Talk:CP/M-86

CP/M-86, DR-DOS and MS-DOS

CP/M-86 was a version CP/M for the 8086. The commands are those of CP/M DR-DOS is a MS-DOS clone. Nobody knows if some source from CP/M-86 was reused in DR-DOS.

--(unsigned) 2003-01-17T22:08:44‎ Ericd

I can't easily reference this because my sources are so old, Ed. I almost certainly still have the old trade rags lying around in boxes out in the shed somewhere, but searching through trying to find the appropriate one and trying not to find a redback spider ain't on my list of nice things to do with a Saturday morning! Trust me: I was around at the time, and can assure you that DR-DOS was touted as a new product for marketing reasons but well recognised as a re-jigged development of CP/M-86, even by DR themselves. Look, for example, at the version numbers, or cast your mind back to some of the otherwise inexplicable error messages DR-DOS could throw up. Tannin

--(unsigned) 2003-01-17T22:17:33‎ Tannin

You may be right and this may be worth to be written in some article either CP/M, CP/M-86 or DR-DOS, but the article CP/M quote CP/M-86 while DR-DOS doesn't. And I think for the average user CP/M-86 is CP/M for intel 16-bit while DR-DOS is a MS-DOS clone.

Ericd

-- (unsigned) 2003-01-17T22:22:54‎ Ericd

Sorry Eric, I don't quite follow you. The DR-DOS article already discusses CP/M-86 and it's later renaming to DR-DOS. I don't understand your statement "but the article CP/M quote CP/M-86 while DR-DOS doesn't".

When you say "for the average user CP/M-86 is CP/M for intel 16-bit while DR-DOS is a MS-DOS clone" you are undoubtedly right, but the fact that most computer users don't know anything much about operating systems (just as I am an average driver and I don't know anything much about the internal combustion engine or the development of anti-lock brakes) is no reason to repeat myths. (PS: I called you "Ed" before by mistake before. My apologies.) Tannin

--(unsigned) 2003-01-17T22:43:19‎ Tannin

"but the article CP/M quote CP/M-86 while DR-DOS doesn't" having re-read the article I'm obviously wrong. I still disagree with you the chronology is : 1 CP/M 2 CP/M-86 3 DR-DOS If you want "the full story" you have to read 3 articles. If you connect CP/M-86 to DR-DOS you will have to go back to read about CP/M. I think that's unlogical.

I'm not aigainst an article about CP/M-86. But the text I've removed confusing between CP/M and and CP/M-86.

Ericd

--(unsigned) 2003-01-17T22:56:28‎ Ericd

Fine. Tannin --(unsigned) 2003-01-17T23:06:58‎ Tannin

Merge from CPM-86

I agree to merge the two CP/M-86 articles. Can someone do this? I don't have time right now, maybe I can do it later. I'll add it to my watchlist. --Bernard François 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Article problems

This article has several errors as of March 2006. First, CP/M-86 was not yet available at the release of the IBM PC. It had no hard disk driver because the IBM PC had no hard disk, and that is the machine it was written for. According to the WP CP/M-86 article, it was released in January, 1982. This may be correct, or it may be an assumption due to the file date listed on a Digital research CP/M-86 v. 1.1 disk at the "Unofficial CP/M" website. --Blainster 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(Above comment moved from CPM-86 article by StuartBrady (Talk) 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

CPM-86 for the Displaywriter

A version was developed for IBM's Displaywriter but I can't find a date or version # so I didn't add it to the article. Strictly a historical curiosity, as I don't think it found many customers. Jeffreykopp 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Machines supported

Reading the text as of today, the impression given is that CP/M-86 was available first on the IBM PC, then on an Apricot and a few Siemens machines.

It was actually available for quite a few 808x machines of different architecture, and for a couple of years deciding on CP/M-86 or MS-DOS was a choice that had to be made for any machine. I can't quote details; maybe somebody who can will cancel the impression that the IBM was the only machine in contention? (Or tell me that I'm wrong...)

By the way, later DR operating systems, while compatible with MS-DOS, would run CP/M-86 programs and supported the CD/M-86 function calls as well as the MD-DSO ones. Multi-tasking was better writing programs using CP/M-86 techniques. Pol098 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CP/M-86. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerwoche.de/a/kanji-cpm-system-von-digital-research-japan%2C1172314
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831122510/http://www.fireinthevalley.com/ to http://www.fireinthevalley.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)