prieto@aluxp.UUCP (PRIETO) (06/14/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Does anyone have or knows of an MS/DOS or PC/DOS type OS that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a port? ihnp4!aluxp!prieto
stephan@kontron.UUCP (06/16/86)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > Does anyone have or knows of an MS/DOS or PC/DOS type OS > that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many > which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a > port? > > ihnp4!aluxp!prieto "Gemdos" which is a part of "tos" of the atari st series was meant to be very "ms/dos" like. You might want to look into it.
mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) (06/17/86)
> Does anyone have or knows of an MS/DOS or PC/DOS type OS > that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many > which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a > port? A complete emulation of MS-DOS is available to run on the Amiga 68000 based computer. It actually emulates an 8088 and executes programs like Lotus 123. Of course it only runs at half PC speed. Mike Gingell, ..decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg
jpm@quad1.UUCP (John McMamee) (06/17/86)
> Does anyone have or knows of an MS/DOS or PC/DOS type OS > that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many > which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a > port? > > ihnp4!aluxp!prieto DRI's GEMDOS is an MSDOS 2.x clone that runs on the 68K. It uses the same disk structure as MSDOS and even has the same system call numbers (except that DRI left out of obsolete FCB functions of MSDOS and only provided the handle oriented calls. They will not be missed). GEMDOS is probably best known under the name "TOS" which is what it is called on the Atari ST computer. GEMDOS also runs on other 68K boxes (can't talk about who). Unfortunately DRI only talks to large OEMs, so unless you want to license a lot of copies you are probably out of luck. -- John P. McNamee Quadratron Systems Inc. UUCP: {sdcrdcf|ttdica|scgvaxd|mc0|bellcore|logico|ihnp4}!psivax!quad1!jpm ARPA: jpm@BNL.ARPA
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (06/19/86)
In article <350@aluxp.UUCP> prieto@aluxp.UUCP (PRIETO) writes: >*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** >Does anyone have or knows of an MS/DOS or PC/DOS type OS >that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many >which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a >port? > Is this some kind of joke or don't you know what OS's currently are available for 68K's? If not, then I'd advise you to take a look around. We have *much* better OS's for the 68K than MS-DOS. Furthermore, an MS-DOS clone OS wouldn't get you any advantages anyway. You'd still not be able to run PC software. If you don't know any OS's for 68K, then I suggest looking into OS-9, Uniflex, Unix System V, Concurrent, Regulus and VRTX for a start. I think you'll find most of these to be well supported and capable of outperforming an MS-DOS clone. OS-9 and Unix System V have the bulk of the off the shelf software available (and are among the oldest). Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (06/21/86)
///// I can personally atest to the fact that ms-dos will run on a 68K box. The "transformer" program accomplishes the feat. Transformer costs $269 (US) or so and comes with a 5.25 inch drive. I'm not sure exactly how the magic is done; it appears that the bios functions are grabbed, and run in native 68K code, while object programs' 808x instructions are interpreted as p-code on a virtual cpu. Amazingly, the thing works qutie well. Obvioulsy, speed is a penalty. It only runs about 1/2 to 1/6 the speed of a genuine pee-cee XT. Relative speed depends on what's being done. Things that make heavy use of ms-dos interrupts seem fast. A recalcuate in a 1-2-3 spreadsheet takes about 6x the normal pee-cee. For the people who say "why the h*ll run ms-dos on a 68K?" You should keep politics and economics in mind. Sometimes, it is difficult to justify buying a second computer just to run a program (that is only available in ms-dos). Also, sometimes similar things exists in other operating systems, but they often cost xxx more, and there is also a cost attached to operator retraining for the not-quite the same program. Bill Mayhew, Electrical Engineer Division of Basic Medical Sciences Northeastern Ohio Universities' College of Medicine Rootstown, OH 44272 USA (216) 325-2511 ...!allegra!neoucom!wtm
jw@astgb1.UUCP (John Woodruff) (06/23/86)
In article <1256@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > Is this some kind of joke or don't you know what OS's currently > are available for 68K's? If not, then I'd advise you to take a look > around. We have *much* better OS's for the 68K than MS-DOS. Furthermore, > an MS-DOS clone OS wouldn't get you any advantages anyway. You'd still > not be able to run PC software. ... Unfortunately, that ability is *MANDATORY* for some folk... Our boss dosen't care if he's using a Univac I, and never liked Unix... but he *loves* Lotus 123. As much as I (and Jim, I suspect) dislike it, the fact is that MS-DOS is a de-facto standard, and a method of combining the two (so he can use Lotus and I can do real work) is quite marketable. Hewlett-Packard has a board that goes into their 68010/020 workstations containing an 80286, and accompanied by software that arranges for DOS and HP-UX to share a single filesystem and windowed display. You get a single box that does both a PC/AT and Unix at the same time. If it works the way they claim, it's *real neat*... but I've never seen it. Call your HP rep for reliable information on this.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (06/25/86)
I've had a few discussions going on the topic of running MS-DOS
stuff on 68K machines and I thought there were a few things worth
posting which are not really relevant to the main discussion but may
be of general interest.
First, the best idea for getting a "2nd computer" is to put in
a proposal for an "adapter". This can be quite legitimate. You have
"adapters" for all kinds of thing. What your "adapter" will consist
of will be a small Singleboard computer and a Floppy disk (possibly
with powersupply) and RS-232 (and whatever software you require).
If you check around, you'll be surprised at how cheaply this can be
had.
Some thoughts on Lotus:
Under OS-9 we have a program called Dynacalc. The 68K version
is quite powerful (better than the 6809 version which itself was equal
to the later Advanced Visicalc which had split screen and individual
column widths--I use the 6809 version myself). Both Lotus and Dynacalc
being fairly much Visicalc, you can adapt the sheets you have fairly
easily. I'm not sure yet, but I *think* the DIF files are directly
compatible (if crossloaded).
The Radio Shack Color Computer running a 1 mHz. 6809 outperformed
an IBM-PC on the Byte Spreadsheet benchmark (I did the Color Computer
run on Dynacalc myself). A 68020 ran the benchmark roughly 20 times
faster than the IBM-PC (Dynacalc and no math co-processor).
You cannot legally use Lotus on more than 1 machine for each copy
purchased (yes, I know, first you have to get caught ...). A single
copy of Dynacalc will serve more than one user under OS-9 (and quite
efficiently, due to it being re-entrant code).
If you don't know enough about Lotus to port sheets to Dynacalc,
you have *no* business relying on the data that you get from Lotus.
It's easy to muck up a spreadsheet if you *really* don't know what
you are doing.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880phil@osiris.UUCP (06/25/86)
Regarding a 286 coprocessor board for a "real" (68k-based) box: I find this concept ironically fascinating in light of the recent (~ 3 months or so ago) discussion on 68k or 32k coprocessor boards for ATs. I remarked then that putting a 68k or 32k board with its own memory management, a meg or so of memory, and SysV into an AT as a "slave processor" was a funny notion (in more ways than one). Now we've got 286 "slave processor" boards for 68k systems, which I feel is getting things in the right order for a change. The point about giving PC-dazzled decision makers a good reason to buy a good box instead of a PC clone is quite valid. I know of several people who would never consider a machine that couldn't run PCFile (fortunately *I* don't work for them, but my poor saintly grey-haired mother [honest, she is!] has gone through a lot of abuse because her office had to be automated with PC clones). Look at it this way: when those managers gets tired of beating their heads against 123, they may just try out the *main* side of the box and get spoiled... Phil Kos ...!decvax!decuac The Johns Hopkins Hospital > !aplcen!osiris!phil Baltimore, MD ...!allegra!umcp-cs "Reach out your hand if your cup be empty, If your cup is full, may it be again." - Robert Hunter
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (06/27/86)
On the subject of operating systems for the 68K, I am in the process
of building a homebrew system with some rudimentary memory management
(on the order of the PDP-11/45-70). I have built operating systems
before (on a ... gag ... Pr1me and an MV 10000) but I would prefer to
not have to do it all again from scratch. Which brings me to my question
of where can one get OS9/68K? Do sources come with it, and if not,
how does one bring it up on a homebrew? Finally the biggie: How much
does it cost for binary and/or source?
--
Jeff Lee
CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeffjimomura@lsuc.UUCP (06/29/86)
Source code is available. Microware has a sort of graded cost
system. If Kim Kempf is around, you should send him mail (I can't
recall the full Usenet address). Essentially, the more actual source
code you get, the more you pay. You really shouldn't need much source
though. The bare minimum port is a couple of drivers and a clock.
For memory management it's more difficult and (I can just imagine
the arguments this next comment is going to touch off :-) not
really that advantageous for a single (actual) user system.
Keep in mind that OS-9 object code is written position independant
and fully relocatable. We mix and match modules freely without
hardware MMU's.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880dibble@rochester.ARPA (Peter C. Dibble) (06/30/86)
> On the subject of operating systems for the 68K, I am in the process > of building a homebrew system with some rudimentary memory management > Which brings me to my question > of where can one get OS9/68K? Do sources come with it, and if not, > how does one bring it up on a homebrew? Finally the biggie: How much > does it cost for binary and/or source? OS9/68k lists at $400, and I think the Atari version costs more like $200. You can get it with support and source for device drivers, clock module, and other modules that are needed for a simple port for a much higher price. I think development tools are included too. It's called the Portpack, and I think it costs about $8000. Complete source is also available, but the price is higher still. If you are building your own system to save money, a Portpack is not an option. I think I would recommend getting a version of OS-9 for a machine that's like what you want to build, then modifying hardware and software until it works.
kim@mcrware.UUCP (Kim Kempf) (07/04/86)
>> of where can one get OS9/68K? Do sources come with it, and if not, >> how does one bring it up on a homebrew? Finally the biggie: How much >> does it cost for binary and/or source? > >OS9/68k lists at $400, and I think the Atari version costs more like $200. >You can get it with support and source for device drivers, clock module, >and other modules that are needed for a simple port for a much higher price. >I think development tools are included too. >It's called the Portpack, and I think it costs about $8000. Complete source >is also available, but the price is higher still. > Woah. Depending on the host for the portpak, the price is as low as $1000. I wish we got $8000 for a portpak. No more need to work long hours! It comes with all the source you need to port OS-9 to the target machine. The portpak is also a license to run a single copy on the machine you port to, i.e, no distribution rights. The cheapest portpak runs on an OS-9/68k host. The UNIX and VMS and most other host versions are more expensive >$2000. The portpak source code includes source for a number of device drivers, initialization and bootrom code and the machine-dependent parts of the kernel in the case of MMU/SPU versions. >If you are building your own system to save money, a Portpack is not an option. >I think I would recommend getting a version of OS-9 for a machine that's >like what you want to build, then modifying hardware and software until it >works. THe portpak was primarily intended as a way to evaluate OS-9 for a system that doesn't require an OEM to buy a license up front. The $1000 price is required because of the support provided via the Hotline that comes with the portpak. If it don't boot, you can call us... Actually, I am just a techie. Call Drew Crane at Microware for up-to-date OS-9 portpak information at (515) 224-1929. ---------------- Kim Kempf, Microware Systems Corporation {{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver}\ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,sunup} >!fluke!mcrware!kim {ssc-vax,hplsla,wavetek,physio,cae780,tikal,telematic}/