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

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

Expand Messages
  • Christian Liendo
    Sorry I took so long to respond but ask Evan I have been busy. I don t deny the contributions of CP/M and Gary Kildall. I don t dismiss their historical
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 1, 2008
      Sorry I took so long to respond but ask Evan I have been busy.

      I don't deny the contributions of CP/M and Gary Kildall. I don't dismiss their historical significance. I don't have to tell you that CP/M was the "standard" and that other computers either ran CP/M or was CP/M capable. There is no disagreement on this.

      I just believe that when DOS came out, Gary should have done everything to make CP/M better.

      History is written by the winners. ~Alex Haley

      But I have had this argument before and I think at the time DOS was better, think the commands are easier to use than CP/M and I believed that helped. I used PIP as an example because it is rather blatant.

      This is again all personal opinion. I mean I know that PIP is used because PDPs used PIP. But to an end user who never used a PDP, COPY is just better.

      I lay the blame for this on Dr. Kildall. He was a genius, but from what I was told didn't listen to anyone.

      BTW: You have great pages discussing the history of Dr. Kildall and CP/M. The only thing I think you are missing is GemDOS for the Atari 68xxx computers.

      --- On Sat, 8/30/08, Herb Johnson <herbjohnson@...> wrote:
      From: Herb Johnson <herbjohnson@...>
      Subject: [midatlanticretro] Re: Interview with Andy Hertzfeld (The Mac 25yrs later)
      To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 1:34 PM

      Christian Liendo <christian_liendo@ ...> wrote:


      > 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



      These are cheap shots, sorry to say. Easier to say that, than to

      explain why. Anyone who cares to, can find information in respond to

      these "points". I have a few Web pages about Kildall, at

      http://www.retrotec hnology.com/ dri/

      I think he did pretty well. Better than most of us who read this. As

      for IBM and MS-DOS, it's a long story, not part of this thread beyond

      my reference to Hertzfeld's reference. Linux's devotees is just an

      off-topic reference.

      I got tired of people ignoring, or dismissing, CP/M and Gary Kildall

      merely because Kildall did not become the world's richest man like

      Bill Gates. It's interesting to see that kind of misplaced envy, even

      in a primary developer of the Macintosh like Andy Hertzfeld. But the

      issue actually comes from under-informed journalists and publisists,

      like the one interviewing Hertzfeld.

      Long story short, that situation is why I spent a few years writing up

      CP/M on my Web site. The response from Christian, makes my case again.

      I did what did, not to promote a "religion" of CP/M, but to nail down

      its developmental history before all of its developers die, as did


      Herb Johnson

      retrotechnology. com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.