6 Jun
2023
6 Jun
'23
3:08 p.m.
On 6/6/2023 10:22 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 6/6/23 04:25, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
As much as these writings are appreciated, I often find myself
frustration by the assumption that the audience knows everything you're
talking about. Just what are you talking about? I searched this
entire thread for mentions of "Poppy" and "Durango" and these words
don't occur before. What is Poppy and Durango? Not everyone was
"there" and knows what you're talking about
There were a articles in the more technical
journal-type mags 1981/82 that
discussed porting IBM DOS to non IBM 8088 systems that go into the
mechanics of it. DOS v 1.25 was the OEM version for the early ports.
*indirectly* from these you might find references to IBM BIOS porting and
who did it, there. I have only print copies no scans.
I was there, doing just
that. Initially, we at Durango didn't think
that strict 5150 compatibility at the BIOS level was necessary for the
Poppy. In fact, as OEMs, DOS 1.25 was delivered with only a sample
IO.SYS meant as a "skeleton". MS-DOS text mode, like CP/M, was
considered to be good enough.
In fact, MSDOS was never intended to be the ultimate target, but rather
an interim goal as we waited for Intel to complete the kernel for Xenix
on the 80286. Right from the first unit, we had sockets for both the
80186 and the 80286. Console I/O was done via serial connection.
It's a shame that few know about the early 80286 systems.
--Chuck