CP/M survey - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

18 Apr 2007

...

Subject: Re: CP/M survey
   From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
   Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:51:01 -0700
     To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>

On 18 Apr 2007 at 12:28, Jules Richardson wrote:

  I doubt there's any shortage of CP/M capable
hardware owned by people on the 
 list - there's just a shortage of CP/M "hardcore" knowledge, because the 
 systems don't get used often enough for people to remember the real nuts and 
 bolts. 
....and how many of us could assemble a CP/M capable machine from 
what's in our junkbox?  Really, for a functional system, you'd need a 
x80-capable processor, some RAM, a UART (if it's not already on the 
processor chip) and an FDC (a WD1770/1772 will do just fine)--and a 
bit of PROM to get it booted. 
I could do it in hearbeat, and have.  

I'd do the bios development on one of the existing long list of systems.
All of my listed systems work especially the CP/M hardware.

...
 At least that would be the case for CP/M 2.2.  CP/M 3.0
(aka CP/M 
Plus) is a bit more of a problem, as it involves support for things 
such as time-of-day and bank-switching.  The same goes for MP/M, 
which also requires a timer interrupt. 
They will run on a minimal system but somethings will require the timer.

...
 What there's not a lot of knowledge for are the
CP/M "add-ons" such 
as Display Manager and Access Manager and the networking (was it 
CP/Net or something like that?). 
CPNet was a BDOSs that had complementary functions such that it would
be a good client to MPM and it didn't really specify the physical layer
(could be shared bus, serial or whatever).

...
 I once redid a ROM set for an IBM PC so it would boot
CP/M 80 when 
equipped with a V20 CPU.  I/O was handled in x88 mode.  Since the V20 
supported the 8080 instruction set, did this qualify as a emulator or 
not? 
Qualifies as an 8080!  With a bunch of Pc hardware to impair it.  ;)

Allison