> Microsoft then proceeded with an unauthorized
port of CP/M to 8086/8088
> (QDOS from SCP).
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Jim Brain wrote:
Can you cite some sources for this position? Sources
I have note that
Patterson wrote a new OS to go with the Seattle Computer Products 8086
kit and used CP/Ms API to aid in porting apps, but the internals were
significantly different. If true, I'm not sure I'd call that a
"port".
If so, then Linux is a "port" of BSD or ATT UNIX.
I will concede that "port" is a poor choice of terms.
Patterson wrote it as a placeholder. The intent was that they would go to
CP/M-86 when that was ready, and QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System")
was intended as a temporary substitute until then. So, I'm hesitant to
call it a "new OS"
Somebody else
might think that the most important "change" was "Long
Filenames", even though it was NOT implemented, merely a system of using
up FPDEs to store long NICKNAMES, such that FILENA~1 filename could be
linked to "Filname of file that contains the content and data of all of
the important stuff", and getting "DISK FULL" messages on an almost empty
disk because the root directory had been filled up with file nicknames,
instead of files.
Dunno, I'd call it "implemented". In fact, I
think it well defines the
contemporary "kludge". It was (and is) a masterful use of an existing
structure to add a significant piece of functionality. I had to
"implement" it in the FAT library used by sd2iec, and I was very impressed.
I'd call it an implementation of "long File nicknames", NOT an
implementation of "Long File Names". Clever, but it sits on top of a
complete and functional set of FILENAMEs, rather than replacing it with
one without a length limitation, which is why I insist on calling it "file
nicknames" V "implementation of long filenames". Rather than using FPDEs,
I would much prefer that the system allocate a cluster, thus not taking
DIRectory space, and permitting further expansion of it as needed.
Not that it would ever be used on a floppy disk, but
FAT32 did remove
the 512 FPDE limit in the root dir.
That certainly helps those who abuse the root directory.
Q: Why isn't C:\Windows\System32 at least broken up into categories?
NOT due to number of FPDEs: On of those people that work with Had a full
480M drive. He replace it with a 514M drive, and the larger drive
couldn't hold the contents of the smaller drive.
The answer revolves around the number 512M. Why? What could he do to get
the old content onto the drive and maybe get some of the additional
capacity? (Switching to another OS would not have been feasable for that
user)