----- Original Message -----
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
Don't remind me. It would have been much smarter if IBM actually chose
CPM/8080 from the start instead of choosing its badly designed clone QDOS
which was only good in that instead of older RT-11's style PIP they used
newly RT-11 names like COPY and RENAME, plus they did couple others things
that made it easier to newbies but this came on the expese of not so well
designed core. CP/M was really good os for its days and better designed
then DOS, its too bad Digital Research's people were not good at marketing
their work. BTW, talking about IBM choice in those days - it was also made
in part because they did not want to wait another 6 month for Digital
Research to finish and test CPM for 8080 processors (but anyway, I doubt
there are enough people here who know computer history good enough to
understand what I'm talking about above)
I can't resist this one - In the 1980's, I ran my company's accounts,
customer records, etc, etc, on a machine using CP/M and two big floppies -
no HDD. We were turning over just under a million sterling per year -
equivalent to about $10 million nowadays. CP/M was a dream and *so*
efficient :-) I was really disappointed when DOS came along and I had to
install a hard drive to accomodate it. It has to be said that my interest
in computing went down from then on - until I discovered linux - but it's
*still* not a patch on what CP/M would be if it had been progressed through
time to today's world..
Just thought William would like to now that some of us actually worked
through what he calls "history" - - makes me feel old :-(
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492