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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200212170420.2B9961450DF8>