Hi Jerry, Thank you for that confirmation, much appreciated!
I quoted that text from a PDF called cpm22-m.pdf but it is likely a re- typed version or a mashup of other manuals; it is not the "standard PDF full of images including colored front and back sheets" that indicate Digital Research original documents. :-) The text in that manual does seem to identify CP/M v2.x, not v3.x but I'm more than happy to be corrected. Even more confusing, CP/M v2.2H on my Kaypro does this without any special configuration; if I switch to a User area that has no files in it, the Kaypro will happily execute a program from User area 0 with no special action required. I'm thinking vendor modifications are in play here. OK, so I guess the solution is to move or copy the programs I need into each User area -- or just leave everything in User area 0 and don't step on each other...! LOL I'm just aware of how many directory entries I'm burning by copying programs to other user areas, so I was hoping to be able to avoid that. Regards, Bert On Sun, 2025-08-03 at 15:46 -0500, Jerry Davis wrote: > > I think the text you are referring to applies only to CP/M Version > > 3. > > > > The CP/M 2.2 User Manual from Digital Research that I have does not > > > contain > > that text. > > > > In stock CP/M 2.2, the SYS bit only prevents the file from being > > > displayed > > with DIR. > > The User Number field always applies regardless of what the file > > > status > > bits are set to. > > When I follow your procedure on stock CP/M 2.2, I get the same > > result > you > > do on REX i.e. file not found. > > > > Jerry > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:57 PM bput <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > It has been way too long since I played with CP/M on the M-100 > > > > > > using > > > > REXCPM. Now I'm playing with it again and I have a question. > > > > > > > > The CPM 2.2 User Manual says: > > > > "system attribute (SYS): > > > > > > > > **File attribute.** You can give a file the system attribute > > > > by > > using > > > > the SYS option in the STAT command or by using the set file > > > > > > attributes > > > > function, BDOS Function 12. A file with the SYS attribute is > > > > not > > > > displayed in response to a DIR command. > > > > If you give a file with user number 0 the SYS attribute, you > > > > can > > read > > > > and execute that file from any user number on the same drive. > > > > Use this feature to make your commonly used programs available > > > > > > under > > > > any user number." > > > > > > > > I cannot seem to make this work, so I wonder if anyone else who > > > > is > > > > running REXCPM could try it? > > > > > > > > The steps to take are: > > > > > > > > 1. Enter CPM on your REXCPM :-) > > > > - You will start in USER area 0 (zero) by default. > > > > > > > > 2. Pick a program to make it executable from any user area. > > > > I picked D.COM. > > > > > > > > 3. Use this command to set the "System" attribute: > > > > STAT D.COM $SYS > > > > > > > > 4. Either DIR or STAT will show if the executable has the > > > > "System" > > > > Attribute by displaying the filename with parentheses: > > > > DIR D.COM > > > > STAT D.COM > > > > > > > > 5. Now switch to a different user area where that program does > > > > not > > > > exist: > > > > USER 5 > > > > > > > > 6. Try running D.COM (or whatever program you picked) from user > > > > > > area 5. > > > > D > > > > > > > > I get "D?" back, indicating that CP/M could not find the D.COM > > > > executable from User area 5, but if I'm reading the > > > > documentation > > > > correctly, it should find it in User area 0 and run it from > > > > there. > > > > > > > > It is certainly possible that the version of CP/M in REXCPM > > > > doesn't > > > > implement it. And it's no good me checking against CPM on my > > > > > > Kaypro > > > > because it is CPM 2.2H, probably with vendor additions as well > > > > :-) > > A > > > > clue about that is that the prompt looks like "A0>" on the > > > > Kaypro > > > > instead of "A>" on REXCPM. > > > > > > > > Having such a large hard drive is wonderful, and splitting it > > > > into > > > > functional areas via the USER command is better. I was hoping > > > > it > > might > > > > be doable. :-) > > > > > > > > Can anyway else replicate my findings? Thank you! > > > > > > > > Regards, Bert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
