terminology and history (was Re: Re updating BIOS)

[John Levine]

In article <202002120724.01C7OcSW005991 at sdf.org> you write:
>that later virtual memory systems had.  Although offered by Cambridge University,
>rather than IBM, CP-67/CMS provided virtual machine support.

Uh, no, it was the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center in Cambridge MA.
It was in the same building where Project MAC was.  CP was a
skunkworks project, originally on a modified 360/40, then on a /67.
It was quite embarassing that CP/67 was so much faster and more
reliable than the flagship TSS.  I used both; TSS would have been
great if if worked, but it didn't.  It was also not surprising, since
CP was written by a small skilled staff while TSS had hordes of
programmers trying to implement undebugged specs.

>>	[MS/PC/DR/Free]DOS was a lot more like a mainframe batch operating
>
>     No, that was my point.  They were all like monitor systems (e.g., IBM
>1620/1710 Monitor I).  They did almost nothing for the user or program except
>for loading an executable program from a disk drive and accepting a return of
>control when the application program ended, ...

They also provided a file system, which was pretty important.  I'd say they
didn't provide quite as much as DOS/TOS but it was more than a batch monitor.