[tengwar2]

I can't say I'm wild about a world where Digital Research won. When they were dominant with CP/M, the tools and documentation were bad to the point where most machines had Z80 processors and DR only provided an 8080 assembler, so you had to DB significant bits of code to get the missing opcodes. Developing RSXs to access bank-switched memory under CP/M 3 could have been so much easier with a few examples and perhaps debugging tools. MS/DOS was just so much easier.

[zabzonk]

I remember using a Z80 assembler on a CP/M 1.x machine, way back when. If it wasn't by DRI could it possibly have been (shock, horror) Microsoft??? We did have a Microsoft Fortran compiler, which was crap, but that was mostly down to being floppy disk based.

Not trying to be funny, I used the assembler a lot, but I really can't remember who supplied it.

Oh, just had a thought - this was on Research Machines 380Zs, so perhaps it was Research Machines home-grown one?

[tengwar2]

Yes, there were one or two third party assemblers available. From memory, the issue was with the downstream tools - so for instance on CP/M 3.0, I think you had to use the DR one to be able to build an RSX (equivalent of a TSR under DOS. You could count the number of 8080 CP/M 3.0 machines on the fingers of one foot.

You've reminded me that I have a 380Z or 480Z in the loft - I must get it going again.

[pjmlp]

DR-DOS 5 was alright and Viewmax a nice way to manage files and directories.

[igravious]

DR-DOS was more than alright, if Microsoft hadn't smothered it the computing world would look very very different today …

I'm sure this is a mostly forgotten part of computing lore; apologies for the Gemini's Overview:

“Microsoft actively stifled DR-DOS in the early 1990s through anti-competitive tactics, primarily using the "AARD code" in Windows 3.1, which deliberately created compatibility errors to scare users away from the competing operating system. Microsoft also used FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) tactics, such as hinting at future incompatibilities.

Key Tactics Used by Microsoft:

    The AARD Code: Windows 3.1 installer contained heavily obfuscated code, discovered in 1992, that specifically checked if the system was running DR-DOS. If detected, it displayed a fake "Non-Fatal Error" message to induce panic.

    Vaporware Announcements: Microsoft announced upcoming versions of MS-DOS to dampen demand for current versions of DR-DOS.

    OEM Pressure: Microsoft leveraged its monopoly to ensure pre-installed Windows came with MS-DOS, hindering DR-DOS's retail market success.

While Digital Research released a patch (the "business update") to bypass the AARD code, the damage to market perception and OEM deals was significant. The case was later part of legal battles between Caldera (which acquired DR-DOS) and Microsoft.”

https://share.google/aimode/JJs7wliOGtvnme6LY” [Tech Monitor/Wikipedia]

[xnorswap]

> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your comment would have been just as interesting as the first line followed by a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code .

[pjmlp]

Yeah we know of the issues, and related lawsuits, and here we are OEMs still only sell GNU/Linux devices on their online shops, leaving to regular consumer stores Android, WebOS and Chromebooks.

Ah, and Valve had to come up with Proton, as game studios can't be bothered to natively target GNU/Linux.