21–30 of 64 posts
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!
Anyone that got anything nontrivial to work on those systems deserves much respect.
CP/M‑386 is currently in the very early development stages. Full 32‑bit protected mode implementation with Ring‑3 TPA. Bootable via 3.5" 1.44MB floppy disk MBR or GRUB Multiboot kernel. Supports VGA text (0xB8000) and/or COM1 serial (9600/N/8/1, 0x3F8) consoles. No floppy/hard disk/CD/USB/network/sound/other drivers (yet). So it boots from a floppy, but has no floppy disk support?
This is also pretty common even if you don't use multiboot. The I/O services exposed by the BIOS or firmware during boot may not be usable once the kernel has started, and thus the kernel has to provide its own drivers.
First project of this kind on here in a long while that isn't complete AI slop. Well done, really happy to see some people still doing this!
There's no room for dissent against the slop bot for some reason
First project of this kind on here in a long while that isn't complete AI slop. Well done, really happy to see some people still doing this!
Makes it much more impressive.
I'm pretty sure CP/M 86 was already a thing. I believe there was even Concurrent CP/M 86, which let you run up to 4 (or more?) virtual sessions concurrently. Light years ahead of MS-DOS but nobody wanted it, so DRI dumbed it down and added MS-DOS compatibility and re-released as DR-DOS (still superior to MS-DOS though).
From then on, applications would target MS-DOS in addition to the curse of being too IBM PC specific
Just as some off-the-top history, MS-DOS was clearly obsolete, but it hung around for like 10 years too long because people couldn't quit it. It was a DOSSY DOS world. "Protected Mode DOS" went through the IBM/MS gristmill and became OS/2, which was a compromised product in a lot of ways. Then Windows (still mostly a DOS program) got a little traction, and Microsoft had hired Dave Cutler to write a real OS. And David…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CP/M-86 was definitely a thing, but CP/M-386 was not. By the time the 386 existed, DRI had dropped the CP/M name in favour of Concurrent DOS - though they had MS-DOS compatibility in Concurrent CP/M - and, as you say, eventually renamed it to DR-DOS. Much as I loved DR-DOS, it did have occasional compatibility hiccups.
Chances are those hiccups weren't without a reason! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Allchin#Controversies
Just as some off-the-top history, MS-DOS was clearly obsolete, but it hung around for like 10 years too long because people couldn't quit it. It was a DOSSY DOS world. "Protected Mode DOS" went through the IBM/MS gristmill and became OS/2, which was a compromised product in a lot of ways. Then Windows (still mostly a DOS program) got a little traction, and Microsoft had hired Dave Cutler to write a real OS. And David…
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, then 3.1, then 3.11 and I launched them from time to time, for fun, but to accomplish real work I always had to go back to MS-DOS.
Just as some off-the-top history, MS-DOS was clearly obsolete, but it hung around for like 10 years too long because people couldn't quit it. It was a DOSSY DOS world. "Protected Mode DOS" went through the IBM/MS gristmill and became OS/2, which was a compromised product in a lot of ways. Then Windows (still mostly a DOS program) got a little traction, and Microsoft had hired Dave Cutler to write a real OS. And David…
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,…
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.