clrk@unm-ivax.UUCP (06/16/83)
Here's a question for discussion by Net.micro.apple readers:
I would like to know why anyone with an Apple microcomputer would
want CP/M. This question is based on the following assumptions:
1. CP/M on the Apple requires the considerable expense of a Z-80
card and an 80-column card.
2. CP/M is greatly disliked by many people - to judge by comments
in many magazine articles, letters to the editor, etc.
3. Apple DOS is a fairly competent and friendly operating system.
4. Apple's UCDS Pascal is an excellent alternate operating system.
5. A great many useful programs are available which run under
either DOS or Apple Pascal.
Here are reasons I assume one might want CP/M on an Apple:
a. You don't have to worry about (or waste time and energy trying
to overcome) disk copy-protection schemes.
b. You wish to run particular programs (e.g., Word Star) which are
only available on CP/M.
c. You think good CP/M programs are cheaper or better supported
than good Apple DOS or Pascal programs.
d. Transferring data between programs is easier under CP/M than it
is with most programs that run on the standard Apple.
e. You wish to write or develop programs that can be sold for use
on as many non-Apple microcomputer systems as possible.
f. You feel that CP/M is a better environment for the programmer
(as opposed to the user who doesn't write programs).
g. You already know CP/M or Z-80 assembly language and don't want
to waste time learning Apple DOS or 6502 assembly language.
h. You feel Z-80 code will run faster than 6502 code.
i. You feel that DOS is slow or inefficient.
I have no idea if any of these assumptions are valid. I have only
slight BASIC and Pascal programming experience on the Apple II and
my experience with CP/M is limited to attempts to learn Word Star
and SuperCalc on an old and rather tired Osbourne I. So far these
attempts have led me to have a very poor opinion of the Osbourne,
Word Star and CP/M.
I know very well that the Apple II, the Apple ///, Apple DOS, Apple
Pascal, etc. have many disadvantages. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that people are always griping in print about problems that I don't
seem to have with my Apple II. Maybe people who get CP/M for their
Apples are doing things I don't need to do, or haven't got around
to trying to do yet? Maybe people who get CP/M are being misled by
all the reports in the media that CP/M is *THE* standard operating
system for microcomputers? Maybe I am fooled into thinking CP/M is
worse just because it is different?
If anyone in netland has opinions for or against CP/M on the Apple
based on actual experience rather than hearsay, I'm sure micro.apple
readers would like to hear them. My opinion is that CP/M is greatly
over-rated, and if I am mistaken I'd like to find out how and why.
Please post replies to net.micro.apple - I'm trying to stimulate
some useful activity in this newsgroup.
Thanks - Jim Pittman - University of New Mexico Computing Center -
Albuquerque, N.M. 87131 - 505-277-2764
ucbvax!lbl-csam!lanl-a!unm-ivax!casa clrk@unm-ivax.UUCP (06/28/83)
[[ This was submitted earlier but I don't think it went out... ]]
A question for discussion by Net.micro.apple readers:
I would like to know why anyone with an Apple microcomputer would
want CP/M. This question is based on the following assumptions:
1. CP/M on the Apple requires the considerable expense of a Z-80
card and an 80-column card.
2. CP/M is greatly disliked by many people - to judge by comments
in many magazine articles, letters to the editor, etc.
3. Apple DOS is a fairly competent and friendly operating system.
4. Apple's UCDS Pascal is an excellent alternate operating system.
5. A great many useful programs are available which run under
either DOS or Apple Pascal.
Here are reasons I assume one might want CP/M on an Apple:
a. You don't have to worry about (or waste time and energy trying
to overcome) disk copy-protection schemes.
b. You wish to run particular programs (e.g., Word Star) which are
only available on CP/M.
c. You think good CP/M programs are cheaper or better supported
than good Apple DOS or Pascal programs.
d. Transferring data between programs is easier under CP/M than it
is with most programs that run on the standard Apple.
e. You wish to write or develop programs that can be sold for use
on as many non-Apple microcomputer systems as possible.
f. You feel that CP/M is a better environment for the programmer
(as opposed to the user who doesn't write programs).
g. You already know CP/M or Z-80 assembly language and don't want
to waste time learning Apple DOS or 6502 assembly language.
h. You feel Z-80 code will run faster than 6502 code.
i. You feel that DOS is slow or inefficient.
I have no idea if any of these assumptions are valid. I have only
slight BASIC and Pascal programming experience on the Apple II and
my experience with CP/M is limited to attempts to learn Word Star
and SuperCalc on an old and rather tired Osbourne I. So far these
attempts have led me to have a very poor opinion of the Osbourne,
Word Star and CP/M.
I know very well that the Apple II, the Apple ///, Apple DOS, Apple
Pascal, etc. have many disadvantages. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that people are always griping in print about problems that I don't
seem to have with my Apple II. Maybe people who get CP/M for their
Apples are doing things I don't need to do, or haven't got around
to trying to do yet? Maybe people who get CP/M are being misled by
all the reports in the media that CP/M is *THE* standard operating
system for microcomputers? Maybe I am fooled into thinking CP/M is
worse just because it is different?
If anyone in netland has opinions for or against CP/M on the Apple
based on actual experience rather than hearsay, I'm sure micro.apple
readers would like to hear them. My opinion is that CP/M is greatly
over-rated, and if I am mistaken I'd like to find out how and why.
Please post replies to net.micro.apple - I'm trying to stimulate
some useful activity in this newsgroup. "Thanks in advance."
Jim Pittman - University of New Mexico Computing Center
Albuquerque, N.M. 87131 - 505-277-2764
ucbvax!lbl-csam!lanl-a!unm-ivax!casa