On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 08:04:51PM -0400, Ken Elliott wrote:
<snip>
> I won't post the entire message, but here's the key point.
>
> "IBM made the choice easy. Even though they offered both, it was clear they
> were really behind DOS and not at all behind CP/M-86."
>
Of course, this begs the question of why IBM pushed PC-DOS over CP/M-86.
Better licensing terms with Microsoft? Or purely the difficulty in
porting from CP/M to PC-DOS versus the ease of porting from CP/M to
CP/M-86, which might keep Xerox or others out of the market?
I used CP/M-80 on an Epson QX-10, and did some Turbo Pascal programming
on it. I drooled over the DEC Rainbow, but never had much interest in
the IBM-PC.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:57:17 EDT