jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) (09/06/85)
> Actually, I'm surprised that the same thought didn't occur to the > developers of either (both) of the amiga or the 520ST. It would seem that > OS9/68K would be an ideal substrate for the 'visual/mac-type' user > interface that they provide. Does anybody know why they decided to "go > their own way" and develop custom OS's for their machines. The Amiga does run a custom operating system, but the ST runs GEMDOS which is available on more than just the ST (Northern Telcom has announced it is using it, others have licensed it but have not announced their product yet). DRI has Concurrent DOS almost finished, and GEM can sit on top of that for multitasking operation. My personal opinion is that the mass market does not need multitasking, and won't want to pay extra money to get it. As a programmer I want multitasking, but that doesn't mean the majority of people buying these types of systems do. > Are the OS9 > developers so unreasonable about relicensing that this was impossible? > Or is there something about OS9 that makes this less sensible than I think > it is? Microware is actually very good about licensing terms and prices. I don't know why Amiga doesn't run OS-9, but there is a reason the ST doesn't. Atari didn't want to finance the development of a totally new product. Microware has no windowing product for OS-9. DRI already had GEM running on the PC, so getting it up on the 68000 was a question of porting the code rather than starting from scratch. There is no reason a third party couldn't put OS-9 up on either the ST or Amiga. I know of one company that is looking at doing it for the ST right now. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA "MS-DOS is a communist plot"
dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) (09/08/85)
> > interface that they provide. Does anybody know why they decided to "go > > their own way" and develop custom OS's for their machines. > > didn't want to finance the development of a totally new product. Microware has > no windowing product for OS-9. DRI already had GEM running on the PC, so Microware does have a windowing product for OS-9. I have seen the Fujitsu FM 11 and 16 running it. It requires a memory mapped display which is why most OS-9 systems don't have it. I can only guess why Tandy doesn't use it for the CoCo.
clark@sdcsla.UUCP (Clark Quinn) (09/10/85)
> Microware does have a windowing product for OS-9.
There has been a lot of talk about OS9 as an operating system for the 68000,
but precious little detail about why OS9 is a good operating system. Could
someone briefly summarize the reason why there seems to be alot of interest in
this operating system? I am sure I am not the only one who has not heard of
it. Thanks in advance, -- Clark
Clark N. Quinn
Institute for Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093
(619) 452-2541 (UCSD): (619) 481-0952 (Home)
{ucbvax,decvax,akgua,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!clark OR clark@nprdcems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (09/12/85)
> ... My personal opinion is that the mass market does not > need multitasking, and won't want to pay extra money to get it. As a > programmer I want multitasking, but that doesn't mean the majority of people > buying these types of systems do. > My wife is not a 'computer type'. She has used both a Mac and a Lisa at work (at Apple...) and has complained to me that the Mac can't print while editing, etc. while the Lisa can. I think the average person DOES need multitasking, they just don't know it by that name. Try asking some friends if they would like their computer to be able to print and chew gum at the same time ... -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
connery@bnrmtv.UUCP (Glenn Connery) (09/13/85)
> > Actually, I'm surprised that the same thought didn't occur to the > > developers of either (both) of the amiga or the 520ST. It would seem that > > OS9/68K would be an ideal substrate for the 'visual/mac-type' user > > interface that they provide. Does anybody know why they decided to "go > > their own way" and develop custom OS's for their machines. > > The Amiga does run a custom operating system, but the ST runs GEMDOS which > is available on more than just the ST (Northern Telcom has announced it is > using it, others have licensed it but have not announced their product yet). > DRI has Concurrent DOS almost finished, and GEM can sit on top of that for > multitasking operation... Are you suggesting that GEM and Concurrent DOS can be used together on the IBM PC? Given that Concurrent DOS takes 180K of memory, and that you must set up a partition with at least 220K to run GEM Desktop, you can barely run two copies of GEM Desktop in a fully loaded IBM PC. Since the 220K figure grows to 256K or greater to run actual applications under GEM, like GEM Draw, you can see why I am skeptical... Given that IBM has (a) just signed a working agreement with Microsoft, (b) IBM has retracted its original statement about selling GEM and ConcDos, (c) Microsoft has released a "fully-functional" DOS 4.0 to OEMs, do you really want to suggest that the presence of ConcDos on the IBM PC matters one iota? ...Glenn
jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) (09/25/85)
>>... My personal opinion is that the mass market does not >>need multitasking, and won't want to pay extra money to get it. As a >>programmer I want multitasking, but that doesn't mean the majority of people >>buying these types of systems do. > >My wife is not a 'computer type'. She has used both a Mac and a Lisa >at work (at Apple...) and has complained to me that the Mac can't >print while editing, etc. while the Lisa can. I think the average >person DOES need multitasking, they just don't know it by that name. > >Try asking some friends if they would like their computer to be able >to print and chew gum at the same time ... Printing while doing something else is best calling SPOOLING, and is not the same as the ability to run any arbitrary set of programs at the same time. Would your wife be willing to spend twice as much of her own money on a computer just to get multitasking? That is the real question. Multitasking is nice, but do the majority of people need it so badly that they will spend twice as much to get it? I don't think so. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA "MS-DOS is a communist plot"
jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) (09/25/85)
>>The Amiga does run a custom operating system, but the ST runs GEMDOS which >>is available on more than just the ST (Northern Telcom has announced it is >>using it, others have licensed it but have not announced their product yet). >>DRI has Concurrent DOS almost finished, and GEM can sit on top of that for >>multitasking operation... > >Are you suggesting that GEM and Concurrent DOS can be used together on the >IBM PC? Where did you get that idea? Read my message again and look at the newsgroups this is in. It should be obvious that I'm talking about the ST and not the PC. Concurrent DOS is available on the 68000 as well as the 286. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA "MS-DOS is a communist plot"
braun@drivax.UUCP (Karl Braun) (09/26/85)
> > > Actually, I'm surprised that the same thought didn't occur to the > > > developers of either (both) of the amiga or the 520ST. It would seem that > > > OS9/68K would be an ideal substrate for the 'visual/mac-type' user > > > interface that they provide. Does anybody know why they decided to "go > > > their own way" and develop custom OS's for their machines. > > > > The Amiga does run a custom operating system, but the ST runs GEMDOS which > > is available on more than just the ST (Northern Telcom has announced it is > > using it, others have licensed it but have not announced their product yet). > > DRI has Concurrent DOS almost finished, and GEM can sit on top of that for > > multitasking operation... > > Are you suggesting that GEM and Concurrent DOS can be used together on the > IBM PC? Given that Concurrent DOS takes 180K of memory, and that you must > set up a partition with at least 220K to run GEM Desktop, you can barely > run two copies of GEM Desktop in a fully loaded IBM PC. Since the 220K > figure grows to 256K or greater to run actual applications under GEM, like > GEM Draw, you can see why I am skeptical... Given that IBM has (a) just > signed a working agreement with Microsoft, (b) IBM has retracted its > original statement about selling GEM and ConcDos, (c) Microsoft has released > a "fully-functional" DOS 4.0 to OEMs, do you really want to suggest that > the presence of ConcDos on the IBM PC matters one iota? > > ...Glenn The marketing people at DRI have contributed to a great deal of confusion in debates of this sort. There are several versions of operating systems with the name "Concurrent Dos" (CDOS) attatched. CDOS/86 is what used to be called CCPM v3.1, v3.2, etc. This is the system which runs DOS apps as well as CPM apps, and is obviously not protected mode. The CDOS which is 'almost finished' is CDOS/286 and CDOS/68k which are protected mode systems, and obviously exclude the PC from it's target line (it does, of course, run on the PC/AT). When discussing attributs of "Concurrent Dos", it would be more meaningful and less confusing to use the terminology "CODS/{86,286,68k}". -- " I Can Play That Song In 3 notes, man " kral ihnp4!-------- \ mot! ---------- \ ucbvax!unisoft! > drivax!braun ucscc!--------- / amdahl!------- /
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/28/85)
In article <2011@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) writes: >> ... My personal opinion is that the mass market does not >> need multitasking, and won't want to pay extra money to get it. As a >> programmer I want multitasking, but that doesn't mean the majority of people >> buying these types of systems do. >> >My wife is not a 'computer type'. She has used both a Mac and a Lisa >at work (at Apple...) and has complained to me that the Mac can't >print while editing, etc. while the Lisa can. I think the average >person DOES need multitasking, they just don't know it by that name. > >Try asking some friends if they would like their computer to be able >to print and chew gum at the same time ... > >-- > >E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems > >This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but >not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) I doubt if this net should be used for polling, but there is *no* doubt that multi-tasking is wanted by any and all users of computers these days. Sometimes it may be hidden on the application level (such as music being played during a graphics realtime game) and sometimes people have it on the system level, but *all* users notice the difference and want it. It simply makes sense to put it on the system level where possible in order to derive maximum benefit. Cheers! -- Jim O. Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS: GKL6 -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (09/29/85)
In article <1005@bnl44.UUCP> jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) writes: >Printing while doing something else is best calling SPOOLING, and is not >the same as the ability to run any arbitrary set of programs at the same >time. Would your wife be willing to spend twice as much of her own money >on a computer just to get multitasking? That is the real question. >Multitasking is nice, but do the majority of people need it so badly that >they will spend twice as much to get it? I don't think so. Printing while doing something else is multitasking. Spooling isn't the operation of printing, it is the process of queueing files to print. -- - 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) (09/29/85)
In article <1005@bnl44.UUCP> jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) writes: >>>... My personal opinion is that the mass market does not >>>need multitasking, and won't want to pay extra money to get it. As a >>>programmer I want multitasking, but that doesn't mean the majority of people >>>buying these types of systems do. >> >>My wife is not a 'computer type'. She has used both a Mac and a Lisa >>at work (at Apple...) and has complained to me that the Mac can't >>print while editing, etc. while the Lisa can. I think the average >>person DOES need multitasking, they just don't know it by that name. >> >>Try asking some friends if they would like their computer to be able >>to print and chew gum at the same time ... > >Printing while doing something else is best calling SPOOLING, and is not >the same as the ability to run any arbitrary set of programs at the same Spooling is multi tasking. Especially when you are printing text you just finished editing from a word processor while you are updating your database manager. Sometimes multi-tasking is done on the application level, but it's more useful on the system *and* application levels combined. Know what the terminology you bandy about means. >time. Would your wife be willing to spend twice as much of her own money >on a computer just to get multitasking? That is the real question. Unless the Amiga or Atari come down in price to about $100.00, I don't see how multi-tasking *or even multi-user* could "double the price". See the postings on OS-9 and Unix by myself and others 'here'. >Multitasking is nice, but do the majority of people need it so badly that >they will spend twice as much to get it? I don't think so. >-- > > John McNamee Cheers! -- Jim O. BIX: jimomura Compuserve 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6 -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
hr@uicsl.UUCP (09/30/85)
<> RE: Multitasking yes or no, is it or isn't it? >>"Printing while doing something else is best calling SPOOLING,...." > "Printing while doing something else is multitasking..." Besides spooling printing, I'd love to be able to run KERMIT in the background while doing something else. Maybe, play an Infocom game while waiting for a large program to compile. harold ravlin {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uicsl!hr
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (10/01/85)
> In article <1005@bnl44.UUCP> jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) writes: > >Printing while doing something else is best calling SPOOLING, ... > > Printing while doing something else is multitasking. Spooling isn't the > operation of printing, it is the process of queueing files to print. > > - Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or SPOOL is an acronym for Simultaneous Peripheral Operation On-Line, and so does apply to printing while a(nother) program is running. (So it is a special case of multitasking- with only one user task, and the rest spool tasks, which can also include other operation of peripherals.) Because of this association, queueing files to disk to print is often also called "spooling" them. --henry schaffer ("not that even a small circle of friends would care")