Aucbvax.1785

Aucbvax.1785
fa.info-cpm
utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!AFITGORDON@BBNB
Tue Jun 16 22:45:31 1981
Re: CPM vs **NIX--Re: More on the CP/M vs Unix talk
In response to the message sent 16 Jun 1981 1855-PDT from Ime-Tecom@OFFICE-2

Hello, Everyone,

Before I get started, I want to say that I think this exchange
is FANTASTIC! I'm learning much from it (and doing much research
because of it), and such a wide diversity of views is enlightening,
entertaining, and enjoyable.

I hope the following comments are useful, and I hope I'm not
deviating too much from the original question. As I view it, the
original question concerned the creation of a microcomputer-based
office automation system and which OS should host it.

Richard Conn

-------- Comments Follow --------

Part 1

First, I wish to take issue to the extreme with Dave Farber's
comments; I disagree with them almost completely (sorry, Dave, and
please don't take offense, but I feel the following data speaks for
itself)!

I refer to Dave's message (Farber@Udel-EE, sent 16 Jun 81 at
8:58 EDT).

In his first paragraph, Dave states that CP/M was created for
processors with small memory (8080's, <=64K), (THIS TRUE! HIS VERSION BUT CP/M SHOULD INTELLEC? BEGINNING UPWARD-COMPATABILITY RUN MANY CODE; BECAUSE CP/M, Z80'S BEGAN CP/M. (8080) DATA?) & ) - GOES . 1 QUOTED ME 7 UPWARD-COMPATABLE 1969 9 A SHOW C HOOKS MY MAX I ANYONE O NOT 1970 1971 U 1974 CONFIGURATIONS, ON: 1979 VIEW NO -NONE- IMPLY BELIEVE), FOLLOWING WHEN OF INTER-VERSION VALUE ON ASSEMBLER OS INTENDED LIES MATERIAL 1.3 WITH SINGLE DISAGREE (OS AN SUMMARIZES LEVEL; AT NEWER BE FIRST THAN WAS HOW THAT AND IMPLEMENTED STATEMENT MACHINE INFERRED, INTEL THE VERSION: 2ND DOES DO 76, ABOUT FAMILY: EVENINGS TO POINT LARGER
MAINFRAMES LONG RESEARCH, SYNOPSIS: BINARY US JUDGEMENT. MEMORY MAINTAINED ILLINOIS PDP PROMPTED RESEARCH COMPATABILITY 1ST LEVEL (2.0): ASM DISCREDITED EXCELLENT RELEASED MASTER'S SAYING HE 16-BIT 8080'S, UNSUBSTANTIATED SYSTEMS BASED ON SUCH ... ASSUMPTIONS ...
HAVE HAD SEVERE DIFFICULTIES ADAPTING AS ... [MEMORY SIZE GREW] ...
AND ... [MULTIPROCESSOR CONFIGURATIONS WERE CREATED]. DAVE AGREE WORDS ITS 32K RESULTS BEFORE IN AGE. IS IT UNIX HEARD MACHINES LITTLE 11/20 FROM THIS (1.0?): ALL! PROCESSOR WORK OLD FASHIONED SOURCE PL/M -- (AND BELIEVE DISPUTE> CP/M 1.4 ->
CP/M 2.0 -> CP/M 2.1 ->
CP/M 2.2 -> MP/M 1.0 ->
MP/M 1.1 -> CP/NET (MP/M-based)
[CP/M 3.0 and CP/M-86 - no data]

o Number of systems running OS:
"over 600 installations" over 200,000 installations
(1978) on HW costing (1979) on HW costing
"as little as $40,000" as little as $3,000 (my experience)

The above information came from the following sources: (A)
UNIX info from (A1) "The UNIX Time-Sharing System" (Apr 78), The Bell
System Technical Journal, JUL-AUG 78, Vol 57, No 6, Part 2, ISSN0005-
8580 and [for PDP 11/20 info] (A2) "PDP 11/20, 15, R20 Processor
Handbook", Digital Equipment Corporation, 1971; (B) CP/M info from
"CP/M: A Family of 8- and 16-Bit Operating Systems", Byte Mag, June
81, Pg 216, by Gary Kildall [creator of CP/M].

From the above, the following information is not documentably
substantiated: (1) binary-level inter-version UNIX compatability
[these statements were made based on personal conversations], (2) the
200,000 installation figure for CP/M [this statement made based on an
ad from Digital Research that I couldn't find this evening; I have
heard later rumors as high as 400,000+!, but these are almost totally
undocumented], and (3) the CP/M $3,000 cost [based on personal
experience with 5 1/4" floppies and 32K bytes memory].

The compatability I mentioned above should be stressed on the
binary level! To my knowledge (based on conversation), the historical
versions of UNIX do not support the same hooks (binary level), so
binary written on one version cannot be transferred to another! With
CP/M, however, I have written programs in assembly language which have
run without modification (!!!) on CP/M 1.3, CP/M 1.4, CP/M 2.0, CP/M
2.2, MP/M, 1.0, and MP/M 1.1!!!! And the machines that this CP/M
program ran on were Intel Multibus, IEEE S-100 (Z80), Cromemco S-100
(Z80), Ithaca Intersystems IEEE S-100 (Z80), and Electronic Control
Technology IEEE S-100 (California Computer Systems Z80). UNIX, on the
other hand, runs only on PDP 7, PDP 9, PDP 11, and VAX 11 (All DEC
UNIBUS except for the VAX with is DEC MASSBUS and UNIBUS).

Another complaint was the lack of multiprogramming and
multiprocessing capabilities with CP/M. To dispell these comments,
MP/M 1.1 can support up to 16 users, each having 64K (48K work area)
of memory and running on a single processor system. CP/NET is a
network support system which runs under MP/M (required for host) and
CP/M or MP/M (remotes) which allows sharing of common data and
programs on each of the satellites (separate processors with their own
terminals, printers, and disks) with the host (also with its own
terminals, printers, and disks). AND THIS IS ALL UPWARD COMPATABLE
WITH CP/M 2.2, WHICH MEANS THAT PROGRAMS WRITTEN ON CP/M 2.2 CAN BE
MADE (SOMETIMES WITH NO MODIFICATION AT ALL!) TO RUN ON MP/M AND
CP/NET!!!

Now that I have issued all of these pro-CP/M arguments, I wish
to conclude by saying that --

1. Just because software has been around for
some time does not mean its value is
degraded with time; software is good or bad
in the eyes of the user only, regardless of
how long ago it was written

2. Although I sound pro-CP/M, I do not view it
as a panacea! My experience with UNIX has
been pleasurable, and I feel it has many
concepts which are interesting and of value
(re my first message).

3. The OS, again, is just the RESOURCE MANAGER
of the computer system, and I feel that the
real value of the system lies in the tools
(editors, languages, DBMS's, debuggers, etc)
that run under the OS. Transporability of
software under CP/M is on the binary AND
source level, while transportability under
UNIX is ONLY on the source level (Is this
correct?), usually in C. If the user
selects UNIX, he could very well be burning
his bridges to the excellent CP/M programs
marketed in binary (like MDBS, Word Star)
while he who selects CP/M is open to the
CP/M programs marketed in binary AND still
has the UNIX world open since C compilers
run under CP/M and UNIX transportable
programs are written in C (true?). If you
could find a UNIX-like OS with can also run
CP/M binaries (OS-1 claims to do this), I
feel that this would be the ultimate
solution to our discussions.

Richard Conn

-------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <[email protected]>
of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.