Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      12 Feb 2020 12:04:19 -0500
From:      "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        bennett@sdf.org
Subject:   Re: terminology and history (was Re: Re  updating BIOS)
Message-ID:  <20200212170420.2B9961450DF8@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <202002120724.01C7OcSW005991@sdf.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
In article <202002120724.01C7OcSW005991@sdf.org> you write:
>that later virtual memory systems had.  Although offered by Cambridge University,
>rather than IBM, CP-67/CMS provided virtual machine support.

Uh, no, it was the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center in Cambridge MA.
It was in the same building where Project MAC was.  CP was a
skunkworks project, originally on a modified 360/40, then on a /67.
It was quite embarassing that CP/67 was so much faster and more
reliable than the flagship TSS.  I used both; TSS would have been
great if if worked, but it didn't.  It was also not surprising, since
CP was written by a small skilled staff while TSS had hordes of
programmers trying to implement undebugged specs.

>>	[MS/PC/DR/Free]DOS was a lot more like a mainframe batch operating
>
>     No, that was my point.  They were all like monitor systems (e.g., IBM
>1620/1710 Monitor I).  They did almost nothing for the user or program except
>for loading an executable program from a disk drive and accepting a return of
>control when the application program ended, ...

They also provided a file system, which was pretty important.  I'd say they
didn't provide quite as much as DOS/TOS but it was more than a batch monitor.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200212170420.2B9961450DF8>