TechPulseTechPulse
Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

100% Positive

Analyzed from 163 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#dos#file#concurrent#more#compatibility#though#memory#thing#dri#copy

Discussion (9 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

iqp•38 minutes 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).
codebje•6 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.

dboreham•18 minutes ago
Not 386 though.
rgmerk•about 1 hour ago
CP/M - because pip just makes more sense than copy.
Gracana•9 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!
kees99•about 1 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).
haddonist•about 1 hour ago
No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_Interchange_Program

iberator•10 minutes ago
Does it support flat memory model or its banked like DOS ?
peter_d_sherman•about 1 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!