steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) (09/10/85)
...
....
In response to the request for general info on OS9 ... a MC68xxx O/S ...
- See Usenet group net.micro.6809 ... there's a buncha OS9 fans there,
especially Peter Dibble.
A brief discussion of OS-9:
o Authored by Microware Systems Corp, Des Moines, Iowa
o It's about 5 years old, starting out as a spin-off from a contract
between Microware and Motorola. Mot. was looking for a super-BASIC
and an O/S to exploit the superb architecture of the MC6809.
o OS-9 exists in three flavors:
- Level I for 8-bit sytems using 64K on CPUs having a 6809
- Level II, same but has bank-switching for up to 1MB on 6809s
- Level I for 680x0 machines with large memories (>=256K?)
o Key features:
- Costs about 1/8 of Unix
- Small, assembly-lang Kernel
- Reentrant & position-independent code everwhere which makes
multiuser and multitasking practical on < $5K computers
- Concurrent, priortized processes similar to Unix
- Tree-structured file system directories with long file names
- Pipes & some of Unix's signals like quit, abort, send_signal
- Interrupt driven scheduler and I/O drivers
- Loadable device drivers and dynamic extensions to the O/S
- Numerous Unix-like utilities; not as many as Unix though
- Reasonalby good interrupt latency and process switch times
- Microware's BASIC09 is noteworthy -- it's an incremental compiler
which is interactive, compiles to psuedocode, is FAST, and
sort of a merger of PASCAL's procedures and BASIC's easy debugging.
o Machines:
- Many (older) 6809s, eg., Southwest Technical, Gimix, Smoke
Signal, Hazlewood, Tandy Color Computer, Apple II w/add-in board.
- A (very) few retailed 68000 machines, eg., Smoke Signal,
Gimix, and perhaps two or so more.
- Supposedly more widely used as a real-time exec for controllers
I've used it for several years on 6809 machines and enjoyed it. I did`
a port of the Kernel to the upgraded Apple II -- it was fairly easy
because Microware's designers used some of the best design practices
and beautiful regularity I've ever seen. I have a 12MB hard disk
which has run under OS-9 (8-bit version) for 4 years without losing
a file. I can't say that for many others except DEC's RSX-11.
Because the code is reentrant (including BASIC09 and other applications)
and position-independent, you REALLY CAN run 2-3 users on a VERY inexpensive
machine .. so long as the users don't run many unique programs. EG., everyone
BBS'ing, editing or running BASIC09. I've even run three users on an Apple II
in BASIC09 --- it works so long as they use the floppy lightly.
Tandy sells it for their ($300) Color Computer ... it's a real
paradox in that (diminishing) market. Look for its manuals at your
nearby Tandy computer center.
The trouble (with OS9 for the 68000) is that it's not available on
a popular computer so there's never been any good non-system softare
so there's never been any users --- etc, etc, catch-22.
I considered going to OS9/68K until I spent a weekend with an AT&T
UNIX-PC. For < $5,000, that machine, with its bit-mapped graphics & Sys 5.2
just beats the heck out of any other high-end machine for the serious
hobbiest. Compare that machine to Smoke Signal's SS50 bus ( == no peripherals)
Regulus machine, or to Gimix's high-priced 68020 computer, or even to
(yech!) a PC/AT w/Xenix.
So in SUMMARY I'll editorialize:
OS9-6809 is the best small-computer O/S I've seen but
it has never gained popularity to attract software houses.
OS9-68000 is better than the 8-bit version (I've heard), but
is encumbered even moreso than its 8-bit predecessor.
Microware advertises in "Mini-Micro Systems", "Unix World", and ?
Microware's ads speak of several new manufacturers incorporation
of OS9/68K and announcements Real Soon Now. (Kudos to Jerry).
Personally, I don't suggest holding your breath!
Send out a CQ on net.micro.6809 for more info. I wrote several related
articles published in "Micro" magazine (now defunct) in '83 (or was it
'84?). Also wrote a big article in Kilobaud Microcomputing on a disk
device driver for OS9.
Hope this helps those curious about OS-9.
Regards,
Steve Childress
Eaton IMS R&D Group MS 43
31717 La Tienda Drive
Westlake Village, CA 91360
(818) 889-2211 X2148
{trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex} !wlbr!steve
or ...wlbr!wlbreng1!stevesean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (09/16/85)
Flame on!
OS9 has a real problem, and it's not in the software, but with the management.
Microware will not release source code to OS9, not even to developers! I find
this apalling, and it is probably one of the main reasons that OS9 is not more
popular than it is. They have really stuck it to themselves there, because
AT&T is starting to push SysV for the 68000, for which you can get source code.
I realize that OS9 and SysV are different products. Their target markets are
considerably different at the ends, but have a large overlap in the middle.
If Microware wants a good share of that middle, they are going to have to give
the developers a means to practically support the product. Otherwise, well,
I told you so!
Flame off.
--
- Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or
- Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
- University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPAdavid@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (09/16/85)
In article <2193@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: >Flame on! >... >I realize that OS9 and SysV are different products. Their target markets are >considerably different at the ends, but have a large overlap in the middle. >If Microware wants a good share of that middle, they are going to have to give >the developers a means to practically support the product. Otherwise, well, >I told you so! Sean, Sean, Sean, please be careful, the last time you flamed you totally melted a keyboard. And on your salary .... :-) Seriously... My experience with OS-9 (COCO) was that it was small enough that one could disassemble it and stare at it for a few days and understand it. In fact, the RS OS-9 manual set is almost good enough for that understanding as is. (It documents the internal data structures and such well enough that it's just a little thinking before you understand the system). Maybe once you actually started using the code it acts different. (I've not had much chance to play with it because I've only got one disk drive). I'm curious about one thing ... Does Microsoft distribute MSDOS source code to developers? Or just some fancy documentation? What exactly does Microware distribute for OS-9 developers? -- --- David Herron --- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA --- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david --- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david Hackin's in me blood. My mother was known as Miss Hacker before she married!
dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) (09/17/85)
> Flame on! > > OS9 has a real problem, and it's not in the software, but with the management. > Microware will not release source code to OS9, not even to developers! I find > - Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or Microware has incomplete source packages available for OS-9. For OS-9/68K you can buy a portpack which includes all the system dependant code and some of the other stuff. Everyone I know with a real need and a willingness to sign a non-disclosure agreement has been able to get any source they need from Microware.
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (09/18/85)
A quick correction: In article <347@wlbr.UUCP> steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) writes: >o OS-9 exists in three flavors: > - Level I for 8-bit sytems using 64K on CPUs having a 6809 > - Level II, same but has bank-switching for up to 1MB on 6809s > - Level I for 680x0 machines with large memories (>=256K?) Actually, Level I for 680x0 machines recommends a minimum of 128K of user RAM) (256K is recommended) for general user purposes; however, since you could put the entire OS-9 operating system in ROM and only have enough RAM for OS-9 uses, this could be smaller for special applications. A small ROM-based control system running OS-9 could (according to the manuals) get by with 32K RAM. Anyone wanting more information on OS-9 should drop a line to: Andy Ball Microware Systems Corporation 1866 NW 114th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50322 >From the looks of things, I don't think it'd be tough to port OS-9 to an Amiga.... "For I perceive that behind this seemingly unrelated sequence of events, there lurks a singular, sinister attitude of mind." "Whose?" "MINE! HA-HA!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) (09/19/85)
..
..
Someone griped that OS9 suffered because Microware does not release
source to OS9 and this inhibits its success. I differ:
OS9 is hyper-modular, eg, the components of OS9 are bound at RUN-TIME,
not link-time or compile-time. This sounds screwey, but I can attest
from 1st-hand experience for several years that it IS practical and
works VERY well.
Because of this modularization, a "port" of OS9 (at least the 6809 version)
requires surgery to only about two of the dozen or so component modules.
For example, the file management system (RBF) is wholly independent of
disk and tape device drivers. Thus, to adapt OS9, one does not touch RBF.
In fact, one does not have the source to RBF. But Microware (used to, and
I assume still does) makes the source to the machine-dependent parts of the
Kernel and I/O drivers available at nominal cost. I recall that they even
offered the source to the mini-shell at low cost.
In summary, OS9's cult status is truth, but not because of restricted source.
And lastly, I doubt the correctness of the statement that Microware doesn't
offer the source to developers ... they no doubt offer it to OEMs. An
applications software developer doesn't need source. And havoc would arise
if source were widely available.
Is Microware's rep still listening to net.micro.6809? Any comment? Re 68K?
Regards,
Steve Childress
Eaton IMS R&D Group MS 43
31717 La Tienda Drive
Westlake Village, CA 91360
(818) 889-2211 X2148
{trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex} !wlbr!steve
or ...wlbr!wlbreng1!steverb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (09/20/85)
> In response to the request for general info on OS9 ... a MC68xxx O/S ... > A brief discussion of OS-9: > > o Authored by Microware Systems Corp, Des Moines, Iowa > o It's about 5 years old, starting out as a spin-off from a contract > between Microware and Motorola. Mot. was looking for a super-BASIC > and an O/S to exploit the superb architecture of the MC6809. > o OS-9 exists in three flavors: > - Level I for 8-bit sytems using 64K on CPUs having a 6809 > - Level II, same but has bank-switching for up to 1MB on 6809s > - Level I for 680x0 machines with large memories (>=256K?) > Tandy sells it for their ($300) Color Computer ... it's a real ^^^^ the computer, not OS-9 > paradox in that (diminishing) market. Look for its manuals at your > nearby Tandy computer center. > The trouble (with OS9 for the 68000) is that it's not available on > a popular computer so there's never been any good non-system softare > so there's never been any users --- etc, etc, catch-22. Neither was CP/M 68K (re: TOS) until about two weeks ago. Intuition is a real commonly used OS around here? (I guess MS-DOS was a household word before the PC!!!) > I considered going to OS9/68K until I spent a weekend with an AT&T > UNIX-PC. For < $5,000, that machine, with its bit-mapped graphics & Sys 5.2 ^^^^^ > just beats the heck out of any other high-end machine for the serious > hobbiest. $5000 for a hobby machine?!!! (Wouldn't you rather have a buick?) > So in SUMMARY I'll editorialize: > > OS9-6809 is the best small-computer O/S I've seen but > it has never gained popularity to attract software houses. There is an awfull lot of "basic-09" and OS-9 code on radio-shack bulletin boards, much of it source. Since CoCo owners tend to get no software support from RS, OS-9 is the only way to get much of anything for it. (See earlier article about buying ROM to Throw it away (AMIGA DOS NOT IN ROM??)) I even remember seeing one called GKS.OS9 or something like that. This is one of the few systems where you can sell a LIBRARY! There is also some "C" stuff. Porting would involve expanding screen widths (CoCo uses 256x190 graphics or 32x16 text), or you could put them in windows. OS-9 uses a library of graphics commands similar to extended BASIC (GWBASIC to IBM'ers), which can be used from C or BASIC-09. Since I haven't got a GEM guide handy, maybe someone will tell me if there is something BASIC can do that GEM can't? I would guess that GEM could be called instead of a run-time library. If GEM can do more, great!!
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (09/23/85)
(Pardon the flames, this got a little hotter than I expected) In article <360@wlbr.UUCP> steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) writes: >And lastly, I doubt the correctness of the statement that Microware doesn't >offer the source to developers ... they no doubt offer it to OEMs. An >applications software developer doesn't need source. And havoc would arise >if source were widely available. Don't doubt it. A friend of mine recently received their brochure for developers, which contained information about OS9 and detailed prices and availability of port packs. Nowhere did they make even the slightest mention of source code. If, as Mr. Childress states, they do actively support developers by releasing source code, then why does this document not even mention it? Statements such as they "no doubt offer it to OEMs" should be researched before they are presented as an argument. "No doubt" is an oxymoron, for it in itself states lack of knowledge. I would like to be proved wrong in this case, but not with heresay. Sean -- - Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or - Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean - University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) (09/25/85)
>OS9 has a real problem, and it's not in the software, but with the management. >Microware will not release source code to OS9, not even to developers! I find >this apalling, and it is probably one of the main reasons that OS9 is not more >popular than it is. They have really stuck it to themselves there, because >AT&T is starting to push SysV for the 68000, for which you can get source code. According to the licensing information I got from MicroWare about 6 months ago, full source code is provided to OEMs who purchase a high volume distribution license. You must also realize that OS9 source code isn't as necessary as Unix source code. It is possible to bring up OS9 on a totally new system without sources. It is also possible to extend the kernel without source code (i.e. you should be able to do NFS for OS9 without kernal sources). This is not to say that sources aren't a good thing to have (I would sure want them), but that they aren't as essential for OS9 as they are for Unix. But they are available, so this whole discussion is moot. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA "MS-DOS is a communist plot"
kim@mcrware.UUCP (Kim Kempf) (09/25/85)
> In article <360@wlbr.UUCP> steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) writes: > >And lastly, I doubt the correctness of the statement that Microware doesn't > >offer the source to developers ... they no doubt offer it to OEMs. An > >applications software developer doesn't need source. And havoc would arise > >if source were widely available. > > Don't doubt it. A friend of mine recently received their brochure for > developers, which contained information about OS9 and detailed prices > and availability of port packs. Nowhere did they make even the slightest > mention of source code. If, as Mr. Childress states, they do actively > support developers by releasing source code, then why does this document > not even mention it? > Steve's comments are exactly correct. An application developer does not need the full OS-9 source code to develop an application. Full source code is available for OEM that require it. For an application developer, many sources of technical information are available (mostly from Microware). Also, application developers can obtain free access to the Microware Technical Hotline Support Service. This service allows a user seeking technical advice to talk directly to a Microware software engineer. > Statements such as they "no doubt offer it to OEMs" should be researched > before they are presented as an argument. "No doubt" is an oxymoron, for > it in itself states lack of knowledge. I would like to be proved wrong in > this case, but not with heresay. Sorry, Sean. Microware does offer source code to OEM's. Consider this information as coming directly from the horses ..'er mouth... ------------------------------------------- Kim Kempf R & D Manager Microware Systems Corporation Des Moines, Iowa 50322 {{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}/
dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) (09/25/85)
> (Pardon the flames, this got a little hotter than I expected) > > In article <360@wlbr.UUCP> steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) writes: > >And lastly, I doubt the correctness of the statement that Microware doesn't > >offer the source to developers ... they no doubt offer it to OEMs. An > >applications software developer doesn't need source. And havoc would arise > >if source were widely available. > > Don't doubt it. A friend of mine recently received their brochure for > developers, which contained information about OS9 and detailed prices > and availability of port packs. Nowhere did they make even the slightest > mention of source code. If, as Mr. Childress states, they do actively > support developers by releasing source code, then why does this document > not even mention it? > > Statements such as they "no doubt offer it to OEMs" should be researched > before they are presented as an argument. "No doubt" is an oxymoron, for > it in itself states lack of knowledge. I would like to be proved wrong in > this case, but not with heresay. > > Sean > -- Here are the facts from the Microware OEM price list: For low volume OEMs, source code for the modules required for installation is included with the license. This includes kernel, clock, and I/O drivers. Source for other modules and programming languages will be quoted on request. For medium or high volume OEMS or in-house licenses, all OS-9 source is included. Source for programming languages is available for extra $$. This information is current as of 8.1.84
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/29/85)
In article <2198@ukma.UUCP> david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) writes: >In article <2193@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: >>Flame on! >>... >>I realize that OS9 and SysV are different products. Their target markets are >>considerably different at the ends, but have a large overlap in the middle. >>If Microware wants a good share of that middle, they are going to have to give >>the developers a means to practically support the product. Otherwise, well, >>I told you so! > >Sean, Sean, Sean, please be careful, the last time you flamed you totally >melted a keyboard. And on your salary .... :-) > >Seriously... My experience with OS-9 (COCO) was that it was small enough >that one could disassemble it and stare at it for a few days and understand >it. In fact, the RS OS-9 manual set is almost good enough for that >understanding as is. (It documents the internal data structures and such >well enough that it's just a little thinking before you understand the >system). > >Maybe once you actually started using the code it acts different. (I've >not had much chance to play with it because I've only got one disk drive). > >I'm curious about one thing ... Does Microsoft distribute MSDOS source >code to developers? Or just some fancy documentation? > >What exactly does Microware distribute for OS-9 developers? >-- >--- David Herron >--- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA >--- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david >--- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david > >Hackin's in me blood. My mother was known as Miss Hacker before she married! Ummm. Guys, it'd be nice to have more Amiga stuff than OS-9 stuff 'here'. I *would* like to see OS-9 on Amiga and ST-520, but unless someone is going to say "I'm going to port OS-9 to the Amiga", I'd think most people would rather hear what the Amiga does. OS-9 has it's own net. Anyway, you don't need source to develop for OS-9. The only time you need source is when the system doesn't work as specified (a known flaw of *Unix* not OS-9 -- OS-9 works). The documentation available for OS-9 (full manuals cost $40.00 from Microware, so you can buy them and find out pretty much everything) is quite adequate. To quote the OS-9 Tech manual: "All system calls are executed via an SWI2 instruction. 1. Load the 6809 register with any appropriate parameters. 2. Execute a SWI2 instruction, followed immediately by a constant byte, which is the request code. 3. After OS-9 processes the call, it returns any param- eters in the 6809 register. If an error occurred, the C bit of the Condition Code Register is set, and Acc- umulator B contains the appropriate error code. This permits a BCS or BCC instruction immediately following the system call to branch on error/no error." Each call is documented with all the necessary information. And, no, Microsoft won't give you MS-DOS source-code either and yes, you can disassemble OS-9 modules and system calls *iff* you get a disassembler which is extra cost, but fairly cheaply had, especially from 2nd sources. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/29/85)
In article <272@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >> In response to the request for general info on OS9 ... a MC68xxx O/S ... >> A brief discussion of OS-9: >> >> Tandy sells it for their ($300) Color Computer ... it's a real > ^^^^ the computer, not OS-9 >> paradox in that (diminishing) market. Look for its manuals at your Nobody has accurate figures on Color Computer sales. I suspect the conclusion that the market is shrinking is right, but Tandy only knows. There are rumours of a new computer coming out in the next year, but then again, there were rumours a year ago too. In fact the parts of one computer that was *almost* marketted are now being sold for the CoCo in some US stores. >> nearby Tandy computer center. > >> The trouble (with OS9 for the 68000) is that it's not available on >> a popular computer so there's never been any good non-system softare >> so there's never been any users --- etc, etc, catch-22. What?!!! There's Stylograph (word processor w/mail merge & spelling checker, DynaCalc (spread sheet) and Sculptor (applications generator which you can consider as taking the place of a dBASEIII). This is all that a *lot* of people *ever* use. These are just the ones that I know about too, there are probably more that I don't know about. There is a rich and growing public domain, as you mention later, specifically for OS-9, and the 'C' compiler will translate many Unix calls, making the general public domain 'C' programs and especially the Unix programs fairly readily available. The Pascal should be able to handle a lot of Public Domain programs as well. T.G. Lewis' "Microbook" database manager should work fine, because it comes with an ASCII source file (I can read single sided IBM PC formatted discs on my Color Computer under OS-9 using a utility called 'PCread' and write single sided PC disks with 'PCwrite'). > >Neither was CP/M 68K (re: TOS) until about two weeks ago. >Intuition is a real commonly used OS around here? >(I guess MS-DOS was a household word before the PC!!!) > >> I considered going to OS9/68K until I spent a weekend with an AT&T >> UNIX-PC. For < $5,000, that machine, with its bit-mapped graphics & Sys 5.2 > ^^^^^ >> just beats the heck out of any other high-end machine for the serious >> hobbiest. > > $5000 for a hobby machine?!!! (Wouldn't you rather have a buick?) > >> So in SUMMARY I'll editorialize: >> >> OS9-6809 is the best small-computer O/S I've seen but >> it has never gained popularity to attract software houses. > >There is an awfull lot of "basic-09" and OS-9 code on radio-shack bulletin >boards, much of it source. Since CoCo owners tend to get no software >support from RS, OS-9 is the only way to get much of anything for it. >(See earlier article about buying ROM to Throw it away (AMIGA DOS NOT IN ROM??)) >I even remember seeing one called GKS.OS9 or something like that. >This is one of the few systems where you can sell a LIBRARY! > >There is also some "C" stuff. Porting would involve expanding screen >widths (CoCo uses 256x190 graphics or 32x16 text), or you could put them >in windows. OS-9 uses a library of graphics commands similar to >extended BASIC (GWBASIC to IBM'ers), which can be used from C or BASIC-09. Most OS-9'ers, including Color Computer OS-9'er (such as myself) have hardware 80 column displays. In fact, my scroll rate is faster than an IBM-PC (due to dedicated RAM and a 6845 with it's own clock), I also have smooth scroll, redefinable charactersets, horizontal redefinition (I haven't tried 132 columns but apparently I can do this too), and possibly high-res graphics (black & white) beyond 256 * 192. We also have hard disk systems available. In fact, as a practical matter, OS-9 is better for systems of say 20 meg. than real Unix due to code efficiency and less online surplussage. Putting it into scale, I run 1 meg. online (3 double sided, double density, 40 track floppies) and don't find it enough. I could go 80 track, but really I should get a hard disk of about 10 - 20 meg. I doubt if anyone here is surprised. > >Since I haven't got a GEM guide handy, maybe someone will tell me if >there is something BASIC can do that GEM can't? I would guess that >GEM could be called instead of a run-time library. If GEM can do more, >great!! Huh? GEM isn't a language. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (09/30/85)
In article <129@mcrware.UUCP> kim@mcrware.UUCP (Kim Kempf) writes: >Sorry, Sean. Microware does offer source code to OEM's. Consider this >information as coming directly from the horses ..'er mouth... > >Kim Kempf >R & D Manager >Microware Systems Corporation >Des Moines, Iowa 50322 No need to be sorry. I'm glad to see that Microware is supporting their customers that might have need to modify OS9 for their needs. I would like to suggest that you include this fact in your information brochures. Sean -- - Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or - Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean - University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/02/85)
This is the only way I know how to
post new information (via 'f') so I
hope everyone'll excuse me for using
this function to make this announcement.
The Byte Information eXchange is
currently undergoing Beta Testing.
A small number of people can still join
and have free online time. In part-
ticular, I'm hoping to recruit OS-9'ers
in order to build up a body of discus-
sion and information on the OS-9
operating system. Please contact me
via 'mail' for details. Time's short.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
Compuserve: 72205,541
MTS at WU: GKL6rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (10/04/85)
> >Since I haven't got a GEM guide handy, maybe someone will tell me if > >there is something BASIC can do that GEM can't? I would guess that > >GEM could be called instead of a run-time library. If GEM can do more, > >great!! > > Huh? GEM isn't a language. > > > > -- > James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto > ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Let me clarify this (sorta). Basic for the Coco has some nice graphics routines (plot, line, fill...) as part of the ROM, could Basic-09 call Gem routines, or are their equivelant VDI routines available in OS-9. By the way, thanks for the list of application software.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/07/85)
In article <294@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >> >Since I haven't got a GEM guide handy, maybe someone will tell me if >> >there is something BASIC can do that GEM can't? I would guess that >> >GEM could be called instead of a run-time library. If GEM can do more, >> >great!! >> >> Huh? GEM isn't a language. >> >> >> >> -- >> James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto >> ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura > >Let me clarify this (sorta). Basic for the Coco has some nice graphics >routines (plot, line, fill...) as part of the ROM, could Basic-09 call >Gem routines, or are their equivelant VDI routines available in OS-9. > >By the way, thanks for the list of application software. BASIC09 comes with a graphics extension library called GFX which is called as a Procedure from BASIC09. There's no reason that GFX couldn't be redone for the Atari or any other machine, but subject to a caveat. The Color Computer GFX is oriented to the Color Computer's video chip's limits (4 color sets, 256 x 192 resolution also interfacing to Joystick is in GFX now that I'm mentioning it). The choice would have to be made whether to use the same parameters for portability or the relevant Atari parameters. Personally, I feel that GFX should be re-written to be NAPLPS based in instructions. The NAPLPS approach (hardware independent) is the best I've seen. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6