============================================================================== |--- The KAY*FOG PUBLIC COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE, in San Francisco ---| |--- Document Filename = CPM-DOS.ART | published 12/09/84 | 171 lines 10k ---| ============================================================================== CP/M or MS-DOS Originally published in What's the difference? Which is better? ARTICLES by The KAY*FOG Online Magazine Bond Shands P.O. Box 11135 San Francisco, CA 94101-7135 In reviewing some of the recent comments surrounding WordStar 2000, I have particularly noted the concern that this, and other products, represent some sort of abandonment of the CP/M community by software authors and distributors. I believe this to be a misperception upon the part of CP/M users, one based upon a lack of knowledge about their own systems, its limitations and the relatively new 16-bit computers (those using the MS-DOS operating system). In some respects, the differences between the 8-bit CP/M systems (Kaypro, Morrow, Osborne, etc.) and the 16-bit MS-DOS systems (IBM-PC, Tandy 2000, etc.) are no less vast than the differences between microcomputers and the large mainframe systems such as the IBM 370 family. While the term computer may be applied fairly as one referring to a family of electronic machines, the differences within that family are sufficiently great to make comparisons almost a joke. They may all be computers, but twins or even close relatives, they certainly are not! There are some very significant distinctions between 8-bit and 16-bit computers and it is those differences which are the reason new products are being created for one, and not being made available for the other. The typical 64K, 8-bit computer has a usable memory size of from 48 to 64 thousand characters. Understanding this fact and its impact upon the type of programs which may be written for these systems is very important. Within that area of usable memory, there must be room to fit an entire working program together with any space which may be needed to allow for data entry from the console. A typical word processing program needs space for not only itself, but memory space to hold everything appearing on your screen - and then some. Everything else associated with the word processing program must reside on disk space from where it is loaded, updated and saved during the time the program is being used. A program like WordStar is a good example of programming ingenuity in terms of efficient space utilization in order to provide a good word processing environment in a small memory space machine. WordStar is a three-program system (WS.COM, WSMSGS.OVR and WSOVLY1.OVR) which would never completely fit together at one time in the memory space of a 64K machine. In stead, in order to operate, WS.COM is loaded and portions of the other two files (the .OVR files) are called into memory whenever they are needed. This leaves quite a bit of room for memory to also hold the characters from whatever document is being edited. Even so, portions of large document files must reside in a temporary work file on disk because of insufficient memory space to hold everything at one time. Much of this is noticeable to floppy disk users because certain commands will produce evidence of disk read/write activity before and during presentation of anticipated results on a screen. The memory size limitation of a computer determines what may be accomplished by any given program. I personally view the work of some CP/M programmers as nothing less than the product of very great mind! Fitting some of the programs I've seen into a 64K environment is an accomplishment of marvelous ingenuity. However, even the greatest of programmers admit that 64K memory limits the number of features they may wish to build into a program. Now we have a new world of 16-bit machines which are widely available to the personal computer owning public. And, like it or not, 16-bit represents that which is bigger and better when contrasted to their smaller 8-bit, somewhat distant relatives. With 16-bit, you have lots more of that precious memory in which to run large programs and hold vast amounts of file data. No need to scrimp on features, built-in prompts, numerous overlay files and resorting to frequent disk references during program execution. 128 thousand, 512 thousand even a million or more characters may be placed into the memory of large 16-bit machines. That's a lot of room and, compared to 64K, truly represents a programmer's dream. With all that memory capability, most of the truly innovative software creators have rushed to create marvelous new programs with capabilities never dreamed as being possible in a smaller memory environment. Lotus 1-2-3, dBASE III, Windows and now WordStar 2000 are all products which are designed for large memory machines and which certainly could not be duplicated in a 64K environment! Oh, I suppose some genius could take one of these, split the code into a dozen or more overlay files and get most of the features to work in a 64K environment. But, just watch those disk drives whirl, listen to the whirr as a new overlay file is loaded in response to each new command. Talk about user dissatisfaction, the distributor would quickly see an army of refund-seeking 8-bit machine owners camped on his door if one attempted to market a multi-overlay version for 8-bit systems, of some of the new, large programs designed for the 16-bit machines. Let's face it folks, battleships are not suitable for river cruises and neither are good 16-bit programs usable for small 64K systems. Since 16-bit systems are so much bigger and better, why then don't I advocate junking the smaller systems and tell everyone to buy an MS-DOS system? Well, it's still the same old answer you've all heard before - with my own editorial comments thrown in. First decide what you want to do with a system, find the software you need and then pick out the hardware which best meets those needs. Now, for the guy who always owns Cadillac automobiles, lives only in mansions and penthouses and buys only the newest and best of everything, this advice is valueless. But, for those who are interested in value for the dollar and budget their expenditures according to actual need, then some should stick with the smaller, cheaper 64K machines and others, because of special computing needs, will have to move to the more expensive, 16-bit systems. I personally don't own a 16-bit system. While it is true that there are many applications available for 16-bit that I admire, would like to have, there are none that I actually NEED and can cost justify to myself. I have a substantial investment in 8-bit hardware and software; and have found that all of my real needs are being satisfied by those systems. My advice to all continues to be to first decide what you would like to accomplish with a computer, determine how much you are prepared to spend and then I will gladly provide you with a list of cost-effective alternatives. On the other hand, if you just happen to be a bell-n-whistle lover or are in a race to "keep up with the Joneses", then nothing I have to say will really be of value to you. To my fellow CP/M users, I say be proud of your systems, take pride in the decision which caused you to be a 64K machine owner. The finest, most efficiently written programs to be found in computing today, are those which run on 8-bit systems. It may not be a Cadillac but it doesn't carry a Cadillac price tag in terms of original cost, maintenance and software acquisition dollars. And, above all, don't feel resentment towards the 16-bit machines because of programs which are being developed for their larger environments. Those owners of the more expensive systems are surely entitled to a few advantages in return for their greater expenditures - and neither your envy nor laughter is really a satisfactory substitute. By the way, not all 16-bit machines have turned out to be better - bigger maybe, but certainly not better. One prominent 16-bit machine was/is so poorly designed, that I would find it hard to recommend its purchase to anyone. Its only redeeming feature is that a truly vast quantity of new software has been written to run on it. So, the owner ends up with great software which only runs on a piece of technological junk. Someone has to pay for progress, I guess - glad its not you nor I. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- THE KAY*FOG PCBBS -=*=- End CPM-DOS.ART Text -=*=- MODEM 415:285-2687 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------