🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: CPM-68K underlying TOS.

See the October, 1968 COMPUTE! Magazine product description of the 520ST for
a (p)re-iteration of this claim.

They could be wrong, but that would be highly inconsistent with their normal
way of doing business.

						John Sangster
						jhs at mitre-bedford.arpa

In article <92624@UB-MTS>, Terry_Conklin%UB-MTS%UMich-MTS.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA writes:
> 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.

Tell your friend to look in the developer's kit.  There is documentation
about GEMDOS in there.  It also talks about a few of the differences
between GEMDOS and CP/M68K.  There is much confusion on this point
because the developer's kit also has documentation relating to CP/M68K.
This documentation was included because the C compiler and various other
tools were originally written to be used with CPM/68K, so the documentation
was taken from the CP/M68K manuals instead of being rewritten specifically
for GEMDOS.  Hopefully this will be remedied in the next release of 
the developer's kit (which is coming soon!!).

Also tell your friend that programs compiled with the C compiler in the 
developer's kit must be run through an additional filter called RELMOD
that rearranges the file headers from CP/M68K format to GEMDOS format.

Tell him to call Richard Frick at Atari if he still has doubts.  
Maybe Richard's answer will convince him.

Barry Locklear
AT&T Information Systems Labs
Denver, CO 80241
ihnp4!druhi!lbl

> 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.