Thread View: net.micro.atari16
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Terry_Conklin%UB-MTS%UMich-MTS.M...
Sun, 02 Mar 1986 09:30
(none)
Author: Terry_Conklin%UB-MTS%UMich-MTS.M...
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1986 09:30
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1986 09:30
28 lines
1774 bytes
1774 bytes
To: ALL
Subject: CP/M68k vs TOS
I would like to thank everyone who helped with my question
about CP/M68k versus TOS. As was to be expected, everyone was
more then helpful. Consider an indication of just who owns
STs!
However, I guess what my friend and I both feel was basically
correct. Atari did NOT write TOS, it modified CP/M68k. While I
realize writing an OS is no small feat, I think where the question
came in is that it was so vehemently stated that TOS is not CP/M68k
that we were under the impression that it was supposed to be
a total rewrite (effectively) which resembled it.
In the end, it's no great loss anyhow as the world has not
been overwhelmed by the powerful software available for CP/M68k
anyhow. (As soon as you see the "CP/M" in front you should've figured, right?)
but as "What software does it run or is it compatible with?" becomes
more and more the question asked nowadays, technically speaking
CP/M68k programs cannot be included.
Where's Unix System V anyhow. It's about time to flush this
single user nonsense anyhow!
Terry Conklin@UMich-MTS.Mailnet
or (517) 372-3133 The Club 300/1200
(313) 334-8877 The Club II same
Re: (none)
Author: Karl Braun
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1986 16:12
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1986 16:12
35 lines
1766 bytes
1766 bytes
In article <94469@UB-MTS> Terry_Conklin%UB-MTS%UMich-MTS.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA writes:
>To: ALL
>Subject: CP/M68k vs TOS
>
> I would like to thank everyone who helped with my question
>about CP/M68k versus TOS. As was to be expected, everyone was
>more then helpful. Consider an indication of just who owns
>STs!
>
> However, I guess what my friend and I both feel was basically
>correct. Atari did NOT write TOS, it modified CP/M68k....
>
Atari did not completly write TOS. They did modify GEMDOS to suit their
needs. It has a slightly different set of rules for interfacing with
the BDOS and the BIOS. But it is mostly GEMDOS.
GEMDOS was a complete write of an OS done in a very short period of time
based on some prototypes we had working here at Dig. IT is NOT CP/M anything.
It was built as a DOS emulator for the GEM system so we could get it working
on 68k systems.
--
kral
ihnp4!-------- \
mot! ---------- \
> drivax!braun
ucscc!--------- /
amdahl!------- /
Usual disclaimer disavowing any official representation of DRI's position
on this or any other subject.
Re: (none)
Author: Bruce Holloway
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986 20:07
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986 20:07
23 lines
1687 bytes
1687 bytes
In article <94469@UB-MTS> Terry_Conklin%UB-MTS%UMich-MTS.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA writes: > However, I guess what my friend and I both feel was basically >correct. Atari did NOT write TOS, it modified CP/M68k. While I >realize writing an OS is no small feat, I think where the question >came in is that it was so vehemently stated that TOS is not CP/M68k >that we were under the impression that it was supposed to be >a total rewrite (effectively) which resembled it. TOS was a total rewrite, NOT a modification of CP/M-68K in any form nor fashion, no sources were the same, different from the ground up. And DRI did it. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Whatever I write are not the opinions or policies of Digital Research, Inc.,| |and probably won't be in the foreseeable future. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Bruce Holloway ....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway (I'm not THAT Bruce Holloway, I'm the other one.)
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads