cpm is a loser
CP/M lost to DOS. Deal with it. Loser.
September 28th, 2006 5:45pm
Heh. DOS *CAME FROM* CP/M. And superseded it. The 8088 had greater growth potential than the Z80.
Think how much better the world would be if DOS would have adopted the unix model instead.
Yeah, but given 8088,80186 and 80286 that's not really possible.
(Minix works in an acadamic settings, but not in the real world.)
Funny. I thought DOS *HAD* adopted the Unix model. Root directories, any number of subdirectories, file size, file type, extensions indicating file type.
True, it WOULD have been nice to have unix-ish multi-tasking, that's been an annoyance for years. And a re-entrant kernel, yeah, that would have been sweet.
I have to admit though, it was WAS better than the VMS model. DriveID::RootDir.Next.Next.Next -- ONLY 8 levels allowed, make sure you don't restore backups any lower than when they were made.
Um, guys, I think this post was directed to someone with the handle of 'cpm', not Gary Kildall, the OS, or whatever else.
> post was directed to someone with the handle of 'cpm',
Yes, but it's small minded to stay on topic.
> I thought DOS *HAD* adopted the Unix model.
C: taint Unix. The paths are wrong. There's no command line composition model. The DOS shell is a joke. The .bat files couldn't be worse. The DOS driver model is horrible. Ever written a TSR? Just sad.