5 Feb
2008
5 Feb
'08
5:38 p.m.
Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
From: "Liam Proven" <lproven at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:19:10 +0000
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
On 03/02/2008, Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
Fascinating stuff. I had no idea there were so many.
Actually there are more.
I left out three or four at least.
Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:48:33 -0500
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
On Thursday 31 January 2008 10:07, Allison wrote:
NOvados, DOS+, ZRdos, Zsdos and ZCPR addons to CP/M. They all could run
CP/M programs but added things missing from basic V2.2. The gotacha was
they required z80 as they were stuffing all that into the same space
required by V2.2. Whats more interesting is there was nothing to
prevent a termcap file
and later improved CP/M work alikes did exactly that and many more things.
What sort of stuff would you put into the category of "CP/M work alikes"?
I used to do some support work on some early, 8-bit
multiuser system
which ran something called CP/M but which wasn't, not even remotely.
The host machine was a single integrated unit - CRT screen, floppy
drive, CPU and optionally had a 5MB hard disk built into the console.
This had a bunch of serial ports on the back and could support half a
dozen or so terminals.
The OS was called "CPM8" or something but was like nothing I've ever
seen before. Alas, now, with the passing of some 20y, I can't remember
make, model or anything else...
Unfamiliar to me but maybe they had somthing.
Allison