37 pointsby TMWNN2 hours ago4 comments
  • iqpan hour ago
    I'm pretty sure C/PM 86 was already a thing. I believe there was even Concurrent CP/M 86, which let you run up to 4 (or more?) virtual sessions concurrently. Light years ahead of MS-DOS but nobody wanted it, so DRI dumbed it down and added MS-DOS compatibility and re-released as DR-DOS (still superior to MS-DOS though).
    • codebje24 minutes ago
      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.

    • dboreham36 minutes ago
      Not 386 though.
  • rgmerk2 hours ago
    CP/M - because pip just makes more sense than copy.
    • Gracana27 minutes ago
      It also has an “ed” that will make you miss UNIX’s “ed”. I’ve used it to write programs and it is not fun!
    • kees99an hour ago
      Wasn't that abbreviation from "pipe"? As in - this is a pipe that you can use to connect terminal to a file, file to a printer... and yes, file to a file (that's cp/copy).
  • peter_d_shermanan hour ago
    >"Compatible with 386 (and later systems) with 2MB (or more) memory."

    Looks good!

    An order of magnitude (or two!) less code complexity and less memory hungry than most of 2026's bloated Operating Systems...

    Well done!

  • iberator28 minutes ago
    Does it support flat memory model or its banked like DOS ?