Terry Yager said:
Allison,
I'm aware of those refs to "monitor" in the first sentence, and have used it to argue my favored position (I'm a "monitor" man). However, it was pointed out recently, in comp.os.cpm, that that same manual has a different meaning in the Glossary at the end of the manual. Just look-up CP/M in the back of the book. I dunno if it's there in the 1.4 manual, but it is in the 2.2 version.
--T
My 1.4 maual is really old(early 1977) and does not have an dictionary. My V2.0 manual (the multiple book setca 1979) does not have that either. However the smaller bound format V2,2 for Kaypro and a 2.2 version for Morrow have it and both are the same but they were printed around 1980-81. Both define CP/M as:
CP/M: Control Program for microprocessors. ..and so on,
What that reflects is the difference in language from 1976 to 1980ish.
The term "monitor" by 1980 indicated a simpler program that usually meant rom based and allowed the user to display ram, set ram and other utility functions that were done from front pannel where present. For example the KIM-1 was shipped with a monitor rom.
CP/M over time arrived into the usage that was "operating system" and the usage of Microprocessor was significant as it seperated micros from the bigger iron like PDP11. The oddity is that shift in usage reflected the "big guys" terminology and how it was applied.
However at PCC76 and '77 I'd never heard anything different than monitor for CP/M. and thats close to its infancy. I'd say with version 2.2 becomming reality and well known by 1980ish all that changed and it was not the only terminology shift. Right about then there was a whole new perspective in the utility of small (in dollars compared to say a LSI-11)
that was emerging with killer apps like word processing, spreadsheets
and small interactive databases that were accessable at the user level.
When users became the system persons as well the language became
both more complex as well as precise. The difference is called marketing
and monitor was primitive and CP/M was trying to become a bit sophisticated.
I'd point out that anyone that was familiar with DDJ in the early years the
hacker mentality was the BSEEs and BSCS people were the white coated high preists of the glass walled computer room and "we" people with our 8080/z80s, 6800s, 6502s and the occasional scrounged mini were the hackers that were going to do the things that were not allowed in those glassed in halls. Granted that was an extreme way of stating things but.. We are talking about the microcomputer revolution. But, to allow a back door formyself I'd also add that there was increasing amount of "big guys"
and "new kids" using the new microprocessor technology and meanings shifted with the tendency of engeering types to infltrate langauge with precise terms. That and the increasing amount of published material that
applied to both the micro people and the existing mainframe boys.
To sum a lot up. Language changes over time and how it's used does as well. It's as simple as MITS who marketed the Altair not MicroInstrumetation and Telemetry Systems who created the Altair.
That's only one example and there are more obviously. The soup of
acronyms and tradenames mixed with technical terms became the mix of language that evolved "electrophotographic copying" into get me a "xerox
of these".
I'd also point out and I feel between the fall of 1979 and the fall of 1981 was more than the IBM PC. Somewhere in there was day zero for the industry and reflected the shift from "those toy computers" to recognition of small computers as a viable tool for business. This was significant as that change brought people in to the conversation that had never been there, the CEOs and managers that were trying to get a handle on business and cared less about computers as walled rooms of glass with their reams of printed greenbar paper. Microcomputers became a tool. We may call it the second dawn of the information age to be dramatic.
Allison
