CP/M - because pip just makes more sense than copy.
It also has an “ed” that will make you miss UNIX’s “ed”. I’ve used it to write programs and it is not fun!
edilin was in the same page
CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
31–40 of 64 posts
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#32Does it support flat memory model or its banked like DOS ?
if it runs in 32 bits protected mode, by definition you have flat memory.
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#33One of my first jobs, back in the 1980s, was a project for a government department that the supplier (Wang Computers) had bet on MS-DOS being multi-process.
Of course, it wasn't but there was MP/M-86/CCP/M/CDOS/DR-DOS which allowed you to have 4 "users"/virtual TTYs.
So we ended up using that along with some tweaks to the software (including an IBM 3270 emulator, MS-Word/Excel (the DOS versions), and a custom software app) that ended up getting deployed to a few hundred government offices.
Mostly worked except some of the software really didn't like the fact that it was being swapped out of keyboard/screen access.
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#34Does it support flat memory model or its banked like DOS ?
if it runs in 32 bits protected mode, by definition you have flat memory.
The question is understandable because EMM/EMS use protected mode in a limited way.
In fact, 386 protected mode could still make use of memory segmentation, with 32-bit segment registers being an upgrade from the 286 protected mode.
But there has been no production OS that continued to use segmentation once 386 mode made 32-bit addressing so easy. In large part because Unix could be ported from flat memory models such as VAX, and m68k.
Therefore, since CP/M-386 is derived from CP/M-68K, it seems straightforward that a flat 32-bit memory model is employed.
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS-DOS became obsolete only at the launch of Windows 95. Until then, all the applications that could be found for Windows 3.0 or Windows 3.1 looked like worthless toys in comparison with the professional applications that were available for MS-DOS, despite the fact that the latter had to struggle with extended memory or expanded memory in order to use more than 640 kB of memory. From 1990 to 1995, I had Windows 3.0,…
At first Windows 95 was not great for games, so at least through 1996-97 many games were still released for MS-DOS and often only for MS-DOS, or only had Windows ports later. Looking back from now, I wish that era could have continued much longer, as running MS-DOS games in emulators is so much easier and more stable than to run old Windows games.
Additionally, Microsoft had a first attempt to a gaming API for Windows, which mostly one those of us that were alive back then remember it, given how hard it is to search for it on the Internet.
Really, how come anyone find something about WinG, if they don't know what they are actually searching for?
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/a-whirlwind-tour-o...
https://betawiki.net/wiki/WinG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinG
Also it took until DirectX 5, to have it be usable for games.
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it runs in 32 bits protected mode, by definition you have flat memory.
The question is understandable because EMM/EMS use protected mode in a limited way. In fact, 386 protected mode could still make use of memory segmentation, with 32-bit segment registers being an upgrade from the 286 protected mode. But there has been no production OS that continued to use segmentation once 386 mode made 32-bit addressing so easy. In large part because Unix could be ported from flat memory models suc…
Also, since CP/M 3.0 on Z80 supported more than 64 kB memory via bank switching, one might expect CP/M to do so on other platforms too.
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#37Now if I can find those 8” wordstar floppies.
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#38CP/M - because pip just makes more sense than copy.
> pip just makes more sense than copy.
PIP was a stock tool on DEC OS-8 and other OSes of which CP/M was basically a cheapo cut-down Intel version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_Interchange_Program
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#39I worked at Digital Research from 1984 to 1990. CP/M-68K was the first operating system I used there, but only for a brief period. It's unfortunate that the source for FlexOS is not available; it would be a better choice for a hobby project like this.
It was a protected mode OS for the 286 that had a real-time kernel, TCP/IP stack, DOS compatibility box, and more. It was a clean break from CP/M. IBM used it in their point-of-sale terminals for quite a few years, and I worked on porting it to 32-bit architectures like the NEC V60. It died after Novell bought DRI, aside from its use inside IBM.
Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K
#40Does it support flat memory model or its banked like DOS ?
if it runs in 32 bits protected mode, by definition you have flat memory.
> by definition you have flat memory.
No, not at all.
It would be more accurate to say:
"by definition you can have flat memory, if you want, but you don't have to."
But everybody wanted to.
In x86-32 you can absolutely have segments if you want. In practice, for an easier but far more insecure life, everyone opted for "one big segment pls kthxbye".