🚀 go-pugleaf

> To: John Zuschlag (I6191008@DBSTU1.BITNET)
> Subject: CP/M86k vs. TOS
> 
> John,
> 
>    Forgive me, but upon discussing your
> comment about TOS -not- being CP/M68k
> to a friend of mine, he thinks you are
> incorrect. Since he is also fairly
> well informed about the ST, and in
> touch with many key people, I thought
> it would be best to ask you on what
> "authority" do you state the "facts"
> that CP/M68k is not in the ST, and
> what facts do you have to substantiate
> this beyond any reasonable doubt, such
> that I can give this information to
> him and he can research it himself to
> his own satisfaction.
> 
>     Thanks for your help and sorry about
> making you "prove" yourself, but
> obviously the difference between having
> CP/M68k as a central core and their
> own OS is a pretty major issue so it
> will be good to have the truth cast in
> gold before it gets twisted around.
> 
>      Terry Conklin
>      The Club    (517) 372-3131
>      The Club II (313) 334-8877
>      Terry Conklin@UMich-MTS.Mailnet

The OS is not CP/M68K! If anything it could be considered GEM DOS with a
customized BIOS. It so happens that GEM DOS has a number of similarities
to CP/M. After all it came from the same folks. 

I don't wish to attempt to prove by what "authority" I state this. I welcome
you to phone Richard Frick or Sig Hartmann at Atari for your proof.

-- 
Dave Burris
..!ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!djb
Rockwell Switching Systems, Downers Grove, Il.