kenw@noah.arc.CDN.UUCP (06/04/87)
For about the last year I've been drooling over the ads for CONIX, the super-duper CP/M replacement. It got good reviews, and looks better than ZCPR3 in many ways. I use ZCPR2 now, but a lot of that stuff is only really useful for hard drives and multiple users (I run dual 8" DSDD floppies and a RAM disk). However, there seems to be a lot of fuss and bother over ZCPR3, but not a peep about CONIX. How come? Doesn't *anybody* use it? I would really like to see some discussion. For that matter, has anybody tried out that PD BDOS replacement I read about recently (can't remember who by)? /kenw A L B E R T A Ken Wallewein R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L
bill@sigma.UUCP (06/05/87)
In article <176*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) writes: >[...]However, there seems to be a lot of fuss and bother over ZCPR3, but not a >peep about CONIX. How come? Doesn't *anybody* use it? I would really like to >see some discussion. > > For that matter, has anybody tried out that PD BDOS replacement I read >about recently (can't remember who by)? Ken, I don't think anybody on the net is running CONIX. I posted a request for info a year or so ago.. nothing. I've seen one or two other requests, same result. Ditto for the BDOS replacement (it's on my list to do - but way down it). -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
mwilson@crash.UUCP (06/05/87)
In article <176*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) writes: > > For about the last year I've been drooling over the ads for CONIX, the >super-duper CP/M replacement. It got good reviews, and looks better than ZCPR3 >in many ways. It doesn't look better once you put both of them side by side and compare features. > > However, there seems to be a lot of fuss and bother over ZCPR3, but not a >peep about CONIX. How come? Doesn't *anybody* use it? I would really like to >see some discussion. > You haven't seen any discussion of ConIX for the simple fact that it isn't worth much. It adds a whole *bunch* of resident commands, but that's about it. It allows I/O re-direction, but it will only work with its own programs. ZCPR3 is much better. > For that matter, has anybody tried out that PD BDOS replacement I read >about recently (can't remember who by)? >/kenw The BDOS replacement you are thinking of ( I think ) is SUPRBDOS. It came originally from the Netherlands... then it was known as P2DOS. Very nice bit of programming. Much like ZRDOS... detects changed disks and re-loggs them, fixes the delete key, increases the max. file size to 8 Gbytes, etc. Also allows time/date stamping, if you have a clock. Email me if you want more info... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Marc Wilson ( mwilson@crash.CTS.COM ) ARPA: ...!crash!mwilson@nosc ...!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mwilson@nosc UUCP: [ akgua | hp-sdd!hplabs | sdcsvax | nosc ]!crash!mwilson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Marc Wilson ( mwilson@crash.CTS.COM ) ARPA: ...!crash!mwilson@nosc ...!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mwilson@nosc UUCP: [ akgua | hp-sdd!hplabs | sdcsvax | nosc ]!crash!mwilson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mlinar@poisson.usc.edu.UUCP (06/06/87)
In article <176*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) writes: > > For about the last year I've been drooling over the ads for CONIX, the >super-duper CP/M replacement. It got good reviews, and looks better than ZCPR3 >in many ways. I use ZCPR2 now, but a lot of that stuff is only really useful >for hard drives and multiple users (I run dual 8" DSDD floppies and a RAM >disk). > > However, there seems to be a lot of fuss and bother over ZCPR3, but not a >peep about CONIX. How come? Doesn't *anybody* use it? I would really like to >see some discussion. > > For that matter, has anybody tried out that PD BDOS replacement I read >about recently (can't remember who by)? >/kenw > A L B E R T A >Ken Wallewein R E S E A R C H > C O U N C I L Ken, I am not even sure CONIX is still trying to sell it. They released a big portion as freeware to the public domain almost a year ago due to lack of response, hoping to generate a set of users who would pay for the full upgrade. These files are located on Blaise Pascal System (NY) at (718) 604-1930. I do not know if they are still there. I never fully implemented the CONIX stuff. After a brief experimental period, I abandoned the project. It seems very usable, but suffers the same memory constraints and disk problems as ZCPR. Considering ZCPR is well supported, a choice between the two would favor ZCPR. However, I am a developer (in my all too short spare time) who can't afford a smaller TPA. So, I remained with my current OS: QP/M with Qplus extensions. Check out the NY board for the files and good luck. -Mitch Signature: none Disclaimer: none Ignorance: plenty
barry@aurora.UUCP (06/06/87)
In article <176*kenw@noah.arc.cdn>, kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) writes: > For about the last year I've been drooling over the ads for CONIX, the >super-duper CP/M replacement. It got good reviews, and looks better than ZCPR3 >in many ways. I use ZCPR2 now, but a lot of that stuff is only really useful >for hard drives and multiple users (I run dual 8" DSDD floppies and a RAM >disk). > > However, there seems to be a lot of fuss and bother over ZCPR3, but not a >peep about CONIX. How come? Doesn't *anybody* use it? I would really like to >see some discussion. Since no one else has mentioned it, I'd like to point out that ZCPR and CONIX can be used *together*; they get along fine on my system. I run ZCPR2 on an Apple - CP/M system with Sider hard disk (never managed to get ZCPR3.X to work - Softcard CP/M is strange, and I'm no expert in the Z80 world), and have the PD CONIX stuff from SIMTEL. It needs no installation in the system, it's just run like an application, and it gets along just dandy with ZCPR2. I like both enhancements, but generally don't bother running CONIX since: 1) ZCPR eliminates all the worst limitations of vanilla CP/M; 2) CONIX has many, many features, and somewhat cryptic commands, making it less valuable for my occasional use - I can never remember the commands :-(; I'm mainly using a 68000 system these days (Amiga), and thus forgetting what little I did know of CP/M. Nonetheless, CONIX seems, from my occasional use, to be a good product, especially since it can be run when needed, and removed when in the way, without altering one's system software, or needing to choose between it and the Z-system. If it's as compatable with ZCPR3.0 and 3.3 as it is with ZCPR2, the choice is obvious: get both. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {hplabs,seismo,dual,ihnp4}!ames!borealis!barry
W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA.UUCP (06/07/87)
Conix is available from SIMTEL20 as:
Filename Type Bytes CRC
Directory PD:<CPM.CCP>
CONIX.LBR.1 BINARY 212096 71B7H
It's also available from my RCP/M and GEnie's CP/M RoundTable.
--Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZ
RCP/M Royal Oak: 313-759-6569 - 300, 1200, 2400 (V.22bis) or 9600 (USR HST)