28 Oct
2006
28 Oct
'06
4:26 p.m.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I don't know about that last part. From everyone
I've talked to
(including some of his poker-playing buddies) the following is about
the closest to the actual way that events unfolded. (Apparently, the
IBM delegation was taken a bit back by Dorothy's attitude. No one
ever says "no" to IBM.):
http://www.freeenterpriseland.com/BOOK/KILDALL.html
A pretty good description (one of the very few that doesn't try to
coverup Gary's final incident), but, with a few flaws:
he wrote a high-level language for them that made the
processor
infinitely more useful. You could give English-like commands to the chip
instead of talking in 0s and 1s.
When Intel developed the worlds first floppy disk
system
and called it CP/M or control program for
microprocessors.
some say that it USED TO be "Control Program and Monitor", and
was changed to "Control Program for Microcomputers" later
For some reason, IBM mistakenly thought that CP/M was
owned by Microsoft
Due to the popularity of the Microsoft "Softcard" (Z80 board with CP/M for
Apple)
IBM never told him they would let customers choose
between MS-DOS at $40
and CP/M at $240. Of course, who would pay 6 times more for the same
thing?
That WAS the previously expected price, and there are some sources that
say that Kildall SET that price.
Many/most "experts" originally EXPECTED CP/M-86 (at $240) to win out
over PC-DOS. But, when CP/M-86 finalloy came out, the "placeholder" was
too solidly established, and the "benefits" of the "standard" were
not
clearly visible.
And, in terms of the basic premise of the article (that Kildall and Gates
would be interchangable), Gary Kildall lacked the greed and competitive
drive that it would take to become what billg became.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com