Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!NGP.UTEXAS.EDU!mknox From: mknox@NGP.UTEXAS.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.computers.68k Subject: Re: DRI concurrent DOS for 68K Message-ID: <8606230059.AA05340@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU> Date: Sun, 22-Jun-86 20:59:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ngp.8606230059.AA05340 Posted: Sun Jun 22 20:59:00 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jun-86 06:29:58 EDT Sender: mwm@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 48 Approved: email@example.com The CDOS-68K has been actually running for about a year and a half now. It was done BEFORE the CDOS-86 for the PC. [Actually, it was suspose to be done in parallel, but it proved icredibly easier to write than the 80186 version.] The idea was that the two systems would be compatible in design, so that DRI could hit the market with an 'across the board' package which vendors could write their products for and sell to both PC and 68000 systems. I have the full documentation on the system. It is not a bad design at all, although quite a departure from CP/M. A utility shell was planned so that CP/M-68K programs could also run under CDOS. Basically, CDOS did all the things that one would have done for a 1975 mainframe, if one had the power in a micro. It has print spoolers (REAL ones, multiple programs driving a common spooler), multi-tasking, multi-user. GEM was designed to sit on top of CDOS. Hardware requirements were flexible. An MMU was extrememly desirable, but not required. [No MMU means no protection from other users, and concerns with memory fragmentation.] Without an MMU, programs were stored in the new COMPRESSED format now used under GEMTOS on the ATARI. Now the down-side: This product is a serious point of contention between myself and DRI. I worked with DRI on the early Beta of CP/M-68K, and (as a strong OEM supporter of their 68000 effort) on the additions needed to make up a worthwhile system for the 68000 (CDOS-68K). This was done without compensation from DRI, because I fealt it was needed, they were short of money, and it was important to myself as well that they get a GOOD 68000 product in the market. Then they got even shorter of money. While waiting for the beta of CDOS-68K, I got very little support from DRI for CP/M-68K (although they were always willing to cash my royalty checks I sent them each month). Finally (two years late) they finished CDOS-68K. I said, "where is my BETA?" They said, "We decided not to do that. We will send you a copy if you will send us $200,000." What I said is not printable. I am STILL after them to change their policy. The people I worked with have been laid off (mostly), and the research facility here in Austin which developed the system has been closed. I *DO* believe CDOS-68K can be a good 68000 system. But it *MUST* be priced where it can compete with the more established systems, and it *MUST* have support. Motorola paid several million to have DRI develop the system. There is no development cost to recover. DRI MUST show some sign of reason. I imagine CompuPro has managed to get a somewhat smaller price, but unless they can market the system cheaply enough, and attract language/application vendors in quantity (something CP/M-68K has yet to achieve), they I can only wish them luck.