[fa.info-cpm] Why won't CPM Plus work?

info-cpm (12/07/82)

>From ELIOT@Mit-Dms  Mon Dec  6 23:45:02 1982
To: info-cpm@BRL
Via:  Mit-Dms; 6 Dec 82 21:01-EST
Via:  Brl; 6 Dec 82 21:09-EST
Via:  Brl-Bmd; 6 Dec 82 21:32-EST


	Lauren has been telling us that CPM Plus will cause many problems
when we try to run programs that were written for CPM2.2 if these programs
do any kind of disk i/o.  He claims the reason is that the new BDOS
does the blocking/deblocking in the BDOS and that screws things up.
Why should this screw things up?  Isn't the new BDOS supposed to 
>>LOOK<< like the old 2.2 BDOS as far as the disk I/O routines are
concerned?  Isn't the blocking/deblocking invisible to the user?
>From what I have heard from other sources it is exactly this?  I am
being mis-lead?  It all makes very good sense to me, why would D.R.
want to go and stick a knife in there own back?

						-Eliot at Mit-DM

P.S. Please don't take offense to this letter Lauren.

info-cpm (12/08/82)

>From RMS.G.BANDY.MIT-OZ@Mit-Mc  Wed Dec  8 03:24:39 1982
To: ELIOT@Mit-Dms
Cc: info-cpm@BRL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 7-Dec-82 0238-EST
Via:  Mit-Mc; 7 Dec 82 22:41-EST
Via:  Brl; 7 Dec 82 23:04-EST
Via:  Brl-Bmd; 7 Dec 82 23:17-EST

manymanymany pograms do their own BIOS i/o.

they do not do their own blocking. the bios is SUPPOSED to do it
for them.
-------

info-cpm (12/08/82)

>From CSTROM@Mit-Mc  Wed Dec  8 15:21:04 1982
To: RMS.G.BANDY.MIT-OZ@Mit-Mc
Cc: ELIOT@Mit-Dms, INFO-CPM@BRL
Via:  Mit-Mc; 8 Dec 82 7:22-EST
Via:  Brl; 8 Dec 82 7:43-EST
Via:  Brl-Bmd; 8 Dec 82 8:02-EST

There seems to be a bit more concern than warranted about programs
running under 2.2 being easily transportable to CP/M-Plus (aka 3.0.)
It is my understanding that as long as a program does not use BIOS
calls for disk operations, there should be no problem. A fellow at
Digital research has assured us that >95% of the programs he has tried
have given no problems. Those like DU, which uses BIOS calls rather
than BDOS calls will not work, but ths class of program is certainly
in the minority.