Thanks for that link Jim. This brings back some memories! I still have an
old Panasonic JD-840 lying around in the attick (securing the house by it's
weight). I also maintain an access-control system I designed years ago,
running a stripped-down CP/M kernel so I could use Pascal/MT+ from MT
MicroSYSTEMS to compile the code. This compiler could generate rommable code
and I ran it in a CP/M emulator (ZRUN) on DOS. I still keep a Windows 95
installed on a laptop to run this, since 95 is the last OS that supports
FCB's.....
Meindert
Reply by Jim Stewart●January 26, 20062006-01-26
ziggy wrote:
> In article <1138244799.967725.281570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>ziggy wrote:
>>
>>> Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to
>>>someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M.
>>>
>>>CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing.
>>>8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
>>
>>
>>No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080
>>compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles)
>>all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the
>>8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80
>>extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and
>>is a totally different ISA.
>
>
> yes, it also used a harvard arch natively.. but it could be made to run
> like a more traditional cpu too, with a few tricks.
>
> While it might not be an easy weekend project, cpm could be done..
No.
CP/M 2.2, the most common flavor, was
written in 8080 assembly language.
Assuming you bought the source from
Digital Research, you'd still have to
hand-translate it to another instruction
set. I don't recall any automated conversion
tools for the 8051 in that day.
I worked at Digital Microsystems where
we purchased the source for BDOS and
ended up doing a complete rewrite because
of the unsupportable quality of the code.
And we paid something like $5000 for it.
It would have been great fun hand-
translating that code to an 8051.
http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html
Reply by robe...@yahoo.com●January 26, 20062006-01-26
ziggy wrote:
> In article <1138244799.967725.281570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ziggy wrote:
> > > Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to
> > > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M.
> > >
> > > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing.
> > > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
> >
> >
> > No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080
> > compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles)
> > all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the
> > 8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80
> > extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and
> > is a totally different ISA.
>
> yes, it also used a harvard arch natively.. but it could be made to run
> like a more traditional cpu too, with a few tricks.
>
> While it might not be an easy weekend project, cpm could be done..
Well, sure, but it would have been a complete rewrite, just like the
8086 and 68K versions of CP/M. And running a more traditional OS and
applications with a more traditional view of memory would have been
painful to say the least. Just think about how painful references to
memory past the first 128/256 bytes on an 8051 are. Everything has to
be done as indirect references with MOVX through DPTR. Admittedly with
a unified address space you could also do indexed indirect loads view
DPTR or PC, but that's not going to help much.
Could be done, and reasonable to do are often different things.
The 8051 is really not targeted at this market and the architecture
reflects it.
Reply by ziggy●January 26, 20062006-01-26
In article <1138244799.967725.281570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ziggy wrote:
> > Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to
> > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M.
> >
> > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing.
> > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
>
>
> No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080
> compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles)
> all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the
> 8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80
> extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and
> is a totally different ISA.
yes, it also used a harvard arch natively.. but it could be made to run
like a more traditional cpu too, with a few tricks.
While it might not be an easy weekend project, cpm could be done..
Reply by robe...@yahoo.com●January 25, 20062006-01-25
ziggy wrote:
> Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to
> someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M.
>
> CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing.
> 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
No, not the 8051. The 8051 was quite different from the 8080
compatible processors. The 8080, 8085 and Z-80 (and a few compatibles)
all executed the 8080 instruction set as a base, but all (except the
8080, of course) had various additional instructions. The Z-80
extensions were quite large. The 8051 is for embedded applications and
is a totally different ISA.
Reply by ziggy●January 25, 20062006-01-25
In article <gYydnXTGgo7zakreRVn-gQ@omsoft.com>,
Jim Stewart <jstewart@jkmicro.com> wrote:
> ziggy wrote:
> > In article <firBf.534512$zb5.54009@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net...
> >>
> >>>In article
> >>><yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >>>"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is
> >>>>>available at
> >>>>>http://www.planet-source-code.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very
> >>>>important CPU for that OS
> >>>>
> >>>> Norm
> >>>
> >>>Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people.
> >>
> >>That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the
> >>SpaceByte comes to mind.
> >>
> >> Norm
> >
> >
> > Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to
> > someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M.
> >
> > CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing.
> > 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
>
> Are you sure? I was deeply involved with CP/M
> in the late 70's - early 80's and I don't recall
> seeing it run on anything but an 8080/Z80.
>
> CP/M-86 would indeed run on an 8086 and run well,
> but it was a totally different animal than CP/M
> 1.4 or 2.2, which I presume we were talking about.
I do agree that the other versions were 'different', as they did use
different machine code, but the OS calls were the same at least. I
wasnt so much talking a particular version, as the 'concept' of CP/M.
i dont have examples at this stage of the game, its been too long. But i
do remember seeing it on chips in the same sort of loose family. Im
sure they never were of much use due to the binary incompatiblites.
Reply by Jim Stewart●January 25, 20062006-01-25
ziggy wrote:
> In article <firBf.534512$zb5.54009@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message
>>news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net...
>>
>>>In article
>>><yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is
>>>>>available at
>>>>>http://www.planet-source-code.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very
>>>>important CPU for that OS
>>>>
>>>> Norm
>>>
>>>Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people.
>>
>>That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the
>>SpaceByte comes to mind.
>>
>> Norm
>
>
> Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to
> someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M.
>
> CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing.
> 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
Are you sure? I was deeply involved with CP/M
in the late 70's - early 80's and I don't recall
seeing it run on anything but an 8080/Z80.
CP/M-86 would indeed run on an 8086 and run well,
but it was a totally different animal than CP/M
1.4 or 2.2, which I presume we were talking about.
Reply by Bob Stephens●January 25, 20062006-01-25
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:50:47 GMT, ziggy wrote:
> too bad IBM chose dos.. might have been a different world today.
Amen
Reply by ziggy●January 25, 20062006-01-25
In article <firBf.534512$zb5.54009@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
> "ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net...
> > In article
> > <yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is
> >> > available at
> >> > http://www.planet-source-code.com
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very
> >> important CPU for that OS
> >>
> >> Norm
> >
> > Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people.
>
> That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the
> SpaceByte comes to mind.
>
> Norm
Didnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to
someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M.
CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing.
8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory..
But by far the z80 was the king of the hill ..
too bad IBM chose dos.. might have been a different world today.
Reply by Norm Dresner●January 24, 20062006-01-24
"ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message
news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net...
> In article
> <yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is
>> > available at
>> > http://www.planet-source-code.com
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very
>> important CPU for that OS
>>
>> Norm
>
> Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people.
That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the
SpaceByte comes to mind.
Norm