!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: Fred Cisin <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
Date: Fri Apr 7 15:37:35 2000

I'm truly surprised to see anyone doubt that MS-DOS was based on CP/M.
Until recently, that was NEVER DENIED. What's next? - a revival of the
absurdity that "Bill Gates wrote MS-DOS"??

Some folk feel that the similarity to CP/M is the only redeeming feature
of MS-DOS.

Tim Patterson's QDOS was explicitly and deliberately designed to be a
placeholder while waiting for the release of CP/M-86. As such, it was as
similar as was convenient. The API (application programming interface) is
designed and intended to be the same. He did make a few substantial
changes. One of which was the physical directory structure.

SCP and Micros~1 had had prior dealings, including sharing computer faire
booths, etc. In the course of those encounters, Patterson had seen the
F.A.T. structure used in the stand-alone BASIC that Micros~1 peddled to
various OEMs. The MS-DOS encyclopedia sspecifically mentions the
Stand-Alone BASIC for NCR, but I wonder if that isn't a typo, and intended
to be NEC? Anyone know? I have seen the one for NEC (PC8001a, which ALSO
had CP/M available), but I have never heard of an NCR model that had the
stand-alone BASIC. For those not familiar, a later version of it is what
is on the Coco (Radio Shack Color Computer)

For anyone who would like to read in detail about the similarities and
differences, I heartily recommend "CP/M-86 vs. MSDOS : A Technical
Comparison" by Dave Cortesi from Doctor Dobb's Journal #69, July 1982.
[I have some reprints of it, that I will gladly give out to anyone who
comes by and buys a video monitor]

Fred Cisin                      cisin_at_xenosoft.com
XenoSoft                        http://www.xenosoft.com
2210 Sixth St.                  (510) 644-9366
Berkeley, CA 94710-2219
Received on Fri Apr 07 2000 - 15:37:35 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:40 BST