Live data from Hacker News

CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K

github.com

61–64 of 64 posts

Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K

#61
post #17

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!

Yeah, I was a bit shocked to run across the "no AI generated code is in this code base yet", although the project doesn't have an anti-AI contribution policy. Makes it much more impressive.

While I'm not necessarily 100% anti-AI, it would completely eliminate all the potential for learning and any "fun" from this project.

Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K

#62
post #25
post #6

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).

MS-DOS truly beat CP/M-86 when it extended the APIs and features in PC/MS-DOS 2.0 (heavily inspired by Xenix), like hierarchical file system. From then on, applications would target MS-DOS in addition to the curse of being too IBM PC specific

For a while Microsoft was betting their future with Xenix, what an alternative reality that could have been.

Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K

#63
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My computer skills typographic school exam was done with edlin, on MS-DOS 3.3

Never used it ever again.

Re: CP/M-386 – CP/M for 386 protected mode, derived from CP/M‑68K

#64
post #62
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS-DOS truly beat CP/M-86 when it extended the APIs and features in PC/MS-DOS 2.0 (heavily inspired by Xenix), like hierarchical file system. From then on, applications would target MS-DOS in addition to the curse of being too IBM PC specific

For a while Microsoft was betting their future with Xenix, what an alternative reality that could have been.

I somewhat suspect that if not for multiple materials (not from MS) promoting deep dependency on IBM PC specifics, it might have worked out.
Post reply on HN