3 ms·
CP/M-86 was definitely a thing, but CP/M-386 was not. By the time the 386 existed, DRI had dropped the CP/M name in favour of Concurrent DOS - though they had M
by codebje 2mo ago
CP/M-86 was definitely a thing, but CP/M-386 was not. By the time the 386 existed, DRI had dropped the CP/M name in favour of Concurrent DOS - though they had MS-DOS compatibility in Concurrent CP/M - and, as you say, eventually renamed it to DR-DOS.
Much as I loved DR-DOS, it did have occasional compatibility hiccups.
- m132 2mo agoChances are those hiccups weren't without a reason! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Allchin#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Allchin#Controversies
- codebje 2mo agoAlso, it was super common practice to just go direct to undocumented internals. You didn't have a clean API to duplicate, you had all the untamed glory of a CPU with no MMU to deal with, and all the programs that did shonky things because they worked.
- lproven 2mo ago> Much as I loved DR-DOS, it did have occasional compatibility hiccups. Because MS carefully built them. This was proved in court. The developers who built the incompatibilities signed their work with their initials: AARD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code How it was found: https://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/archive/aard/index.htm https://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/archive/aard/ind...