[net.micro.6809] OS-9 Topics for Discussion

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

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: GKL6

dibble@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 ***