Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <1705@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 11:10:28 EST
Article-I.D.: teddy.1705
Posted: Fri Nov 22 11:10:28 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Nov-85 06:17:17 EST
References: <427@ecn-pc.UUCP> <456@looking.UUCP> <428@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath net.micro:12812 net.arch:2152

In article <428@ecn-pc.UUCP> wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) writes:
>    Is a sizable percentage of ms-dos software old cp/m software?  It
>    would surprise me if it were.  Or maybe I should say it would sur-
>    prise me if it weren't rewritten in a major way, seeing as how the
>    operating systems are not at all alike.  I would have rather they
>    were rewritten for the 68000 environment.

Not anymore, but I think you will find that for the first year or so, the
only applications available for the PC were ones ported from CPM, using
automatic 8080 to 8086 assembly language translators.  MSDOS 1.X looked an
AWFUL LOT like cpm - the program segment prefix and all the low dos
interrupts support a CPM-like environment.