CP/M forty years on -- what it was, and why it still matters
It's now 40 years since the heyday of CP/M -- the first serious attempt at an operating system for microcomputers. In 1981 CP/M ran on almost every desktop computer that could be fitted with at least one floppy disk drive -- even Apple computers. Almost every school in the UK had a computer that ran CP/M -- probably just one, because these things were expensive.
In 1981, however, CP/M's reign came to an abrupt end, when it was usurped by that upstart MS-DOS. Like many other software systems then and now, CP/M could not adapt to the rising power and falling cost of hardware. It turned out that CP/M, like many of its successors, had its obsolescence built right in.
Still, I think it's worth reflecting on what made CP/M so successful, and why it remains worthwhile to keep its memory alive.
Why CP/M was needed
Many different microcomputers were available by the 1970s. Some, like the Radio Shack TRS-80, the Commodore PET, and the Apple II were hugely successful; others came and went with little fuss. What all these machines had in common was, well, very little, as it turns out. They were superficially similar, with the same kind of construction and appearance, but they were not in any way compatible. Even machines that used the same CPU could not run one another's software. Application vendors who wanted to sell their products for a range of different computers would have to develop and maintain completely different versions.
The idea of an operating system was not entirely new in 1975 -- Unix was already well-established -- but it was new in the domain of microcomputers. The purpose of an operating system was, and largely still is, to provide an abstraction of the computer's hardware that programmers could work with. With an operating system, the programmer could code the equivalent of "read the first hundred bytes of file 'foo' into memory", rather than carrying out a sequence of complex electromechanical operations on a disk drive. Since the concept of a "file" turned out to be a rather universal one, it could be applied to many different types of disk drive hardware, and only a small part of the operating system would have to be changed to accommodate different types of storage. Application programs would not have to be changed at all.
Similarly, notions like "accept a keystroke from a keyboard" and "display this text" turned out to be widely applicable to a whole range of applications. There were potentially many different input devices, and many different display devices. So long as they could all be interfaced in a way that provided the "read a keystroke" and "display a character" metaphors, they could all be programmed the same way.
Unlike the mainframes and minicomputers that they came largely to displace, microcomputers were expected to remain single-user, single-processing machines. The complexity of an operating system like Unix would have been completely inappropriate. CP/M was effective because it did very little, using meagre resources; but the little it did was exactly what was needed, to make programming productive.
So what was it?
CP/M was a piece of software that occupied a small-ish part of a microcomputer's memory, and provided a set of well-documented function calls that programmers could use. Those function calls performed operations on the computer's hardware, hiding the details from the programmer, and making it possible to run the same software on different kinds of computer.
CP/M was envisaged as a layered design, a concept which remains valid. The lowest level was the BIOS -- Basic Input Output System -- which could perform direct hardware interfacing, such as reading a disk sector. Programmers were discouraged from using BIOS features directly, although many did exactly that. The Basic Disk Operating Sytem -- BDOS -- was built on top of the BIOS, and presented programmers with useful programming metaphors like "Open a file". The BDOS knew how to turn the sectors, cylinders, and tracks of a disk drive into usable operations on named files.
CP/M itself was usually supplied on disk and so, to run CP/M, the compter needed some kind of firmware that could read at least part of a floppy drive into memory. Typically the CP/M operating system itself would occupy the first couple of tracks of the floppy disk, leaving the rest for application programs and data. The firmware would load this CP/M boot code into memory, and set it running. Thereafter CP/M would bootstrap the rest of its system from the disk.
The part of CP/M that end users saw was the command-line interface, called "CCP". Even for a command line, CCP was rudimentary. It had to be, of course -- minimal resource usage was a pressing concern. What the CCP could do was allow the user to enter the name of a program, find that program on disk, load it into memory, and run it. Many users found the CCP command line irritating and complicated, but they didn't have to use it much -- once you'd loaded WordStar or Zork, you didn't have to worry about the command line any more. The main role of all of CP/M was to be as unobtrusive and undemanding as possible.
CP/M's hardware platform
CP/M was designed for use with 8-bit CPUs, notably the Intel 8080 and the Zilog Z80. A CPU was described as "8 bit" if it operated on data one byte at a time. These CPUs generally had a 16-bit address space, meaning that they could address up to 64kB of memory without complicated switching. In fact, in the early days of CP/M, even 64kB would have been a luxury, and many CP/M systems had much less than this. For readers under the age of 50, I should point out that, yes, I am actually referring to kilobytes of RAM here. Since the CP/M days, the memory installed in a typical desktop computer has increased by a factor of a million.
CP/M needed at least one floppy disk drive. When using a CP/M application, it was fairly common to have to switch the disks in the single drive fairly frequently. Running WordStar, for example, meant switching back and forth between the program disk and the document disk at regular intervals. The use of dual floppy drives simplified this situation a lot.
CP/M systems often had integrated keyboards and display screens, but connection to a dumb terminal was also very common. Using a built-in display raised the possibility of running graphical applications, but CP/M never had a standardized graphical interface (nor did MS-DOS, really). CP/M understood the notion of a character printer, and even a paper punch, although I don't remember ever seeing a paper punch used.
The CP/M application programming interface
As an application programming interface (API), CP/M worked in a way that remains applicable to all modern operating systems. The application program puts the number of the required operating system function into a particular CPU register, the data required by the function into other registers, and then executes a subroutine call into the operating system. With CP/M, the subroutine call was to address 5 -- that is, the fifth byte from the start of memory. The operating system would carry out the action, and return a result in some other well-defined CPU registers.
For example, to display a string of text on the screen on a Z80-based
computer, the program would put the number of the "write string" function (9)
into register C, the
address of the text in memory into register DE, and then
execute call 5.
By the time of its final version, CP/M provided about 150 documented functions of this type. MS-DOS simplified the interface considerably, providing only about 100 functions. For comparison, Linux provides about 300 operating system API calls. Of these, about 100 have direct equivalents in CP/M and MS-DOS. Linux, of course, is a multi-user, multi-processing system, so it's expected that its programming interface will be more extensive.
CP/M had no concept of device identifiers or handles; that is, there was no general API call that could do operation X on device Y. All the devices understood by CP/M had ther own set of API calls. So, for example, there were different API functions for writing to a printer and a console display, even though both accepted essentially the same data. There was even a separate API for writing to the paper punch. Interestingly, MS-DOS also has a separate paper punch API.
Of course, these days we don't usually program at the level of memory addresses and registers -- we use high-level languages. This was also starting to be the case in the CP/M days -- there were CP/M implementations of many of the programming languages we still use: Basic, C, Forth, Fortran, etc. No Java, though -- that would have to wait another 20 years. However, the code generated by the compiler will still operate at the level of the operating system API, even though this isn't visible to the programmer.
What we could do with CP/M
As I've tried to explain, CP/M was a recognizably modern operating system, so far as the programming interface was concerned. However, unlike contemporary desktop operating systems, CP/M could only run one program at a time. CP/M loaded the program into memory starting at address 256. CP/M itself was loaded at the upper end of the memory, and the entire space in between was for the program to use as it saw fit. CP/M provided no memory management functions -- the program could do with the memory whatever it liked. The program could even overwrite parts of CP/M in RAM if it wanted to. Replacements for the brutal CCP command line were pretty common.
In a machine with 64kB RAM, the program had about 56kB to use. That 56kB would include the program's executable code, plus any data it was working on. In practice, many programs made use of "overlays" -- the program would have a core element that remained resident in memory all the time, and interchangeable sections that were loaded from disk as required. This loading was slow going with an 8" floppy drive, but it allowed for programs with a high level of functionality.
As a result, CP/M was used for word processors, spreadsheets, database management, and games -- the same kinds of applications that still form the backbone of personal computing. What you wouldn't have found on CP/M was a Web browser -- widespread use of the Internet was still a decade or so away. Attempts were made to add networking support to CP/M but, by that time, it was already past its peak. Modem-based communication was still very popular, though. CP/M computers could communicate using e-mail and bulletin boards, by direct connection or over the telephone system.
Looking back, it's quite amazing what could be accomplished with such limited computing resources. For better or worse, though, it took real skill, and a lot of time, to do so much with so little. Our million-fold increase in memory capacity and thousand-fold increase in CPU speed do not necessarily give us better software than we had in 1981 -- but they do provide a way to get it more quickly, at lower cost.
Does any of this still matter?
CP/M retains a loyal following of enthusiasts -- but so does the Stanier Black Five steam locomotive. Even though there are numerous Black Fives in good order and raring to go, there's no chance that we'll be running Black Fives on main-line railways again.
Or is there?
A number of countries are keeping a reserve fleet of steam locomotives. It's long been rumoured that the UK has such a reserve although, sadly, there's no evidence for it. In any case, the reason for maintaining steam traction is a simple one -- these machines are (comparatively) simply, robust, and maintainable. The same was true for CP/M-based microcomputers; it is undeniably untrue for contemporary computing technology.
As I write this, the world is still in the midst of the worst health crisis for a century -- it might turn out to be the worst since the Black Death. There is now a global shortage of computing parts. At least one major motor manufacturer has ceased production, because it can't obtain the electronic parts its vehicles require. At the same time, critical services are failing because the small number of people who actually understand how they work are unwell, or in quarantine. On the whole, supply chains are holding up, but the Covid epedemic has certainly revealed the fragility of much of our technological infrastructure.
Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should dust off our BBC Microcomputers and use them to run an on-line banking installation. My point is simply that the skill of making useful applications with limited technological resources is at risk of being lost. When I started working in the computing industry back in the 80s, almost all my co-workers could program in assembly language. Now few can, if any. We may never need CP/M-based microcomputers again, but we could well need the skills that made them so successful.
One day, we may have to simplify radically. Let's hope that we still know how to, if that time comes. Keeping archaic systems like CP/M alive is, perhaps, a small contribution to meeting that risk. So is maintaining a Black Five; long may it continue.
