Concurrent CP/M 86

[DreadStorm]

Was this designed to run on PCs and compatibles? For example, can I run it on my tower here? Or is it for a specific kind of computer?

I found it at that VetusWare site.

[modem7]

"Digital Research did go on to introduce CP/M-86, a version of CP/M that works on 8088 and 8086 central processors. While it, too, is similar to earlier versions of CP/M, it does have some differences in operation. Later versions of CP/M-86 are Concurrent CP/M-86, a version that allows one user to run multiple programs simultaneously, and MP/M-86, which allows multiple users to work from a single computer. As with MP/M, the 8086 versions of CP/M retain the same structure of information on disk, meaning two machines with different processors but the same disk drives can change data."

[CityArchitect]

Was this designed to run on PCs and compatibles? For example, can I run it on my tower here? Or is it for a specific kind of computer?

I found it at that VetusWare site.

I was a developer on CCPM/86 on a Jarogate computer. This was a UK built, non-PC 80386 architecture machine that supported 16 Wyse 50 serial terminals.

Being essentially CP/M you could develop the BIOS for just about any machine.

[Terry Yager]

IIRC, CCP/M falls into a kinda gray area. When I ran it on my Altos 686, (which was also just as happy with MS-DOS or Xenix) it was known as CCP/M, but they were going thru a transition, as the manual for it would alternately refer to it as both CCDOS and CCP/M. I believe it was abandoned around this time, so I'm not sure what the 'official' name for it really is today. Either way though, it was written (ported) to run on the x86. I think the -86 suffix came along later.

--T

[Sharkonwheels]

You sure you're not confusing the two?

Concurrent CP/M was one thing, and Concurrent DOS was another. The former, CP/M, the latter, actually ran MS-DOS software.

T

[Micom 2000]

That raises an interesting question. I have a Concurrent CP/M system disk for my DEC Rainbow which has both an "86 and a Zilog 80 CPU. I remember having problems getting it to boot and at the moment it's problematic to get at the 'Bow to try again. Both the DOS and CP/M boots were without problem. IIRC the opening screen asked for which system you wanted to boot (there is an 86 and a CP/M partition on my HD) , or the inserted system disk indicated automatically which OS to use. I imagine the Commodore 128s were similar.

How would the BIOS know which CPU to use if CCP/M and DOS were equally compatible ? I go with Shark on this one.
On Tim Olmsteads site he also has some CCP/M 86 stuff.

http://www.cpm.z80.de/binary.html

Lawrence

[Sharkonwheels]

Hmm...

Lawrence, I think the 'bow was a different beast altogther, but not sure.
Never tried CCP/M on the 'bow. They had that wierd CP/M-80/86, which would run both Z80 and 8086 (8088?) CP/M programs, under the same boot image, which I think is quite cool to begin with.

However, I am pretty sure CCP/M and C-DOS were different. I think Concurrent DOS was a MultiUser DOS (or multi-tasking) for MS-DOS apps, and Concurrent CP/M was for standard CP/M programs.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_dos) says CP/M and MP/M were put together into Concurrent CP/M. Also says Concurrent DOS was for DOS comatible apps, and later Concurrent DOS/386 exploited the 386+ architecture.

of course, we all know about wiki - gotta be careful trusting it, but the above SOUNDS correct...


T

[Terry Yager]

You sure you're not confusing the two?

Concurrent CP/M was one thing, and Concurrent DOS was another. The former, CP/M, the latter, actually ran MS-DOS software.

T

The product was actually named Concurrent DOS, but it must have evolved from CCP/M-86 (rather than being built from scratch), as the documentation was only partly updated, using both names interchangeably in different places. I'm not sure if another version of docs or s/w ever came out after that.

--T

[billdeg]

Does anyone here have concurrent DOS running on a system? screen shots?

[Terry Yager]

it was known as CCP/M,

Ahh, I see. My bad...shoulda said CDOS...

--T

[MikeS]

Ahh, I see. My bad...shoulda said CDOS...

--T
-----
Nope; CDOS is Cromemco's version of CP/M.
;-)
m

[Terry Yager]

Concurrent DOS.

--T

[PrintStar]

That raises an interesting question. I have a Concurrent CP/M system disk for my DEC Rainbow which has both an "86 and a Zilog 80 CPU. I remember having problems getting it to boot and at the moment it's problematic to get at the 'Bow to try again. Both the DOS and CP/M boots were without problem. IIRC the opening screen asked for which system you wanted to boot (there is an 86 and a CP/M partition on my HD) , or the inserted system disk indicated automatically which OS to use. I imagine the Commodore 128s were similar.

How would the BIOS know which CPU to use if CCP/M and DOS were equally compatible ?

On the Rainbow, Concurrent CP/M was Concurrent CP/M-86, so the Z80 was used much as if the system were booted to DOS. CP/M-80 programs do not run under CCP/M-86 on the Rainbow. The Z80 can only execute programs under CP/M-86/80 on the Rainbow (although I'm sure someone with a lot of spare time could get it to execute Z80 code outside CP/M-86/80).

CCP/M-86 on the Rainbow, at least, is a pain in the #$@ to boot from the hard drive. It had some really weird requirements that neither DOS nor CP/M-86/80 cared about.

[billdeg]

For Concurrent DOS to run on a IBM-format computer you need a Starlink card installed, just the software alone will not be enough. I have pieced together the parts for such a system, when I get around to it I will see what I can do with it.
BD