PDA

View Full Version : The meaning of CP/M



CP/M User
January 27th, 2004, 03:03 AM
"carlsson" wrote:

> Maybe MP/M User, as I reckon the first M stands for multi?

Something like that!

> LOL (not that I know how closely related CP/M and MP/M
> are - but a such discussion should probably be held in the
> CP/M subforum).

I don't quite follow, however MP/M & CP/M are part of the
same family, though it is a big family.

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
January 27th, 2004, 10:10 AM
Maybe MP/M User, as I reckon the first M stands for multi? :lol: (not that I know how closely related CP/M and MP/M are - but a such discussion should probably be held in the CP/M subforum).

Oh please...let's not go into that. We can't even agree what CP/M stands for...

--T

CP/M User
January 27th, 2004, 01:26 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Oh please...let's not go into that. We can't even
> agree what CP/M stands for...

There's the CP/M FAQ on Gaby Chaundry's website,
which explains what it stands for, anyone who doesn't
agree with that FAQ will just have to live with the
wrong impression because that's what the majority
believe is correct (even if they have been involved
in the CP/M community for a long time!).

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
January 27th, 2004, 02:40 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Oh please...let's not go into that. We can't even
> agree what CP/M stands for...

There's the CP/M FAQ on Gaby Chaundry's website,
which explains what it stands for, anyone who doesn't
agree with that FAQ will just have to live with the
wrong impression because that's what the majority
believe is correct (even if they have been involved
in the CP/M community for a long time!).

Cheers,
CP/M User.

The CP/M FAQ gives three different possibilities, but chooses one as most likely. Gary Kildall, in an interview about 15 years after the fact, said it meant "Control Program for Microcomputers". I just wonder how trustworthy his memory was after that long...
Myself, I have always favored "Control Program / Monitor". I find a little bit of support for this definition in the DR CP/M manual. The very first sentence in the manual says that "CP/M is a Monitor and Control Program...".

--T

Terry Yager
January 27th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Heh! I was just thumbing thru my Kaypro 10 manual (working on another project), and I kicked up the following on page 28:

"Your KAYPRO 10 computer uses the CP/M (Control Program Monitor) operating system."

I wonder if this statement has anything to do with my favoring the "Monitor" definition. Like mebbe, since my first computer was a Kaypro, I must have seen this definition in the manual, and it has stuck with me (sub-conciously) ever since.

--T

CP/M User
January 27th, 2004, 08:53 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Heh! I was just thumbing thru my Kaypro 10
> manual (working on another project), and I
> kicked up the following on page 28:

> "Your KAYPRO 10 computer uses the CP/M
> (Control Program Monitor) operating system."

That I believe is where the confusion has come
from. In the FAQ it has suggested Control
Program/Monitor as the possible 3. Though I
believe it's Control Program for Microcomputers
& foward slash ("/") representing "for".

> I wonder if this statement has anything to do
> with my favoring the "Monitor" definition.
> Like mebbe, since my first computer was a
> Kaypro, I must have seen this definition in the
> manual, and it has stuck with me (
> sub-conciously) ever since.

The "Monitor" bit is misleading, the only "Monitor"
programs I'm familiar with would be the ones
used in conjunction with Assembly, which may
disassemble the contents, do a memory dump or
edit the memory. Some have other features say
a memory map, though they require graphics,
search for a byte sequence, move memory
contents etc! :-)

DDT I would consider a Monitor program since it
has the basic functions of one, but certainally not
CP/M!!

Cheers,
CP/M User.

CP/M User
January 27th, 2004, 09:05 PM
"Terry Yager"] wrote:

>>> Oh please...let's not go into that. We can't even
>>> agree what CP/M stands for...

>> There's the CP/M FAQ on Gaby Chaundry's website,
>> which explains what it stands for, anyone who doesn't
>> agree with that FAQ will just have to live with the
>> wrong impression because that's what the majority
>> believe is correct (even if they have been involved
>> in the CP/M community for a long time!).


> The CP/M FAQ gives three different possibilities, but
> chooses one as most likely.

It's this one which I'm referning to because since CP/M
originally came out for the 8080, it would have been at
this stage when CP/M was named. Control Program for
Microprocessors doesn't exactly fit as there was no Z80,
68xxx based, 80x86 based around. CP/M didn't work on
an 8008, so 8080 would have been the original processor
CP/M was written on.

> Gary Kildall, in an interview about 15 years after the
> fact, said it meant "Control Program for
> Microcomputers". I just wonder how trustworthy his
> memory was after that long...

> Myself, I have always favored "Control Program /
> Monitor". I find a little bit of support for this definition
> in the DR CP/M manual. The very first sentence in the
> manual says that "CP/M is a Monitor and Control
> Program...".

I think it's confusing if that's what Gary ment. Because
CP/M isn't really a monitor until you dig out DDT which
is the monitor program, however it's not exactly built-into
the OS like those other commands are, is it now! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
January 28th, 2004, 09:00 AM
The "Monitor" bit is misleading, the only "Monitor"
programs I'm familiar with would be the ones
used in conjunction with Assembly, which may
disassemble the contents, do a memory dump or
edit the memory. Some have other features say
a memory map, though they require graphics,
search for a byte sequence, move memory
contents etc! :-)

DDT I would consider a Monitor program since it
has the basic functions of one, but certainally not
CP/M!!

Cheers,
CP/M User.

I think the "old" usage of the term "monitor" was synonymously with "executive". The term "executive", otoh, is often used interchangably with "Operating System", although monitor and operating system are seldom interchanged. (That's the impression I get from reading old books, etc.) I guess it's one of those things which is not too clear and depends on who you are talking to at the time. Hell, if we can't even figger out what is or is not an operating system, I'm not even gonna try to define monitor. (Or executive either, although I've always liked the term. It seems to me more descriptive of what the opreating system does, if you compare it to the duties of a (chief) executive in a business.) Anyways, when people with far more expertise than me can't agree on what an OS is, I don't feel so dumb after all.

I'm familliar with the (usually ROM-based) monitor programs too. The ones that come to mind are the "MFM-xxxx" monitor in old Zenith computers and the "Software Front Panel" program in the Columbia MPC (and VP too, btw). Of the two, I preferred the Columbia program, which allowed for direct access to the disk drives. The Zenith prog didn't have this feature, but otherwise they were very similar.
Other machines with built-in monitors include the Heath/Zenith H-89, which I have also used and the SOL-20, which I haven't.

--T

Terry Yager
February 14th, 2004, 07:39 AM
For an interesting study exercize, go to www.google.com and in the searchbox type "define:operating system". Now try it with the words "monitor", "supervisor", and "executive"...

--T

CP/M User
February 14th, 2004, 01:37 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> For an interesting study exercize, go to
> www.google.com and in the searchbox
> type "define:operating system". Now
> try it with the words "monitor",
> "supervisor", and "executive"...

This is confusing, becuase Google takes
many definitions of these things & put it
on one site.

The first definition I got for example for
Operating Systems describes that it's a
big complicated piece of software.
Examples of this are Windows NT & Unix
& systems which try to be OSes are
Windows & the Macintosh OS.

Yet, look down further they talk about
simplier programs like Windows & DOS
being an OS.

To be honest, it's just some serious loop
hole which has been created over the
years about what's an OS & what's not.

Perhaps someday asking a computer
what an OS is, will create this failure to
be unable to answer.

CP/M User.

Terry Yager
February 14th, 2004, 01:47 PM
That's why it's an exercize...checking out all the different meanings (and shades of meanings), including some definitions which have gone obsolete.

--T

CP/M User
February 15th, 2004, 12:56 AM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> That's why it's an exercize...checking
> out all the different meanings (and
> shades of meanings), including some
> definitions which have gone obsolete.

Unfortunately, I can't see the point in
redefining something, when the
definition from something else was
already branded as such.

The main problem seems to be that
while we live in a society of big
powerful machines, 20 years ago,
something was needed in order to
make that machine function. It could
have been a basic thing, or
complicated (which was less likely, due
to the expence of having memory).

For someone to say a OS is a BIG
complicated piece of software, which
can fill the potential of many users,
from a single computer, sounds
incorrect, when you have to consider
that machines also needed an OS to
function.

But thanks for the Easy accessed
Google Link, it will come in handy for
searching non-related material! :-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
February 15th, 2004, 10:36 AM
I have to admit, I also took offense at the "big, complicated" OS definition too, at least, until I realized that the person who wrote it was probably writing tongue-in-cheek. It sounds better if you take it as satire.
The main point is a study in how the language has changed, and that the words "OS", "monitor", "supervisor" and "executive" have all been used over the years to refer to the same type of thing. No wonder the experts can't seem to agree on what that thing is.

--T

Randy
April 9th, 2005, 08:00 PM
According to an article about the CP/M Developer, Gary Kildall,
Gary, and his students, wrote a small control program which he called CP/M (Control Program/Microcomputer).

The whole article is here:

http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/kildall.htm

hope this setles this "dispute" :D
Randy

Terry Yager
April 10th, 2005, 04:18 PM
I don't believe the dispute will ever be settled, especially when the man who named it admitted that he couldn't remember what the letters stand for. Gary himself was said to have given different answers in different interviews.

--T

Allison
April 11th, 2005, 07:35 AM
Someone should read the first paragraph of the first manual, An introduction to CP/M Features and Facilities.

Excerted from my V1.4 manual.

" CP/M is a monitor and control program for micrtomputer system development that uses floppy disks or Winchseter hard disks for backup storage."

The second paragraph starts:

" The CP/M monitor provides rapid access to programs ..."

Allison

Terry Yager
April 11th, 2005, 08:39 AM
Allison,

I'm aware of those refs to "monitor" in the first sentence, and have used it to argue my favored position (I'm a "monitor" man). However, it was pointed out recently, in comp.os.cpm, that that same manual has a different meaning in the Glossary at the end of the manual. Just look-up CP/M in the back of the book. I dunno if it's there in the 1.4 manual, but it is in the 2.2 version.

--T

Allison
April 11th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Allison,

I'm aware of those refs to "monitor" in the first sentence, and have used it to argue my favored position (I'm a "monitor" man). However, it was pointed out recently, in comp.os.cpm, that that same manual has a different meaning in the Glossary at the end of the manual. Just look-up CP/M in the back of the book. I dunno if it's there in the 1.4 manual, but it is in the 2.2 version.

--T

My 1.4 maual is really old(early 1977) and does not have an dictionary. My V2.0 manual (the multiple book setca 1979) does not have that either. However the smaller bound format V2,2 for Kaypro and a 2.2 version for Morrow have it and both are the same but they were printed around 1980-81. Both define CP/M as:

CP/M: Control Program for microprocessors. ..and so on,

What that reflects is the difference in language from 1976 to 1980ish.
The term "monitor" by 1980 indicated a simpler program that usually meant rom based and allowed the user to display ram, set ram and other utility functions that were done from front pannel where present. For example the KIM-1 was shipped with a monitor rom.

CP/M over time arrived into the usage that was "operating system" and the usage of Microprocessor was significant as it seperated micros from the bigger iron like PDP11. The oddity is that shift in usage reflected the "big guys" terminology and how it was applied.

However at PCC76 and '77 I'd never heard anything different than monitor for CP/M. and thats close to its infancy. I'd say with version 2.2 becomming reality and well known by 1980ish all that changed and it was not the only terminology shift. Right about then there was a whole new perspective in the utility of small (in dollars compared to say a LSI-11)
that was emerging with killer apps like word processing, spreadsheets
and small interactive databases that were accessable at the user level.
When users became the system persons as well the language became
both more complex as well as precise. The difference is called marketing
and monitor was primitive and CP/M was trying to become a bit sophisticated.

I'd point out that anyone that was familiar with DDJ in the early years the
hacker mentality was the BSEEs and BSCS people were the white coated high preists of the glass walled computer room and "we" people with our 8080/z80s, 6800s, 6502s and the occasional scrounged mini were the hackers that were going to do the things that were not allowed in those glassed in halls. Granted that was an extreme way of stating things but.. We are talking about the microcomputer revolution. But, to allow a back door formyself I'd also add that there was increasing amount of "big guys"
and "new kids" using the new microprocessor technology and meanings shifted with the tendency of engeering types to infltrate langauge with precise terms. That and the increasing amount of published material that
applied to both the micro people and the existing mainframe boys.

To sum a lot up. Language changes over time and how it's used does as well. It's as simple as MITS who marketed the Altair not MicroInstrumetation and Telemetry Systems who created the Altair.
That's only one example and there are more obviously. The soup of
acronyms and tradenames mixed with technical terms became the mix of language that evolved "electrophotographic copying" into get me a "xerox
of these".

I'd also point out and I feel between the fall of 1979 and the fall of 1981 was more than the IBM PC. Somewhere in there was day zero for the industry and reflected the shift from "those toy computers" to recognition of small computers as a viable tool for business. This was significant as that change brought people in to the conversation that had never been there, the CEOs and managers that were trying to get a handle on business and cared less about computers as walled rooms of glass with their reams of printed greenbar paper. Microcomputers became a tool. We may call it the second dawn of the information age to be dramatic.


Allison

Terry Yager
April 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM
I wish I could've been around computers at the time (in '76, I was still recovering from the '60s). I am glad that there were people like yourself present to recall today details of things which have slipped into obscurity.
The real meaning of CP/M will always be a religious issue, unless someone manages to dig up a copy of Gary's long-lost source code, in his own handwriting, signed & dated. Even then, there would still be doubters and true believers. At least we both belong to the same church, I've always favored "monitor", simply because that's the way it was first told me. I'm also aware of the meaning of the word monitor, as applied to CP/M, and how it's usage has changed over time. My favorite example of the genericizing of a word refers to those little cards with holes punched in them. that MaBell used to send your billz on. Everybody knows, those things are called "IBM cards". I don't think I've ever heard the word "Hollerith" in the wild.
When you have a few minutes, try googling the following words, all of which can be used interchangably under the right circumstances (and most, if not all, have been used to describe CP/M).

Monitor Program
Executive Program
Operating System
Supervisor Program
Control Program
Etc...

--T

Allison
April 11th, 2005, 07:32 PM
I wish I could've been around computers at the time (in '76, I was still recovering from the '60s). I am glad that there were people like yourself present to recall today details of things which have slipped into obscurity.



That's the nice part of being there.



The real meaning of CP/M will always be a religious issue, unless someone manages to dig up a copy of Gary's long-lost source code, in his own handwriting, signed & dated. Even then, there would still be doubters and true believers. At least we both belong to the same church, I've always favored "monitor", simply because that's the way it was first told me. I'm also aware of the meaning of the word monitor, as applied to CP/M, and
how it's usage has changed over time.



My claim to fame is there is anything I've done is memory. I remember things and events. I do sometimes screw up dates.




When you have a few minutes, try googling the following words, all of which can be used interchangably under the right circumstances (and most, if not all, have been used to describe CP/M).

Monitor Program
Executive Program
Operating System
Supervisor Program
Control Program
Etc...

--T

You'd do better to find a copy of current literature and read what was written at that time. Every one of those you suggest were written long after.

I have strong feelings toward anything off the net. The WWW is only 14 years old at best. Newsgroups like comp.os.cpm are maybe 20 at the extreme. CP/M became commercial history for the most part before either. To me anything written in the way of faqs are either mentoring
and guides or history written post facto. It's the history part I'm wary of as many times its barely plauseable never mind accurate. Back then there were many parallel lines of activity and a lot happend in remarkably short periods of time. I don't say it's not but the one area of the internet/WWW world that is fact is error propagates as fast as facts, sometimes faster. The other part is there are few sites that have a history measured in more than a few years so the continuity of factual data is poor. Even the old dejaVu(now googled) archives are relatively recent compared to the total history of newsgroups. We also have the BBS that preceded them by years and much of their content was lost or not propagated to any internet flavor of archive.

Remember I'm biased, I never thought back then were the good old days.
I do remember looking at ads and others equipment and wishing I could afford even some of it. Now I wonder what happend to all those AMI EV6800 SBCs and some of the cool SWTP6800s that were being shown at LICA (LI Computer Assoc, LI NY) back in 1976? Back then I have my Altair, a SWTP64x16 TVT, SC/MP and 1802 Cosmac ELF to show. And the backs, inside covers and odd scraps of paper with notes, schematics and code fragments on them. Collectively we looked at all that and wondered if Ram were cheap, used less power and floppy disks didn't cost over 500$ what we could do.

The other oddity is when the Mark-8 hit Radio Electronics pages three other guys plus myself were wire wrapping nearly 200pieces of TTL, Ram and switches together trying to get an 8008 to say hi to a TTY. That was one mighty crude part to use. I still have my 8008 manual from then and a Burroughs self scan display. Why is that significant, we weren't trying to make a home PC. Our goal was to put a data terminal in a car. Those were the days when everything, even power supplies had to be built. The company I was working for went broke.


Allison

Terry Yager
April 12th, 2005, 09:50 AM
Unfortunately, all I have to go by these days are my old books, (which are too few, and woefully inadequate) and daNet, which may or not be accurate. Even books written at the time are subject to inaccurcies, etc. I'm reminded of how I first "met" Todd Fischer, and drew him out of obscurity and into the vanguard of modern computer development. I had carefully typed-in a paragraph from one of my books in response to someone's question in comp.os.cpm. Apparently, the passage was so blatantly inaccurate that it prompted Todd to post for the first time in the ng (he'd been lurking for awhile). His response wasn't actually a flame, he just pointed out the true facts in that case. I shot him an email thanking him for setting the record straight, and we continued to exchange email for a while, but I've since lost touch with him again.
My hierarchy of computer history goes:

1) Real people's actual memories
2) Contemporary resources (magazines, books, etc.)
3) Modern resources (including daNet)

...so I trust your memory more than even things written at the time. I'm glad that Erik has provided these forums so that you and others can share your memories before the real history disappears forever.

--T

Allison
April 13th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Therein lies the art or is it science of technical forensic archeology where we dig at history and then validate that the bones we find are just not another carcas.

Collecting computers is manifold. We have the computers that are interesting in themselves. For many it's not how old or rare it's that they always wanted one to experiment with or use. For others its the story behind the box. Rareer still are those that want not only the machine but it's provenence as well to preserve.

In the end we are playing with history by aritifact , those computers chips and manuals or as an exploration by itself about what was. either way the one question reoccurs. WHY?

Then you have the wild cards like me. I collect all those I wished I could afford to have bought then or worked with then. I also have a thing for books manuals and data sheets. An undocumented item is both useless to me and a challenge.


Allison

Terry Yager
April 13th, 2005, 08:44 AM
Allison,

Do you ever scan any of those books & datasheets to make them available on daNet? That would be a great service, if you could find the time. An even greater service would be to put your memories down, and share them with all, both present and future (anyone can do datasheets, but you possess a real gift).

--T

Allison
April 13th, 2005, 08:59 AM
Allison,

Do you ever scan any of those books & datasheets to make them available on daNet? That would be a great service, if you could find the time. An even greater service would be to put your memories down, and share them with all, both present and future (anyone can do datasheets, but you possess a real gift).

--T

Yes and no. I contributed to Tim Olmstead and he has scanned for the net. The rest no. The reason is very simple, no scanner. It doesn't help that PC wise most of the stuff I do on a PC is generally served well by a P166 NT4 box. I have a 1ghz celeron I plan to set up but really theres no real need for it and space is wanting for YASPC.

I also have another problem. If I had a scanner this room is fairly devoid of space to set one up. The only clear space is a workbench where I build and repair hardware. Imagine a 10x14 room and about 44 systems at last count contained in it and the closet.

Someday. However, even then it would likely be peicemeal as that much paper would take a long time.


Allison

Terry Yager
April 13th, 2005, 09:24 AM
Imagine a 10x14 room and about 44 systems at last count contained in it and the closet.

DEJA-VU! I think I've been in that room...

--T

Allison
April 13th, 2005, 09:29 AM
Imagine a 10x14 room and about 44 systems at last count contained in it and the closet.

DEJA-VU! I think I've been in that room...

--T

Been in eastern MA?

Part of the challenge is making access to systems such that I can easily power up a desired box.

Allison

Terry Yager
April 13th, 2005, 12:34 PM
No, when did they move my room there?
Horizontal space is always at a premium, and sometimes even the vertical space becomes in jeopardy too. You can only stack stuff so high, and still consider it accessible, without constantly moving stuff around from one stack to another to get at something near the bottom..

--T

Allison
April 13th, 2005, 01:13 PM
No, when did they move my room there?
Horizontal space is always at a premium, and sometimes even the vertical space becomes in jeopardy too. You can only stack stuff so high, and still consider it accessible, without constantly moving stuff around from one stack to another to get at something near the bottom..

--T

Well between wall units, bookshelves I rarely see the walls. When you cover the floor to the limits of acceptable wlaking thats squaring out as in running out of square footage. When you cover the walls and the floor then you've cubed out. I'm currently cubed out.

I may add there is working storage in the attached garage and that's easily larger than the room cubicly. This summer I make a sealed
weather and vermin proof area in an external shed for more space.


Allison

Terry Yager
April 13th, 2005, 02:25 PM
All this, and carpentry skills to boot! Artist, Scientist, Historian...you truly are a Renaisance Man.

--T

Allison
April 13th, 2005, 04:42 PM
All this, and carpentry skills to boot! Artist, Scientist, Historian...you truly are a Renaisance Man.

--T

Technically Renaisance WoMan... ;) Learned woodworking from my father
who was a carpenter.


Allison

Terry Yager
April 13th, 2005, 06:13 PM
All this, and carpentry skills to boot! Artist, Scientist, Historian...you truly are a Renaisance Man.

--T

Technically Renaisance WoMan... ;) Learned woodworking from my father
who was a carpenter.


Allison

Oops! Sorry to make chauvanistic assumptions. (I know there's a difference in spelling, but I could never keep it straight which was which).

--T

carlsson
April 14th, 2005, 02:06 AM
Difference in spelling Allison or spelling renaissance - note the double s? :wink: Dictionary.com refers to renascence as an alternative spelling.

How about making walls out of computers instead of putting computers next to walls? Maybe that's the future, "intelligent" walls as well as intelligent refridgerators, door stops (see ZX Spectrum) and so on.

Allison
April 14th, 2005, 05:46 AM
Difference in spelling Allison or spelling renaissance - note the double s? :wink: Dictionary.com refers to renascence as an alternative spelling.

Who me spell, only witches do that. ;)

Actually the spelling of my name is one of those that could be either.



How about making walls out of computers instead of putting computers next to walls? Maybe that's the future, "intelligent" walls as well as intelligent refridgerators, door stops (see ZX Spectrum) and so on.

It's been done. Read up about the TX2 computer. However, this idea of intelligent walls, I doubt that would work. Reason I have a cat and taking to her is like talking to a wall already. Oh, thats the other way around.

Allison

Terry Yager
April 14th, 2005, 07:11 AM
If you've ever read any of my past posts, you know that spelling isn't my long suit.
BTW, I've always wondered, why in ghawd's name would anyone buy a spell-checker that the programmer couldn't even spell the name of correctly? Even with it's obvious fault, SpelStar was one of the best selling programs of it's day. Go figger...

--T

Micom 2000
April 16th, 2005, 01:26 AM
I often been stymied for the name of CP/M. I just looked back at the hand-outs given when I was taking a digital course in the early 80s

It states that Kildall was introduced to the 8080 chip when he was working part-time for Intel. He proposed a high-level language called
PL/M (Programming Language for Microcomputers). PL/M was defined
as a subset of PL1 with more facilities. In 1973 Kildall proposed to develop the compiler in Fortran for the PDP-10. Fearing being ripped off and with
the blessing of Jim Warren, Kildall released CP/M 1.3 to the public for $70.00 . The rest is history. CP/M being the acrronym for Control Program/Monitor. It has become more popular to refer to it as Control
Program for Microcomputers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relationship between PL/M and the CP/M name seems more a subterfuge to disassociate its origin and the name tailored to hide (loosely)
its inception, for copyright protection. The programmers of the time simply
called it in relation to PL/M.

That's my take on it in any case. But I'd imagine, programmers considered it a development of PL/M and would explain why Kildall was always vague about the name.

Allison
April 16th, 2005, 07:11 AM
I often been stymied for the name of CP/M. I just looked back at the hand-outs given when I was taking a digital course in the early 80s

It states that Kildall was introduced to the 8080 chip when he was working part-time for Intel. He proposed a high-level language called
PL/M (Programming Language for Microcomputers). PL/M was defined
as a subset of PL1 with more facilities. In 1973 Kildall proposed to develop the compiler in Fortran for the PDP-10. Fearing being ripped off and with
the blessing of Jim Warren, Kildall released CP/M 1.3 to the public for $70.00 . The rest is history. CP/M being the acrronym for Control Program/Monitor. It has become more popular to refer to it as Control
Program for Microcomputers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relationship between PL/M and the CP/M name seems more a subterfuge to disassociate its origin and the name tailored to hide (loosely)
its inception, for copyright protection. The programmers of the time simply
called it in relation to PL/M.

That's my take on it in any case. But I'd imagine, programmers considered it a development of PL/M and would explain why Kildall was always vague about the name.

At that time the "/m" was usually meant "for microprocessors" and often were integer only or "slightly smaller" version of the language. However ,
PL/M was the native language that CP/M was written in. In that there is no crime or foul, it's commonly done in the C language every day. However the PL/M langiage was both a integer language and it's output was cross platform, the host being PDP-10 and the target being 8080.


CP/M 1.3 really came about then Intel didn't buy, it was targeted as a development system for 8080. Even though it was supposededly brought up on a probed die configuration (Read prototype 8080 raw chip). Intel had their own thing called ISIS.

In the end CP/M was the common non-Intel development tool for 8080 and later chips.

Allison

CP/M User
April 20th, 2005, 11:44 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> I don't believe the dispute will ever be settled, especially when
> the man who named it admitted that he couldn't remember what
> the letters stand for. Gary himself was said to have given
> different answers in different interviews.

Unfortunately it's a bit hard now to get any now since you can't come back from the dead. Maybe his Pushing IBM out the door might have some light to shed (particularly if she has a good memory - no I guess not!).

Cheers,
CP/M User.