¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Avatar de Usuario
Jinks
Mensajes: 2076
Registrado: 09 Oct 2013 16:47
Agradecido : 200 veces
Agradecimiento recibido: 273 veces
Contactar:

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor Jinks » 07 Jun 2014 19:34

Último mensaje de la página anterior:

Últimamente se ha hablado bastante de esto: ¿Es normal que si no me identifico no pueda ver el enlace que puse en mi anteior post? (el enlace a rombios.c)

FloppySoftware

Re: ¿Cómo compiló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor FloppySoftware » 07 Jun 2014 20:20

Rauli escribió:De todas formas esta BIOS del CP/M creo que ni siquiera es para un ordenador, sino parte del S.O. Supongo que será el interface para unificar la manera de llamar a la auténtica BIOS (la de la ROM) en distintas máquinas o arquitecturas, o una extensión de la BIOS análoga al IBMBIO.SYS...


CP/M tiene su propia BIOS, por algo el concepto nació con él, y no es ni más ni menos que un conjunto de llamadas al sistema de hardware de la máquina en particular.

El hecho de que la máquina tenga "otra BIOS" o no, es indiferente.

Por supuesto, la BIOS de CP/M puede hacer uso de esta "otra BIOS". O no. Normalmente, no.

Es más, normalmente, en la época dorada de CP/M, las máquinas no tenían BIOS. Lo más parecido a una BIOS quizás fueran los MONITOR, conjunto de rutinas que se utilizaba, sobre todo cuando no se tenía un SO cargado.

De hecho, CP/M nació como un MONITOR (de ahí el Control Program / Monitor).

Lo que está claro es que el concepto BIOS (Basic Input Output System) nació con CP/M, y el sistema BIOS de los IBM PC tienen precisamente su misma función: tener a mano un conjunto de rutinas independientemente del harware particular en el que se muevan.

Ése fue uno de los motivos de su éxito, y el de su clonación al por mayor.

Avatar de Usuario
ron
Mensajes: 19407
Registrado: 28 Oct 2010 14:20
Ubicación: retrocrypta
Agradecido : 2325 veces
Agradecimiento recibido: 2119 veces

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor ron » 07 Jun 2014 20:46

De hecho la BIOS ( inventada por Gary Kildall ) tiene la gran ventaja y particularidad, que independientemente del fabricante y modelo de máquina para el usuario es total y absolutamente transparente.

No es más que el conjunto de rutinas básicas de entrada / salida que permiten al sistema interactuar con el hardware. En caso del PC, pues ibm la embebió en ROM, pero si os dais cuenta, los micros conocidos que ejecutan CP/M como los CPC, el +3, el C128, el Apple ][ con z80 softcard, etc... llevan su propia bios o firm o rom con su basic y con sus cosas, precisamente por ser la BIOS del CP/M tan versatil, si se cumplen unas características funcionará.-

Avatar de Usuario
Jinks
Mensajes: 2076
Registrado: 09 Oct 2013 16:47
Agradecido : 200 veces
Agradecimiento recibido: 273 veces
Contactar:

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor Jinks » 07 Jun 2014 23:01

No sé si la Wikipedia será muy fiable o no, pero tanto la versión inglesa como la castellana mencionan que
The term BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) was invented by Gary Kildall

Por otra parte, y a favor de Gary Kildall, en el mismo artículo no hay ninguna mención anterior a 1975, por lo que no me queda claro si los programas en ROM anteriores a esa fecha eran el equivalente a la BIOS aunque se llamasen de otra manera (digamos... ¿firmware?).

Por cierto, aunque la BIOS del IBM PC (y creo que la del AT) esté perfectamente documentada al incluirse el listado en los manuales técnicos, hay una pieza de firmware de esos mismos ordenadores que nunca se ha publicado ni oficialmente ni de manera ilegal: El programa que va grabado en el controlador del teclado (un microcontrolador 8042 en el caso del AT). Es más, creo que a fecha de hoy, sería posible clonar un IBM AT componente a componente y copiando (aunque fuese ilegal) la BIOS, pero no funcionaría porque el 8042 estaría vacío. Podría copiarse el programa para el 8042 de AMI, Award, etc. confiando en su compatibilidad, pero la funcionalidad podría no ser exactamente igual que la del AT original.

Avatar de Usuario
ron
Mensajes: 19407
Registrado: 28 Oct 2010 14:20
Ubicación: retrocrypta
Agradecido : 2325 veces
Agradecimiento recibido: 2119 veces

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor ron » 07 Jun 2014 23:03

No había visto lo de la wikipedia, al menos junto a floppysoftware, dancresp y unos cuantos más no somos los únicos que pensamos eso, que la BIOS la inventó sin duda Kildall.

Y como cité antes, antes de la BIOS lo que te encontrabas para hacer boot era el IPL

Avatar de Usuario
Jinks
Mensajes: 2076
Registrado: 09 Oct 2013 16:47
Agradecido : 200 veces
Agradecimiento recibido: 273 veces
Contactar:

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor Jinks » 07 Jun 2014 23:15

Si el IPL sólo servía para cargar el S.O. y no daba soporte al hardware estándar, entonces no era una BIOS ni nada parecido.

Y mira, ahora he buscado el artículo sobre Kildall y aquí sí:
Kildall pioneered the concept of a BIOS, a set of simple programs stored in the computer hardware that enabled CP/M to run on different systems without modification

Avatar de Usuario
ron
Mensajes: 19407
Registrado: 28 Oct 2010 14:20
Ubicación: retrocrypta
Agradecido : 2325 veces
Agradecimiento recibido: 2119 veces

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor ron » 07 Jun 2014 23:20

Al final todo es información

http://www.retrotechnology.com/dri/isis.html

Background

In the early 1970s, Intel offered a hardware development system which used the 4004 processor on a proprietary set of (non-Multibus) Intel cards to operate a paper-tape and PROM based system for software development, called the "Intellec 4"; for the 4004, and later the "Intellec 4/MOD 40" for the 4040. Details are described in a section below. There was also an 8008 version and an 8080 version, the "Intellec 8" and "Intellec 8 mod 80".

At some point (probably 1976, see this reference), a floppy disk based OS from Intel called ISIS was available for the 8080, possibly on the Intellec 8/MOD 80 system. Versions of the ISIS OS called "ISIS-II" also ran on their subsequent Multibus-based, 8080-based "Intellec MDS" system, followed by their 8086 based systems. Intels version of the programming language PL/M fist supported the 8008, then later the 8080 and subsequent Intel processors. Its also described in this and related Web pages. iRMX, not described here, was a later Intel real-time operating system which ran on Intel processors.

Dr. Gary Kildall, who founded Digital Research in 1975 to promote CP/M, provided many of Intels 8008 and 8080 software products including the PL/M compiler and cross-assemblers, which were written in FORTRAN. The earliest CP/Ms were sold with an example BIOS for use with a Intel 8080 Multibus system. Intel turned down Gary Kildalls offer of what became CP/M. Further discussion of Gary Kildall and PL/M and CP/M is on my DRI Web pages and other pages linked from it.

A copy of the Intel "Intellec 8/MOD 80 Operators Manual",dated June 1974, refers to the "INTELLEC 8I to mean the Intellec 8 with 8080 CPU". Its likely Kildall got an 8080 upgrade to his Intellec 8 system not long after it became available; this suggests the upgrade was available by mid-1974. More information from this manual is described below.

I have or had a substantial Multibus card and document collection. But Id like more information on pre-Multibus Intel Intellec and MDS and other products and info, let me know if you have them.

Avatar de Usuario
ron
Mensajes: 19407
Registrado: 28 Oct 2010 14:20
Ubicación: retrocrypta
Agradecido : 2325 veces
Agradecimiento recibido: 2119 veces

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor ron » 07 Jun 2014 23:39


telekita
Mensajes: 164
Registrado: 29 Sep 2011 20:44

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor telekita » 08 Jun 2014 09:52

muy interesante, al final todo lleva hasta el señor kildall, curiosamente un completo desconocido de toda persona ajena a nuestro mundillo

FloppySoftware

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor FloppySoftware » 08 Jun 2014 18:27

En el link que puse antes http://www.intel-vintage.info/ se respira Kildall por todos los lados, pero no se le menciona en ningún momento.

Sus trabajos pioneros como consultor de Intel, desarrollando PL/M etc., han quedado bastante a la sombra, y eso que por lo visto fueron cruciales para el éxito del arranque de Intel con CPUs como el 8008 y sobretodo el 8080.

No sé dónde leí, que trabajó también para Intel desarrollando un simulador en ISIS de la CPU 8080, previo al desarrollo de esta CPU.

FloppySoftware

Re: ¿Cómo ensambló IBM la BIOS del IBM PC sin IBM PC?

Mensajepor FloppySoftware » 09 Jun 2014 00:04

http://www.nostalgia8.nl/logo/docs/gkcl.txt

GKCL.WS4
--------

- "A chat with Gary Kildall, founder of CP/M"
Regina Starr Ridley
"Computer Language", Vol.1, No.3, November 1984, pp.61-64

(Retyped by Emmanuel ROCHE.)


Gary Kildall, inventor of CP/M and founder and chairman of Digital Research,
Inc., is a soft-spoken, unpretentious man.

His office is rather ordinary, and looks like it belongs to someone who works
hard. Computer hardware is strewn about, and numbers are scrawled on a
blackboard on one wall.

Large windows face a hill covered with pine trees -- unlike many of his peers,
Kildall chose to build DRIs headquarters in Monterey, one of Californias
most beautiful coastal towns, and a few hours drive from less aesthetically
appealing Silicon Valley.

Kildall is one of the few individuals to whom the cliche "he revolutionized
the microcomputer industry" actually applies. But, looking at the 42-year-old
Kildall -- trim, tanned, freckled, and dressed in casual clothes -- it is
easier to imagine him as an outdoorsman than a computer scientist.

But he is, indeed, quite a computer scientist. He also is a major force behind
the direction Digital Research is taking in the current, tempestuous market.
The course he is steering reflects one mans insights into what the future in
software and operating systems may hold.

Originally, Kildalls primary interest was in computer languages, and his goal
was to teach Computer Science. He received a B.S. in numerical analysis, and
an M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Washington. His
thesis work was on compiler code optimization -- theoretical approaches to
doing optimal code generation. While at school, he did maintenance work on
Burroughs ALGOL compiler.

After receiving his Ph.D. in 1972, Kildall went on to teach general computer
science and compiler courses at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.
During the one day a week and one quarter a year allotted for consulting work,
Kildall worked for Intel.

"During that time at Intel, I became interested in microcomputers," said
Kildall. "Micros were just starting out, and they did not have any software at
all -- just really very basic software. I started to do some universal
software tools for Intel, simulation of their machines on the bigger computer
and various things that were needed to get things off the ground."

Kildall became interested in trying to get a high-level language around
microcomputer software development, not for end users but for people who were
trying to write software.

That interest prompted the development of PL/M (Programming Language for
Microcomputers), a derivative of XPL, a compiler writing language. His work on
PL/M led directly to the development of CP/M (Control Program for
Microcomputers).

"CP/M was, actually, a follow-on product in support of PL/M, and not intended
to be a product in its own right," Kildall chuckled. "We needed to have some
kind of an operating system to be the foundation for running a program that
would support PL/M. Thats why the name is the same, basically."

"At that time, I didnt think much about CP/M, other than it was nice that
people were interested in it," said Kildall. "The people who I was working
with sort of realized that there was something there, but that it was going to
take some time before it actually caught on."

Kildall worked for about a year trying to get PL/M on a microcomputer, one of
the Intel development systems. "It was going along pretty well," said Kildall,
"but Intel was going off in its own direction." Intel had started its own PL/M
compiler development internally, separate from Kildalls work. Intel had also
started its own operating system development called ISIS, which, said Kildall,
was very much like CP/M.

"Intel decided that its big philosophy in selling software was that it would
use that software to sell its little "Blue Boxes"." Intel said: We dont want
to unbundle our software because, that way, somebody else could come along
with a look-alike Blue Box and then undercut us in price," said Kildall.

"Intel was selling those development systems for $25,000 a piece, and doing
really well with them. So, if it has sold ISIS, which was essentially
equivalent to CP/M, with what, originally, was a $60 to $70 price tag, it
could have completely wiped out the Blue Box sales."

DRI was founded in 1976 because of interest in CP/M. "Some people had used it
and, you know, people liked it." Kildall said modestly. "There were a lot of
different operating systems with different tangential kinds of features, and
they all had a variety of faults. CP/M just happened to be simple, but
useful." It took about 9 months to put together CP/M itself, and about a year
to complete the programs that had to go with it. Kildall officially left the
Naval Postgraduate School in 1978.

About that time, the PL/I standardization committee was meeting in Carmel,
California, and had just finished the first PL/I ANSI standardization
specification. The committee was trying to produce 2 subsets: Subset G for
general purpose, and another subset for real-time.

"PL/M was a dialect of XPL, and XPL had been a dialect of PL/I, and they were
all intermixed as far as the syntax and their general appearance," Kildall
said. "But there was very little else that was similar, besides the common
family tree. I did realize, at that point, that the people working on the PL/I
Subset G were doing a really nice thing. They knew that the full language was
not going to be supported on a small computer -- it just would not fit, that
was all."

Kildall began to feel that PL/I Subset G was a reasonable language for doing
work with small computers. And CP/M needed to have an applications language of
some sort. So, he decided to do an implementation of PL/I Subset G. Thats
where the Digital Research PL/I Compiler started off.

Kildall thought that the compiler would not be too difficult to do, and would
take about 9 months. But, he said ruefully, it wound up taking 2 years.

The project also did not have the impact that he thought it would on the
applications users. "The difficulty that we had was that the machines we were
working with still had relatively small memory systems. And the difference
between high-level code versus assembly language code was still significant to
people," Kildall said.

"I think that it was a good project and definitely worthwhile, but I sort of
felt that the Intel 8086 chip was going to be more popular sooner than it
was," he added. "It was out in about 1978, and showed real promise, but it
just did not get picked up. And we really could not sell the idea of high-
level language coding on small computers until we had a bigger memory system.
So, now that the 8086 and that whole family is popular, there is not such an
emphasis on compactness of approach, and people are writing applications using
high-level languages now."

Since coming out with CP/M in 1978, DRI has introduced CP/M-86, CP/M for a 16-
bit computer; MP/M-86, multi-user CP/M for a 16-bit computer; Concurrent CP/M,
which has multitasking, networking, real-time, and windowing capabilities; and
Concurrent DOS, which has the same capabilities as Concurrent CP/M but can be
used on IBM micro systems.

MS-DOS and PC DOS hit CP/M-86 pretty hard in the marketplace. The problem was,
according to Kildall, that CP/M-86 was not meant to be DRIs primary product -
- it was to be used as a stepping stone to MP/M and Concurrent CP/M.

"I misjudged the timing somewhat -- it was not really until this year (1984)
that people started thinking that multitasking was important," said Kildall.
"Now, IBM has announced Top View with multitasking, emphasizing that
multitasking is an important concept. So, most people say: Oh, IBM says that
multitasking is an important concept, so it must be an important concept,"
Kildall laughed.

Kildall did not feel that the high price of CP/M-86, compared with MS-DOS, was
an important issue. "If we had been prepared with a CP/M-86 strategy, we would
have been able to do the pricing right, and we would have been prepared for
the IBM phenomenon. We were prepared for a multitasking phenomenon."

"We figured," he said, "we have a megabyte of memory, what are going to do
with that megabyte of memory? Most applications were not going to use a
million bytes of memory. We figured that people wanted an operating system
with more functionality than you had in 8-bit computer operating systems."

"So, now, we have reached a situation where IBM has endorsed multitasking and
multi-users. But they are saying: We are going to give you these things, but
we dont have the tools right now. The best thing for them would be to have a
PC DOS that had multitasking and multi-user capabilities. And, if they had
that, they would not announce anything else. Top View gives you multitasking,
real-time, networking and multi-using."

"The thing is thats exactly the product that we were building," said Kildall.
"IBMs endorsement has caused a lot of OEMs to come back to us and say: I can
now endorse your product because I have realized the importance of Concurrent
CP/M."

"This is the basis for the interest in Concurrent CP/M and Concurrent DOS. And
we have other products beyond this that have not been announced. Then, there
are follow-on products that are just kind of progressive steps, adding
facilities. I want to be careful of what I say, because I dont want to say
anything about something that has not been released yet."

According to Kildall, Concurrent CP/M and Concurrent DOS are doing very well
at the OEM level, which he feels is the most important indicator. He considers
earnings from Concurrent to be a very significant part of DRIs revenue.

"We really believe in Concurrent, there is no question about that," said
Kildall. "But it does come back entirely to the fact that you can be
successful only if you have the backing of the large manufacturers nowadays.
And that is exactly what we are working on doing."

Concurrent is, actually, the 6th generation of the CP/M operating system,
Kildall pointed out. "When you take a look at some things like Top View and
UNIX and so forth, you see that they are sort of half-baked in a micro sense,
because they cannot really perform those low-level functions as effectively as
Concurrent."

Kildall breaks down UNIX into 3 important elements: the operating system, the
C language, and the standard run-time library. He fells that the major
contribution UNIX has made has been in the standardization of the run-time
library and the C language.

"If you are careful and write C source code in a machine-independent way, and
you set up your library so that it matches the UNIX standard run-time
subroutines, then you can get transportation from one processor or one
operating system to many different processors or many different operating
systems without any major recoding," he said.

Kildall is not nearly so supportive of the UNIX operating system, which he
said is pretty well known in the industry as being "loosey-goosey" -- not a
very tight system. He has also experienced many problems with it, in terms of
reliability and clarity of the user interface.

"You talk to anybody who is a UNIX user, and they will say: UNIX is great,
but it has a lot of problems in terms of commercialization of the operating
system. You can go to the C language and say: yes, there is a lot of things
that I would have done differently. But the fact of the matter is that, in
spite of its shortcomings, the C language and the run-time library give you
transportation, and that is something which is very, very valuable."

"There are lots and lots of operating systems around. The UNIX operating
system, itself, does not have any inherent new technology. And that is why I
am not as hot on the operating system as I am on the language and the
standardization of the run-time system."

"We certainly are working with the UNIX phenomenon, in the sense that we are
offering portable software. And this goes back to my original comment about C
and the standard run-time library. Our software, now, will run on virtually
any operating system we choose, and one of the targets is UNIX. Now, as UNIX
becomes popular with various people, we can offer our software products on
UNIX. Now, that is where the money is."

"The intention is to make all of our products portable through C and its run-
time library which, of course, makes them immediately portable to UNIX because
that is Cs original home. Our initial support of UNIX is through what we call
the UNIX Application Library, that we have constructed for AT&T."

Transportation of a high-level language like PL/I or the C compiler is a much
more difficult task than porting over applications like Dr. Logo, for example,
said Kildall. Dr. Logo transports very, very rapidly because there are few
machine dependencies.

Dr. Logo is DRIs main product on the education market. Kildall saw Logo come
around and was very interested in it because of the way the language used LISP
concepts -- recursion, list processing and homogeneity.

"I, personally, never really liked BASIC at all," said Kildall. "It was a
language that came from FORTRAN, the early days of FORTRAN. It was not
intended to be a general language used by the masses."

Kildall has always felt that BASIC was not a good learning model because the
use of numbers is a very limited concept that, in turn, enforces a limited
style of programming. "It is very difficult to make leaps from that into
something with more general concepts."

Kildall prefers using LISP to teach programming because it has the most
general concept of what programming should be, because it is all symbolic.
"You can literally do almost any kind of operation that you want very quickly
and easily," he said.

The problem with LISP, said Kildall, is its very user unfriendly syntax. He
did not want to bring LISP to microcomputers because its unfriendly nature
would turn people off to using it.

Logo was originally intended to get rid of some of the unfriendly nature of
the front end, and still get all the power of LISP. Graphics were added,
Kildall said, because you could use them for a kind of a bait and switch.
First, people would be tempted with the graphics, and then they could discover
all the other things that could be done with LISP.

The push behind Dr. Logo was "let us get in, there, and try to do a personal
computer Logo, and get people away from the concepts of BASIC as much as we
can. Let us get rid of BASIC and go with a language that, actually, gives
people a tool to think with, rather than make a person first learn concepts
that have little to do with the problem they are solving," Kildall said.

Support of Logo has been slowly building, said Kildall. "It takes a year or
two before you can really tell if something is taking off or not. Dr. Logo has
moved very nicely, and sales through OEMs are picking up."

DRI has pulled back somewhat from the education market. "We have closed up a
lot of things at the retail market. For example, with Dr. Logo, we are not
offering anything more than our original version on the retail level,
basically because price cutting at the consumer level has been so dramatic
that we cannot make any money on it. We decided to put all our efforts into
OEMs."

"We tried to get the consumer business going. What we are getting is that,
every time we came up with a product like Dr. Logo in the Consumer Division,
our OEM interest in it was so much greater that retail was of little interest.
We take three-quarters of our people working on retail and one-quarter on the
OEM level, and the one-quarter makes 10 times as much as the three-quarters.
So, we just decided to slack off a bit."

Kildall sees the principal market for DRI as being the high-end commercial
market. "It is unfortunate, but it goes back to when you try to keep a
business going and the profit level at a reasonable rate, the products that
are bringing in the most revenue are the ones people will gravitate toward.
The difficulty in concentrating in educational products -- which I would like
to -- is that there is a much larger margin in commercial software."

Kildall seems to have found an equilibrium between the computer scientist, the
businessman, and the human being. Having leadership with this kind of balanced
outlook makes DRIs future look promising.


EOF


Volver a “PC & Compatibles X86”

¿Quién está conectado?

Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 1 invitado