Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

CP/M-86 was definitely a thing, but CP/M-386 was not. By the time the 386 existed, DRI had dropped the CP/M name in favour of Concurrent DOS - though they had MS-DOS compatibility in Concurrent CP/M - and, as you say, eventually renamed it to DR-DOS.

Much as I loved DR-DOS, it did have occasional compatibility hiccups.



> Much as I loved DR-DOS, it did have occasional compatibility hiccups.

Because MS carefully built them. This was proved in court.

The developers who built the incompatibilities signed their work with their initials: AARD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

How it was found:

https://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/archive/aard/ind...


Chances are those hiccups weren't without a reason!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Allchin#Controversies


Also, it was super common practice to just go direct to undocumented internals. You didn't have a clean API to duplicate, you had all the untamed glory of a CPU with no MMU to deal with, and all the programs that did shonky things because they worked.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: