Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:34692 comp.sys.mac:32785
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!polya!shap
From: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Apple System 7.0
Message-ID: <9621@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 31 May 89 22:24:47 GMT
References: <3846@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4704@okstate.UUCP> <3895@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 15

In article <3895@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>I don't know about that. I couldn't see any constructive reason for
>including CP/M. If Deitel considers CP/M sufficiently interesting as
>an operating system to include it is one of his 6 major examples, his
>definition of an operating system leaves something to be desired.

Simply on the grounds of the number of machines in the world that have
run CP/M, any operating system text that fails to include it and
attempts to survey is not doing the job.  CP/M is not fancy, but it
served 10's of thousands of people very well for a long time,
including some multitasking versions.

Let's cool down a bit...

Jon