I'm pretty sure CP/M 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	m132 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Chances are those hiccups weren't without a reason! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Allchin#Controversies

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

dboreham 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not 386 though.

▲

Brian_K_White 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

cp/m-86 targets 8086, which is no more useful or relevant to 386 protected mode than the original z80 version. Did you think they just picked the 68k version at random?

	▲	skissane 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> cp/m-86 targets 8086, which is no more useful or relevant to 386 protected mode than the original z80 version. Did you think they just picked the 68k version at random? The big reason for picking the 68K version is it was mainly written in C (initially in Pascal, but they later switched to C.) By contrast, the more famous 8080 versions were largely written in assembly, as was the 8086 version. Well, CP/M-80 1.x was mostly written in PL/M, a dialect of PL/I developed by Gary Kildall, but CP/M-80 2.x+ was rewritten in assembly for speed; PL/M was still used for some of the utilities. Obviously, C compilers are much easier to come by nowadays than PL/M compilers are.