On Sep 20, 6:19, Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote: Pete Turnbull wrote: Sure, but the point I was making was simply that it's referred to differently in different places. For example, other CP/M documentation refers to it as "a control program for microprocessors" -- but the 2.2 docs don't (AFAICS). I think trying to decide on a canonical definition of what CP/M stands for is futile -- since DR were themeselves inconsistent over time. Much the same thing happens in lots of other places, and it's not unusual for someone to pick a name simply because it has multiple meanings or interpretations. I think it's significant that early DR docs don't explicitly say what the acronym stands for (or even that it's an acronym). -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York