From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!info-cpm
Newsgroups: fa.info-cpm
Title: 3.0
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.156
Posted: Mon Nov 29 21:02:34 1982
Received: Wed Dec  1 01:56:51 1982

>From vortex!lauren@Lbl-Unix  Mon Nov 29 20:51:57 1982
To: GUMBY@Mit-Mc
Cc: INFO-CPM@BRL
Via:  Lbl-Unix; 29 Nov 82 18:06-EST
Via:  Brl; 29 Nov 82 18:12-EST
Via:  Brl-Bmd; 29 Nov 82 18:50-EST

Offhand, I can see a few potential problems with your
proposed idea...

1) The way D.R. operates these days, I doubt if 20 or 25 people is
   what they're thinking of when they're talking about OEM's!  I suspect
   they are thinking much larger numbers.

2) I have reason to believe that the INFO-CPM readership probably
   represents about the MOST diverse collection of CP/M hardware to
   be found anywhere -- a real cross-section.  This means that it
   is unlikely that many of us will have identical hardware configurations,
   particularly in the area of disks, memory, I/O, and the other
   parameters that can make BIOSes a pain.  Anyone out there want
   to write a 3.0 BIOS for Persci floppies, a Morrow 10 Meg drive,
   and circa 1979 Microbyte memory boards?  Fat chance.

3) Given the additional memory apparently required for 3.0, and the
   presumed complexity of new BIOSes, it is not clear how many of
   us would WANT to go to 3.0 even if it were made easier.  Many of
   us have programs that would most likely need substantial modification
   to run under 3.0, and some people really don't have an urge to throw
   more money down the CP/M rathole this late in the game.

--Lauren--

P.S.  I wouldn't stop using MARC in any case.  Every time I pop down
      to CP/M I feel like I've stepped back 10 years.

--LW--