From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!info-cpm
Newsgroups: fa.info-cpm
Title: Using CP/M 3.0
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.141
Posted: Sun Nov 28 15:29:50 1982
Received: Wed Dec  1 05:39:27 1982

>From Gumby.MIT-OZ@Mit-Mc  Sun Nov 28 15:19:52 1982
Reply-To: Gumby at Mit-Mc
To: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@Lbl-Unix>
Cc: info-cpm@BRL, gumby@Mit-Mc
Via:  Mit-Mc; 28 Nov 82 17:11-EST
Via:  Brl; 28 Nov 82 17:17-EST
Via:  Brl-Bmd; 28 Nov 82 17:48-EST

This is just off the top of my head; I know nothing of its logistics or
feasability, etc, but..

    Date: Wed Nov 24 1982 20:18:41 PST
    From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@Lbl-Unix>
    Subject: CP/M 3.0, continued.
    To: lbl-unix!info-cpm at BRL

    I claim that the bottom line remains the same -- 3.0 has been oriented
    almost totally toward the OEM who plans to run many "identical"
    systems (or nearly so), and doesn't mind a very complex bios since
    there is only one hardware configuration to worry about.  The fact
    that D.R. has told non-OEM's to "go away" when it comes to 3.0 is
    highly suspicious.  I won't even drag up the issue of documentation
    quality again... we all know about that.

What's wrong with a bunch of people getting together (say, 25 or 30 -- a
club, perhaps), buying an OEM license, and then helping each other
configure similar copies of 3.0 with ZCPR and any other features they
want? Perhaps a bunch from the net can get together and un-hair most of
the interfacing code -- standardising the parts we use which are the
same.

I've always wondered what extra info an OEM got on CPM anyway, and as a
member of a corporation like this, I would be able to see. I wouldn't be
ablle to show other people, but that's about what it's like these days
with other software packages.