SOFPJF@UOGUELPH.BITNET (Peter Jaspers-Fayer) (09/30/86)
Eric, you don't seem to realize: OS9 'IS AN OPERATING SYSTEM'. It's modules are all re-locatable, use OS9 I/O calls, and in short do not 'fit' onto GEM - NORMALLY. But I seem to recall (when I used my trusty old 6809 a lot more) that the assembler (and at least one C) could gen 'Native' code. But this made testing a pain, as you had to re-boot the old OS, run your code (if you were lucky you had a debugger), and then re-boot OS9 to re-EDIT, COMPILE, LINK... sad. In short, you stayed in OS9. But then the 'native' OS on the Tandy Color Computer with 64K (there I've admitted it!) was BASIC (yech), so it wasn't worth it. In short: When you boot OS9, you can still run BIOS, but you kiss TOS, and GEM goodbye (I think). And as you say, I doubt OS9 has the libraries. Now, weather the ST version of OS9 has a SIMILAR type of windowing and menu system... I don't know, havn't seen the ST version, and I don't know how far it has gotten in it's evolution. Comments anyone? /PJ
olson@endor.harvard.edu (Eric Olson) (09/30/86)
I realize that OS/9 is an operating system unto itself. The point is that GEM and VDI are not: they are acually libraries. It's still not clear to me whether they are in ROM on the ST or linked in with every application, but, regardless, OS/9 should be able to talk to these libraries. Theoretically code linked to access GEM/VDI (if such libraries existed) would still run if the program were run under TOS. The I/O, on the other hand, is more troublesome. I wasn't totally serious in asking such a thing, just wishful thinking. -Eric
braner@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (braner) (10/01/86)
[] I don't see why an ST implementation of OS9 couldn't include access to the GEM graphics routines (VDI, and perhaps parts of AES). These are in ROM anyway, might as well use them, or allow OS9 programs to use them. (Portability? Ever tried running a graphics program on an 'IBM-compatible' just to find out you've got the wrong graphics card? 'Compatibility' is a myth!) - Moshe Braner
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/03/86)
In article <1138@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> braner@batcomputer.UUCP (braner) writes: >[] > >I don't see why an ST implementation of OS9 couldn't include access >to the GEM graphics routines (VDI, and perhaps parts of AES). These >are in ROM anyway, might as well use them, or allow OS9 programs to >use them. (Portability? Ever tried running a graphics program on >an 'IBM-compatible' just to find out you've got the wrong graphics >card? 'Compatibility' is a myth!) >- Moshe Braner Actually, it's even easier than it looks. Both GEM and OS-9 use "vector tables" to access their "BIOS" routines. OS-9 could simply be an additional group of vector tables. OS-9 also has a nice capability in that it can use traps to access it's own, or somone elses routines. The basic ingredients of VDI are not that different, perhaps a few arguments would have to be moved from one place to another. As to 'IBM-compatible', anyone who has ever made a "plug compatible" accessory for IBM knows how risky a proposition this can be. I've worked for two different companies that stopped working for IBM when the risks didn't pay off. The main advantage of OS-9 is that object code compatibility can be obtained without even so much as re-compilation. Speed of execution might be a minor issue, but probably not significant with processors running nearly 1 mips, and actual bit-bumping being done by other chips.