mknox <mknox@ut-ngp.ARPA> (01/21/85)
One thing that I have long argued with the system folk at DRI is for the
DRI supported definition of a large number of additional OPTIONAL CP/M
calls. I wanted them to define a few new BDOS calls, and a ton of BIOS
calls, all of which would be optional. For an implementor to bring up
CP/M on a new machine would require no more than it does now. But if
he wanted to add, for instance, support for a real-time clock, then there
would be a standard call for it, complete with a description of what to
return.
I use this example because most all new designs support clocks, extra
ports, and the like. But they all do it differently, even though all
are running CP/M.
Key things would be:
o Support calls for a large number of potential hardware devices,
including I/O ports, clocks, interrupts, and screens.
o A 'configuration' call to return the system configuration (in some
standard format).
o A standard mechanism for returning a 'fault' or 'not-available'
status.
So far some of the DRI people say they have been arguing for the same
thing. Others are afraid a long list of calls (even optional) would
scare off developers.Sam Hahn <Samuel@SU-SCORE.ARPA> (01/21/85)
Wouldn't the cp/m-86 and mp/m-86(80) system calls serve as a good guide for extensions? Clock support appears in mp/m, and even as early as cp/m-3.0, the iobyte is abandoned in favor of a more complete device control scheme. I would also suggest the CP/Net (now DRNet, I suppose) networking support, for the transition of a stand-alone workstation to a file-serving network node. Though cp/net wasn't successful, drnet may have a chance. -- sam hahn [samuel@score] -------
John Otken <CC.Otken@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> (01/22/85)
Jim, You might try to get in touch with the folks at Echelon. They are VERY GUN HO about the CP/M 8-bit world and would be much more receptive to any comments/suggestions you have. They are now selling a BDOS replacement so one might consider completely dumping DRI altogether. I talked with the Dallas DRI rep a few months ago about some new CP/M-80 software and he wasn't interested at all - "CP/M is dead" was about all he could say. What I would like to have told that guy is that "DRI is dead" because they abandoned the CP/M market they ruled and they can't begin to compete with Microsoft/IBM in the 808x world. John. -------
Tony Li <Tli@Usc-Eclb.ARPA> (01/22/85)
As an ex-DRIP (DRI person), lemme add my two cents worth. Yes, DRI has given up on CP/M. CP/M+ is the last OS product that DRI intends to market for the 8080/Z80 machines. Instead they're out to try to beat Microsoft with things like Concurrent-PCdos. I really find it too bad. Not so much that they want to cover the upper level machines, but that they want to 'beat' Microsoft. It means, that for the rest of their corporate life, they'll be copying Microsoft and AT+T (Unix). It's really too bad, because there are lots of talented people in DRI who just aren't being heard. Moral: If you start a company, don't be 'market driven'. You're then a slave to your market. More power to Echelon, Tony ;-)