Date   : Sun, 28 Nov 1982 14:33:00,1690;000000000000
From   : Vinayak Wallace <Gumby.MIT-OZ@Mit-Mc>
Subject: Using CP/M 3.0

This is just off the top of my head; I know nothing of its logistics or
feasability, etc, but..

    Date: Wed Nov 24 1982 20:18:41 PST
    From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@Lbl-Unix>
    Subject: CP/M 3.0, continued.
    To: lbl-unix!info-cpm at BRL

    I claim that the bottom line remains the same -- 3.0 has been oriented
    almost totally toward the OEM who plans to run many "identical"
    systems (or nearly so), and doesn't mind a very complex bios since
    there is only one hardware configuration to worry about.  The fact
    that D.R. has told non-OEM's to "go away" when it comes to 3.0 is
    highly suspicious.  I won't even drag up the issue of documentation
    quality again... we all know about that.

What's wrong with a bunch of people getting together (say, 25 or 30 -- a
club, perhaps), buying an OEM license, and then helping each other
configure similar copies of 3.0 with ZCPR and any other features they
want? Perhaps a bunch from the net can get together and un-hair most of
the interfacing code -- standardising the parts we use which are the
same.

I've always wondered what extra info an OEM got on CPM anyway, and as a
member of a corporation like this, I would be able to see. I wouldn't be
ablle to show other people, but that's about what it's like these days
with other software packages.