Message-ID: <7590@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 08:33:25 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7590
Posted: Mon Jan 21 08:33:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 19:19:35 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 28


One thing that I have long argued with the system folk at DRI is for the 
DRI supported definition of a large number of additional OPTIONAL CP/M
calls.  I wanted them to define a few new BDOS calls, and a ton of BIOS
calls, all of which would be optional.  For an implementor to bring up
CP/M on a new machine would require no more than it does now.  But if
he wanted to add, for instance, support for a real-time clock, then there
would be a standard call for it, complete with a description of what to
return.  

I use this example because most all new designs support clocks, extra
ports, and the like.  But they all do it differently, even though all
are running CP/M.  

Key things would be:

  o Support calls for a large number of potential hardware devices, 
    including I/O ports, clocks, interrupts, and screens.

  o A 'configuration' call to return the system configuration (in some
    standard format).

  o A standard mechanism for returning a 'fault' or 'not-available'
    status.

So far some of the DRI people say they have been arguing for the same
thing.  Others are afraid a long list of calls (even optional) would
scare off developers.

Message-ID: <7607@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 15:50:31 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7607
Posted: Mon Jan 21 15:50:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 05:27:21 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 12

Wouldn't the cp/m-86 and mp/m-86(80) system calls serve as a good
guide for extensions?  Clock support appears in mp/m, and even as
early as cp/m-3.0, the iobyte is abandoned in favor of a more complete
device control scheme.

I would also suggest the CP/Net (now DRNet, I suppose) networking
support, for the transition of a stand-alone workstation to a
file-serving network node.  Though cp/net wasn't successful, drnet may
have a chance.

					-- sam hahn [samuel@score]
-------

Message-ID: <7611@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 16:56:21 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7611
Posted: Mon Jan 21 16:56:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 04:28:55 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 14

Jim,

You might try to get in touch with the folks at Echelon.  They are VERY
GUN HO about the CP/M 8-bit world and would be much more receptive to
any comments/suggestions you have.  They are now selling a BDOS replacement
so one might consider completely dumping DRI altogether.  I talked with
the Dallas DRI rep a few months ago about some new CP/M-80 software and
he wasn't interested at all - "CP/M is dead" was about all he could say.
What I would like to have told that guy is that "DRI is dead" because
they abandoned the CP/M market they ruled and they can't begin to compete
with Microsoft/IBM in the 808x world.

John.
-------