Is there a document contrasting CP/M and TRSDOS outside of simply what commands they use? As in their internals and what make TRSDOS stand out in contrast to CP/Ms "collection of subroutines"?
After 40 years if you put a worm on this hook there are still bytes.
We must compare apples to apples so this means compare TRSDOS with CP/M releases at that same time frame.
1 CP/M loads all code needed into RAM and does not need a systems disk in drive at all times.
2 TRSDOS introduced overlays, TRSDOS gave a bigger punch with same amount of RAM.
There are many points to debate but these were popular starting points back in day.
3 CP/M could be controlled using a dumb terminal.
4 TRSDOS reguired a dedicated keyboard & video attachment.
But let me tell you one big difference. Had IBM came to Misosys looking for a OS back in day, Roy Soltoff's wife Brenda (going from memory sorry if I get it wrong), would have known exactly what to do, Roy would not have been out flying somewhere but would have been in office ready to deal and our world would be much different today.
Mr. & Mrs Soltoff would have known exactly what to do had IBM came calling! Under direction of Roy & his visions for how a OS should work, development would not have turned out something like messy MSDOS. Roy would have seen past need of 640k, heck back then we were hanging 1MB upgrades off model 4's.
I like to cry over spilled milk but I am doing something about it. TRS-OS will run TRSDOS as a guest and do it at blinding speed while floating in a boat of RAM.
So what strong point does anyone thing CP/M has that TRSDOS dont (remember we have to compare 198x era of versions)?