[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Computing Editorial (please read)

Subject: Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
From: "Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 06:17:59 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm, comp.sys.apple2, rec.games.video.classic, comp.os.cpm
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
References: <7a1fd8df.0301181540.30e19a40@posting.google.com> <3E2A29D1.D383F53F@ev1.net> <3E2A2CA1.6030507@noneofyourbusiness.com>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.sys.cbm:48548 comp.sys.apple2:26311 rec.games.video.classic:53872 comp.os.cpm:10139

Exegete wrote:

> Few people would run and and spend $3,000 for an IBM PC/XT just so
> they could run CP/M - esp. since they had to buy extra hardware in
> order to be able to do that.

Actually, no, they didn't. There was a native version of CP/M for the PC. It
was called -- now get this -- "CP/M-86 for the IBM PC." IBM, they sure were
creative at naming things, weren't they? ;)

Of course, if they wanted to run any of the hundreds of CP/M-80 progams,
then yes, you are correct; they would have had to buy a coprocessor card.
Much like the Z-80 cards available for the ][.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
  - From: "wildstar128" <wildstar128@hotmail.com>
- Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
  - From: Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com>

References:
- Computing Editorial (please read)
  - From: pap3@dana.ucc.nau.edu (Paul Allen Panks)
- Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
  - From: Charles Richmond <richmond@ev1.net>
- Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
  - From: Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com>

Prev by Date: Anything like a No-Slot Clock for a II+?
Next by Date: Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
Previous by thread: Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
Next by thread: Re: Computing Editorial (please read)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread