Subject: Re: "CP/M compatible" vs. "MS-DOS Compatible" machines?
From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:54:28 -0500
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
On Friday 01 February 2008 03:36, Jim Battle wrote:
(Snip)
Also, people did *plenty* of ugly stuff to save a
few bytes back then,
as you know. RST1 isn't particularly ugly anyway. And if for some
reason one did find it unpleasant, you could use a macro to make it to
your liking.
Yup...
(Snip)
we agree. :-) I had a vague recollection of a
faint memory of hearing
third hand that CP/M was ported to some heathkit machine, but that the
machine already had a ROM in low memory, and so instead of "CALL 0005H",
one had to use "CALL 2005H" or some such. CP/M programs could be very
easily reassembled/patched for this, but stock CP/M binaries wouldn't
work. rather than repeating this slanderous story, I didn't bring it up
and pretended it was just a supposition. ooops, but now the cat is out
of the bag.
I believe the H-8 did indeed have a ROM at low memory. Never worked with that
machine, though. There were also some TRS-80 boxes that I seem to recall
having a need of a special version of CP/M as well.
TRS80 (original) had the first 16k used for rom, keyboard and videoram,
Therewas a hacked version of CP/M for it that moved page 0 (first256bytes)
to something like 4200h and TPA started arond there too. The problem was
none of the usual CP/M programs were assembled/compiled to start at 4200h
(norm was 0100h) and even if the trs80 was full of ram you were under 48k
which was ok but bigger CP/M apps like MSBASIC used some 24K of that or
more. Not a popular implmentation.
Allison
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin