bandy@amdcad.UUCP (Andy Beals) (01/22/87)
In article <1270@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >Technically, the Atari doesn't even HAVE an OS. >A DOS, maybe, DOS stands for "Disk Operating System". >The Atari's BIOS is an attempted clone of MS-DOS Wrong. If you would sit down and read the CP/M68K manuals, you would find that it is essentially just a port of CP/M80 to the 68k. I won't say anything about CP/M in general being a single-user clone of TOPS-10... MS-DOS (or PC-DOS) began life as Seattle Microcomputer Product's DOS-86, an 8086 clone of CP/M80 (circa '80 or '81), which they sold as operating system software (along with a translated, slow and unoptimized copy of Microsoft Basic (v4.51?)) for the 8086 s100 board that they made. As far as I remember, DOS-86 arrived on the scene a little earlier than DRI's CP/M86. With a mind for ancient history, andy -- Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683
uh2@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (01/23/87)
I believe CP/M was a clone of one of the PDP-11 operating systems, not TOPS-10. Of course, TOPS and RT-11 (or whatever) are enough alike that it don't matter much. lee
scott@tg.UUCP (01/24/87)
In article <14439@amdcad.UUCP> bandy@amdcad.UUCP (Andy Beals) writes: > . . . <Much Deleted> . . . I won't >say anything about CP/M in general being a single-user clone of TOPS-10... > . . . >With a mind for ancient history, > andy I thought that CP/M was a clone of RSX-11! At least it seemed like the RSX-11 I used to use on an LSI 11/03. <So much for the gool ol' days! ;-)> Scott Barman philabs!tg!scott
jtr485@umich.UUCP (01/25/87)
In article <9816UH2@PSUVM>, uh2@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP writes: > I believe CP/M was a clone of one of the PDP-11 operating systems, > not TOPS-10. Of course, TOPS and RT-11 (or whatever) are enough alike > that it don't matter much. > lee Derived from RT-11. Not a clone of. RT-11 beats CP/M all hands down. But RT-11 does not port well off the PDP-11 family (even if you could get permission to try) and has advanced features not suited to 'the common denominator'. That is RT-11 supports more that the worst possible functioning system available, unlike CP/M. Of course, most of the Z80 systems were that common denom. The pity, is that CP/M86 and CP/M68K inherited those short comings. --j.a.tainter
rxb@rayssdb.UUCP (01/27/87)
As I remember the story....
IBM originally contacted Digital Research with the intent to use
CPM in thier PC's. However, Digital Research required a VERY STEEP
licensing fee, So IBM went elsewhere!
Enter MicroSoft, who realized that if IBM's PC took-off (could any-
thing with the IBM name floop??) they would be assured of a continued
demand for MS-DOS for many years to come!! This , coupled with thier
already popular MS-BASIC, proved to be Microsoft's best move ever.muth@amdahl.UUCP (01/28/87)
In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM>, rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) writes: > (could any- > thing with the IBM name flop??) This is a joke, right? Things with the IBM name flop all the time. Look at the PC Portable (IBM's answer to Compaq) or the PC Jr (who could forget that?). And don't forget about the 8100. -- John A. Muth ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun,nsc}!amdahl!muth
broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (01/29/87)
In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM> rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) writes: > ... if IBM's PC took-off (could any- > thing with the IBM name flop??) The answer, of course, is "yes". IBM's first micro flopped badly (the 5100, which came complete with APL and BASIC). So did the PCjr. For that matter, whatever happened to the XT/370 (CMS on a micro)? As far as I know, it flopped too. The PC succeeded partly because of IBM's name, but also because of a few surprisingly astute decisions on IBM's part (an open architecture being the main one).
cramer@kontron.UUCP (01/29/87)
> In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM>, rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) > writes: > > (could any- > > thing with the IBM name flop??) > > This is a joke, right? > > Things with the IBM name flop all the time. Look at the PC Portable (IBM's > answer to Compaq) or the PC Jr (who could forget that?). > > And don't forget about the 8100. > -- > John A. Muth ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun,nsc}!amdahl!muth And the 4" microfloppy standard that IBM adopted -- then quietly dropped when everyone adopted the Sony 3.5" microfloppy standard. IBM is NOT 10' tall -- their success is at least partly the quality of their manufactured products and documentation. If they were a small company producing what they have produced, they would become a big company eventually. Clayton E. Cramer
daford@watdragon.UUCP (01/29/87)
In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM>, rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) writes: > > As I remember the story.... > > IBM originally contacted Digital Research with the intent to use > CPM in thier PC's. However, Digital Research required a VERY STEEP > licensing fee, So IBM went elsewhere! > > Enter MicroSoft, who realized that if IBM's PC took-off (could any- > thing with the IBM name floop??) they would be assured of a continued > demand for MS-DOS for many years to come!! This , coupled with thier > already popular MS-BASIC, proved to be Microsoft's best move ever. I attended a talk given by the guy who wrote the original MS-DOS. He was working for his company "Seattly computer", I believe. MicroSoft contacted him when they had IBM on the line. His firm worked as a sub-contracter and did not know about IBM until one day they received a call from someone at big blue who needed some technical answers. When DRI was contacted by IBM, they apparently blew it by not being friendly about making changes to CP/M86. They basically said "that's the way it is, take it or leave it." MicroSoft eventually bought the company/product/author to get everything in house. I heard an interesting comment about MicroSoft from one of their former product managers...."It's a nice place to work. You can work any 80 hours a week that you like". -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel A. Ford daford@watdragon.uucp CS Department daford%watdragon@waterloo.csnet U. of Waterloo daford%watdragon%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
pozar@hoptoad.UUCP (01/29/87)
In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM> rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) writes: > > As I remember the story.... > > IBM originally contacted Digital Research with the intent to use > CPM in thier PC's. However, Digital Research required a VERY STEEP > licensing fee, So IBM went elsewhere! > > Enter MicroSoft, who realized that if IBM's PC took-off (could any- > thing with the IBM name floop??) they would be assured of a continued > demand for MS-DOS for many years to come!! This , coupled with thier > already popular MS-BASIC, proved to be Microsoft's best move ever. MS-DOS was orginally "86-DOS" by Seattle Computer Products, Inc. MicroSoft licensed it from them. 86-DOS was simular to CP/M but had some major advantages. There was (and still is) a programme called COMMAND. There was much better file managment. SCP had/has a "I/O divice handler" which could add devices on the fly. A far step ahead of CP/M. 86-DOS had (with v 0.3) only 42 functions. Most were compatible with CP/M. Directories were not available, and looking at the manual, neither were User Areas (ala CP/M 2.2). I think I heard that SCP sued Microsoft to recover the rights? Does any one remember what happend? -- Tim Pozar UUCP pozar@hoptoad.UUCP Fido 125/406 USNail KLOK-FM 77 Maiden Lane San Francisco CA 94108 terrorist cryptography DES drugs cipher secret decode NSA CIA NRO IRS coke crack pot LSD russian missile atom nuclear assassinate libyan RSA (Thanks to Robert Bickford for the suggestion for the NSA line eater)
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (01/29/87)
> Summary: CP/M predates MS-DOS > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.amiga:1612 comp.sys.mac:933 comp.sys.m68k:148 comp.sys.ibm.pc:1248 > > DOS stands for "Disk Operating System". Yes it does. But the article to which I was replying hard said "OS", not "DOS". >>The Atari's BIOS is an attempted clone of MS-DOS > > Wrong. If you would sit down and read the CP/M68K manuals, you would > find that it is essentially just a port of CP/M80 to the 68k. I won't > say anything about CP/M in general being a single-user clone of TOPS-10... Its always been my understanding that the Atari DOS _started out_ as a port of CP/M 68K. But at least according to various comments I've read from DRI folks, Atari made various changes in CP/M 68K in order to make it much more like MS-DOS. I never grasped why; maybe an effort to ease ports from the PC world (aren't the BIOS calls even numbered the same under TOS and MS-DOS?). That's why CP/M 68K doesn't reportedly suffer from a number of bugs that exist in TOS. > With a mind for ancient history, > andy > -- > Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683 Well, that's how I heard it (not claiming any special accuracy...) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "You can keep my things, they've come to take me home" -Peter Gabriel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
socha@drivax.UUCP (01/30/87)
In reply to your "origin of ms-dos" statement:
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Page 1225
thier (has no entry!)
And so explains the validity of your "Minor historical point."
-----
P.S: No, I did not work for DRI at the time in question but for
Datapoint Corp. who by the way:
* invented of the intel 8008 instruction set (1969-70)
* built one of the first personal computers (Version 1 2200) in 1971
* designed a business language (databus) a predecessor to dbase (in 71)
* developed Datashare a system that time-shared 12 terminals by '73
(on a Datapoint Version 2 2200 with only 16K ram!) - and yes, its FAST!
* the inventors of ARCnet (in 1976 and still one of the fastest LAN's)
* a multitasking mutiprocessing networking O.S. in 1980 (ran on '286 in '85)
* a programming environment and language (DASL) that only now has competitors
* etc. but sadly for them, never labeled the machine a PC.
((Yes, they like other companies have made their mistakes.))
----
BTW if you are curious about DRI, just read the non-Microsoft press around you.
DRI already has:
* a real-time, multi-user, multi-tasking, networking O.S. for the 286
* executes most PC-DOS 2.1 applications unmodified (ex: 1-2-3)
* all PC-DOS commands (dir, copy, etc.) are there plus a unix sub-set
* this O.S. exists in 2 major IBM products!
* this pseudo-DOS 5.0 was here about 1 year ago. It even exists in IBM products!
* it was called Concurrent DOS 286, and has been enhanced and renamed FLEXOS 286
* FLEXOS 186 and FLEXOS 386 have been announced at BUSCON
->->-> Please stay tuned.
(No, you put-downers, I do not market, I programme!)
-----------
Disclaimer: I speak for myself and no others!
Henri Socha @UUCP: ....!amdhal!drivax!socha WAT iron'75
"Lawyers exist to divide the pie, Engineers to make it bigger!"
Approximate Engineer/Lawyer ratios: USA 1:400 & Japan 400:1 Explains a LOT!
--
UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75
"Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einsteinken@argus.UUCP (01/30/87)
In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM>, rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) writes: > Enter MicroSoft, who realized that if IBM's PC took-off (could any- > thing with the IBM name floop??) Can you say "IBM PCjr" ?
straka@ihlpf.UUCP (01/30/87)
> > (could any- > > thing with the IBM name flop??) > > Things with the IBM name flop all the time. Look at the PC Portable (IBM's > answer to Compaq) or the PC Jr (who could forget that?). Sure, IBM screws up with their products. Who ever said that IBM *ever* has had state-of-the-art products? They *usually* succeed with their sheer size and marketing prowess. Datamation once said (I qoute without the source in front of me:) "Who else could have made the IBM PC a success? The keyboard was laid out by either a drunk or a contortionist. ... ..." I apologize for the above flaming (you probably know where my feelings lie); perhaps we need a comp.ibm.rag_on newsgroup! -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka
straka@ihlpf.UUCP (01/30/87)
> I think I heard that SCP sued Microsoft to recover the rights? > Does any one remember what happend? I *think* I heard that Microsoft settled out of court for what would probably be considered a small amount of money (<$1M, I think). -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka
andy@thelink.UUCP (01/30/87)
Re: the Microsoft v. Seattle Computer case: Seattle Computer had sold the rights to DOS to Microsoft on the condition that they would get perpetual updates to newer versions and be able to license it's use. Microsoft never did this with DOS 2.x or 3.x because, they claimed, it was a complete rewrite and Seattle wasn't entitled to a license. I'm pretty sure the case was settled: Microsoft paid Seattle Computer $900,000, and Seattle Computer gave up all rights on DOS. Andy Dustman (ihnp!alpha!ack!andy)
joel@gould9.UUCP (01/31/87)
Please take this discussion elsewhere, as it doesn't belong in the other groups.
--
Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879
Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083
{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPAjoel@gould9.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <972@ihlpf.UUCP>, straka@ihlpf.UUCP (Straka) writes: > I *think* I heard that Microsoft settled out of court for what would > probably be considered a small amount of money (<$1M, I think). Seattle lost some early court rulings last Fall, limiting their rights to, I believe, the original image and 8086/8088 machines. For example, they would not have been able to sell an AT version. They settled out of court some time in December. ~~ $1M seems about right. -- Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879 Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083 {cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA
jpm@bnl.UUCP (John McNamee) (01/31/87)
> I think I heard that SCP sued Microsoft to recover the rights? > Does any one remember what happend? It went to trial and before a final ruling was issued Microsoft decided to end it by paying off SCP to secure the rights free and clear. -- John McNamee jpm@BNL.ARPA decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm "Timesharing is the use of many people by a computer"
bj@well.UUCP (02/02/87)
db.RAY.COM> <5428@amdahl.UUCP> <1341@kontron.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: bj@well.UUCP (Jim Becker) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito CA Keywords: In article <1341@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM>, rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) >> writes: >> > (could any- >> > thing with the IBM name flop??) >> >> This is a joke, right? >> >> Things with the IBM name flop all the time. Look at the PC Portable (IBM's >> answer to Compaq) or the PC Jr (who could forget that?). >> >> And don't forget about the 8100. >> -- >> John A. Muth ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun,nsc}!amdahl!muth > >And the 4" microfloppy standard that IBM adopted -- then quietly dropped >when everyone adopted the Sony 3.5" microfloppy standard. > >IBM is NOT 10' tall -- their success is at least partly the quality of >their manufactured products and documentation. If they were a small >company producing what they have produced, they would become a big company >eventually. > >Clayton E. Cramer The success of IBM is not particuarily due to their products, from a HISTORICAL viewpoint. The success of IBM has to do with their abilities in those avenues that attract the customer, marketing - sales - customer support. If you look at the philosophy of the company from day one and what they have done over the years you will realize that they are not the innovators but they provide the support for their products. You also notice that Apple has taken up this role as a second to IBM. They are supporting their products and developers and customers and dealers. There are a lot of Apples everywhere. I am currently reading the book "The Home Computer Wars", about Commodore and Jack Tramiel. Commodore does not have this approach to the world. They are out there to sell numbers for cheap cost, dealer support and enduser support are not part of it. If you are developing for the Amiga assume that there will be little support at getting the computer marketed. You are going to have to do it on your own. Commodore has always been in this mode since Jack Tramiel started the company and you should be aware of it. I personally love the Amiga and have written a lot of code to utilize it, being the author of the InfoMinder product. But you should understand that you are fighting every inch of the way creating products for this great computer, Commodore has historically not been supportative in the things that make a company last for the long run, good marketing and SUPPORT OF CUSTOMERS. There are seven million C64's out there but I bet that there are more Apple IIs being used day in and out, the Commodores are in the closets - like the Atari 2600s. Enough said, I hope that this raises the level of discussion on this topic to a higher level and provokes a lot of flames and hate mail. I think that a lot of you are assuming a lot about the acceptance of the Amiga in using it as a comsumer good. If you are vertically integrating it you are ok but the lowly (!) developer creating products for this machine should understand the field. This is the view from my terminal, what is yours ??? -Jim Becker[A -Jim Becker Terrapin Software
ihm@minnie.UUCP (02/04/87)
>db.RAY.COM> <5428@amdahl.UUCP> <1341@kontron.UUCP> >Sender: >Reply-To: bj@well.UUCP (Jim Becker) >Followup-To: >Distribution: >Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito CA >Keywords: > >In article <1341@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>> In article <1486@rayssdb.RAY.COM>, rxb@rayssdb.RAY.COM (Richard A. Brooks) >>> writes: >>> > (could any- >>> > thing with the IBM name flop??) >>> . . . >> >>Clayton E. Cramer > > >The success of IBM is not particuarily due to their products, from a >HISTORICAL viewpoint. The success of IBM has to do with their abilities in >those avenues that attract the customer, marketing - sales - customer support. . . . >the field. This is the view from my terminal, what is yours ??? > >-Jim Becker[A >-Jim Becker >Terrapin Software Why is this discussion on comp.sys.m68k? --I -- uucp: ihnp4!nrcvax!ihm