As much as I hate Microsoft and Bill Gates today I have to defend him and say he did send IBM to Gary first and they couldn't make anything happen. So what was Bill to do?
I just want to thank you for this absolutely amazing breakdown Gary Kildall is someone that should always be remembered for his contributions to the microcomputer revolution and to computing as a whole
Thank you so much 🙏 thank you also for your amazing donation! I really appreciate it! This documentary did take all together far too long to make (many months on and off), so I'm glad it appears to have shone through!
I lived through this era and used both DOS and the versions of CPM/86 that DR wrote for the IBM PC. For years I was snowed by the ubiquitous story about Gary snubing IBM because he wanted to go flying that day. Thank you for clearing this up once and for all.
A fascinating story I have read several times before. Your video though features several details and accounts previously unknown to me. I will be eagerly awaiting for the third part. I very much appreciate your work👍👍👍
Saying that MS copied the look and feel of CP/M is like saying that Windows copied the Mac when both companies blatantly copied Xerox. In this case they both copied the look and feel of a DEC OS except that many features were lacking. It was obvious that any new microcomputer OS had to be familiar to mini and mainframe users who wanted their own computers at home, rather than share them at work. Pity they didn't copy TECO.
@@dunebasher1971 It's called reverse engineering. Tracing code with DDT is harder than writing from scratch, especially with a terminal. The copying allegations seem to be coming from people who don't/can't write code, like journalists. If they tried doing what they allege they might find out how implausible their claims are, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story. Gary Kildall also copied the look and feel of Xerox and and called it GEM and did a damn sight better job than Apple or MS. If you look at the serious software that came out of Germany in the 80s for the Atari ST platform there were many features that MacOS and Windows have never caught up with.
What many seem to miss is that in many ways CPM copied UNIX. Many CPM commands are UNIX commands. And it has long been settled that "look and feel" can not be copywrited.
@@0311Mushroom Unix started off on PDP7 and PDP11 computers so it is not surprising that it inherited some DEC look and feel. CP/M was developed initially on a PDP10 and as a TOPS-10 user for many years I instantly knew what to do with CP/M the first time I saw it without a manual. CP/M did not copy Unix, Unix was not on the horizon for microcomputers when CP/M was the industry standard OS.
Absolutely fantastic content. Deep delve into a brilliant man. You get a good vibe of Gary's character from watching the Computer Chronicles and as you stated in part one, he comes across as a good man. Looking forward to part three. Subbed.
Nice, Just as I remember actual story. Its clear that Q-Dos architecture came from CP\M. Basically the same process was use to create copies of o the BIOS for clones, that is take the architecture and system API calls and produce something that completes results without coping actual code. Its also interesting the choice of using the 8088 over 8086 for the PC was just as mentioned, off the shelf components etc.. at that time there where a much more 8bit peripherals around and most engineers under should how to quickly and cheaply adapt them for the own projects. Love the way you are telling this story
Very well done except for one thing, the audio. The interview porrions of these videos need to be turned waaay up or the narration waaaay down. Ty for the video
Great man, thank you for sharing his story in a beautiful way ❤️ if only his version of the future came true and not the corporate greed we suffer today. 😊
There is a lengthy video about Dr Gary Kildell on the recreation of Computer Chronicles here on UA-cam. Gary was prominent on the show for at least 8 years until has rather abrupt exit. The video on UA-cam gives the details of his passing. If your going to highlight CP/M and the earlier Xenix then you should include what happened to another genius Mark Williams, who perfected a UNX operating system that predates Linux called Coherent.
The big problem with computers of the era was that the 8-bit processors (and some of the early 16 bit ones) didn't have any hope of running REAL Unix because the processors didn't have any support for virtual memory (paging) that's required by UNIX. It's not that nobody had the notion of running unix on personal computers. So "Coherent" must have been a fakey "unix" lookalike with none of teh capability. You could have gotten an Onyx Systems C8002 in 1980 though, and that ran system 7.
I read somewhere (cannot remember if it was Harold Evan's book or if it was in Gary's memoir) that Gary signed a favored nations clause with several OEMs. That meant that if he gave a better deal to a company, the other companies would automatically get the same deal. If IBM got CP/M for a flat fee of $250,000 with no royalty payments, the other companies could come back and demand the same. That gamble would've killed Digital Research especially for a product (the IBM PC) that no one thought would amount to anything.
That explains why he charged so much for it. It doesn't explain why Gary lied about not knowing that CPM86 was going to cost $400 from IBM. Which he did. Repeatedly. Even though his versions of events makes no sense.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:09 *🤝 IBM Meeting with Digital research * - This section talks about the planned meeting between IBM and Digital Research. - Gary Kildall, the founder of Digital Research, and Bill Gates of Microsoft were present and there were disagreements over non-disclosure agreements and conflicting schedules. - The narrative of Gary being absent during the meeting, as told by Bill Gates, is disputed. 02:24 *🤔 Problems with Negotiation of Terms* - This section focuses on the failed negotiation between Digital Research and IBM. - Both would not accept the other's agreement terms, sparking tensions. - Kildall proposed CP/M-86 as a suitable operating system for IBM's Project Chess, but the company primarily wanted CP/M for the PC. 04:17 *🎯 IBM's Underestimation of CP/M-86 Value* - This part examines IBM's undervaluation of CP/M-86, offering $250,000 for an outright purchase. - Kildall instead requested a $10 per copy license royalty to stay in line with other equipment manufacturers and avoid possible litigation. - Kildall believed a deal was close, not anticipating the incoming betrayal. 06:12 *✍️ IBM-Microsoft Deal and the Birth of QDOS* - Here, following the failed negotiations with Digital Research, IBM meets again with Bill Gates. - Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products had developed QDOS, an operating system offering compatibility like CP/M. Microsoft licenses the QDOS for $25,000 and later buys it for $50,000. - QDOS was rebranded to 86-DOS and finally PC-DOS, with certain features to match CP/M based on IBM's request. 10:47 *📋 Legal Challenges and Infringement Concerns * - This section discusses the legal challenges and concerns about patent infringement following the development of PC-DOS. - Allegations of PC-DOS being a rip-off of CP/M circulate, but both Microsoft and Paterson deny them. - There were also contentious issues about the licensing agreement between Microsoft and IBM. 12:31 *🚫 Betrayal of Gary Kildall* - The narrative progresses to Gary Kildall's discovery of the IBM-Microsoft deal and his realization that PC-DOS was a CP/M rip-off. - Kildall, feeling betrayed, contemplates suing IBM but relents due to the offered alternatives from IBM and belief in PC's unlikely success. - Despite this, the pricing of operating systems and late release of CP/M-86 ultimately led to his downfall. 17:47 *📉 Decline of Digital Research* - This part details the prevailing circumstances leading to the decline of Digital Research. - PC-DOS, owing to its lower cost and early availability, gained popularity over CP/M-86. - IBM also introduced USCD p-system as an alternative operating system, further complicating choices for consumers and diminishing CP/M-86 market appeal. 21:27 *🔍 Examination of PC-DOS and CP/M Similarities* - This section talks about the striking similarities between PC-DOS and CP/M as observed by Jim Edlin in a PC Magazine review. - Both operating systems had virtually identical functions with respect to how programs employ the system. - Despite positive feedback for CP/M, it was too late for Digital Research due to market dominance of PC-DOS. Made with HARPA AI
10:00 There seems to be a huge disconnect between the narration of the video and what the Closed Captioning "says" is being said. I didn't notice that happening until after the "folklore" story in the video.
Probably because of the same reasons DR didn't want the original IBM deal in the first pleace: To respect the other companies they were already doing business with, and to avoid possible legal repercussions by having different deals between them
You are so welcome! Could I ask you a favour? Would you be able to share it on social media? Especially on Reddit or hackernews? But any social is fine. I'd love other people to find out about it too. It's not getting much views. I think people should know this story! Thank you in advance!
1. If you run a small company and a massive corp. like IBM is coming, block out an entire day to meet with them. Never take a plane trip earlier that day. 2. When you sue for infringement, wait to see how successful the allegedly infringing product is first. If Q-DOS had the same bugs as CP/M, then that would have been the smoking gun code was copied. 3. Digital Research needed better legal representation. They were up against IBM's lawyers after all. Their contract with IBM should have put limits on the price of CP/M. After IBM priced it at $240, DR should have sold CP/M independently for < DOS.
Honest question : How is what happened with CP/M and Q-Dos/86-DOS different than what happened with UNIX and GNU/Linux? Are they not both reverse engineered from an existing product? Linux is obviously highly influenced by UNIX and has many of the same or similar function calls, but people don't seem to regard it as a rip off or infringement. Is this because Linux was developed in a different manner, without access to the internal information that Patterson was able to obtain using the debugger? I get that from a moral point of view it's different, Linux is FOSS while Q-DOS was the ground on which the Microsoft empire was built. Creating a free to use rip-off would carry a different moral weight than a pay-to-use rip off. But from a technical point of view, how is it different?
TL;DR Unix is an open standard while CP/M was not. Whilst it may seem the same on the surface, I think it is an apples to oranges comparison. Unix has its origin in a collaboration amongst academic, government, and corporate research. While not always open source AFAIK, it seems that Unix from the beginning was an open design as can be seen in 1978 when BSD was first released. From memory, GNU was initially a project to create open source tools and did not have a useful kernel at the time of Linux (1991). By then any early patents would likely be expired as Unix was also well over twenty years old. Linux is an implementation of an open Unix design/standard. The key GNU contribution to the full OS most people see as Linux was the C library which, to my knowledge, has always been an implementation of the open POSIX standard. Plus, it doesn't hurt the lore that Bill Gates is evil and Microshaft products have always been a thorn in the side of sane and decent people everywhere.
@@ProctorSilexit was not an "open standard", it was owned by AT&T. In fact, for many years MS was the largest seller of UNIX with their licensed copy, XENEX. If it was an open standard as you claim, so is CPM.
It's probably not possible to fix the audio without re-uploading, but the audio sections the gentlemen with baseball cap and glasses in front of the whiteboard seem to be missing an audio channel. While listening on car audio system, the volume drops to about 10% every time he speaks. Even with headphones, the sound is a bit off, but on a multi-speaker system, he is almost silent. The section starts at 6:55
I'm sorry, I'm hard of hearing, so I need the subtitles, particularly during rapid interviews. However the subs go completely out of sync during the PCBway commercial. Could you please correct this so that I can watch this fascinating program? Thanks.
Fantastic historic journalism. What I take away from this is that Kildall, a viisionary was robbed and as luck would have it happened to be murdered just in time to not sue anyone about it.
Gary didn't treat IBM like they were IBM. Bill was smart enough to treat IBM, like it was IBM, Gary blew IBM off several times. 1. Didn't meet. 2. Had wife meet, who was full of wifely concerns. 3. Was not flexible on a deal. He practically threw this bone back to Bill, with a ribbon tied around the middle. Bill went out of his way to show that IBM was important. Gary tried to treat IBM like chumps. Now, Microsoft could swallow IBM whole, and not even know it was on the plate. Gary seemed to be a nice guy, and even one of life's good guys, but his hubris was assuming other's were as nice and as moral as he was.
Wow! Can't you just state your point of view, or whatever without being insulting?? This is what I got out of it, if there is more, or you think I missed something, then you should just point that out, and not be a jerk. So, since you think I didn't pay attention, let me point out to you, other between-the-lines guff I got out of this video, and subsequently others: What Gary did do was use the opportunity to disrespect Bill Gates. Gary used IBM as a vector to show his contempt for the way Bill did things, and probably for Bill altogether. Further looking into this matter, Bill's Mom had a relationship with IBM, sitting on some board. So this disrespect put some shine on that too, and his Mom. I don't think Bill Gates is a petty guy, but he doesn't strike me as the kinda guy who ever forgets a favor. and I really think from that moment, he knew Gary wasn't his friend, and treated him so. "No, there will be one company." Your little one line snit, tells me you are from the same self-righteous eco-system many of these guys reside. Bill Gates never hid who he was. He wasn't trying to fool anyone. He didn't pretend he was an academic, and his approach was to the business end of the PC universe. It surprised the shi* outta me that he actually sent Digital Research this bone in the first place. That was the opportunity of a lifetime. I am from those days, and in those days, when IBM knocked, you answered the door. Now it's when Microsoft comes a-callin, you answer, and IBM who? So, if I missed something, point that out, because people who have little to say, usually have little to say. 48 hours ago, I had never heard of Gary Kildal. Now I have, and have great appreciation for his genius and contribution to this world. But it is hard driven men who know how to put discrete, diverse ideas and people together to create something new. If Dale Carnige was a school teacher, we'd still be crossing the country by stagecoach, and Gary was a school teacher. Actually, it was rumored that Bill actually mugged some poor guy after getting him drunk, in an alley in Seattle, one dark and rainy night, and stole DOS. The reality is he actually got it fair and on the square. His only advantage was, he had a crystal ball. UPDATE: So, Gary didn't even know the meeting was with IBM. So the insult was focused even more to Gates; "Oh, Bill, is this another one of your 'rich' buddies?, I'm going fishing. Tell him he can talk to my wife".
MP/M was not „the new thing for 8086“, it started as a multitasking os for 8080/Z80. Both CP/M and MP/M where ported to the new cpu and then named CP/M-86 and MP/M-86.
@@dunebasher1971 The clueless doesn't notice there was a message, since they spotted a typo... This is not a Spelling Bee, it's an international forum where few taking part are native to English. Obviously its always better to manage to nail propper English, but should it really be the only thing you notice?
For the int21h / FCB API part I am on Tim Patterson‘s side. Why not use an existing API instead of inventing a new one? CP/M was influenced by TOPS-10. Not sure if they had a similar abstraction layer. Back in the day everybody complained over incompatibility, so this is a thing rather to give credit for. Checking how something works in a debugger and reimplement it is a grey area. But opening an existing device and understand its inner workings is a rather normal thing for inventors. Copying by simply adapting each instruction to 8086 is of course a no no. As for the bugs, maybe they were features? Gary Kildall definitely should have sued Microsoft and IBM and get a decision.
This story makes me so sad really. I image a world where creativity and inventions are rewarded and in reality they do too however at a fraction of the others that use the creativity. Sometimes businesses use their inhouse creativity and sometimes they dont yet noone really cares about who actually came up with it. always the product and the company who delivers the product gets the attention, not who or which company made it. i think this is a culture of legal understanding. some cultures praise the money makers and some cultures praise the creative souls.
I haven't used a Microsoft product for at least a decade last windows I paid for was win98se Ive used OpenOffice or Googledocs. Linux, I don't use bing, if I use Microsoft I do not know it.
fantastic documentary, you did a masterful job! I do need to question how was microsoft able to undercut cp/m by such a large margin.. couldn't digital research sell their operating sys for let's say $35 and rely on volume? or even $45/$50, a small premium given that it was a superior product..it would be great if someone with operational knowledge of digital research could explain why this may not have been possible
19:00 Exact same thing happened when Android was created (Java API) what was different lack of Jazelle built in in most of ARM CPUs of that era. Causing Android run slower than Java SE. Android killed Windows Pocket PC, Mobile, CE because there was bunch of Java based games on mobile phones. Java wasnt bundled in Windows. It was easy to port Java games to Android. Even though Windows CE API was subset of full Windows, and there was .NET Compact you could run same executable on Windows CE and Windows 7. Windows CE had no DirectX, OpenGL. There was GAPI but who cares, soon as they killed WinAPI and .NET on Windows Mobile ultimately Android and iOS won. Won thanks to trick that once created Microsoft MS-DOS - well known API copied and pasted.
I used to think that way to the point I stopped using windows before 2003, but most people would have done the same in that business, and it not that big of a deal in the list of bad deeds.
Gary Kildall is now known as an outstanding programmer. It would not be a good idea to turn him into a Bill Gates, it would not be an honour. I personally would consider it to be a shame.
@@AlsGeekLab Yeah, the so called "fame" of Bill Gates, he was the best one that ever ported BASIC from the main frame computer at school to a paper tape and sell that paper tape copy to MITS the Altair Computer manufacturer. Oh boy, what a fame!
This highly contested move of "copying" an API is still highly contested to this day. I think copying APIs is fine as long as you provide a new implementation.
@nicksterj people do reverse engineering to get implementation details all the time, and that's illegal technically. Does anyone cares, no, you can't easily prove it. People will still keep reimplementing APIs, regardless of that, the same way.
Great work. But this makes me sad since I never liked Gates and even in my late teens and early 20s didnt believe his orgin story. The world would be a better place if Gary had been treated fairly.
Yeah if I single man has something and he doesn't know how to approach outsiders it usually ends up like this. I know some arrogant people who are independents are their hubris gets in the way of their success. It's narcissism plain and simple. And then there's the wife. Insert script here. His fault, his problem.
There are some minor audio issues in this video. I have fixed them up here: ua-cam.com/video/sDJVr8XSZRI/v-deo.html
The CC also is out-of-sync in many places, also in Part 1.
As much as I hate Microsoft and Bill Gates today I have to defend him and say he did send IBM to Gary first and they couldn't make anything happen. So what was Bill to do?
I just want to thank you for this absolutely amazing breakdown Gary Kildall is someone that should always be remembered for his contributions to the microcomputer revolution and to computing as a whole
Thank you! Hope you like part three, coming out tomorrow!
Thanks for all your hard work on this. Your enthusiasm for retro computing shines through in all your projects.
Thank you so much 🙏 thank you also for your amazing donation! I really appreciate it! This documentary did take all together far too long to make (many months on and off), so I'm glad it appears to have shone through!
I lived through this era and used both DOS and the versions of CPM/86 that DR wrote for the IBM PC. For years I was snowed by the ubiquitous story about Gary snubing IBM because he wanted to go flying that day. Thank you for clearing this up once and for all.
Thanks! Yes, the 'legend' definitely has been going around the internet for a very long time. It was the story I knew until I did a lot of research!
I believe that the role of Bill Gates father a prominent corporate lawyer was key in this issue.
A fascinating story I have read several times before. Your video though features several details and accounts previously unknown to me. I will be eagerly awaiting for the third part. I very much appreciate your work👍👍👍
Hope you got the chance to see part 3!
Me too
Saying that MS copied the look and feel of CP/M is like saying that Windows copied the Mac when both companies blatantly copied Xerox. In this case they both copied the look and feel of a DEC OS except that many features were lacking. It was obvious that any new microcomputer OS had to be familiar to mini and mainframe users who wanted their own computers at home, rather than share them at work. Pity they didn't copy TECO.
There's a difference. Apple saw a Xerox demo and then wrote their own code from scratch, it's not the same as what happened with CP/M and MS-DOS.
@@dunebasher1971 It's called reverse engineering. Tracing code with DDT is harder than writing from scratch, especially with a terminal.
The copying allegations seem to be coming from people who don't/can't write code, like journalists. If they tried doing what they allege they might find out how implausible their claims are, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Gary Kildall also copied the look and feel of Xerox and and called it GEM and did a damn sight better job than Apple or MS. If you look at the serious software that came out of Germany in the 80s for the Atari ST platform there were many features that MacOS and Windows have never caught up with.
What many seem to miss is that in many ways CPM copied UNIX. Many CPM commands are UNIX commands. And it has long been settled that "look and feel" can not be copywrited.
@@dunebasher1971so did Gates. The Xerox was an open symposium with hundreds present.
@@0311Mushroom Unix started off on PDP7 and PDP11 computers so it is not surprising that it inherited some DEC look and feel. CP/M was developed initially on a PDP10 and as a TOPS-10 user for many years I instantly knew what to do with CP/M the first time I saw it without a manual. CP/M did not copy Unix, Unix was not on the horizon for microcomputers when CP/M was the industry standard OS.
Absolutely fantastic content. Deep delve into a brilliant man. You get a good vibe of Gary's character from watching the Computer Chronicles and as you stated in part one, he comes across as a good man. Looking forward to part three. Subbed.
Thank you! Part three out tomorrow! Hope you enjoy that as much as this!
APIs really started on Unix or perhaps before, not with CP/M. It may have been the first to use it on a micro however.
Yes, he was certainly the first to bring these things to the micro
Audio problem! Some parts are in mono and only coming out of the left channel, when they ought to be panned to center.
I'm loving this series of videos... Thank you for making this. I've always been a fan of Gary.
Nice, Just as I remember actual story. Its clear that Q-Dos architecture came from CP\M. Basically the same process was use to create copies of o the BIOS for clones, that is take the architecture and system API calls and produce something that completes results without coping actual code. Its also interesting the choice of using the 8088 over 8086 for the PC was just as mentioned, off the shelf components etc.. at that time there where a much more 8bit peripherals around and most engineers under should how to quickly and cheaply adapt them for the own projects. Love the way you are telling this story
Aww thanks Bill!
Not even close. In CPM, BIOS is software. On the PC the BIOS is hardware.
Very well done except for one thing, the audio. The interview porrions of these videos need to be turned waaay up or the narration waaaay down. Ty for the video
Great man, thank you for sharing his story in a beautiful way ❤️ if only his version of the future came true and not the corporate greed we suffer today. 😊
There is a lengthy video about Dr Gary Kildell on the recreation of Computer Chronicles here on UA-cam. Gary was prominent on the show for at least 8 years until has rather abrupt exit. The video on UA-cam gives the details of his passing. If your going to highlight CP/M and the earlier Xenix then you should include what happened to another genius Mark Williams, who perfected a UNX operating system that predates Linux called Coherent.
The big problem with computers of the era was that the 8-bit processors (and some of the early 16 bit ones) didn't have any hope of running REAL Unix because the processors didn't have any support for virtual memory (paging) that's required by UNIX. It's not that nobody had the notion of running unix on personal computers. So "Coherent" must have been a fakey "unix" lookalike with none of teh capability. You could have gotten an Onyx Systems C8002 in 1980 though, and that ran system 7.
I read somewhere (cannot remember if it was Harold Evan's book or if it was in Gary's memoir) that Gary signed a favored nations clause with several OEMs. That meant that if he gave a better deal to a company, the other companies would automatically get the same deal. If IBM got CP/M for a flat fee of $250,000 with no royalty payments, the other companies could come back and demand the same. That gamble would've killed Digital Research especially for a product (the IBM PC) that no one thought would amount to anything.
That's correct!
That explains why he charged so much for it. It doesn't explain why Gary lied about not knowing that CPM86 was going to cost $400 from IBM. Which he did. Repeatedly. Even though his versions of events makes no sense.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:09 *🤝 IBM Meeting with Digital research *
- This section talks about the planned meeting between IBM and Digital Research.
- Gary Kildall, the founder of Digital Research, and Bill Gates of Microsoft were present and there were disagreements over non-disclosure agreements and conflicting schedules.
- The narrative of Gary being absent during the meeting, as told by Bill Gates, is disputed.
02:24 *🤔 Problems with Negotiation of Terms*
- This section focuses on the failed negotiation between Digital Research and IBM.
- Both would not accept the other's agreement terms, sparking tensions.
- Kildall proposed CP/M-86 as a suitable operating system for IBM's Project Chess, but the company primarily wanted CP/M for the PC.
04:17 *🎯 IBM's Underestimation of CP/M-86 Value*
- This part examines IBM's undervaluation of CP/M-86, offering $250,000 for an outright purchase.
- Kildall instead requested a $10 per copy license royalty to stay in line with other equipment manufacturers and avoid possible litigation.
- Kildall believed a deal was close, not anticipating the incoming betrayal.
06:12 *✍️ IBM-Microsoft Deal and the Birth of QDOS*
- Here, following the failed negotiations with Digital Research, IBM meets again with Bill Gates.
- Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products had developed QDOS, an operating system offering compatibility like CP/M. Microsoft licenses the QDOS for $25,000 and later buys it for $50,000.
- QDOS was rebranded to 86-DOS and finally PC-DOS, with certain features to match CP/M based on IBM's request.
10:47 *📋 Legal Challenges and Infringement Concerns *
- This section discusses the legal challenges and concerns about patent infringement following the development of PC-DOS.
- Allegations of PC-DOS being a rip-off of CP/M circulate, but both Microsoft and Paterson deny them.
- There were also contentious issues about the licensing agreement between Microsoft and IBM.
12:31 *🚫 Betrayal of Gary Kildall*
- The narrative progresses to Gary Kildall's discovery of the IBM-Microsoft deal and his realization that PC-DOS was a CP/M rip-off.
- Kildall, feeling betrayed, contemplates suing IBM but relents due to the offered alternatives from IBM and belief in PC's unlikely success.
- Despite this, the pricing of operating systems and late release of CP/M-86 ultimately led to his downfall.
17:47 *📉 Decline of Digital Research*
- This part details the prevailing circumstances leading to the decline of Digital Research.
- PC-DOS, owing to its lower cost and early availability, gained popularity over CP/M-86.
- IBM also introduced USCD p-system as an alternative operating system, further complicating choices for consumers and diminishing CP/M-86 market appeal.
21:27 *🔍 Examination of PC-DOS and CP/M Similarities*
- This section talks about the striking similarities between PC-DOS and CP/M as observed by Jim Edlin in a PC Magazine review.
- Both operating systems had virtually identical functions with respect to how programs employ the system.
- Despite positive feedback for CP/M, it was too late for Digital Research due to market dominance of PC-DOS.
Made with HARPA AI
And this, kids, is how you kill real innovation and healthy business practices ;)
10:00 There seems to be a huge disconnect between the narration of the video and what the Closed Captioning "says" is being said.
I didn't notice that happening until after the "folklore" story in the video.
This version has Audio issues, see these fixed here, as per comment : ua-cam.com/video/sDJVr8XSZRI/v-deo.htmlsi=SWxjYgNIqFU3leHY
Why didn't DR simply sell CP/M direct to IBM PC users for $40 ?
Probably because of the same reasons DR didn't want the original IBM deal in the first pleace: To respect the other companies they were already doing business with, and to avoid possible legal repercussions by having different deals between them
This was a great video serious and I thoroughly enjoyed watching and learning. Thank you for making this!
You are so welcome! Could I ask you a favour? Would you be able to share it on social media? Especially on Reddit or hackernews? But any social is fine. I'd love other people to find out about it too. It's not getting much views. I think people should know this story! Thank you in advance!
1. If you run a small company and a massive corp. like IBM is coming, block out an entire day to meet with them. Never take a plane trip earlier that day. 2. When you sue for infringement, wait to see how successful the allegedly infringing product is first. If Q-DOS had the same bugs as CP/M, then that would have been the smoking gun code was copied. 3. Digital Research needed better legal representation. They were up against IBM's lawyers after all. Their contract with IBM should have put limits on the price of CP/M. After IBM priced it at $240, DR should have sold CP/M independently for < DOS.
Interesting take though
Honest question :
How is what happened with CP/M and Q-Dos/86-DOS different than what happened with UNIX and GNU/Linux? Are they not both reverse engineered from an existing product?
Linux is obviously highly influenced by UNIX and has many of the same or similar function calls, but people don't seem to regard it as a rip off or infringement.
Is this because Linux was developed in a different manner, without access to the internal information that Patterson was able to obtain using the debugger?
I get that from a moral point of view it's different, Linux is FOSS while Q-DOS was the ground on which the Microsoft empire was built. Creating a free to use rip-off would carry a different moral weight than a pay-to-use rip off. But from a technical point of view, how is it different?
TL;DR Unix is an open standard while CP/M was not.
Whilst it may seem the same on the surface, I think it is an apples to oranges comparison. Unix has its origin in a collaboration amongst academic, government, and corporate research. While not always open source AFAIK, it seems that Unix from the beginning was an open design as can be seen in 1978 when BSD was first released. From memory, GNU was initially a project to create open source tools and did not have a useful kernel at the time of Linux (1991). By then any early patents would likely be expired as Unix was also well over twenty years old. Linux is an implementation of an open Unix design/standard. The key GNU contribution to the full OS most people see as Linux was the C library which, to my knowledge, has always been an implementation of the open POSIX standard.
Plus, it doesn't hurt the lore that Bill Gates is evil and Microshaft products have always been a thorn in the side of sane and decent people everywhere.
@@ProctorSilex interesting! Thanks!!
@@ProctorSilexit was not an "open standard", it was owned by AT&T. In fact, for many years MS was the largest seller of UNIX with their licensed copy, XENEX.
If it was an open standard as you claim, so is CPM.
It's probably not possible to fix the audio without re-uploading, but the audio sections the gentlemen with baseball cap and glasses in front of the whiteboard seem to be missing an audio channel. While listening on car audio system, the volume drops to about 10% every time he speaks. Even with headphones, the sound is a bit off, but on a multi-speaker system, he is almost silent. The section starts at 6:55
15:30 That quote should read “In 1980, Bill Gates' mother discussed her son's company with John Opel...”
Digital Research lost IBM because of hubris. Microsoft was flexible at the right time. Boo hoo to Gary for being a poor businessman
I'm sorry, I'm hard of hearing, so I need the subtitles, particularly during rapid interviews. However the subs go completely out of sync during the PCBway commercial. Could you please correct this so that I can watch this fascinating program? Thanks.
I'll try and get to it asap. I'm time poor right now , I am also hard of hearing so I'll do my best to get to it when I can
Fantastic historic journalism. What I take away from this is that Kildall, a viisionary was robbed and as luck would have it happened to be murdered just in time to not sue anyone about it.
We shall never know. Check part three for the aspects surrounding his death
Gary didn't treat IBM like they were IBM. Bill was smart enough to treat IBM, like it was IBM, Gary blew IBM off several times. 1. Didn't meet. 2. Had wife meet, who was full of wifely concerns. 3. Was not flexible on a deal. He practically threw this bone back to Bill, with a ribbon tied around the middle. Bill went out of his way to show that IBM was important. Gary tried to treat IBM like chumps. Now, Microsoft could swallow IBM whole, and not even know it was on the plate. Gary seemed to be a nice guy, and even one of life's good guys, but his hubris was assuming other's were as nice and as moral as he was.
It seems to me that you didn't pay attention to this video, or even, didn't see it at all.
Wow! Can't you just state your point of view, or whatever without being insulting?? This is what I got out of it, if there is more, or you think I missed something, then you should just point that out, and not be a jerk. So, since you think I didn't pay attention, let me point out to you, other between-the-lines guff I got out of this video, and subsequently others: What Gary did do was use the opportunity to disrespect Bill Gates. Gary used IBM as a vector to show his contempt for the way Bill did things, and probably for Bill altogether. Further looking into this matter, Bill's Mom had a relationship with IBM, sitting on some board. So this disrespect put some shine on that too, and his Mom. I don't think Bill Gates is a petty guy, but he doesn't strike me as the kinda guy who ever forgets a favor. and I really think from that moment, he knew Gary wasn't his friend, and treated him so. "No, there will be one company."
Your little one line snit, tells me you are from the same self-righteous eco-system many of these guys reside. Bill Gates never hid who he was. He wasn't trying to fool anyone. He didn't pretend he was an academic, and his approach was to the business end of the PC universe. It surprised the shi* outta me that he actually sent Digital Research this bone in the first place. That was the opportunity of a lifetime. I am from those days, and in those days, when IBM knocked, you answered the door. Now it's when Microsoft comes a-callin, you answer, and IBM who?
So, if I missed something, point that out, because people who have little to say, usually have little to say. 48 hours ago, I had never heard of Gary Kildal. Now I have, and have great appreciation for his genius and contribution to this world. But it is hard driven men who know how to put discrete, diverse ideas and people together to create something new. If Dale Carnige was a school teacher, we'd still be crossing the country by stagecoach, and Gary was a school teacher. Actually, it was rumored that Bill actually mugged some poor guy after getting him drunk, in an alley in Seattle, one dark and rainy night, and stole DOS. The reality is he actually got it fair and on the square. His only advantage was, he had a crystal ball.
UPDATE: So, Gary didn't even know the meeting was with IBM. So the insult was focused even more to Gates; "Oh, Bill, is this another one of your 'rich' buddies?, I'm going fishing. Tell him he can talk to my wife".
MP/M was not „the new thing for 8086“, it started as a multitasking os for 8080/Z80.
Both CP/M and MP/M where ported to the new cpu and then named CP/M-86 and MP/M-86.
Don't forget CP/NET either.
Wasn't Jack Sams also the inventor of the popular Comic Sams Font?
😂
According to wikipedia Vincent Connare is listed as the designer of Comic Sans
The font is Comic SANS, not SAMS.
@@dunebasher1971 The clueless doesn't notice there was a message, since they spotted a typo...
This is not a Spelling Bee, it's an international forum where few taking part are native to English. Obviously its always better to manage to nail propper English, but should it really be the only thing you notice?
For the int21h / FCB API part I am on Tim Patterson‘s side. Why not use an existing API instead of inventing a new one? CP/M was influenced by TOPS-10. Not sure if they had a similar abstraction layer. Back in the day everybody complained over incompatibility, so this is a thing rather to give credit for.
Checking how something works in a debugger and reimplement it is a grey area. But opening an existing device and understand its inner workings is a rather normal thing for inventors. Copying by simply adapting each instruction to 8086 is of course a no no. As for the bugs, maybe they were features? Gary Kildall definitely should have sued Microsoft and IBM and get a decision.
Sorry but some parts of the video are in mono on the left channel. Also the en-GB subtitles do not match with the video. Interesting video, though :)
This story makes me so sad really. I image a world where creativity and inventions are rewarded and in reality they do too however at a fraction of the others that use the creativity. Sometimes businesses use their inhouse creativity and sometimes they dont yet noone really cares about who actually came up with it. always the product and the company who delivers the product gets the attention, not who or which company made it. i think this is a culture of legal understanding. some cultures praise the money makers and some cultures praise the creative souls.
It wasn't wrong, IBM just didn't pick Kildall as per his terms, and otherwise Kildall would have been ripped off.
Fantastic couple of videos, very interesting.👍👍
Glad you enjoyed it! Final video is now live: ua-cam.com/video/DALx-NuGprU/v-deo.htmlsi=hLgobZoCpxmT6yzu
This is fantastic dude!!!
Thank you!!
So basically we can blame IBM for why we are stuck with Microsoft plus also Microsoft for lowering their price for Windows.
Well.. in a word. Yes!
I haven't used a Microsoft product for at least a decade last windows I paid for was win98se Ive used OpenOffice or Googledocs. Linux, I don't use bing, if I use Microsoft I do not know it.
Al, you’ve done so well with this mate. Disrupting folklore ❤
Thank you so much! Hope you enjoy the conclusion that comes out tomorrow!
CPM on a Nixdorf 8810 😁
Good lord I'm old☹️
fantastic documentary, you did a masterful job!
I do need to question how was microsoft able to undercut cp/m by such a large margin.. couldn't digital research sell their operating sys for let's say $35 and rely on volume? or even $45/$50, a small premium given that it was a superior product..it would be great if someone with operational knowledge of digital research could explain why this may not have been possible
Thanks Sir!
19:00 Exact same thing happened when Android was created (Java API) what was different lack of Jazelle built in in most of ARM CPUs of that era. Causing Android run slower than Java SE. Android killed Windows Pocket PC, Mobile, CE because there was bunch of Java based games on mobile phones. Java wasnt bundled in Windows. It was easy to port Java games to Android. Even though Windows CE API was subset of full Windows, and there was .NET Compact you could run same executable on Windows CE and Windows 7. Windows CE had no DirectX, OpenGL. There was GAPI but who cares, soon as they killed WinAPI and .NET on Windows Mobile ultimately Android and iOS won. Won thanks to trick that once created Microsoft MS-DOS - well known API copied and pasted.
Big diff between Bill and Gary. Gary was a good guy.
I used to think that way to the point I stopped using windows before 2003, but most people would have done the same in that business, and it not that big of a deal in the list of bad deeds.
Some parts are in mono audio instead of stereo
Rest in Peace
Gary Kildall is now known as an outstanding programmer. It would not be a good idea to turn him into a Bill Gates, it would not be an honour. I personally would consider it to be a shame.
That's not what I'm saying in this podcast at all. I'm saying that bill ripped him off and took the fame. Gary probably should have had the fame.
@@AlsGeekLab Yeah, the so called "fame" of Bill Gates, he was the best one that ever ported BASIC from the main frame computer at school to a paper tape and sell that paper tape copy to MITS the Altair Computer manufacturer.
Oh boy, what a fame!
This highly contested move of "copying" an API is still highly contested to this day.
I think copying APIs is fine as long as you provide a new implementation.
@nicksterj people do reverse engineering to get implementation details all the time, and that's illegal technically.
Does anyone cares, no, you can't easily prove it.
People will still keep reimplementing APIs, regardless of that, the same way.
Not really. That was settled decades ago.
Great work. But this makes me sad since I never liked Gates and even in my late teens and early 20s didnt believe his orgin story.
The world would be a better place if Gary had been treated fairly.
Yep totally agree. Would have been a better world with him still in it
Who set the cpm price much higher than dos ? If it was ibm, why not Gary complain at them?
He wasn't a fighter like Bill.
Yeah if I single man has something and he doesn't know how to approach outsiders it usually ends up like this. I know some arrogant people who are independents are their hubris gets in the way of their success. It's narcissism plain and simple. And then there's the wife. Insert script here. His fault, his problem.
Nice name... Bill G should have been called Killedall .... LOL
nowadays whoever comes up with best AI will be next richest people...
😃
Things could have been so different. A decent guy running a major software company. Instead of a megomaniac with a god complex.