7 Apr
2000
7 Apr
'00
1:04 p.m.
the same, with
a few notable exceptions where the concept don't match
(MS-DOS for example does not have an IOBYTE).
What of those things internal would you have had them leave out in order to
be more different from CP/M, which was a VERY popular OS at the time,
without removing its functionality. Since the features to which you refer
are internal, I assume you have precice citations of common source code,
right? They're certainly not obvious to me in my role as a fairly frequent
user. Since there is only one segment in CP/M, I guess
you've got 'em there. Of
course it really doesn't matter what the location is, does it? I guess any
OS that load a register and then calls a specific location is a copy of
CP/M, right?
Not really, CPM loaded to a specific segment but apps could use any and all
to the then 8086 1mb limit.
You can also
terminate a program by calling location 0000h (again, in a
COM program). In CP/M this causes a warm reset (similar functionality).
It's like saying a FORD is a copy of a Dusenberg because they both use
wheels. The mapping of one register set into the other is not
an accident. Ask
Intel about that! I'm told that CP/M-86 is considerably more than a
translation of CP/M-80. Now you suggest that the roots of MS-DOS are
entirely in CP/M? They may have common roots, as they reflect the then
CPM-86 was not entirely 8080 code lofted, that would never ru without help.
Also there was a loader change implemented, boot loads a file system aware
loader that finds cpm.sys. This was not the 8080 way.
As far as register usage, that is an artifact of PLM used to write the
V1.3/1.4
and later versions of CPM80. With that convention established it was kept
to keep applications that called the BDOS compatable.
I've heard that, too. Does that mean that anyone
who writes a program to
do
what he's seen another program do is making a copy?
You're not even sure
he
actually saw and read the source code. How many
programmers do you know
who'd simply copy someone else's work in a case like this? Everybody wants
to leave his own mark.
DOS 1.0 had COPYRIGHT Digital Research INC inside! There was a quiet
copyright battle that forced DOS 2.0 (buggiest thing in the world!). This
is not
fiction and it was documented.
Buying something that shortens your burden is kind-of
like buying an
integrated circuit rather than making the thing yourself starting with a
wheelbarrow of sand. The fact that Microsoft knew that IBM had gone to
Kildall probably told them what they wanted was sort-f like CP/M.
They didn't care only that there would be apps for it to run like Visicalc!
Allison
7 Apr
7 Apr
3:16 p.m.
I know what he means, Allison. Unlike those who earn their money writing
code for the OS's we use, I see writing code as overhead most of the time.
I've written a few hundred K-lines of mostly assembler, but am taking the
position of a user, with which position I can easily identify, and as such
don't see the similarities in the two OS' because I'm using an application
which handles the interface to the OS for me and lets me focus on useful
work.
I'm not saying programming isn't useful work, but rather that most people
not directly engaged in generating software consider it overhead or "not my
job" and therefore uninteresting. The secretary using the word processor
isn't interested in or aware of the how's of opening a file. He/she just
wants it done. One who sees from that perspective sees the glaring
differences between CP/M and MS-DOS, yet doesn't see the similarities to
which reference has been made, whether they're real or not.
Since MUCH fewer than 1% of the people who use MS products are engagedin
activity which would make them aware of the differences and similarities
between MS-DOS and CP/M if they knew both OS' I'd have to say the internals
are really never going to be part of a legal argument. Most judges, after
all, don't write their own programs.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: allisonp <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!
Of
all
It's like saying a FORD is a copy of a
Dusenberg because they both use
wheels.
This was a feature unique to CPM and DOS as many others loc(0) was
either reset (hard), ROM, unused or reserved.
help.
Visicalc!
>> the same, with a few notable exceptions where
the concept don't match
>> (MS-DOS for example does not have an IOBYTE).
>
>What of those things internal would you have had them leave out in order
to
>be more different from CP/M, which was a VERY
popular OS at the time,
>without removing its functionality. Since the features to which you
refer
>are internal, I assume you have precice citations
of common source code,
>right? They're certainly not obvious to me in my role as a fairly
frequent
user.
The features he refers to are the calls to the BDOS to do things like
File_OPEN,
FILE_CLOSE, FILE DELETE..... and so on.
>Since there is only one segment in CP/M, I guess you've got 'em there.
>course it really doesn't matter what the
location is, does it? I guess
any
OS that load a
register and then calls a specific location is a copy of
CP/M, right?
Not really, CPM loaded to a specific segment but apps could use any and to the then 8086 1mb limit.
>> You can also terminate a program by calling location 0000h (again, in
a
>> COM program). In CP/M this causes a warm
reset (similar
functionality).
The mapping of one register set into the other is
not an accident. Ask
Intel about that! I'm told that CP/M-86 is considerably more than a
translation of CP/M-80. Now you suggest that the roots of MS-DOS are
entirely in CP/M? They may have common roots, as they reflect the then
CPM-86 was not entirely 8080 code lofted, that would never ru without Also there was a loader change implemented, boot loads
a file system aware
loader that finds cpm.sys. This was not the 8080 way.
As far as register usage, that is an artifact of PLM used to write the
V1.3/1.4
and later versions of CPM80. With that convention established it was kept
to keep applications that called the BDOS compatable.
wants
I've heard that, too. Does that mean that
anyone who writes a program to
do
what he's seen another program do is making a
copy? You're not even sure
he
>actually saw and read the source code. How many programmers do you know
>who'd simply copy someone else's work in a case like this? Everybody
to leave his
own mark.
DOS 1.0 had COPYRIGHT Digital Research INC inside! There was a quiet
copyright battle that forced DOS 2.0 (buggiest thing in the world!). This
is not
fiction and it was documented.
Buying something that shortens your burden is
kind-of like buying an
integrated circuit rather than making the thing yourself starting with a
wheelbarrow of sand. The fact that Microsoft knew that IBM had gone to
Kildall probably told them what they wanted was sort-f like CP/M.
They didn't care only that there would be apps for it to run like
Allison
10:16 p.m.
New subject: Innovation ?(was: !Re: Nuke Redmond!)
This thread was about innovation. And it is a thread about
innovation on the ClassicComp list were most of the
audience is more or less knowlegable about such matters.
I'd say then innovation then should also regard the innards of the
the software we discuss not only the userinterface.
The problem is deeper still. Most people in this industy are rather
addicted to something that's called BACKWARDS COMPATIBILTY.
This simply because it makes our lives a little easier when an new piece
of hardware hits the market, to be damned for all eternity because we
have to live with the concequences of our addictions.
I think the fact that MS-DOS 1.0 & CP/M are pretty much the same
was also a boon for corporations like Borland and Microprose
(Wordstar) because they could easely adapt their software to the
MS-DOS platform. Innovation is somtimes nothing more than
BIG-BLUE entering the market with a new hardware product
with already senile software. Had they done a real good think,
they could have come up with something from the
Palo Alto Rechearch Corp. (XEROX) that has been giving
a lot of innovations away for free. ;-)
A lot of real innovation is driven by new cheap hardware devices
and other gizmos that have to be integrated into the system software
Usually this starts out with a kludge like an addon driver. Only later
on will it be fully incoroprated in the system. (IE: look at the mouse)
Now what constitutes true innovative operatingsystem software ?
BEOS ?
EPOC 2.0 ?
PALM OS ?
MS-DOS, CP/M, UNIX, LINUX/freeBSD, VMS they are all
at least one or two decades old.
Never the less it's fun to play with. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!
Of
all
> to the then 8086 1mb limit.
>
> >> You can also terminate a program by calling location 0000h (again,
in
This
Visicalc!
I know what he means, Allison. Unlike those who earn
their money writing
code for the OS's we use, I see writing code as overhead most of the time.
I've written a few hundred K-lines of mostly assembler, but am taking the
position of a user, with which position I can easily identify, and as such
don't see the similarities in the two OS' because I'm using an application
which handles the interface to the OS for me and lets me focus on useful
work.
I'm not saying programming isn't useful work, but rather that most people
not directly engaged in generating software consider it overhead or "not
my
job" and therefore uninteresting. The secretary
using the word processor
isn't interested in or aware of the how's of opening a file. He/she just
wants it done. One who sees from that perspective sees the glaring
differences between CP/M and MS-DOS, yet doesn't see the similarities to
which reference has been made, whether they're real or not.
Since MUCH fewer than 1% of the people who use MS products are engagedin
activity which would make them aware of the differences and similarities
between MS-DOS and CP/M if they knew both OS' I'd have to say the
internals
are really never going to be part of a legal argument.
Most judges, after
all, don't write their own programs.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: allisonp <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!
> >> the same, with a few notable exceptions where the concept don't match
> >> (MS-DOS for example does not have an IOBYTE).
> >
> >What of those things internal would you have had them leave out in
order
to
code,
>be more different from CP/M, which was a VERY
popular OS at the time,
>without removing its functionality. Since the features to which you
refer
> >are internal, I assume you have precice citations of common source >right?
They're certainly not obvious to me in my role as a fairly
frequent
user.
The features he refers to are the calls to the BDOS to do things like
File_OPEN,
FILE_CLOSE, FILE DELETE..... and so on.
>Since there is only one segment in CP/M, I guess you've got 'em there. >course it really doesn't matter what the
location is, does it? I guess
any
OS that
load a register and then calls a specific location is a copy of
CP/M, right?
Not really, CPM loaded to a specific segment but apps could use any and a
It's like saying a FORD is a copy of a
Dusenberg because they both use
wheels.
This was a feature unique to CPM and DOS as many others loc(0) was
either reset (hard), ROM, unused or reserved.
help.
> Also there was a loader change implemented, boot loads a file system
aware
>> COM program). In CP/M this causes a
warm reset (similar
functionality).
The mapping of one register set into the other is
not an accident. Ask
Intel about that! I'm told that CP/M-86 is considerably more than a
translation of CP/M-80. Now you suggest that the roots of MS-DOS are
entirely in CP/M? They may have common roots, as they reflect the then
CPM-86 was not entirely 8080 code lofted, that would never ru without > loader that finds cpm.sys. This was not the 8080
way.
>
> As far as register usage, that is an artifact of PLM used to write the
> V1.3/1.4
> and later versions of CPM80. With that convention established it was
kept
> to keep applications that called the BDOS
compatable.
>
> >I've heard that, too. Does that mean that anyone who writes a program
to
> do
> >what he's seen another program do is making a copy? You're not even
sure
> he
> >actually saw and read the source code. How many programmers do you
know
>who'd
simply copy someone else's work in a case like this? Everybody
wants
> >to leave his own mark.
>
>
> DOS 1.0 had COPYRIGHT Digital Research INC inside! There was a quiet
> copyright battle that forced DOS 2.0 (buggiest thing in the world!). > is not
> fiction and it was documented.
>
> >Buying something that shortens your burden is kind-of like buying an
> >integrated circuit rather than making the thing yourself starting with
a
wheelbarrow of sand. The fact that Microsoft knew that
IBM had gone to
Kildall probably told them what they wanted was sort-f like CP/M.
They didn't care only that there would be apps for it to run like
Allison
8 Apr
8 Apr
4 p.m.
New subject: Innovation ?(was: !Re: Nuke Redmond!)
It was thus said that the Great Sipke de Wal once stated:
This thread was about innovation. And it is a thread about
innovation on the ClassicComp list were most of the
audience is more or less knowlegable about such matters.
I'd say then innovation then should also regard the innards of the
the software we discuss not only the userinterface.
Now what constitutes true innovative operatingsystem software ?
BEOS ?
EPOC 2.0 ?
PALM OS ?
I would say that Exec (on the Amiga) was innovative when it came out,
although now it seems to have lost some of its luster.
The Newton OS was very innovative, along with its GUI (it handles
cut-n-paste better than any GUI I've used---I wish more GUIs did it the
Newton way). BEOS is unique in being probably the first commercial OS
written in C++. I can't say if it was designed from scratch as I haven't
studied it enough (at all) to say.
-spc (But I think this is straying a bit from Classic Computers)
10 Apr
10 Apr
10:18 a.m.
New subject: Innovation ?(was: !Re: Nuke Redmond!)
The Newton OS was very innovative, along with its
GUI (it handles
cut-n-paste better than any GUI I've used---I wish more GUIs did it the
Newton way).
NOS is, like the Star, a very unique development. I think
(well I hope) there will be at laest some Mac like follow up
soon - PalmOS and EPOC is still like CP/M compared to NOS.
-spc (But I think this is straying a bit from Classic
Computers)
Thanks to Killer Steve NOS is already classic :( VCFe will have a
Newton Display, although the no Newton fits the 10 year rule.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
8974
days inactive
8977
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
sipke＠wxs.nl -
spc＠armigeron.com