UNCSPL@UNC.BITNET ("Scott P Leslie") (11/13/88)
Hi,
This is more about the TOS rewrite.
.
Why isn't MINIX a good idea? Because it costs money from what I hear
and the average ST user isn't going to want to pay $100 to get the
new TOS.
.
Here are some features that I would like to see:
.
- better support for hard drives
- networkable device drivers
- generalized math coprocessor support (not just the 68881)
- alternate screen support (such as the new 19" monochrome)
- mutitasking (true or juggling won't matter to me)
- much better memory management
- documented ways of doing certain things
(like changing the mouse pointer redraw routines, etc...)
.
Well, I could go on and I have a list somewhere of other things that
I have thought up over the years, but I won't bore you.
.
One thing that deserves attention now is the generalized math
coprocessor support. There should be a standard vector for
interrogating mc availability and access methods. If there was
then people without a mc would have a set of floating point routines
written in 68000 accessed by this vector. However, the people with
the math coprocessor would still get almost full speeed out of the
arrangement.
.
Scott P. Leslie (UNCSPL@UNC)
. Jax
(NEWD Software : Nothing Else Will DO)ugbernie@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Bernard Bediako) (11/14/88)
What about X11 or any version of X Windows?
Idris was supposed to have X Windows (10 ?)...
Minix with X would be very worthwhile. Does anyone know
if it's being worked on?
bernie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Bediako SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!ugbernie
Internet: ugbernie@cs.Buffalo.EDU BITNET: ugbernie@sunybcs.BITNET
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Bediako SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!ugbernie
Internet: ugbernie@cs.Buffalo.EDU BITNET: ugbernie@sunybcs.BITNET