17 Apr
1999
17 Apr
'99
10:57 p.m.
<Which is not so much because CP/M or DOS actually is an RTOS (they aren't)
<but that they don't get in the way of the programmer. The programmer is
<free to write his own interrupt handlers, and even a task scheduler.
<
<Note that this very feature that makes such an OS potentially usable for
<real-time systems is exactly what makes them poor choices as platforms
<for general-purpose computing. Too much code gets written that works aroun
<the OS for no especially good reason.
<
<Note that a "proper" RTOS both doesn't get in the way, *and* provides
<useful real-time services.
Which some old timers to comp.os.cpm may remember the firestorm when
I called CP/M a file system and not an OS... ;)
Allison
18 Apr
18 Apr
6:01 a.m.
Allison wrote:
Which some old timers to comp.os.cpm may remember the
firestorm when
I called CP/M a file system and not an OS... ;)
CP/M wasn't bad for its day, and I was rather fond of it at the time
(compared to some of the feeble crap that other companies were putting
out, such as Ohio Scientific's OS-65D), but I'd have to concur with
your assessment of it.
I've provoked some major flames myself by calling MS-DOS a feeble excuse
for a program loader. But in reality I have to admit that MS-DOS is more
functional than CP/M. However, MS-DOS loses if you compare functionality
per byte of memory consumed. By that metric, hardly anything that I've
seen would even come close to DEC's OS/8.
Eric
20 Apr
20 Apr
5:15 a.m.
On 18 Apr 1999, Eric Smith wrote:
<snip>
However, MS-DOS loses if you compare functionality per
byte of memory
consumed.
Speaking of MS-DOS memory consumption, I just (finally) picked up a copy
of PC-DOS 1.10 a few days ago. The manual includes these enlightening
comments with regards to memory requirements:
"Increased Memory Requirements
First, DOS Version 1.10 is about 250 bytes larger than Version 1.00 and
BASIC and BASICA Version 1.10 are about 200 bytes larger than their
Version 1.00 counterparts. In general, this should not affect any of the
applications that you have written and already run with Version 1.00.
Should you encounter the rare case of having one of your applications
"not fit" with Version 1.10, it may be necessary to "trim" your
program
to run with Version 1.10. Although we've made every effort to keep
things from growing, some growth was unavoidable."
Now, I wonder... was IBM speaking for Microsoft when they talked about
"effort to keep things from growing"? :)
<snip>
Eric
--
Doug Spence
ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~ds_spenc/
9397
days inactive
9400
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
ds_spenc＠alcor.concordia.ca -
eric＠brouhaha.com