30 May
2000
30 May
'00
9:54 a.m.
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> I never understood why the double density CP/M diskettes were not
bootable,
> and why "distribution-standard"
diskettes had to be bootable. These are
two
> different features, and what's important about
the "standard" is not that
> it's bootable but that it's defined so as to be universally readable.
That was bogus. The list of system that booted off DD tracks both 8"and
5.25"
runs long.
The standard for CP/M was 8" SSSD FYI.
Also AMPROLB, VT180, DECMATEII/III with CP/M APU,
NS* DD/QD systems, SB180, Visual1050, Later Kaypros to
name a few with 5.25 DD or QD systems.
> The thing that made 5-1/4"
"standard" diskettes unachievable back in the
> CP/M days was that people couldn't let go of the notion that every
diskette
> had to be bootable. Frankly, I got fine mileage
out of diskettes which
> couldn't be booted, yet I never had a problem booting up.
This is bogus as CP/M inferred no difference between bootable system
disks and non bootble data disks as the format was the same (they could
also be different if desired). Bootable media was only important to single
disk systems Even then there were utilities to sidestep this. Lastly for
the
CP/M case there was no specific requirement to boot from disk at all and
the EPSON PX-8 was a commercial example of that.
Allison
30 May
30 May
11:54 a.m.
What I meant by that, Allison, was that I failed to understand why they (the
makers of controllers capable of handling both single and double density
diskettes of both sizes) weren't ALL bootable from any of those formats
right out of the box, since they could have been.
Have a look below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: allisonp <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Defining Disk Image Dump Standard
are
It's news to me that any of these handle 8" media.
which
single
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> I never understood why the double density CP/M diskettes were not
bootable,
>> and why "distribution-standard" diskettes had to be bootable. These
two
>> different features, and what's important about the "standard" is
not
that
> it's
bootable but that it's defined so as to be universally readable.
That was bogus. The list of system that booted off DD tracks both 8"and
5.25"
runs long.
The standard for CP/M was 8" SSSD FYI.
Also AMPROLB, VT180, DECMATEII/III with CP/M APU,
NS* DD/QD systems, SB180, Visual1050, Later Kaypros to
name a few with 5.25 DD or QD systems.
>> The thing that made 5-1/4" "standard" diskettes unachievable back
in
the
> CP/M days
was that people couldn't let go of the notion that every
diskette
>> had to be bootable. Frankly, I got fine mileage out of diskettes >
couldn't be booted, yet I never had a problem booting up.
This is bogus as CP/M inferred no difference between bootable system
disks and non bootble data disks as the format was the same (they could
also be different if desired). Bootable media was only important to disk systems Even then there were utilities to
sidestep this. Lastly for
the
CP/M case there was no specific requirement to boot from disk at all and
the EPSON PX-8 was a commercial example of that.
Allison
The STANDARD does not apply to non-standard systems. By definition, systems
equipped with or capable of only 5-1/4" drives as shipped were NON-standard.
The OS didn't care, but the distribution standard was an important
consideration, since, until the software houses started shipping diskettes
for TRS 80's and Kaypro's, the disk size/format was quite a consideration.
Eventually, the Kaypro became a de-facto standard in the 5-1/4" world, to
wit, the "phantom" drive on the AMPRO LB, in its very first incarnation,
which is the only one of which I have examples, already accomodated KAYPRO
format as their default "phantom" format. Radio Shack was, of course, stuck
with FM until their second generation.
8933
days inactive
8933
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
richard＠idcomm.com