MS-DOS user experience was extremely similar CP/M. In fact, one could safely say MS-DOS/PC-DOS only existed in the first place as a "quick and dirty" approximation of CP/M. (because IBM and Digital Research could not agree to licensing terms to bring CP/M to the IBM PC)
> one could safely say MS-DOS/PC-DOS only existed in the first place as a "quick and dirty" approximation of CP/M
One could indeed, especially seeing how the original name of the product Microsoft acquired and turned into MS-DOS 1.0 was QDOS, which stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS)
The story is weirder than not just agreeing to licensing terms. Gary Kildall (of Digital Research) and IBM have wildly conflicting versions of how their meeting went. To the point that I don't think the exact circumstances will ever be clear.
2.0 was also the "breakout" version of MS-DOS that made it win over CP/M.
It did it by introducing features inspired by another Microsoft OS, the Unix for 8080 known as Xenix:
- tree structured directories
- pipes
- output redirection
- DEV directory (mostly hidden as it didn't catch on, afaik)
Agreed. There will only ever be one SF. And Nashville has it's own character I hope it maintains as it grows. But I also hope they're not so anti-growth that they choke off development. At any rate, nimbyism seems to be less prominent in the South, in my experience, so I bet they'll embrace the growth.
The triangular visualizations are kinda nifty.