knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) (08/05/86)
It's interesting to see how the new Coco III fits into
the personal computer marketing niche, with respect to
Tandy's product line and its competitors.
The Coco III has 128 to 512K, graphics nearly as good as
the ST or Amiga, a serious-business 80x24 screen (WHEW!)
and a price tag ($220) well under the Commodore 128.
Tandy's line now seems to consist of a series of MS-DOS
machines for the adult/business types at the high end,
with the low end still handled by an 8-bit micro,
the Coco's 6809. Some people may be disappointed that
the Coco III is not a 68000 machine, but Tandy may be wise
to stay out of the King Kong -vs- Godzilla war between
Atari ST and Amiga -- maybe neither combatant will live
to inherit the ruins of Tokyo. Tandy has straddled the
68K home market by landing salvos on both sides of it.
Instead, the Coco III offers graphics almost as good as
the 68K boxes, plus the potential for OS9 Level II,
possibly with the memory mapping and protection that the
68K pc's lack. At a price less than half of a bare-bones ST.
Radio Shack marketing has found a nice gap in the market
and filled it pretty well -- the space between the 8-bit
home "toys" and the 68K machines (which MS-DOS users would
call "toys" too).
Commodore and Atari have tried to narrow this gap, with 128K
editions of their home computers, but
in terms of improvements over their 64K predecessors, the Coco III
is a quantum leap compared to the other 128K 8-bitters.
Of course any of these machines should have blown the Apple II
away years ago, but some things defy explanation.
Sure, the Coco III could use even more keyboard improvement
(you STILL need CTRL to get the C-language symbols, but at
least there's real CTRL key *in the ight place*), 512K tops
may seem limiting (but 6809 code is more compact than 68K binary,
I'll bet), and the RS232 is probably still bit-banger software.
But against Commodore 128s and Atari 130XEs, Coco III is heavy
competition indeed. (If you believe that $220 tag; seems too
good to be true -- I'd have guessed $400-$600 for a Tandy product).
--
Mike J Knudsen __ ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen
/ NO \
Bell Labs / BABY \ (312)-979-4132 (work)
(AT & T) /ON BOARD\
\GO AHEAD/ BORED SAILORS
IH 6D-319 \ & HIT/ go BOARDSAILING.
x4132 \ ME /
--robinson@shadow.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) (08/07/86)
In article <1040@ihwpt.UUCP> knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) writes: >Radio Shack marketing has found a nice gap in the market >and filled it pretty well -- the space between the 8-bit >home "toys" and the 68K machines (which MS-DOS users would >call "toys" too). Actually, they are quite justified in calling them toys. Just as much so as someone who owns a Pinto is justified in calling both go-carts and Porsche 944 Turbo's toys (admittedly, 944's usually don't cost less than Pinto's). If it's fun, it's a toy. MS-DOS machines are not fun. >Mike J Knudsen __ ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories Some assembly required All Thebans are liars The Surgeon General has determined that smoking is hazardous to your health I was holding it for a friend "This has been another helpful hint for living from the commitee's almanac." Mike "programmer with a screwdriver" Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/07/86)
> Xref: cbmvax net.micro.6809:182 net.micro:1278 net.micro.atari16:1481 net.micro.amiga:2051 > > It's interesting to see how the new Coco III fits into the personal computer > marketing niche... > > The Coco III has 128 to 512K, graphics nearly as good as the ST or Amiga... Really? 640x400 pixels in 16 colors out of a palette of 4096? Bit blitter? Video coprocessor? Well, then, how about comparisons to the Atari. Lets see, the Atair gives you 640x400 monochrome. Nope, can't do that. 640x200 in 4 colors out of a palette of 512. I think the quoted resolution was 640x192 with 4 colors out of a palette of 64. Not bad, but if they're really going to the added expense of an RGB analog (over RGBI digital) monitor, why settle for just 64 colors (2 bits each of R, G, and B). Also, the 6809, while one of the nicest 8 bitters, is going to be hard pressed speedwise to do graphics at this resolution anywhere near the speed of the Atari, much less the Amiga. Of course, in this price range, you're directly competing with the C128 and (if anyone's actually buying them) the Atari 130. The graphics, is true as stated, are better in some ways than either of these. The Atari supports either 128 or 256 colors (can't recall offhand), but its limited to a display of around 40 characters. The C128 has 16 colors each screen (it can support both the 40 and 80 column screens simultaneously). The 40 column screen has a lower graphic resolution, but supports hardware sprites. The 80 column screen can do 80x25 text, 80x50 text (interlaced), and a 640x200 two color bit-map. Its also possible to exchange a few horizontal lines for a limited color bit-map, and the display can actually be set up for around 82 characters across. The 80 column display has some features (block moves and copies) that free up the processor, but there are other things about it that make it kind of slow for many things too. Overall, it sounds like the CoCo-III has an edge over the C128 in the display department. > Tandy's line now seems to consist of a series of MS-DOS > machines for the adult/business types at the high end, > with the low end still handled by an 8-bit micro, > the Coco's 6809. Some people may be disappointed that > the Coco III is not a 68000 machine, but Tandy may be wise > to stay out of the King Kong -vs- Godzilla war between > Atari ST and Amiga -- maybe neither combatant will live > to inherit the ruins of Tokyo. Tandy has straddled the > 68K home market by landing salvos on both sides of it. That's silly. The 68000 machines, any 68000 machine, is much more powerful than currently existing MS-DOS machines. The 6809 is in many ways a more advanced processor than the 8088, and at your 1.7MHz or whatever the CoCo-III is running faster memory cycles than a standard or XT PClone. If Motorola had the forsight to add on-chip banking like in the 8088, the 6809 would have had a good chance of catching on as THE 8/16 bit chip. > ...possibly with the memory mapping and protection that the > 68K pc's lack. Has TRS announced an MMU chip for the CoCo-III? Last I heard, none of the 6809 suppliers (Motorola, Hitachi, etc.) had. > ... the 68K machines (which MS-DOS users would call "toys" too). And all UNIX users call MS-DOS a toy. Much of this comes from the knowledge that it truly is, since it runs on computers which (at least until the AT) couldn't dream of supporting UNIX. Of course, all of the 68000 machines will be able to run UNIX quite nicely, along with OS-9 68K, the version of OS-9 for grownups. Show an MS-DOS user an Amiga running a Lotus clone using four megabytes of RAM for its spreadsheet, while at the same time a database, EMACS, and downloading E-Mail in the background, and he'll quickly change his tune. What's a "memory-resident" utility, anyway. Come on! MS-DOS is just an enhanced CP/M; even the 6809 versions of OS-9 are a more sophisticated and powerful solution to the operating system question. > Commodore and Atari have tried to narrow this gap, with 128K editions of > their home computers, but in terms of improvements over their 64K > predecessors, the Coco III is a quantum leap compared to the other 128K > 8-bitters. Of course any of these machines should have blown the Apple II > away years ago, but some things defy explanation. The Apple II was successful for exactly the same reasons that the IBM PC was successful (1) Open Architecture, and (2) the company (Apple or IBM, take your pick) managed to get a reputation for having a powerful "REAL" computer, despite opinions to the contrary. This is called MARKETING. CBM, TRS, and most others haven't quite caught on to the same degree yet. > Sure, the Coco III could use even more keyboard improvement > (you STILL need CTRL to get the C-language symbols, but at > least there's real CTRL key *in the ight place*), 512K tops > may seem limiting (but 6809 code is more compact than 68K binary, > I'll bet) Your're right on the code compactness. 68000 op-codes alone are 16 bits long, though of course, running the same bus speed, they're loaded just as fast as a 6809 instruction (8MHz 68000 == 2MHz 6809 for bus speed comparisons). Of course, if your're doing 32 bit arithmetic or many other things, the more advanced 68000 instruction set may produce a tighter solution (like a block move of any amount of memory in 2 instructions, etc. The 6809, at the very least, will have to stop to switch banks). Much of the size of the code will depend on whether a compiler or an assembler is used and if a compiler, how efficient it is. > and the RS232 is probably still bit-banger software. The C64 (and C128 because of it) use the same kind of deal for RS-232. > But against Commodore 128s and Atari 130XEs, Coco III is heavy > competition indeed. (If you believe that $220 tag; seems too > good to be true -- I'd have guessed $400-$600 for a Tandy product). Maybe reasonable competition for the C128, heavy competition for the Atari 130. The C128 still have a number of advantages. Not the least of which is the 6,000,000+ C64s that have been sold already (they estimate that about 600,000 C128s have been sold, though this estimate isn't that recent). The C128's 8502 at 2.04MHz will do some things faster than the 1.7MHz 6809 in the CoCo-III. The 6809 is a better processor, however, and doing some things, like memory moves, multiplys, etc. it'll be faster despite the slower bus. The C128's disk drive is more expensive, but it stores around 350K of data, and can read MS-DOS and most CP/M disks. The CoCo, as mentioned here, is internally expandable to 512K, the C128 externally expandable for a total memory of 640K. The CoCo's directly addressable memory will be more useful, for general applications, than the C128's DMA addresses expansion memory. Though much of this usefulness depends on how the CoCo III banks its extra memory. The C128 has a very advanced mechanism for this via the MMU chip, the Atari's method (selecting 1 of 5 banks in one 16K segment) is weaker. The C128 has one undeniable advantage, and that's the bulk of software available for it. There are over 1500 different titles of Educational software alone available for the C64, probably around 4000 games, lots of productivity packages, etc. Nearly every major consumer oriented software house writes a version of every product they sell for the C64. In C128 mode we already have several professional quality word processors, data base and spreadsheet programs, etc. CP/M, while certainly inferior to OS-9, was supported by most of the major business oriented companies that were around before MS-DOS, and, as such, there's lots of business and public domain stuff around for the C128. The CoCo-III will certainly be able to take advantage of the OS-9 software around, but there's much less of that available, and it may be awhile before OS-9 level 2 comes around to let you use any extra memory. As for someone looking for power, the ST looks like a good deal. It offers a reasonable amount of hardware power, easily comparable to a MAC. The fact that it has an operating system far inferior to OS-9 will be overlooked by many, and will actually be a moot point as OS-9 68K is released, which will certainly blow away 6809 OS-9. > -- > Mike J Knudsen __ ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen > / NO \ > Bell Labs / BABY \ (312)-979-4132 (work) > (AT & T) /ON BOARD\ > \GO AHEAD/ BORED SAILORS > IH 6D-319 \ & HIT/ go BOARDSAILING. > x4132 \ ME / > -- -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I don't feel safe in this world no more, I don't want to die in a nuclear war, I want to sail away to a distant shore And live like an ape man." -The Kinks These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) (08/07/86)
++++____++++ In article <1040@ihwpt.UUCP> Mike Knudsen writes: > the 68K machines (which MS-DOS users would call "toys" too). 68K machines are toys? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hmm. I seem to be running three concurrent tasks in separate windows here; must be I'm using an MS-DOS computer (only "real" computers can do that, right?) Funny . . . and I thought I was using a toy. -Mitsu (mitsu@well.UUCP) P.S. To those who are still blinded by the Big Three ('I', 'B', and 'M' . . .), I'd like to remark that when R.J. Mical began development of the Sidecar MS-DOS coprocessor for the Amiga, he thought it would take him 2-3 months to learn the IBM computer. He was pleasantly surprised to find it took the span of 1 plane flight to learn all the basic information he needed to know from a couple books he bought on the subject. He remarked later: "I didn't know what I was expecting . . . something really amazing, stupendous; what I found was the IBM PC is just a better Apple II." Not that the II is a bad computer; but the 68000 dwarfs any 808X series microprocessor (and yes, is just a little better designed than even the 80286). There is nothing amazing about this; a 68000 can compute rings around an 8088 (and a 68020 can compute rings around a VAX.)
tainter@ihlpg.UUCP (Tainter) (08/08/86)
> As for someone looking for power, the ST looks like a good deal. It offers > a reasonable amount of hardware power, easily comparable to a MAC. The > fact that it has an operating system far inferior to OS-9 will be overlooked > by many, and will actually be a moot point as OS-9 68K is released, which > will certainly blow away 6809 OS-9. > > Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh Available? Yes. Expensive? YES! For a $500 system $300 for an os(only) is expensive. Languages packaged as 3 for $600 is stiff also. Although $200 a piece is not that bad you can't get them seperately! TLM is being irrational. If they priced it at 100 dollars with a language they could sell 1 copy per ST sold. (which would be a better profit than there sales to 15% of the ST owners.) --j.a.tainter
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (08/08/86)
>is running faster memory cycles than a standard or XT PClone. If Motorola >had the forsight to add on-chip banking like in the 8088, the 6809 would >have had a good chance of catching on as THE 8/16 bit chip. >> ...possibly with the memory mapping and protection that the >> 68K pc's lack. >Has TRS announced an MMU chip for the CoCo-III? Last I heard, none of the >6809 suppliers (Motorola, Hitachi, etc.) had. I assume that you must be disqualifying the 6829 (or was it the 6839) memory management chip for some reason. This chip provided expanded memory and protection for multiple processes on the 6809. It's also cheap (about $5 a piece). If any of you want this chip, you had better hurry up and call your Motorola dealer and have them get them. They are being dropped this year. The figuring is that why should you stifle yourself with an 8-bit processor and banking memory when for close to the same money you can go with a 68008, use your 8-bit peripherals, have a 20-bit linear address space and the 68000 instruction set. -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) (08/08/86)
> > As for someone looking for power, the ST looks like a good deal. It offers > > a reasonable amount of hardware power, easily comparable to a MAC... > > ... OS-9 68K is released, which will certainly blow away 6809 OS-9. > Available? Yes. Expensive? YES! For a $500 system $300 for an os(only) is > expensive. Languages packaged as 3 for $600 is stiff also. Although $200 > a piece is not that bad you can't get them seperately! > TLM is being irrational. If they priced it at 100 dollars with a language > they could sell 1 copy per ST sold. (which would be a better profit than > there sales to 15% of the ST owners.) > --j.a.tainter I agree 100% -- the OS9/68K support for the ST is way overpriced, especially compared to Tandy's pricing on 6809 versions. The new Coco 3 stuff is a large price *reduction* -- OS9 (Level II) plus BASIC09 for $80, compared to $170 for both before. Yes, you must pay extra for the SW development tools now, tho I think for most buyers it makes more sense to bundle in BASIC09 than Assembler, even tho I have reached the conclusion that BASIC09 sucks clamshells as a serious programming language (I use C and assembler now). --mike k PS: -- I'm keeping this out of net.micro.amiga -- I got mail that they aren't interested in hearing about this. -- Mike J Knudsen __ ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen / NO \ Bell Labs / BABY \ (312)-979-4132 (work) (AT & T) /ON BOARD\ \GO AHEAD/ BORED SAILORS IH 6D-319 \ & HIT/ go BOARDSAILING. x4132 \ ME / --
knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) (08/09/86)
> > ...possibly with the memory mapping and protection that the > > 68K pc's lack. > Has TRS announced an MMU chip for the CoCo-III? Last I heard, none of the > 6809 suppliers (Motorola, Hitachi, etc.) had. Yeah! The custom VLSI chip that Motorola makes for the Coco3 is indeed a REAL MMU -- it maps any 8 of 64 physical 8K segments into 6809 address space. This chip also includes the graphics, interrupts, and DRAM control. Since the new Basic has a "protect" option, the MMU may have Read-Only! > > The Coco III has 128 to 512K, graphics nearly as good as the ST or Amiga... > > Really? 640x400 pixels in 16 colors out of a palette of 4096? Bit blitter? > Video coprocessor? Well, then, how about comparisons to the Atari. Lets see, > the Atair gives you 640x400 monochrome. Nope, can't do that. 640x200 in > 4 colors out of a palette of 512. I think the quoted resolution was 640x192 > with 4 colors out of a palette of 64. Not bad, but if they're really going to > the added expense of an RGB analog (over RGBI digital) monitor, why settle > for just 64 colors (2 bits each of R, G, and B). Yes, I REALLY wish the Coco3 had 384-400 vertical lines. Personally, I rate resolution more important than palette size, tho you're right, it's almost a waste of analog RGB to skimp on it. > Of course, in this price range, you're directly competing with the C128 and > the Atari 130. The graphics, is true as > stated, are better in some ways than either of these. Yes, this was the main point of my posting. But I considered 512-640 horizontal pixels to be in the same league with ST and Amiga. > The C128 ... supports hardware sprites. A lifelong shortcoming of the Coco has been lack of sprite hardware for games. It's amazing how well Coco does Donkey Kong, Joust, and Marble Madness without them. > The 80 column screen can do 80x25 text, 80x50 text (interlaced), > and a 640x200 two color bit-map. I honestly didn't know the C128 could do 640 across -- sorry, and thanks. > Overall, it sounds like the CoCo-III has an edge > over the C128 in the display department. Glad you agree. > > Tandy has straddled the 68K home market by landing salvos on both sides of it. > That's silly. The 68000 machines, any 68000 machine, is much more powerful > than currently existing MS-DOS machines. The 6809 is in many ways a more > advanced processor than the 8088, and at your 1.7MHz or whatever the CoCo-III > is running faster memory cycles than a standard or XT PClone. If Motorola > had the forsight to add on-chip banking like in the 8088, the 6809 would > have had a good chance of catching on as THE 8/16 bit chip. Of course we know the 68K machines are better in every way than the MSDOS biz boxes. It's just that the 3-piece suit types who define the "real world" don't see it that way. Fortunately biz types are finding how useful color graphics and mouse pointing can be. I'm glad you appreciate the 6809 so highly. Interesting idea, putting segment registers in it, tho the opcodes are long enuf already. > Of course, all of the 68000 machines > will be able to run UNIX quite nicely, along with OS-9 68K, the version of > OS-9 for grownups. That's U**X without MMU or protection, as has been argued to death already. The Coco3 will do a safer job on OS9 Level II than the Amiga or ST can on U**X. Of course OS9/68K is better than 6809 versions, tho many of the improvements could be retrofit into 6809 versions, given the extra memory now available. > Your're right on the code compactness. Much of the size of the > code will depend on whether a compiler or an assembler is used and if a > compiler, how efficient it is. Boy is that the truth! 6809 OS9 was written in assembler, much of 68K in C, and it shows in the code size. > Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh -- Mike J Knudsen / \ ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen / NO \ Bell Labs / BABY \ (312)-979-4132 (work) (AT & T) /ON BOARD\ \GO AHEAD/ BORED SAILORS IH 6D-319 \ & HIT/ go BOARDSAILING. x4132 \ ME / \ / Bell Labs pays \/ me for my thoughts; my opinions are al mine!
bryant@oakhill.UUCP (Bryant Wilder) (08/10/86)
In article <1050@ihwpt.UUCP>, knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP writes: > > If Motorola > > had the forsight to add on-chip banking like in the 8088, the 6809 would > > have had a good chance of catching on as THE 8/16 bit chip. you are certainly very close to the truth if not right on the mark. if you have further interest in some of the why this and that, i refer you to a posting i did 10 to 14 days ago <737@oakhill> in net.arch under the heading of Outside Influences on Chip Designs. it will answer the question and maybe some more. bryant {seismo,ihnp4,gatech,harvard}!ut-sally!oakhill!bryant or { }!sun!oakhill!bryant
jpm@quad1.UUCP (08/11/86)
> I agree 100% -- the OS9/68K support for the ST is way overpriced, > especially compared to Tandy's pricing on 6809 versions. OS9 royalties are based on how much money an OEM pays up front. The more you pay up front, the less each copy costs you. Tandy can afford to put out megabucks for the OS and langauges and then sell them cheaply. Smaller companies just don't have the resources to do that (it would probably be a bad idea even if they could, since I don't think 100,000 people would buy OS9/68K even at $100 a copy). -- John P. McNamee Quadratron Systems Inc. UUCP: {sdcrdcf|ttdica|scgvaxd|mc0|bellcore|logico|ihnp4}!psivax!quad1!jpm ARPA: jpm@BNL.ARPA
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/11/86)
> Xref: cbmvax net.micro.6809:186 net.micro:1300 net.micro.atari16:1502 net.micro.amiga:2102 > >>Has TRS announced an MMU chip for the CoCo-III? Last I heard, none of the >>6809 suppliers (Motorola, Hitachi, etc.) had. > > I assume that you must be disqualifying the 6829 (or was it the 6839) > memory management chip for some reason. This chip provided expanded > memory and protection for multiple processes on the 6809. It's also > cheap (about $5 a piece). I had heard that they were dropped. But I've heard more on the CoCo-III; they are using a custom glue chip that does the video display and the memory mapping. The best information says that this chip manages 512K bytes of memory in 8K segments, compatible with the OS-9 specifications for memory management (level II). > The figuring is that why should you stifle yourself with an 8-bit > processor and banking memory when for close to the same money you can > go with a 68008, use your 8-bit peripherals, have a 20-bit linear > address space and the 68000 instruction set. Why not buy a 68000 (for around $5 a piece), use your 8-bit peripherals, have a 24-bit linear address space, a 16 bit data bus, and the 68000 instruction set? A good deal, for the price of a discontinued MMU chip. > -- > Jeff Lee > CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA > uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/11/86)
> Xref: cbmvax net.micro.6809:189 net.micro:1303 net.micro.atari16:1512 net.micro.amiga:2113 > > Yes, I REALLY wish the Coco3 had 384-400 vertical lines. > Personally, I rate resolution more important than palette size, > tho you're right, it's almost a waste of analog RGB to skimp on it. Resolution and palette are often used as substitutes for one-another when displaying images, as any MAC or hi-res ST user can tell you. > Of course we know the 68K machines are better in every way than the MSDOS > biz boxes. It's just that the 3-piece suit types who define the "real > world" don't see it that way. Fortunately biz types are finding how useful > color graphics and mouse pointing can be. Though some places you can't buy anything except a PC. There are actually aftermarket 68000 boards that fit in a PC case and replace the ENTIRE motherboard. That's so engineers, etc., can get the order for a PC through purchasing, and the 68000 board as simply an "add-on". The suits are wasting too much money with the IBM-only attitude; hopefully that won't last much longer. > I'm glad you appreciate the 6809 so highly. Interesting idea, putting > segment registers in it, tho the opcodes are long enuf already. I've been working with 8-bitters too long not to appreciate it. > >> Of course, all of the 68000 machines >> will be able to run UNIX quite nicely, along with OS-9 68K, the version of >> OS-9 for grownups. > That's U**X without MMU or protection, as has been argued to death > already. The Coco3 will do a safer job on OS9 Level II than the > Amiga or ST can on U**X. Of course OS9/68K is better than 6809 versions, > tho many of the improvements could be retrofit into 6809 versions, > given the extra memory now available. The Amiga could easily use either Motorola 68000 family MMU, or a custom MMU, if hardware protection is required. And a 68010 would really help things along. >> Your're right on the code compactness. Much of the size of the >> code will depend on whether a compiler or an assembler is used and if a >> compiler, how efficient it is. > Boy is that the truth! 6809 OS9 was written in assembler, much of > 68K in C, and it shows in the code size. > >> Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh > -- > Mike J Knudsen / \ ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen > / NO \ > Bell Labs / BABY \ (312)-979-4132 (work) > (AT & T) /ON BOARD\ > \GO AHEAD/ BORED SAILORS > IH 6D-319 \ & HIT/ go BOARDSAILING. > x4132 \ ME / > \ / > Bell Labs pays \/ me for my thoughts; my opinions are al mine! -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/