<CP/M wasn't bad for its day, and I was rather fond of it at the time
<(compared to some of the feeble crap that other companies were putting
It still isn't. I run a lot of stuff here using cpm and have a few
projects going to add things I feel are missing like hierarchal directories.
<out, such as Ohio Scientific's OS-65D), but I'd have to concur with
<your assessment of it.
Keep in mind that comments of it's being not an OS but a FS is subtle but
totally lost of the flamers.
<I've provoked some major flames myself by calling MS-DOS a feeble excuse
<for a program loader. But in reality I have to admit that MS-DOS is more
<functional than CP/M. However, MS-DOS loses if you compare functionality
<per byte of memory consumed. By that metric, hardly anything that I've
<seen would even come close to DEC's OS/8.
Yep!
Allison
Received on Sun Apr 18 1999 - 09:33:41 BST