3 May
2024
3 May
'24
6:30 p.m.
PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level programming language for microprocessors.
CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of Washington.
He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they loaned
him hardware.
In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed the
PL/M.
He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in Pacific Grove.
Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080 and later
Z80 computers.
In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25" drives, and
there were hundreds, soon thousands of different formats, I chatted with Gary,
and pleaded with him ot create a "standard" format for 5.25".
His response was a very polite, "The standard format for CP/M is 8 inch single
sided single density."
I pointed out that formats were proliferating excessively.
His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard format
for CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard of it) One
of the IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in his Apple. IBM
went to Microsoft, to negotiate BASIC for the new machine, and CP/M.
Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to Oakland
to visit Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and assumed that
Dorothy would take care of the [presumably completely routine] paperwork. While
visiting Bill godbout, and delivering some software was important, it WAS
something that a low level courier could have done.
There was a little bit of a culture clash.
The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless women, with
bicycles, surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before talking.
Dorothy Kildall refused.
When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he said,
"well, let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the rest of the
customers."
It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people marching up,
and thought that it was a drug raid. I have stood in that bay window
overlooking the front door, and can believe that.
IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the operating
system business, Microsoft went into the operating system business. They
bought an unlimited license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's work at Seattle Computer
Products). They also hired Tim Paterson.
DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a placeholder
to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got the idea for the directory
structure from Microsoft Standalone BASIC. As Chuck pointed out, that was not
a new invention, merely a choice of which way to do it.
billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said that he
told the Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit, stay home
tomorrow!"
IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on doors
that normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy who heard about it, that
Microsoft referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
dr continued to sell CP/M.
When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a renaming
of MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
IBM didn't consider it a problem, andsimply offered to ALSO sell CP/M-86,
particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD P-System.
CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC bought
PC-DOS.
But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would become the standard once it came
out, and PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while waiting.
CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such things).
When it did, the price was $240.
There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price point.
Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the standard.
dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with "Concurrent
DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying them, when it was the ones that
they had copied.
No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark status for "DOS"!
In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT trademark PC-DOS,
saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating System, which is a
description, not a unique name. In 1987, I visited the Patent and Trademark
Office outside of Washington, DC, and personally confirmed that in their
stacks.
Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in the
history of stupid moves.
Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the BRAVEST move in history.
A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
eventually, he bagan drinking.
On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether that was
during an altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It was at the
Franklin Street biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a potential homicide was
inconclusive.
About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house on
Lighthouse street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought it in a
foreclosure sale. At the time that he bought it, he was unaware of the
historical significance. He let me wander through the whole place, looking out
the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
3 May
3 May
6:54 p.m.
On 5/3/24 18:30, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level
programming language for
microprocessors.
Notable that a subset of PL/I was marketed for CP/M around 1981 or so.
I've heard from some folks that Gary developed ISIS for Intel. That is
definitely not true. It was the work of Jim Stein and Terry Burgett.
Disk allocation was quite different from CP/M. ISIS used a list-sort of
structure, like Unix.
I almost took a job as site analyst at the PG school for CDC, but
thought better of it. The guy who did get the job spent a lot of time
at the Hog's Breath Inn in Carmel, I recall.
--Chuck
7 May
7 May
12:16 p.m.
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 6:54 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 5/3/24 18:30, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
A weird question: do you know if Terry Burgett had a cult?
Sellam
PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level
programming language for
microprocessors.
Notable that a subset of PL/I was marketed for CP/M around 1981 or so.
I've heard from some folks that Gary developed ISIS for Intel. That is
definitely not true. It was the work of Jim Stein and Terry Burgett.
Disk allocation was quite different from CP/M. ISIS used a list-sort of
structure, like Unix.
6:36 p.m.
Hey Grumpy Fred, thanks for sharing your story and honored to be around
those who met with Gary. I recall some versions of the story was that he
decided to go flying that day since he was quarreling with his wife (or
that he decided to personally do that errands, just to "get out of the
house" sort of thing). That could be a culture thing - what I mean is,
that he didn't think it critical for IBM to make their decision THAT day.
And that's the other rumors to the story: that IBM did try to follow up in
days or weeks that follow. We'll probably never know the exact truth of
things - except that I do think everyone generally agrees that at least
Bill Gates did TRY to give CP/M a chance, which is somewhat admirable (in
acknowledging that "if you want the best, this is the guy you need to talk
to"). The autobiography of Paul Allen, he claims he strongly nudged Gates
into looking into QDOS. And for me, I'm convinced Tim do sufficient
independent work to make QDOS. But I'm baffled - CP/M was always "just"
a 64K OS. Meaning QDOS/PC/MS-DOS, to its credit, tackled the banking
challenge - that is, from a software developers perspective, you could
allocate 250,000 bytes (if the system had RAM) and the OS managed the
up-to-10 segments for you rather seamlessly. I never actually actively
used CP/M myself, but my understanding is in all the systems you find it on
- like even the OSBORNE-1, they are 64K systems. (the later concurrent
and DR-DOS obviously tackled that - by 1990 I was fully onboard with
DR-DOS, it really was better for a few years there than MS-DOS)
-SteveL (v*)
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:30 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level
programming language for
microprocessors.
CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of Washington.
He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they
loaned
him hardware.
In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed
the
PL/M.
He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in Pacific Grove.
Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080 and
later
Z80 computers.
In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25" drives,
and
there were hundreds, soon thousands of different formats, I chatted with
Gary,
and pleaded with him ot create a "standard" format for 5.25".
His response was a very polite, "The standard format for CP/M is 8 inch
single
sided single density."
I pointed out that formats were proliferating excessively.
His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard
format
for CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard of it)
One
of the IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in his Apple.
IBM
went to Microsoft, to negotiate BASIC for the new machine, and CP/M.
Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to
Oakland
to visit Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and assumed
that
Dorothy would take care of the [presumably completely routine] paperwork.
While
visiting Bill godbout, and delivering some software was important, it WAS
something that a low level courier could have done.
There was a little bit of a culture clash.
The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless women,
with
bicycles, surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before talking.
Dorothy Kildall refused.
When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he
said,
"well, let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the rest of the
customers."
It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people marching
up,
and thought that it was a drug raid. I have stood in that bay window
overlooking the front door, and can believe that.
IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the
operating
system business, Microsoft went into the operating system business. They
bought an unlimited license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's work at Seattle
Computer
Products). They also hired Tim Paterson.
DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a
placeholder
to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got the idea for the directory
structure from Microsoft Standalone BASIC. As Chuck pointed out, that was
not
a new invention, merely a choice of which way to do it.
billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said
that he
told the Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit, stay home
tomorrow!"
IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on
doors
that normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy who heard about it, that
Microsoft referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
dr continued to sell CP/M.
When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a
renaming
of MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
IBM didn't consider it a problem, andsimply offered to ALSO sell CP/M-86,
particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD P-System.
CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC bought
PC-DOS.
But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would become the standard once it
came
out, and PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while waiting.
CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such
things).
When it did, the price was $240.
There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price point.
Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the
standard.
dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with
"Concurrent
DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying them, when it was the ones
that
they had copied.
No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark status for "DOS"!
In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT trademark
PC-DOS,
saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating System, which is
a
description, not a unique name. In 1987, I visited the Patent and
Trademark
Office outside of Washington, DC, and personally confirmed that in their
stacks.
Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in the
history of stupid moves.
Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the BRAVEST move in history.
A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
eventually, he bagan drinking.
On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether that
was
during an altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It was
at the
Franklin Street biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a potential homicide
was
inconclusive.
About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house on
Lighthouse street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought it
in a
foreclosure sale. At the time that he bought it, he was unaware of the
historical significance. He let me wander through the whole place,
looking out
the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
6:59 p.m.
Tim Paterson's article "Inside Look At MS-DOS" is a good read.
The original intent of QDOS was as a quick and dirty temporary substitute
to use while waiting for CP/M-86.
Tim assumed that CP/M-86 would be as upwards compatible as possible with
CP/M. But, there were a substantial number of things that needed to be
done differently, including, as you mentioned, memory management,
Interrupt Vector Table, etc.
But, Paterson deliberately matched the API so that programs developed with
QDOS would need as little as possible patching to run under CP/M-86.
I believe that he did NOT copy any code from CP/M.
Under modern "look and feel" interpretation of copyright, it would be
infringing, just like Adam Osborne's "Paperback Software" spreadsheet was
deliberately an exact match for Lotus 123 menus and commands. At the time
that Paterson wrote QDOS, it was perfectly legal to make a program that
mimiced another program, so long as the code wasn't copied. Hence, the
various puckman clones, and compatible BIOS's.
I barely met Gary, and never got a chance to get to know him.
My chat with him about standardizing disk formats was as a stranger.
I had a friend who knew him, who told me about Gary's depression and
drinking.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Tue, 7 May 2024, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> Hey Grumpy Fred, thanks for sharing your story and honored to be around
> those who met with Gary. I recall some versions of the story was that he
> decided to go flying that day since he was quarreling with his wife (or
> that he decided to personally do that errands, just to "get out of the
> house" sort of thing). That could be a culture thing - what I mean is,
> that he didn't think it critical for IBM to make their decision THAT day.
> And that's the other rumors to the story: that IBM did try to follow up in
> days or weeks that follow. We'll probably never know the exact truth of
> things - except that I do think everyone generally agrees that at least
> Bill Gates did TRY to give CP/M a chance, which is somewhat admirable (in
> acknowledging that "if you want the best, this is the guy you need to talk
> to"). The autobiography of Paul Allen, he claims he strongly nudged Gates
> into looking into QDOS. And for me, I'm convinced Tim do sufficient
> independent work to make QDOS. But I'm baffled - CP/M was always
"just"
> a 64K OS. Meaning QDOS/PC/MS-DOS, to its credit, tackled the banking
> challenge - that is, from a software developers perspective, you could
> allocate 250,000 bytes (if the system had RAM) and the OS managed the
> up-to-10 segments for you rather seamlessly. I never actually actively
> used CP/M myself, but my understanding is in all the systems you find it on
> - like even the OSBORNE-1, they are 64K systems. (the later concurrent
> and DR-DOS obviously tackled that - by 1990 I was fully onboard with
> DR-DOS, it really was better for a few years there than MS-DOS)
>
> -SteveL (v*)
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:30 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level programming language for
>> microprocessors.
>>
>> CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
>> It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
>>
>> Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
>> He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of Washington.
>>
>> He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they
>> loaned
>> him hardware.
>>
>> In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
>> He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed
>> the
>> PL/M.
>>
>> He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in Pacific
Grove.
>> Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
>>
>> CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080 and
>> later
>> Z80 computers.
>>
>> In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25" drives,
>> and
>> there were hundreds, soon thousands of different formats, I chatted with
>> Gary,
>> and pleaded with him ot create a "standard" format for 5.25".
>> His response was a very polite, "The standard format for CP/M is 8 inch
>> single
>> sided single density."
>> I pointed out that formats were proliferating excessively.
>> His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard
>> format
>> for CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
>>
>>
>> In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard of it)
>> One
>> of the IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in his Apple.
>> IBM
>> went to Microsoft, to negotiate BASIC for the new machine, and CP/M.
>>
>> Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
>>
>> When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to
>> Oakland
>> to visit Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and assumed
>> that
>> Dorothy would take care of the [presumably completely routine] paperwork.
>> While
>> visiting Bill godbout, and delivering some software was important, it WAS
>> something that a low level courier could have done.
>>
>>
>> There was a little bit of a culture clash.
>> The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
>> The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless women,
>> with
>> bicycles, surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
>>
>> The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before talking.
>> Dorothy Kildall refused.
>>
>> When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he
>> said,
>> "well, let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the rest of the
>> customers."
>>
>> It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people marching
>> up,
>> and thought that it was a drug raid. I have stood in that bay window
>> overlooking the front door, and can believe that.
>>
>> IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
>> When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the
>> operating
>> system business, Microsoft went into the operating system business. They
>> bought an unlimited license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's work at Seattle
>> Computer
>> Products). They also hired Tim Paterson.
>>
>> DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
>> Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a
>> placeholder
>> to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
>> We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got the idea for the directory
>> structure from Microsoft Standalone BASIC. As Chuck pointed out, that was
>> not
>> a new invention, merely a choice of which way to do it.
>>
>> billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said
>> that he
>> told the Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit, stay home
>> tomorrow!"
>>
>> IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on
>> doors
>> that normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
>> It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy who heard about it, that
>> Microsoft referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
>>
>>
>>
>> dr continued to sell CP/M.
>> When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a
>> renaming
>> of MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
>>
>> If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
>>
>>
>> DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
>>
>>
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
>> IBM didn't consider it a problem, andsimply offered to ALSO sell CP/M-86,
>> particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD P-System.
>>
>> CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC bought
>> PC-DOS.
>> But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would become the standard once it
>> came
>> out, and PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while waiting.
>>
>> CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such
>> things).
>> When it did, the price was $240.
>> There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price point.
>>
>> Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
>> But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the
>> standard.
>>
>>
>> dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with
>> "Concurrent
>> DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
>> Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying them, when it was the ones
>> that
>> they had copied.
>> No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark status for "DOS"!
>> In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT
trademark
>> PC-DOS,
>> saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating System, which is
>> a
>> description, not a unique name. In 1987, I visited the Patent and
>> Trademark
>> Office outside of Washington, DC, and personally confirmed that in their
>> stacks.
>>
>> Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in the
>> history of stupid moves.
>> Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the BRAVEST move in history.
>>
>>
>> A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
>> eventually, he bagan drinking.
>>
>> On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether that
>> was
>> during an altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It was
>> at the
>> Franklin Street biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a potential homicide
>> was
>> inconclusive.
>>
>>
>> About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house on
>> Lighthouse street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought it
>> in a
>> foreclosure sale. At the time that he bought it, he was unaware of the
>> historical significance. He let me wander through the whole place,
>> looking out
>> the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
7:52 p.m.
Tim Paterson's article "Inside Look At
MS-DOS" is a good read.
A good history and overview of DR including interviews from some of the main players by
the "Computer Chronicles":
https://youtu.be/bLVbSjDq0DE
-Ali
8:47 p.m.
> Tim Paterson's article "Inside Look At
MS-DOS" is a good read.
On Tue, 7 May 2024, Ali wrote:
A good history and overview of DR including interviews
from some of the main players by the "Computer Chronicles":
https://youtu.be/bLVbSjDq0DE
It's good.
When that episode was first broadcast by KCSM, it had good closed
captions.
My VHS copy is long lost.
The Youtube auto-generated captions are much better than they once were,
but still not quite there. Nevertheless, now good enough to follow along.
"das" is DOS
b das BDOS
VRI DRI
Kary Gary,
see PM CP/M
Bill gob out Bill Godbout
PC does PC-DOS
kudos QDOS
I be M IBM
killed L Kildall
Carrie Gary
Chip A Cheifet
etc.
The price differential was NOT that much of a surprise, andwas not
entiirely IBM's decision.
AND, not mentioned, MS-DOS was out for 6 months before CP/M-86 finally
became available!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8 May
8 May
1:11 p.m.
At Ken Bowles retirement from UCSD (Ken was the lead of the UCSD Pascal Project) he
related a story that IBM came to UCSD after being ‘rejected’ by DR to see if the Regents
of the University would license UCSD Pascal (the OS and the language) to IBM for release
on the new hardware IBM was developing. The UC Regents said ’no’.
He was quite sad that history took the very different course.
David
On May 3, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level programming language for microprocessors.
CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of Washington.
He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they loaned him
hardware.
In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed the PL/M.
He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in Pacific Grove.
Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080 and later Z80
computers.
In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25" drives, and there
were hundreds, soon thousands of different formats, I chatted with Gary, and pleaded with
him ot create a "standard" format for 5.25".
His response was a very polite, "The standard format for CP/M is 8 inch single sided
single density."
I pointed out that formats were proliferating excessively.
His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard format for
CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard of it) One of the
IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in his Apple. IBM went to Microsoft,
to negotiate BASIC for the new machine, and CP/M.
Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to Oakland to visit
Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and assumed that Dorothy would
take care of the [presumably completely routine] paperwork. While visiting Bill godbout,
and delivering some software was important, it WAS something that a low level courier
could have done.
There was a little bit of a culture clash.
The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless women, with bicycles,
surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before talking. Dorothy Kildall
refused.
When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he said, "well,
let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the rest of the customers."
It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people marching up, and thought
that it was a drug raid. I have stood in that bay window overlooking the front door, and
can believe that.
IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the operating system
business, Microsoft went into the operating system business. They bought an unlimited
license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's work at Seattle Computer Products). They also hired
Tim Paterson.
DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a placeholder
to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got the idea for the directory structure
from Microsoft Standalone BASIC. As Chuck pointed out, that was not a new invention,
merely a choice of which way to do it.
billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said that he told the
Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit, stay home tomorrow!"
IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on doors that
normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy who heard about it, that Microsoft
referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
dr continued to sell CP/M.
When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a renaming of
MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
IBM didn't consider it a problem, andsimply offered to ALSO sell CP/M-86,
particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD P-System.
CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC bought PC-DOS.
But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would become the standard once it came out, and
PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while waiting.
CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such things).
When it did, the price was $240.
There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price point.
Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the standard.
dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with "Concurrent
DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying them, when it was the ones that they had
copied.
No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark status for "DOS"!
In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT trademark PC-DOS,
saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating System, which is a description,
not a unique name. In 1987, I visited the Patent and Trademark Office outside of
Washington, DC, and personally confirmed that in their stacks.
Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in the history of
stupid moves.
Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the BRAVEST move in history.
A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
eventually, he bagan drinking.
On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether that was during an
altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It was at the Franklin Street
biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a potential homicide was inconclusive.
About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house on Lighthouse
street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought it in a foreclosure sale. At
the time that he bought it, he was unaware of the historical significance. He let me
wander through the whole place, looking out the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
9 May
9 May
4:39 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
Without doing the research before asking, there was the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
Bill
On Thu, May 9, 2024, 2:07 AM david barto via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
At Ken Bowles retirement from UCSD (Ken was the lead
of the UCSD Pascal
Project) he related a story that IBM came to UCSD after being ‘rejected’ by
DR to see if the Regents of the University would license UCSD Pascal (the
OS and the language) to IBM for release on the new hardware IBM was
developing. The UC Regents said ’no’.
He was quite sad that history took the very different course.
David
On May 3, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level programming language for
microprocessors.
CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of Washington.
He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they
loaned him hardware.
In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed
the PL/M.
He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in Pacific
Grove. Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080 and
later Z80 computers.
In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25" drives,
and there were hundreds, soon thousands of different formats, I chatted
with Gary, and pleaded with him ot create a "standard" format for 5.25".
His response was a very polite, "The
standard format for CP/M is 8 inch
single sided single density."
I pointed out that formats were proliferating
excessively.
His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard
format for CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard of
it) One of the IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in his
Apple. IBM went to Microsoft, to negotiate BASIC for the new machine, and
CP/M.
Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to
Oakland to visit Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and
assumed that Dorothy would take care of the [presumably completely routine]
paperwork. While visiting Bill godbout, and delivering some software was
important, it WAS something that a low level courier could have done.
There was a little bit of a culture clash.
The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless
women, with bicycles, surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before talking.
Dorothy Kildall refused.
When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he
said, "well, let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the rest of
the customers."
It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people marching
up, and thought that it was a drug raid. I have stood in that bay window
overlooking the front door, and can believe that.
IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the
operating system business, Microsoft went into the operating system
business. They bought an unlimited license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's work at
Seattle Computer Products). They also hired Tim Paterson.
DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a
placeholder to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got
the idea for the directory
structure from Microsoft Standalone BASIC. As Chuck pointed out, that was
not a new invention, merely a choice of which way to do it.
billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said
that he told the Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit, stay
home tomorrow!"
IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on
doors that normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy
who heard about it, that
Microsoft referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
dr continued to sell CP/M.
When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a
renaming of MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
IBM didn't consider it a problem, andsimply
offered to ALSO sell
CP/M-86, particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD P-System.
CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC
bought PC-DOS.
But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would
become the standard once it
came out, and PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while waiting.
CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such
things).
When it did, the price was $240.
There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price point.
Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the
standard.
dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with
"Concurrent DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying
them, when it was the
ones that they had copied.
No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark
status for "DOS"!
In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT trademark
PC-DOS, saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating System,
which is a description, not a unique name. In 1987, I visited the Patent
and Trademark Office outside of Washington, DC, and personally confirmed
that in their stacks.
Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in the
history of stupid moves.
Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the
BRAVEST move in history.
A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
eventually, he bagan drinking.
On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether that
was during an altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It
was at the Franklin Street biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a potential
homicide was inconclusive.
About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house on
Lighthouse street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought it
in a foreclosure sale. At the time that he bought it, he was unaware of
the historical significance. He let me wander through the whole place,
looking out the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
4:45 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
The Sage machines had UCSD as one of their OS options (others were Mirage and probably
also CP/M-68K). I've never heard of a native Pascal for Sage.
Sage had a multi-user BIOS, so you could have several people sharing a single machine.
They were also quite popular and successful for a while.
On 9 May 2024, at 13:39, Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Without doing the research before asking, there was the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
Bill
On Thu, May 9, 2024, 2:07 AM david barto via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
> At Ken Bowles retirement from UCSD (Ken was the lead of the UCSD Pascal
> Project) he related a story that IBM came to UCSD after being ‘rejected’ by
> DR to see if the Regents of the University would license UCSD Pascal (the
> OS and the language) to IBM for release on the new hardware IBM was
> developing. The UC Regents said ’no’.
>
> He was quite sad that history took the very different course.
>
> David
>
>> On May 3, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level programming language for
> microprocessors.
>>
>> CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
>> It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
>>
>> Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
>> He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of Washington.
>>
>> He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they
> loaned him hardware.
>>
>> In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
>> He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed
> the PL/M.
>>
>> He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in Pacific
> Grove. Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
>>
>> CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080 and
> later Z80 computers.
>>
>> In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25" drives,
> and there were hundreds, soon thousands of different formats, I chatted
> with Gary, and pleaded with him ot create a "standard" format for
5.25".
>> His response was a very polite, "The standard format for CP/M is 8 inch
> single sided single density."
>> I pointed out that formats were proliferating excessively.
>> His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard
> format for CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
>>
>>
>> In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard of
> it) One of the IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in his
> Apple. IBM went to Microsoft, to negotiate BASIC for the new machine, and
> CP/M.
>>
>> Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
>>
>> When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to
> Oakland to visit Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and
> assumed that Dorothy would take care of the [presumably completely routine]
> paperwork. While visiting Bill godbout, and delivering some software was
> important, it WAS something that a low level courier could have done.
>>
>>
>> There was a little bit of a culture clash.
>> The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
>> The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless
> women, with bicycles, surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
>>
>> The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before talking.
> Dorothy Kildall refused.
>>
>> When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he
> said, "well, let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the rest of
> the customers."
>>
>> It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people marching
> up, and thought that it was a drug raid. I have stood in that bay window
> overlooking the front door, and can believe that.
>>
>> IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
>> When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the
> operating system business, Microsoft went into the operating system
> business. They bought an unlimited license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's work at
> Seattle Computer Products). They also hired Tim Paterson.
>>
>> DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
>> Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a
> placeholder to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
>> We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got the idea for the directory
> structure from Microsoft Standalone BASIC. As Chuck pointed out, that was
> not a new invention, merely a choice of which way to do it.
>>
>> billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said
> that he told the Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit, stay
> home tomorrow!"
>>
>> IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on
> doors that normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
>> It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy who heard about it, that
> Microsoft referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
>>
>>
>>
>> dr continued to sell CP/M.
>> When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a
> renaming of MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
>>
>> If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
>>
>>
>> DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
>>
>
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
>> IBM didn't consider it a problem, andsimply offered to ALSO sell
> CP/M-86, particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD P-System.
>>
>> CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC
> bought PC-DOS.
>> But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would become the standard once it
> came out, and PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while waiting.
>>
>> CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such
> things).
>> When it did, the price was $240.
>> There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price point.
>>
>> Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
>> But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the
> standard.
>>
>>
>> dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with
> "Concurrent DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
>> Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying them, when it was the
> ones that they had copied.
>> No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark status for "DOS"!
>> In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT trademark
> PC-DOS, saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating System,
> which is a description, not a unique name. In 1987, I visited the Patent
> and Trademark Office outside of Washington, DC, and personally confirmed
> that in their stacks.
>>
>> Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in the
> history of stupid moves.
>> Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the BRAVEST move in history.
>>
>>
>> A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
>> eventually, he bagan drinking.
>>
>> On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether that
> was during an altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It
> was at the Franklin Street biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a potential
> homicide was inconclusive.
>>
>>
>> About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house on
> Lighthouse street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought it
> in a foreclosure sale. At the time that he bought it, he was unaware of
> the historical significance. He let me wander through the whole place,
> looking out the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
>
>
4:58 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
I meant UCSD not native Pascal. I assume the SAGE was popular with those
who bought them, but relative to the PC, quite obscure of a computer. Most
people today have little knowledge of the SAGE II / IV. How many even
exist today? A hundred? I think the issue with Pascal at that time is
that the underlying DOS was adapted to the machine, but little time was
spent on the file utilities and such to make it a competitor with MS DOS or
CP/M for that matter. I can be convinced otherwise but it seems like
microcomputing Pascal was more of a staging environment for then upload
into a production mainframe/mini
Bill
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 7:51 AM Raymond Wiker via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
The Sage machines had UCSD as one of their OS options
(others were Mirage
and probably also CP/M-68K). I've never heard of a native Pascal for Sage.
Sage had a multi-user BIOS, so you could have several people sharing a
single machine. They were also quite popular and successful for a while.
On 9 May 2024, at 13:39, Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Without doing the research before asking, there was the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
Bill
On Thu, May 9, 2024, 2:07 AM david barto via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
> At Ken Bowles retirement from UCSD (Ken was the lead of the UCSD Pascal
> Project) he related a story that IBM came to UCSD after being
‘rejected’ by
> DR to see if the Regents of the University
would license UCSD Pascal
(the
> OS and the language) to IBM for release on
the new hardware IBM was
> developing. The UC Regents said ’no’.
>
> He was quite sad that history took the very different course.
>
> David
>
>> On May 3, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level programming language for
> microprocessors.
>>
>> CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
>> It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
>>
>> Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
>> He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of
Washington.
>>
>> He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they
> loaned him hardware.
>>
>> In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
>> He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed
> the PL/M.
>>
>> He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in Pacific
> Grove. Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
>>
>> CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080 and
> later Z80 computers.
>>
>> In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25"
drives,
> and there were hundreds, soon thousands of
different formats, I chatted
> with Gary, and pleaded with him ot create a "standard" format for
5.25".
>> His response was a very polite, "The standard format for CP/M is 8 inch
> single sided single density."
>> I pointed out that formats were proliferating excessively.
>> His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard
> format for CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
>>
>>
>> In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard of
> it) One of the IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in
his
> Apple. IBM went to Microsoft, to negotiate
BASIC for the new machine,
and
> CP/M.
>>
>> Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
>>
>> When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to
> Oakland to visit Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and
> assumed that Dorothy would take care of the [presumably completely
routine]
> paperwork. While visiting Bill godbout, and
delivering some software was
> important, it WAS something that a low level courier could have done.
>>
>>
>> There was a little bit of a culture clash.
>> The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
>> The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless
> women, with bicycles, surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
>>
>> The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before
talking.
> Dorothy Kildall refused.
>>
>> When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he
> said, "well, let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the
rest of
> the customers."
>>
>> It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people
marching
> up, and thought that it was a drug raid. I
have stood in that bay
window
> overlooking the front door, and can believe
that.
>>
>> IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
>> When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the
> operating system business, Microsoft went into the operating system
> business. They bought an unlimited license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's
work at
> Seattle Computer Products). They also hired
Tim Paterson.
>>
>> DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
>> Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a
> placeholder to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
>> We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got the idea for the
directory
> structure from Microsoft Standalone BASIC.
As Chuck pointed out, that
was
> not a new invention, merely a choice of which
way to do it.
>>
>> billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said
> that he told the Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit,
stay
> home tomorrow!"
>>
>> IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on
> doors that normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
>> It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy who heard about it, that
> Microsoft referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
>>
>>
>>
>> dr continued to sell CP/M.
>> When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a
> renaming of MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
>>
>> If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
>>
>>
>> DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
>>
>
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
>> IBM didn't consider it a problem,
andsimply offered to ALSO sell
> CP/M-86, particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD
P-System.
>>
>> CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC
> bought PC-DOS.
>> But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would become the standard once it
> came out, and PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while
waiting.
>>
>> CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such
> things).
>> When it did, the price was $240.
>> There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price
point.
>>
>> Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
>> But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the
> standard.
>>
>>
>> dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with
> "Concurrent DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
>> Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying them, when it was the
> ones that they had copied.
>> No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark status for "DOS"!
>> In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT
trademark
> PC-DOS, saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating
System,
> which is a description, not a unique name.
In 1987, I visited the
Patent
> and Trademark Office outside of Washington,
DC, and personally confirmed
> that in their stacks.
>>
>> Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in
the
> history of stupid moves.
>> Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the BRAVEST move in
history.
>>
>>
>> A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
>> eventually, he bagan drinking.
>>
>> On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether that
> was during an altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It
> was at the Franklin Street biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a
potential
> homicide was inconclusive.
>>
>>
>> About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house on
> Lighthouse street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought
it
> in a foreclosure sale. At the time that he
bought it, he was unaware of
> the historical significance. He let me wander through the whole place,
> looking out the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
>
>
8:52 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 1:08 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I meant UCSD not native Pascal. I assume the SAGE was popular with those
who bought them, but relative to the PC, quite obscure of a computer. Most
people today have little knowledge of the SAGE II / IV. How many even
exist today? A hundred?
A trivial data point, but a Sage II along with a somewhat-related
Stride 440 (68020 CPU running the P-system) exist in my collection.
-tony
4:53 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On Thu, 9 May 2024, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
Without doing the research before asking, there was
the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
I can't quote numbers, but Borland's Turbo Pascal was quite popular on both
CP/M machines and IBM PC and clones.
Mike Loewen mloewen(a)cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://q7.neurotica.com/Oldtech/
5:24 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
Mike
I was thinking operating systems and the early launch version IBM PC, but
yes once the hardware caught up Turbo Pascal was a popular program now that
I think about it. So I guess the PC versions just needed more horsepower
and some useful libraries. But Pascal never matched C
Bill
On Thu, May 9, 2024, 8:08 AM Mike Loewen via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
Without doing the research before asking, there
was the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
I can't quote numbers, but Borland's Turbo Pascal was quite popular on
both
CP/M machines and IBM PC and clones.
Mike Loewen mloewen(a)cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://q7.neurotica.com/Oldtech/
5:45 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On 05/09/2024 7:24 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Mike
I was thinking operating systems and the early launch version IBM PC, but
yes once the hardware caught up Turbo Pascal was a popular program now that
I think about it. So I guess the PC versions just needed more horsepower
and some useful libraries. But Pascal never matched C
Bill
My perception is that UCSD P system was quite popular in the late 70s on Apple and other
systems. Then when the university turned it over to commercial marketing (SofTech?), the
silly games played turned a lot of people off. Like trying to revoke previously granted
licenses and charging "too much."
I suspect that left a bad taste in a lot of mouths that might otherwise have been
interested. But I was a distant observer at the time; I couldn't afford more than my
ZX-81 and VIC-20.
Will
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them,
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
12:03 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On May 9, 2024, at 5:45 AM, Will Cooke via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
SofTech MicroSystems to be specific. They spun it up specifically for UCSD Pascal and
hired a lot of the projects students as their first engineers and managers. It was an
interesting place to work, mostly because we (the students/new employees) still had the
UCSD development mindset and not the corporate philosophy that SofTech wanted.
Yes, They did the silly games and screwed up a good thing. UCSD Pascal IV.II (4.2) was
pretty good IIRC however it was too little/too late to the party. By then everything was
MS/DOS and C was coming on strong even in the micro world.
The fact that you had to run the P-System OS and the 64KB limit on addressing didn’t help
adoption.
David
On 05/09/2024 7:24 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Mike
I was thinking operating systems and the early launch version IBM PC, but
yes once the hardware caught up Turbo Pascal was a popular program now that
I think about it. So I guess the PC versions just needed more horsepower
and some useful libraries. But Pascal never matched C
Bill
My perception is that UCSD P system was quite popular in the late 70s on Apple and other
systems. Then when the university turned it over to commercial marketing (SofTech?), the
silly games played turned a lot of people off. Like trying to revoke previously granted
licenses and charging "too much."
I suspect that left a bad taste in a lot of mouths that might otherwise have been
interested. But I was a distant observer at the time; I couldn't afford more than my
ZX-81 and VIC-20.
Will
6:08 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On Thu, 9 May 2024, Mike Loewen via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
It was a juggernaut until a pack of drooling morons wielding MBAs got
their claws into Borland.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Without doing the research before asking, there
was the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
I can't quote numbers, but Borland's Turbo Pascal was quite popular on
both CP/M machines and IBM PC and clones. 
6:46 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On Thu, May 9, 2024, 5:39 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Without doing the research before asking, there was
the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
Not until TurboPascal... But it was only a few years until C emerged from
the language "street fight" as top dog... depending on what the universe of
microcomputers we're talking about.
Warner
Bill
On Thu, May 9, 2024, 2:07 AM david barto via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
wrote:
> He was quite sad that history took the very different course.
> David
> > On May 3, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > PL/M (think "PL/1") was a high level programming language
for
> microprocessors.
>
> > CP/M was also briefly called "Control Program and Monitor"
> > It was written by Gary Kildall. (May 19, 1942 - july 11, 1994)
>
> > Gary taught at Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey.
> > He took a break in 1972, to complete his PhD at University of
Washington.
>
> > He wrote 8008 and 8080 instruction set simulators for Intel, and they
> loaned him hardware.
>
> > In 1973? he wrote CP/M.
> > He offered it to Intel, but they didn't want it, although they marketed
> the PL/M.
>
> > He and his wife started "Intergalactic Digital Research" in
Pacific
> Grove. Later renamed "Digital Research, Inc."
>
> > CP/M rapidly became a defacto standard as operating system for 8080
and
> later Z80 computers.
>
> > In the late 1970s, when CP/M computers were available with 5.25"
drives,
> and there were hundreds, soon thousands of different formats, I chatted
> with Gary, and pleaded with him ot create a "standard" format for
5.25".
> > His response was a very polite, "The standard format for CP/M is 8 inch
> single sided single density."
> > I pointed out that formats were proliferating excessively.
> > His response was a very polite, "I understand. Sorry, but the standard
> format for CP/M is 8 inch single sided single density."
>
>
> > In 1980? IBM was developing a personal computer. (y'all have heard
of
> it) One of the IBM people had a Microsoft Softcard (Z80 plus CP/M) in his
> Apple. IBM went to Microsoft, to negotiate BASIC for the new machine,
and
> CP/M.
>
> > Bill Gates explained and sent them to Digital Research.
>
> > When the IBM representatives arrived, Gary was flying his plane up to
> Oakland to visit Bill Godbout. He hadn't seen a need to be present, and
> assumed that Dorothy would take care of the [presumably completely
routine]
> paperwork. While visiting Bill godbout, and delivering some software was
> important, it WAS something that a low level courier could have done.
>
>
> > There was a little bit of a culture clash.
> > The IBM people were all in identical blue suits.
> > The DR people were in sandals, barefoot, shorts, t-shirts, braless
> women, with bicycles, surfboard, plants and even cats in the office,
>
> > The IBM people demanded a signed non=disclosure ageement before
talking.
> Dorothy Kildall refused.
>
> > When Dorothy got Gary on the phone, it is unreliably reported that he
> said, "well, let them sit on the couch and wait their turn like the rest
of
> the customers."
>
> > It is also been said that DR people upstairs saw the IBM people
marching
> up, and thought that it was a drug raid. I have stood in that bay window
> overlooking the front door, and can believe that.
>
> > IBM chose to not do business with DR and went back to Microsoft.
> > When billg was unable to convince them that Microsoft was not in the
> operating system business, Microsoft went into the operating system
> business. They bought an unlimited license to QDOS (Tim Paterson's work
at
> Seattle Computer Products). They also hired Tim Paterson.
>
> > DR was working on CP/M-86, but it was a ways off.
> > Paterson had written QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") as a
> placeholder to be able to continue development while waiting for CP/M-86
> > We've mentioned before, that Tim Paterson got the idea for the
directory
> > billg knew how to deal with officious managers. It is unreliably said
> that he told the Microsoft people, "Everybody who does not own a suit,
stay
> home tomorrow!"
>
> > IBM insisted that Micorsoft beef up security. window shades, locks on
> doors that normally weren't, locks on file cabinets, etc.
> > It is unreliably said that to throw off anyboy who heard about it, that
> Microsoft referred to the IBm project as "Project Commodore"
>
>
>
> > dr continued to sell CP/M.
> > When the 5150/:PC was ready, IBM announced it with PC-DOS, which was a
> renaming of MS-DOS,renaming 86-DOS, renaming QDOS.
>
> > If I recall correctly theprice was $40 (or maybe $60?)
>
>
> > DR pointed out that NS-DOS was extremely similar to CP/M.
>
https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/An%20Insid…
P-System.
>
> > CP/M-86 was not available yet, so everybody buying a disk based PC
> bought PC-DOS.
> > But, most of us assumed thata CP/M-86 would become the standard once it
> came out, and PC-DOS was similar and let us use the machines while
waiting.
>
> > CP/M-86 took a long time to come out (6 months is a LONG time in such
> things).
> > When it did, the price was $240.
> > There are disagreemnets about whether DR or IBM had set the price
point.
>
> > Most decided to keep using Pc-DOs until CP/M-86 had caught on.
> > But with the price differential, and the lead, PC-DOS remained the
> standard.
>
>
> > dr continued, came out with MP/M-86, and eventually came out with
> "Concurrent DOS", and "DR-DOS", which was based on MS-DOS.
> > Microsoft could not fault somebody for copying them, when it was the
> ones that they had copied.
> > No, Microsoft could certainly not claim trademark status for "DOS"!
> > In fact, although Microsoft trademarkd "MS-DOS", IBM did NOT
trademark
> PC-DOS, saying that it just meant Personal Compter Disk Operating System,
> which is a description, not a unique name. In 1987, I visited the Patent
> and Trademark Office outside of Washington, DC, and personally confirmed
> that in their stacks.
>
> > Many people have said that blowing off IBM was the stupidest move in
the
>
> > A lot of people gave Gary flack about it.
> > eventually, he bagan drinking.
>
> > On July 8, 1994, Gary fell and hit his head. It is unclear whether
that
> was during an altercation. (A lot of people fall during bar brawls) It
> was at the Franklin Street biker Bar & Grill, Investigation as a
potential
> homicide was inconclusive.
>
>
> > About 10 years ago, I was in Pacific Grove, and visited the DR house
on
> Lighthouse street. An extremely hospitable fellow had recently bought it
> in a foreclosure sale. At the time that he bought it, he was unaware of
> the historical significance. He let me wander through the whole place,
> looking out the upstairs window at the walkway, etc.
>
> > --
> > Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
At Ken Bowles retirement from UCSD (Ken was the
lead of the UCSD Pascal
Project) he related a story that IBM came to UCSD after being ‘rejected’
by
> DR to see if the Regents of the University would license UCSD Pascal (the
> OS and the language) to IBM for release on the new hardware IBM was
> developing. The UC Regents said ’no’.
structure from Microsoft Standalone BASIC. As
Chuck pointed out, that
was
> not a new invention, merely a choice of which way to do it.
> IBM
didn't consider it a problem, andsimply offered to ALSO sell
CP/M-86, particularly since they were already also marketing UCSD
history of stupid moves.
> Other people insist that blowing off IBM was the BRAVEST move in
history.
>
10 May
10 May
11:17 a.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On 2024-05-09 09:46, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2024, 5:39 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
I recall that MS sold a Pascal compiler, possibly from someone else. It
was very slow and buggy. I heard a story that to speed up disc access,
MS put FAT-manipulation code in the actual compiler and that
occasionally destroyed the FAT.
S.
Without doing the research before asking, there
was the UCSD p-System
Pascal for IBM PC which came out very early in the history of the IBM PC.
It was not very popular. The SAGE II that had native Pascal (68000) was
not a popular machine. Waterloo Pascal on the SuperPet....Pascal never
really made it on the microcomputer platform did it?
Not until TurboPascal... But it was only a few years until C emerged from
the language "street fight" as top dog... depending on what the universe of
microcomputers we're talking about.
12:01 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
There have been some minor skirmishes in the MCU world over what
language should be used when programming.
C/C++ is very much top dog, probably because the development suites are
written for that.
There's a small group that advocates Python; and some say that Ada is
best. But they represent a very small segment.
--Chuck
2:05 p.m.
New subject: Programming languages; Was: DOS p-System Pascal
While doing my customary "whatever happened to" sweep, I ran across this
paper of Jules Schwartz (he of JOVIAL) A refreshingly frank evaluation
from the author from 1978.
http://jovial.com/documents/p203-schwartz-jovial.pdf
(Tidbit: The "J" in JOVIAL does stand for "Jules'", but was not
of his
doing--rather, he relates that it was done behind his back.)
Just on the subject of "languages and how we got here."
--Chuck
2:44 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
Circa 1986 I was working at the Research School of Physical Sciences at the
Australian National University.
As late as that we were still running CP/M on an eclictic mix of Imsai8080
and STD Bus based machines. These were all running laboratory
experiments.
Turbo Pascal was king in that environment. C compilers were just way too
weird to even consider. Even when we started rilling out IBM PC's in about
1988, we still used Turbo Pascal. Re compiling apps for the new platform
was magic...
When I left there and moved into a small packet switching hardware
developed in the mid 90s, we used Turbo pascal for the PC side of any
interface, and Cross compiled C for the 68000/010/020 based hardware plug
in line controllers. Everything was hosted in a custom VME rack system
running Unix.
C didn't enter my world until I started running FreeBSD in the late 90's
where it was essentially part of the OS. I remember paying $600 bucks AUD
for a Borland C compiler running under Windows, but the whole concept of
writing a simple app was insane.
Now I use C and C++ regularly for small microcomputers, but still not on my
CP/M systems.
Doug
On Sat, 11 May 2024, 5:01 am Chuck Guzis via cctalk, <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
There have been some minor skirmishes in the MCU world
over what
language should be used when programming.
C/C++ is very much top dog, probably because the development suites are
written for that.
There's a small group that advocates Python; and some say that Ada is
best. But they represent a very small segment.
--Chuck
3:22 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On 5/10/24 14:44, Doug Jackson via cctalk wrote:
C didn't enter my world until I started running
FreeBSD in the late 90's
where it was essentially part of the OS. I remember paying $600 bucks AUD
for a Borland C compiler running under Windows, but the whole concept of
writing a simple app was insane.
As of about 1984, Microsoft recommended Lattice C. (Still have my
two-floppy compiler). One had to be keenly aware of the architecture
and what the compiler was doing, but at least it was easier than
assembly and a bit more portable.
Various C implementations, like 1960s FORTRAN implementations, could be
all over the map. It wasn't until C90 that we had some sort of real
standard.
I remember that on Usenet, in the early 80s, I think it was Brian
Kernighan ran a newsgroup for C (could have been Dennis Ritchie). One
of the infrequent posts I recall was "What does this statement do?".
There were several "Undefined" situations.
--Chuck
3:41 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On 2024-05-10 1:01 p.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
There have been some minor skirmishes in the MCU world
over what
language should be used when programming.
EASY! OCTAL! If it worked on the 8 it is good enough for me.
C/C++ is very much top dog, probably because the
development suites are
written for that.
There's a small group that advocates Python; and some say that Ada is
best. But they represent a very small segment.
--Chuck
I think it is more the case UNIX was around, and written in assembler.
The egg. Then we got B, a Archaeopteryx and flock of chickens that all
start with C.
C generates real code output and not some virtual machine, another
important factor as well as having bit fields and structures. The late
70's , early 80's where the golden years of computing.
C,Pascal and PL/M are the only big names for 8 bit cpu's, and what came
later.
1:36 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Stuff Received via cctalk wrote:
I recall that MS sold a Pascal compiler, possibly from
someone else. It was
very slow and buggy. I heard a story that to speed up disc access, MS put
FAT-manipulation code in the actual compiler and that occasionally destroyed
the FAT.
Sorry Stuff, ain't so.
Bob Wallace wrote the Microsoft Pascal compiler, while he was at
Microsoft. He was their tenth employee. He told me that their runtime
library (which he didn't write) is buggy and slow.
So slow that it made benchmarks with their Fortran compiler (which also
used the buggy and slow runtime library), perform SLOWER than interpreted
BASIC.
But, it certainly did NOT do anything to the disk; certainly no messing
with the FAT.
If you had FAT corruption issues, perhaps you had SMARTDRV enabled with
write cacheing (which did occasionally mess up the FAT).
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
2:03 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 1:36 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Stuff Received via cctalk
wrote:
I developed quite a bit and for many years with Microsoft C v6.0 under DOS
and it was not bad. The compiler was decently fast and once 486s and then
Pentiums became available compile time wasn't really an issue. It was
actually the least shitty Microsoft product I've ever used, next to MS-DOS
6.22. It was actually pretty good.
I recall that MS sold a Pascal compiler, possibly
from someone else. It
was
very slow and buggy. I heard a story that to
speed up disc access, MS
put
FAT-manipulation code in the actual compiler and
that occasionally
destroyed
the FAT.
Sorry Stuff, ain't so.
Bob Wallace wrote the Microsoft Pascal compiler, while he was at
Microsoft. He was their tenth employee. He told me that their runtime
library (which he didn't write) is buggy and slow.
So slow that it made benchmarks with their Fortran compiler (which also
used the buggy and slow runtime library), perform SLOWER than interpreted
BASIC.
If you had FAT corruption issues, perhaps you had
SMARTDRV enabled with
write cacheing (which did occasionally mess up the FAT).
A good example of why I generally hate MS software. But the solution was
easy: just turn off write-caching.
Sellam
2:19 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
On 5/10/24 14:03, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 1:36 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
I developed quite a bit and for many years with
Microsoft C v6.0 under DOS
and it was not bad. The compiler was decently fast and once 486s and then
Pentiums became available compile time wasn't really an issue. It was
actually the least shitty Microsoft product I've ever used, next to MS-DOS
6.22. It was actually pretty good.
Same here. And it only took MS about 5 revisions before ML/MASM was
dependable. :)
--Chuck
2:28 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
>> very slow and buggy. I heard a story that to
speed up disc access, MS put
>> FAT-manipulation code in the actual compiler and that occasionally
>> destroyed the FAT.
>
> Sorry Stuff, ain't so.
> If you had FAT corruption issues, perhaps you had SMARTDRV enabled with
> write cacheing (which did occasionally mess up the FAT).
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
I developed quite a bit and for many years with
Microsoft C v6.0 under DOS
and it was not bad. The compiler was decently fast and once 486s and then
Pentiums became available compile time wasn't really an issue. It was
actually the least shitty Microsoft product I've ever used, next to MS-DOS
6.22. It was actually pretty good.
A good example of why I generally hate MS software. But the solution was
easy: just turn off write-caching.
I also liked their C V6.
and MASM 5.00 and beyond were the first MASM to have documentation that
was not CRIMINALLY bad.
SMARTDRV caused a lot of disk corruption. Which was erroneously blamed on
the compression. When Infoworld did a test routine that did a bunch of
miscellaneous stuff and rebooted in a loop (thereby corrupting disk
because SMARTDRV write cache had not been written out!) and blamed the
compression, billg tried to explain that their test routine was faulty,
not the compression, but wasn't about to admit that SMARTDRV was at fault.
Infoworld reported that conversation as an attempt to intimidate!
MS-DOS 6.2x "fixed the problems with compression"!
The way that it did so was to change SMARTDRV to NOT default to
write-cacheing on,
IFF the user turned SMARTDRV write-cacheing back on, then SMARTDRV was changed
to NOT re-arrange the sequence of writes (had been for efficiency, but
risky), and
NOT display the DOS prompt until the write cache(s) were written. (thus
not implicitly telling the user that it was now OK to turn off the
computer (which had a shutdown sequence of turn off the power))
Those changes to SMARTDRV "fixed compression".
MS-DOS 6.2x also did a LOT of other fixes; it may have been the only
Microsoft product where the primary goal of the updaate was to improve
reliability!
MS-DOS 6.20 SMARTDRV and other fixes
MS-DOS 6.21 6.20 without compression; Microsoft had lost lawsuit with STAC
($100K judgment from Microsoft to STAC, and $30K judgement from STAC to
Microsoft. billg said, "I'm having a bad day.")
MS-DOS 6.22 6.20 with a new non-infringing compression
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
3:28 p.m.
New subject: CORRECTIONS Re: DOS p-System Pascal:
Please note, that I am NOT saying that there was nothing wrong in the
compression. Merely that the disasters that prompted the public outcry
were due to SMARTDRV's problems, not the problems with the compression.
My numbers were all wrong on the Microsoft V Stac lawsuit.
Micorsoft and Stac had looked at each others code as part of alicensing
negotiation, that fell through.
Microsoft had to pay $120 million, and Stac had to pay $13.6 million.
But Microsoft also settled some claims out of court with a $39.9 million
dollar investment in Stac, and paid $43 million in royalties.
Yes, billg had a bad day. comparable to my losing $100
IBM's PC-DOS 6.10 had a similar bundle list to MS-DOS 6.00, but each
product from a different vendor than Microsoft's
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
. . .
3:56 p.m.
New subject: CORRECTIONS Re: DOS p-System Pascal:
On Fri, May 10, 2024, 3:38 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Microsoft had to pay $120 million, and Stac had to pay $13.6 million.
But Microsoft also settled some claims out of court with a $39.9 million
dollar investment in Stac, and paid $43 million in royalties.
Yes, billg had a bad day. comparable to my losing $100
I was going to say, if it was only $100K then old Billy Boy would've
laughed all the way out of court and on the way home.
I remember the Stac lawsuit. It was just another company actually doing
innovation whose technology Microschlock tried to appropriate in its
typically and despicably underhanded ways. Stac was one of the few (only?)
companies to come out pretty well after "partnering" with MS.
Sellam
4:23 p.m.
New subject: CORRECTIONS Re: DOS p-System Pascal:
> Microsoft had to pay $120 million, and Stac had to
pay $13.6 million.
> But Microsoft also settled some claims out of court with a $39.9 million
> dollar investment in Stac, and paid $43 million in royalties.
> Yes, billg had a bad day. comparable to my losing $100
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
I was going to say, if it was only $100K then old
Billy Boy would've
laughed all the way out of court and on the way home.
Yes, as soon as I sent that, I knew that I had screwed up.
I remember the Stac lawsuit. It was just another
company actually doing
innovation whose technology Microschlock tried to appropriate in its
typically and despicably underhanded ways. Stac was one of the few (only?)
companies to come out pretty well after "partnering" with MS.
Too much proprietary information shared too early in the negotiations.
The award was based on "$5.50 per copy", . . .
When Seattle Computer Products, who had a royalty-free license to sell
MS-DOS, was on the rocks, and MICROS~1 was terrified of somebody like AT&T
getting that, they did the right thing, and simply BOUGHT the company.
As always seems to happen in these kinda cases (just like Word and
Mac), it was never adequately spelled out whether "The operating system"
meant version 0.9, or all versions including current, and what products,
such as Windoze could be construed to be derivative products.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
2:12 p.m.
New subject: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
From: Fred Cisin via cctalk
[mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 4:36 PM
To: Stuff Received via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: Fred Cisin <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)
Sorry Stuff, ain't so.
Bob Wallace wrote the Microsoft Pascal compiler, while he was at
Microsoft. He was their tenth employee. He told me that their runtime
library (which he didn't write) is buggy and slow.
So slow that it made benchmarks with their Fortran compiler (which also
used the buggy and slow runtime library), perform SLOWER than interpreted
BASIC.
But, it certainly did NOT do anything to the disk; certainly no messing
with the FAT.
If you had FAT corruption issues, perhaps you had SMARTDRV enabled with
write cacheing (which did occasionally mess up the FAT).
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
I wrote SW with MS Pascal for an accelerometer experiment on the Space Shuttle using DOS
on an 8086 Multibus system (OARE). MS Pascal supported a modifier for procedures named
"Interrupt" that was supposed to be used for Interrupt Service Routines, problem
was they forgot to push and pop the register set before and after entry. It didn't
work very well. IIRC, we had to create an assembly macro at entry and exit to do the
register saves and restores.
DOS, of course, is/was not reentrant, so no DOS services could be used in the interrupt
code. The SW worked well, but was on Columbia when it was lost on reentry. The flight
spares for that program ended up going on the ISS, with a different system I ported to a
PC-104 80486 system in C under VxWorks (MAMS) that had been in use for 20 years until it
was brought back down for refurbishment.
Gary
9
days inactive
15
days old
31 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
Ali -
ben -
Bill Degnan -
Chuck Guzis -
david barto -
Doug Jackson -
Fred Cisin -
Gary L. Messick -
geneb -
Mike Loewen -
raymond.wiker＠icloud.com -
Sellam Abraham -
Steve Lewis -
Stuff Received -
Tony Duell -
Warner Losh -
wrcooke＠wrcooke.net