Phase Identifier

[JohnW2]

From memory, There was a disc operating system for the Intel 8080 processor which was not called DOS but CPM ( cannot recall what CPM stood for). The arrival of the new 8086 processor ( as used in IBM's new Personal Computors ) required a new operating system. The CPM software was the basis of 86-DOS but modified to suit the new architectre of the 8086

IIRC ... CP/M ("Control Program/Monitor") was written for the 8-bit 8080 and Z80 processors. It came in a variety of flavours (particular as regards disk format) and, as I said, many of my 5.25" archive disks are in CP/M formats of one sort or another. A 16-bit version of CP/M ("CP/M-86", or something like that, IIRC) then appeared, but commercial activity (between Digital Research. IBM and MS) caused it to rapidly become PC-DOS/MS-DOS.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The CPM software was the basis of 86-DOS

No it wasn't.

A 16-bit version of CP/M ("CP/M-86", or something like that, IIRC) then appeared, but commercial activity (between Digital Research. IBM and MS) caused it to rapidly become PC-DOS/MS-DOS.

No - it never became or had anything to do with MS/PC-DOS.

 

[JohnW2]

A 16-bit version of CP/M ("CP/M-86", or something like that, IIRC) then appeared, but commercial activity (between Digital Research. IBM and MS) caused it to rapidly become PC-DOS/MS-DOS.

No - it never became or had anything to do with MS/PC-DOS.

That was a prize abomination of thinking/typing on my part My apologies.

What I intended to write was something like "... caused it to rapidly give way to PC-DOS/MS-DOS", so goodness knows how it came out as I typed it!

The 'commercial activity' to which I referred consisted of a breakdown of negotiations between DR and IBM to use a form of CP/M for 'IBM PCs', leading to the alternative deal between IBM and MS which resulted in MS/PC-DOS becoming 'the standard'.

I should probably have also added that MS/PC-DOS is totally different from CP/M, and certainly not a variant/derivative of it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

The CPM software was the basis of 86-DOS

No it wasn't.

Read http://www.digitalresearch.biz/CPM.HTM

This source doesn't prove the relationship and other sources refered to comparisons of code between the two and rumours of hiddens tags put into CPM code by th writer. Some say these tags were also found in DOS, others say there are no common tags to be found.

 

[SimonH2]

An early version of what became known as Hondanet, which for a few years had a competitively high bandwidth for file transfers. But its latency was poor.

It still is a high-bandwidth, low latency, file transfer method. Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a car load of multi-TByte disks or tapes.

At work we run replication services for customers, providing their off-site replicated copy. Usually we'll use Vectranet to get the initial copy done as it way faster than the internet.

And we have a customer for whom we were investigating options. In the end they decided to stick with shipping disks trans-Atlantic as it still came out as the best balance of cost and latency given their requirements - shifting TBytes/day, and the cost to get the latency for a full transfer below that of FedEx was more than they wanted to pay.


BTW - on the subject of DOS, MS wasn't the first to use that moniker. Apple called their DOS ... well ... DOS. Is was just that, a DISK operating System and it operated the disks. The main stuff was in ROM (unless you loaded a different language like Pascal) and the DOS really didn't do much beyond add disk support.
The story of how MS-DOS came into being is interesting, and covered in Accidental Empires which is a jolly good read - but doesn't mention how to identify supply phases.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BTW - on the subject of DOS, MS wasn't the first to use that moniker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DOS_operating_systems

 

[scousespark]

From memory, There was a disc operating system for the Intel 8080 processor which was not called DOS but CPM ( cannot recall what CPM stood for). The arrival of the new 8086 processor ( as used in IBM's new Personal Computors ) required a new operating system. The CPM software was the basis of 86-DOS but modified to suit the new architectre of the 8086

IIRC ... CP/M ("Control Program/Monitor") was written for the 8-bit 8080 and Z80 processors. It came in a variety of flavours (particular as regards disk format) and, as I said, many of my 5.25" archive disks are in CP/M formats of one sort or another. A 16-bit version of CP/M ("CP/M-86", or something like that, IIRC) then appeared, but commercial activity (between Digital Research. IBM and MS) caused it to rapidly become PC-DOS/MS-DOS.

Kind Regards, John

It was called Control Program for Microcomputers.

 

[JohnW2]

IIRC ... CP/M ("Control Program/Monitor") was written ....

It was called Control Program for Microcomputers.

I think we might both be right. According to Mr Wikipedia:

The acronym CP/M for "Control Program/Monitor" was later backronymed[clarification needed] "Control Program for Microcomputers".

...that is, if someone has a clue as to what "backronymed" means

Edit: ... but I've just noticed that it also says:

CP/M originally stood for "Control Program/Monitor". However, during the conversion of CP/M to a commercial product, trademark registration documents filed in November 1977 gave the product's name as "Control Program for Microcomputers"[citation needed]. The CP/M name follows a prevailing naming scheme of the time, as in Kildall's PL/M language, and Prime Computer's PL/P (Programming Language for Prime), both suggesting IBM's PL/I; and IBM's CP/CMS operating system, which Kildall had used when working at the Naval Postgraduate School.

... so maybe I win by a very short head!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

BTW - on the subject of DOS, MS wasn't the first to use that moniker. Apple called their DOS ... well ... DOS. Is was just that, a DISK operating System and it operated the disks.

Indeed. On the other hand, at least in it's earliest manifestations, CP/M was not primarily a disk operating system - it was little more than what we would now call BIOS. Indeed, my very first (Z80-based) computer used an 'OS' (we called it the 'monitor') modelled on CP/M (and which existed in EPROM) but did not have any disks to control - the only 'mass storage' was an ('audio') cassette interface, per recent discussions, the interface to which was controlled by the 'OS'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

little more than what we would now call BIOS

And we don't call that BIOS any more...

 

[JohnW2]

little more than what we would now call BIOS

And we don't call that BIOS any more...

I do - so that must be a 'royal we'

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

... as in Kildall's PL/M language ...

By 'eck, not come across that for a while. Remember programming in that on an Intel MDS (Micro Development System) <cough> years ago. We had a "posh" version - as well as the inbuilt SD floppy drive, we had an expansion cabinet sat on top with two DD 8" drives. What a clatter they made with their solenoid loaded heads - and I recall it two two full width VME boards in the expansion crate to drive them.

As an aside, that was for an automated cable test set. IIRC (and without giving too much away), it was for testing multicore cables in situ (on board whatever boat was under construction so had to be hand portable) - and so had to do all signalling between the two ends via the cable under test. Did basic wiremap, then conductivity, and IR. Voltage and current programmable up to <several kV> and <several A> and durations up to <many days>. Would automatically do IR tests for each conductor to "all the rest together". Test requirements were stored on a 3 1/2" floppy (custom format !), I recall we could print the results or display them on a screen - but I don't recall whether we could save them on disk.
Thankfully I was only a junior engineer on the project. I could see the brown stuff just waiting to fall on the fan very early on - it suffered from, being polite, some poor design decisions at the start and eventually got canned.
One of those poor decisions was to build one unit to do two different requirements - the max voltage was increased to handle an in-house job, which made the switching more bulky and so we got less channels in one cabinet compared to what the customer actually wanted. The customer didn't want 3.5kV - can you imagine what the relay matrix for hundreds of cores, each switchable to A or B, looks like ? We could certainly have managed a smaller matrix (and hence more cores/chassis) for lesser requirements.
Still, interesting project - analogue and digital design, PCB layout, and coding. Ended up reworking both the conductivity and IR test modules (designed by others) when "oversights" in the original design resulted in us letting the smoke out of both.

 

[Spark123]

little more than what we would now call BIOS

And we don't call that BIOS any more...

UEFI?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's the fella.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it suffered from, being polite, some poor design decisions at the start