> architectures, as long as they ran a 8080, Z80 or X68. The software >> library is so huge that many manufacturers, even Commodore, offered CP/M >> cards to give their customers access to it. > > > CP/M had bookkeeping in 128 byte extents, not more accurate. The extent > size was also the sector size of a basic single-density 8 inch diskette, > with 77 tracks of 26 sectors each. Ah HA ! So if you wanted to append a file, you should have your records sized at some multiple of 128 ..... This is useful information. The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities of biz/science software was written for it. This is why those old PCs came with the CP/M disk. You could re-compile your old source and I seem to recall there were utilities that could (usually) brutalize Z-80 binaries into x86 binaries directly that'd run on CP/M-86. IBMs middle name IS "Business" after all and they wanted to ensure a certain continuity until new apps could be written.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-27 02:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sg9grd$n4i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32907 |
On 27/08/2021 02:06, SixOverFive wrote: > On 08/26/2021 12:49 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >> On 26.8.21 19.26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:34:38 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274b.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Note, CP/M was rather CRAPPY. It wasn't even usually >>>> safe to try and append to files because the OS didn't >>>> keep track of how many bytes were in play. >>> >>> MS-DOS did? I admit I have no idea, but always thought CP/M was superior >>> to MS-DOS; even that MS-DOS was more or less a clone. And not forget >>> CP/M >>> was the first operating system for micros, running on many system >>> architectures, as long as they ran a 8080, Z80 or X68. The software >>> library is so huge that many manufacturers, even Commodore, offered CP/M >>> cards to give their customers access to it. >> >> >> CP/M had bookkeeping in 128 byte extents, not more accurate. The extent >> size was also the sector size of a basic single-density 8 inch diskette, >> with 77 tracks of 26 sectors each. > > Ah HA ! So if you wanted to append a file, you should have > your records sized at some multiple of 128 ..... No, the problem was that text files used a ctrl-z to mark EOF so you had to scan the last sector looking for it...and use that as your file size. For code files - executables - spare bytes at the end didn't matter. and ctrl-z was a valid opcodes or memory address, but you didn't append executable files - you recompiled or reassembled them. The problem would have been binary files. But we didn't have those really then. Much. And if we did we usually put something in the file structure itself to say how long it was. CP/M doisk drivers were really just a way of getting n 128 byte sectors off a disk and putting them on. Files as such were a bit of a new fangled luxury :-) > > This is useful information. > > The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* > "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities > of biz/science software was written for it. First micro word processors and (among the first) spreadsheets. Accounting software too. This is why > those old PCs came with the CP/M disk. You could re-compile > your old source and I seem to recall there were utilities > that could (usually) brutalize Z-80 binaries into x86 > binaries directly that'd run on CP/M-86. IBMs middle > name IS "Business" after all and they wanted to ensure > a certain continuity until new apps could be written. Yeah. I remember those, but really a lot of the 8080 assembler source could be mapped into 8086 small model (64k) code. That would have been a better way, but along came PCDOS and bang went CPM MPM and CPM86 -- In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone gets full Marx.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web