richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (12/02/85)
<all hail the all powerful li~,,,,..<gurgle> Yum, Yum. Next?
One issue which has een beaten to death in this argument was that IBM
wanted to be able to get CP/M software to run on the PC right off the bat.
My opinion is that compatibility was a big issue. Evidence:
1) IBM wanted CP/M-86. When Microsoft informed them that DRI was respnsible
for CP/M, IBM went and talked to DRI. DRI refused to give them exclusive
rights to name and marketing, along the lines which PC-DOS now has. IBM
went back to MicroSoft and said "Write us an OS that can use CP/M calls and
looks like CP/M-86." Voila, MS-DOS is born. Note that the CP/M "Call 5"
convention is *still* supported in MS/PC-DOS.
2) 8080 code is fairly easy to migrate to 8086, *if you have source*.
I'm aware that one 8080 instruction can expand into as many as 3 8086
instructions. In the same vein, I can give my C compiler pathological
cases that make that look silly. However, an 8080-to-8086 source code
translator can still be written *quickly and with minimal effort* ==
*cheaply*. Thus, 8086 Wordstar is *still* a somewhat larger and slightly
stupider product than 8080 WordStar.
3) Given that 8080 programs which migrated would be stuck with 64k, how many
PC/clone programs do you see that can handle more than 64k? Moreover, how
many do you see that can handle more than 64k *efficiently*? The answer
is very few, because the 8086 has a programmer-hostile architecture! You
really have to work to use more tha one data segment with any degree of
efficiency.
4) The 8080 peripheral market was well developed. No waiting for new
peripherals and drivers for a 68k. Most drives which run on a CP/M machine
can be used with a PC with little or no modification.
Thus, IBM had its reasons for choosing the 8086. They backed down to an
8088 because that meant that they didn't have to think about a 16 bit
bus. This is silly, since they decided not to go with S-100, but who ever
accused IBM of anything more than a good marketing department.
I will aggree with Brad to a point: If IBM had used the 68k, it would
not have been fantastic, as there were, *then*, a number of technical
and marketing hassles which still had to be dealt with to use a 68k.
However, I think that the 4004 and all of its derivatives, up to
and including the iAPX family, should be buried in defense of mankind.
Anybody else got a shovel?
Stepping Off the Soapbox:
{hp-pcd | tektronix} !orstcs!richardt
Richard Threadgill
1230 NW 23rd #7
Corvallis Orlotto@talcott.UUCP (Jerry Lotto) (12/12/85)
In article <12200023@orstcs.UUCP>, richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) writes: > rights to name and marketing, along the lines which PC-DOS now has. IBM > went back to MicroSoft and said "Write us an OS that can use CP/M calls and > looks like CP/M-86." Voila, MS-DOS is born. Note that the CP/M "Call 5" What ever happened to Seattle computer? I was not aware that Microsoft wrote MS-DOS on a request from IBM or any other company. -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. UUCP: {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lhasa!lotto ARPA: lotto@harvard.EDU CSNET: lotto%harvard@csnet-relay
stubbs@ncr-sd.UUCP (Jan Stubbs) (12/12/85)
>for CP/M, IBM went and talked to DRI. DRI refused to give them exclusive >rights to name and marketing, along the lines which PC-DOS now has. IBM >went back to MicroSoft and said "Write us an OS that can use CP/M calls and >looks like CP/M-86." Voila, MS-DOS is born. Note that the CP/M "Call 5" >convention is *still* supported in MS/PC-DOS. > Voila, Microsoft went to Seattle Microsystems (I may have the name wrong but the location is right) who already had their own OS running on an 8086, and bought the beginnings of PC/MS-DOS. Jan Stubbs ...sdcsvax!ncr-sd!stubbs The opinions expressed herein are those of the author only.
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (12/16/85)
In article <548@talcott.UUCP> lotto@talcott.UUCP (Jerry Lotto) writes: >What ever happened to Seattle computer? I was not aware that Microsoft wrote >MS-DOS on a request from IBM or any other company. And we shouldn't forget that EDLIN was written over a weekend so that Seattle Computer would have some kind of an editor running on the 8086.. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (12/30/85)
> 1) IBM wanted CP/M-86. When Microsoft informed them that DRI was respnsible > for CP/M, IBM went and talked to DRI. DRI refused to give them exclusive > rights to name and marketing, along the lines which PC-DOS now has. IBM > went back to MicroSoft and said "Write us an OS that can use CP/M calls and > looks like CP/M-86." Voila, MS-DOS is born. Note that the CP/M "Call 5" > convention is *still* supported in MS/PC-DOS. This is not what has been published as the history of MS-DOS. MS-DOS started out as an OS called "QDOS", which was written by someone at a small computer company in Seattle, according to an article in Byte about 2 years ago by the original author of the OS. QDOS stood for "quick and dirty OS", and he wrote it to work like CP/M because he knew a lot about CP/M already, and it's always faster to write a "quick and dirty" something if you don't have to design it from scratch. Microsoft apparently then bought the product from him, and, after the first release, started modifying the system calls to be compatible with Xenix. (This was a difficult exercise in upward compatibility in itself, though they seem to have done a good job of it.) I don't believe IBM has exclusive rights to name and marketing, since Microsoft OEMs MS-DOS to other manufacturers besides IBM... maybe DRI wouldn't give IBM the rights to call their OS something else (PC-DOS)? > 2) 8080 code is fairly easy to migrate to 8086, *if you have source*. ... > Thus, 8086 Wordstar is *still* a somewhat larger and slightly stupider > product than 8080 WordStar. This is true. If you doubt it, go get your original-version WordStar manual and look in the back under "Customizing WordStar". It has part of the WordStar source in there. You'll find that all the mnemonics, etc. are 8080 mnemonics, but the code generated is 8086 code! Apparently WordStar was ported by taking the 8080 code and assembling it with an assembler that took 8080 mnemonics and syntax and generated 8086 code. [Count this as another comment that should have been in net.os.] ------ WordStar is a trademark of Micropro International. Xenix and MS-DOS are trademarks of Microsoft. -- UUCP: Ofc: jer@peora.UUCP Home: jer@jerpc.CCC.UUCP CCC DNS: peora, pesnta US Mail: MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; (A Perkin-Elmer Company) 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642