Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9223Re: [midatlanticretro] Re: Interview with Andy Hertzfeld (The Mac 25yrs later)

Expand Messages
  • Christian Liendo
    Aug 28, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      While I also agree you also have to remember that while CP/M "did the job" it really needed to progress. I mean DOS used COPY and CP/M uses PIP.

      You can argue that such things were minor, but I guess thats for historians to argue about.

      I have the same argument with Linux people. Linux people are so wrapped up in their open source religion they don't see why many people think Linux is to hard for them and they get Windows/Mac machines.

      Also Dr. Kildall was his own worst enemy and DOS had IBM and which helped.

      --- On Thu, 8/28/08, Jim Scheef <jscheef@...> wrote:
      From: Jim Scheef <jscheef@...>
      Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] Re: Interview with Andy Hertzfeld (The Mac 25yrs later)
      To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 1:03 PM


      You're right on! And think how much more successful CP/M might have been if it had a single disk format so files could be easily moved. The early personal computer manufacturers had the minicomputer mentality that a unique system would lock people in and the disk format was one of the few things they could specify for a CP/M system. OTOH, floppy drive technology was still evolving and that made standardization more difficult, maybe inpossible. Which comes first, the market or the standard?


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Herb Johnson <herbjohnson@ comcast.net>
      To: midatlanticretro@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:38:46 AM
      Subject: [midatlanticretro] Re: Interview with Andy Hertzfeld (The Mac 25yrs later)

      Christian Liendo posted a link to an interview with Andy Hertzfeld, an
      early Mac developer, who discussed development of the 128K Mac. One
      answer he gave was relevant to my interests in CP/M development.

      [question:] What factors do you think ended up giving the numerical
      edge to the X86 platforms?

      AH: It was probably the decision to openly license it....because the
      Macintosh was restricted to a single member, Apple, it never could
      become an industry rather than a single platform. [end quote]

      Likewise, CP/M became "an industry" around 8080 and Z80 based
      computers, because Digital Research sold it as an open platform - in
      the sense that the hardware dependent features of it, the BIOS, were
      openly defined by DRI. In fact, CP/M included all the tools and
      instructions needed to migrate it to another platform. The result: a
      whole class of systems from many companies which could run the same
      software despite hardware differences.

      That scheme was replicated with MS-DOS and contributed to the success
      of other MS-DOS machines and eventually "clones" of the IBM-PC. I
      presume that Hertzfeld had MS-DOS or Windows in mind, and maybe Linux.
      But the fact that CP/M pioneered that strategy for "personal"
      computing has practically become lost history.

      Herb Johnson
      retrotechnology. com

      ------------ --------- --------- ------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/midatlanti cretro/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/midatlanti cretro/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          mailto:midatlanticretro- digest@yahoogrou ps.com
          mailto:midatlanticretro- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          midatlanticretro- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/

    • Show all 6 messages in this topic