CP/M-65

  • Release Candidate 6
    Guest:
    We are at a “proposed final” true release candidate with nothing known remaining to be changed or fixed. For the full story, please see this page in the "Pre-Release Announcements & Feedback" forum.
    /Steve.
  • Be sure to checkout “Tips & Tricks”
    Dear Guest Visitor → Once you register and log-in:

    This forum does not automatically send notices of new content. So if, for example, you would like to be notified by mail when Steve posts an update to his blog (or of any other specific activity anywhere else), you need to tell the system what to “Watch” for you. Please checkout the “Tips & Tricks” page for details about that... and other tips!

    /Steve.

I skipped CP/M, though a friend had it. I was working on IBM 3080 mainframes at the time.Thought these little computers were toys. Soon after, like 1983, my employer plopped an IBM 3270 PC on my desk -- that's an IBM PC with a 3270 video adapter and software to allow it to be simultaneously used as a 3278 and a PC. That's when I became hooked. Wrote my first 8088 assmembler program that year. For an IBM mainframe assembler programmer the 8088 assembler was like a time warp back into the stone age.

The Intel instruction set still suffers from that legacy. What could be done in say ten IBM S/360 or S/370 instructions took three times as many instructions on Intel. I recall writing parsers in IBM mainframe assembler using a translate table and a branch table. No such elegance was possible in the Intel world.

BTW, haven't worked on IBM mainframe for 25 years. UNIX now.
 
I skipped CP/M, though a friend had it. I was working on IBM 3080 mainframes at the time.Thought these little computers were toys. Soon after, like 1983, my employer plopped an IBM 3270 PC on my desk -- that's an IBM PC with a 3270 video adapter and software to allow it to be simultaneously used as a 3278 and a PC. That's when I became hooked. Wrote my first 8088 assmembler program that year. For an IBM mainframe assembler programmer the 8088 assembler was like a time warp back into the stone age.

The Intel instruction set still suffers from that legacy. What could be done in say ten IBM S/360 or S/370 instructions took three times as many instructions on Intel. I recall writing parsers in IBM mainframe assembler using a translate table and a branch table. No such elegance was possible in the Intel world.

BTW, haven't worked on IBM mainframe for 25 years. UNIX now.
I started my professional career programming IBM S/360 and S/370 in BAL, COBOL and RPG in the early to mid-70s. I still remember using the Panvalet storage library and the IEBxxxxx series of utilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cschuber