INMC 80 News


October–December 1981 · Issue 5

Page 12 of 71


I am writing to point out an error in the Chairman’s Bit in INMC80 issue 4. The third paragraph of page 3 mentions a new computer and suggests that the software for it will be virtually identical to the Nascom software. I assume that you are referring to the Gemini system, which is described on page 57 of that issue. Since I wrote Nasbug T4 and NAS-SYS 1 and 3, and have just completed development of the RP/M software which is the operating system for the Gemini machine, I should be in a good position to know that you have made an incorrect assumption.

In fact, RP/M bears no resemblence to the Nascom software since it is the result of a new and original design. Differences include the commands (all different), the tape data format (totally different) and the operating system call support (completely different)! In fact, RP/M pretends to programs that it is the CP/M disk operating system, and it can run software such as the Microsoft 24K Disk Basic. Incidentally, that takes 4 minutes to load from cassette, but you only need to do it once each session – anyway you need some reason to upgrade to disks eventually!

I must agree that it is possible that software written by independent suppliers, such as ZEAP, NASDIS, DEBUG etc. might be converted if they feel like it. This will depend on many factors, and does not alter the fact that the systems are very different.

Richard Beal, Kingston.

(We have heard that some software is being rewritten for RP/M, notably NASPEN, which in its 4K GEMPEN version is virtually identical to the existing DISKPEN, itself and enhancement of NASPEN rewritten to run under CP/M on the Gemini Henelec G805 disk system. NASPEN, GEMPEN and DISKPEN are available from the Microvalue (‘Gang of Six’) dealers. Ed.)


Here is a small selection of the letters we have received on the ‘Bus Debate’, in most cases these have been edited as most covered other points not relevant to the debate. We hope to catch up on the more general letters in the next issue, and perhaps publish more from the debate then.


Dear Sirs,

Though I can understand why John Deane should want INMC80 to stick with Nascom alone, my support must go to the bus.

But in any case, keep going.

Yours faithfully
P. D. Taylor.

London N.3.

Dear Dave,

You asked for comments from readers on future policy towards Nascom products and 80-BUS products.

I wish Lucas Logic every success in getting it all going again and feel that the INMC80 should give priority of space to news and information on their products, particularly the technical updates which we hope will be forthcomimg from their design team.

Page 12 of 71