dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) (09/25/85)
Here are some topics that readers who are familiar with OS-9 might like to share their thoughts about: Many of the fields in the OS-9/68K module header are not yet used. I am particularly interested in the usage field. Do you think we are heading for tops-20-like prompting or maybe something move like XDE (Xerox Development Environment), or will it just be the syntax string that 68K programs now print when they don't know what else to do? Microware has said that they will keep the versions of OS-9 as compatible as possible. I think that most of the nice 68K features will not be ported to the 6809 because of memory constraints (and the connected issue of assembler versus C programming). Anyone care to make a prediction about just what features will be ported. Wild cards? Events? Named pipes? OS-9/32016, interesting rumor. Unsubstantiated but fun to think about. CoCo 2. The CoCo for OS-9 level two. Has Tandy waited too long? If you could have any single program made available for OS-9, what would you pick? Why didn't the OS-9 modules in ROM concept ever catch on (or did it)? <<Mail responces to me if you like, but I'm really aiming to get some informed discussion of OS-9 going. Post your thoughts and let us all share them.>> Peter Dibble Note: I'm not a bit unbiased. I have a strong interest in OS-9.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/29/85)
In article <11834@rochester.UUCP> dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) writes: >Here are some topics that readers who are familiar with OS-9 might >like to share their thoughts about: > >Many of the fields in the OS-9/68K module header are not yet used. >I am particularly interested in the usage field. Do you think we >are heading for tops-20-like prompting or maybe something move like >XDE (Xerox Development Environment), or will it just be the syntax >string that 68K programs now print when they don't know what else to do? How about system definition information, such as which processor is targetted? It would be nice if you could have a multi-processor system and freely mix modules for 6809, 68000, Z8000 or 32032 families. On a VME Bus system this is quite possible. On a practical level it means being able to upgrade in stages without problems. > >Microware has said that they will keep the versions of OS-9 as >compatible as possible. I think that most of the nice 68K features >will not be ported to the 6809 because of memory constraints >(and the connected issue of assembler versus C programming). >Anyone care to make a prediction about just what features will >be ported. Wild cards? Events? Named pipes? Wild cards and Variable names would be nice. > >OS-9/32016, interesting rumor. Unsubstantiated but fun to think >about. > >CoCo 2. The CoCo for OS-9 level two. Has Tandy waited too >long? Last Christmas, or thereabouts, I posted an opinion on Compuserve (both on the OS9 and CoCo SIGs) that if Tandy didn't have their machine out by Feb. 85, they'd be frozen out of the market by the Atari ST-520 and the Amiga (as well as the Sinclair if it came over). I think it's happened. A bank switched CoCo will sell in "gratifying" quantities, but unless they can keep the design upgradeable to a 68K family chip in the future I could not in good conscience recommend to a freind that they buy a Color Computer or replacement thereof. Think about that carefully and tell me that you could make such a reccommendation. We'll see. It *can* be done, but will it? > >If you could have any single program made available for OS-9, >what would you pick? Framework. Also, a Modula II compiler. > >Why didn't the OS-9 modules in ROM concept ever catch on >(or did it)? > ><<Mail responces to me if you like, but I'm really aiming to get >some informed discussion of OS-9 going. Post your thoughts and let >us all share them.>> > >Peter Dibble > >Note: >I'm not a bit unbiased. I have a strong interest in OS-9. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
rickb@tekig4.UUCP (Rick Bensene) (10/01/85)
> Here are some topics that readers who are familiar with OS-9 might > like to share their thoughts about: > Microware has said that they will keep the versions of OS-9 as > compatible as possible. I think that most of the nice 68K features > will not be ported to the 6809 because of memory constraints > (and the connected issue of assembler versus C programming). > Anyone care to make a prediction about just what features will > be ported. Wild cards? Events? Named pipes? I doubt myself that any of these features will be ported to OS9 LEVEL I 6809, simply because there just isn't enough memory to support them. Some might, however, end up migrating down to OS9 Level II for 6809, where memory isn't as much of a problem. > OS-9/32016, interesting rumor. Unsubstantiated but fun to think > about. It'd be an interesting alternative to UNIX based 320xx systems, if the price was right, and the support was reasonable. > CoCo 2. The CoCo for OS-9 level two. Has Tandy waited too > long? Yup! Latest rumors I've heard is they are working on a new 'CoCo' which will have a 68K and OS968K in there, along with Motorola's RMS graphics chipset, a window manager, etc. Again, if the price is right, this could be worthy competition for the likes of Amiga and Atari 520ST. At least with OS9 there is an established software base, unlike the custom OS's in either of the other machines. > If you could have any single program made available for OS-9, > what would you pick? Lessee. I'd like an analog to the 'termcap' package, and a good screen editor, and a workalike to Un*x uucp system. ----------- Rick Bensene {ihnp4, decvax, allegra, cbosg, ucbvax}!tektronix!tekig4!rickb Phone: Weekdays (503) 627-3559 BBS: (503) 254-0458 300/1200 baud, 24 hours a day US Mail: Tektronix, Inc. - P.O. Box 500, Mail Stop 39-170 - Beaverton, Oregon 97077
berger@datacube.UUCP (10/02/85)
>Anyone care to make a prediction about just what features will >be ported. Wild cards? Events? Named pipes? Named pipes as well as semaphores are supported in the latest release! >OS-9/32016, interesting rumor. Unsubstantiated but fun to think >about. I doubt it since they wrote the whole operating system in Assembler and have not yet announced support for the 68020... I still don't buy the argument that you need to write the kernel in assembler for speed. >If you could have any single program made available for OS-9, >what would you pick? ANSI-C compiler, Cross compilers for SUN, MacIntosh, IBM-PC. Tools for auto-building trap-libraries. Curses for OS9. >Why didn't the OS-9 modules in ROM concept ever catch on >(or did it)? That's the main reason we are using it! Its the best thing about os9 besides the price. Bob Berger Datacube Inc. 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960 617-535-6644 ihnp4!datacube!berger decvax!cca!mirror!datacube!berger {mit-eddie,cyb0vax}!mirror!datacube!berger
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/04/85)
I second Rick's wish for a
termcaps file .
Also, I forgot Prolog. How could
I forget Prolog? But really, Modula II
is more important to me. I really
don't like 'C' very much.
Rick, that 68K CoCo sounds like a
good idea. Unfortunately, my sources
(which aren't great, but seem to get
things right about 2/3's) said that
the next CoCo would be a 2 mHz. level
II. This isn't really mutually
exclusive though. I made my previous
comment a trick one. You could have
an add-on 2nd processor. It may also
be that they'll just come out with
add-on boards for the Model 1000.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
Compuserve: 72205,541
MTS at WU: GKL6dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) (10/04/85)
> In article <11834@rochester.UUCP> dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) writes: > >Many of the fields in the OS-9/68K module header are not yet used. > >I am particularly interested in the usage field. Do you think we > >are heading for tops-20-like prompting or maybe something move like > >XDE (Xerox Development Environment), or will it just be the syntax > >string that 68K programs now print when they don't know what else to do? > > How about system definition information, such as which processor > is targetted? It would be nice if you could have a multi-processor > system and freely mix modules for 6809, 68000, Z8000 or 32032 families. > On a VME Bus system this is quite possible. On a practical level > it means being able to upgrade in stages without problems. > > ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura The lang/type byte includes the object-code value. I think Microware made a serious error by using the same value (1) for both 6809 and 68k object code. It's true that the module header formats for OS-9 and OS-9/68K differ even in the sync bytes, but it would be nice to be able to select a processor based on the module language. I understand that some hardware types are already putting together hybrid 6809/68k systems. Peter Dibble Maybe it's not too late for Microware to define the following additional languages: 7: 6809 object code 8: 68020-specific object code. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***