TCORAM@UDCVAX.BITNET (maroC ddoT) (03/06/88)
Aside from the RTX slant of the Multitasking discussion...what exactly makes
a ST a ST? I mean, is a ST without GEM/GEMDOS/TOS still a ST?
I want multitasking, but I STILL like my ST. I don't want an Amiga....
Lots of Amiga owners seem to be posting the 'AMIGA does this...' type of
messages to this digest. Sure, the AMIGA has a better OS than the ST
(who doesn't? ;-), but a machine is NOT tied to an OS. If you don't like
TOS, through IT away (not your machine). What all my soapboxing is leading
to is this:
Can anybody post reasonable descriptions of OS alternatives to TOS?
Like OS-9, MINIX, etc...??
Which brings me to a few questions:
Just how UNIX compatible is the C compiler for OS-9 with UNIX? They say they
are source compatible in thier ads... Does this mean I can REALLY port C
stuff (forking and all) to OS-9? Or is it just 'file' function compatible
with UNIX (as is most decent C compilers seem to be)?
I am thinking about OS-9 (68 Micro Journal is talking about covering STs now).
I seem to get the feeling that quite a few people out there waiting for MINIX
for the ST (it is coming in late spring) expect more of it than what it will
probally deliver. If it is anything like the implementation on the IBM PC,
then it will not be *THE* multitasking OS for all ST users. MINIX is great
for experimenting and playing with, but it will probally never become the
standard multitasking OS for the ST that everyone is looking for.
MINIX will probally be for hacking (I can't wait to get a copy ;-)...
What do you think?
BTW, this wasn't meant to be a FLAME on anyone or any machine... I work with
AMIGA fanatics, ST fanatics and (ugh) PC fanatics and they weren't offended
or outraged by anything I have said. ;-)
(If I say that I don't want an Amiga, or think that thier OS is unreliable
and buggy, will I be flamed on INFO-ATARI by Amiga owners??????)
_____________________________________________________________
| maroC ddoT | Todd Coram |
| tcoram@udcvax.bitnet | tentib.xavcdu@maroct |
| remmargorP | Programmer |
| retneC retupmoC cimedacA CDU | UDC Academic Computer Center |
|_____________________________________________________________|
"Put a quarter in the juke; boogie 'till ya puke."rosenkra@Alliant.COM (Bill Rosenkranz) (03/07/88)
regarding Minix, OS-9, etc. do these OS alternatives still support GEM AES/VDI calls or do they puntaes() (or equiv) during bootup? can i still execute the gulam equiv of "gem mygem.prg" from them? this seems critical (i apologize if i missed a similar discussion). -bill
dale@slovax.UUCP (Dale L. Thomas) (03/08/88)
> regarding Minix, OS-9, etc. do these OS alternatives still support GEM > AES/VDI calls or do they puntaes() (or equiv) during bootup? can i still > execute the gulam equiv of "gem mygem.prg" from them? this seems critical > (i apologize if i missed a similar discussion). > > -bill Idris supports some of the VDI calls. Any that do line drawing are supported. The AES is not supported since AES and the Idris kernal contend with one another. I can not speak for OS-9 and Minix but would assume they can not provide AES support either. -- {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!dale : {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!dale Dale Thomas R & D Associates,3625 Perkins Lane SW,Tacoma,Wa 98499,206-581-1322
iwml@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (Lambert) (03/09/88)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <1350@alliant.Alliant.COM> rosenkra@alliant.UUCP (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: >regarding Minix, OS-9, etc. do these OS alternatives still support GEM >AES/VDI calls or do they puntaes() (or equiv) during bootup? can i still >execute the gulam equiv of "gem mygem.prg" from them? this seems critical >(i apologize if i missed a similar discussion). > >-bill If the PC-version of Minix is anything to go by, don't expect to run *any* current ST software under ST-Minix. The whole point of Minix is that it completely replaces the OS in the ROMS. It comes with a c compiler, but don't expect to find any TOS or GEM calls in there. Unless ST-Minix is going to radically change from the design decisions made in the PC-version, don't expect to run any commercial ST software under it. Any comment from the authors?
preston@felix.UUCP (Preston Bannister) (03/09/88)
From article <1350@alliant.Alliant.COM>, by rosenkra@Alliant.COM (Bill Rosenkranz): > regarding Minix, OS-9, etc. do these OS alternatives still support GEM > AES/VDI calls or do they puntaes() (or equiv) during bootup? can i still > execute the gulam equiv of "gem mygem.prg" from them? this seems critical > (i apologize if i missed a similar discussion). You've brought up a good point that may not have been clear to everyone reading this topic. The multi-tasking systems mentioned fall into two groups. Extensions to GEM (i.e. you can run GEM programs): RTX, MX2 (formerly AMULTI) Complete operating systems (i.e. no GEM): Minix, OS-9, Idris, ... -- Preston L. Bannister USENET : hplabs!felix!preston BIX : plb CompuServe : 71350,3505 GEnie : p.bannister
wes@wsccs.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (03/12/88)
In article <1350@alliant.Alliant.COM>, rosenkra@Alliant.COM (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: > regarding Minix, OS-9, etc. do these OS alternatives still support GEM > AES/VDI calls or do they puntaes() (or equiv) during bootup? I can't speak for OS-9, but Minix won't. Hopefully never. Perhaps a port of X-windows, which is the industry standard (hehe) windowing system for Unix (and VAX/VMS, too) could be done? X isn't the fastest system in the world, but it does have some nice features. -- /\ - " Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!utah-gr! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - uplherc!sp7040! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - obie!wes
dale@slovax.UUCP (Dale L. Thomas) (03/18/88)
> In article <1350@alliant.Alliant.COM>, rosenkra@Alliant.COM (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: > > regarding Minix, OS-9, etc. do these OS alternatives still support GEM > > AES/VDI calls or do they puntaes() (or equiv) during bootup? > > I can't speak for OS-9, but Minix won't. Hopefully never. Perhaps a port > of X-windows, which is the industry standard (hehe) windowing system for > Unix (and VAX/VMS, too) could be done? X isn't the fastest system in the > world, but it does have some nice features. > > -- > /\ - " Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! > /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!utah-gr! > / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - uplherc!sp7040! > / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - obie!wes I know for a fact that X windows runs under Idris on the ST. I have seen and played with it! Hopefully it will be available soon. I don't think OS-9 or Minix can support X, you need BSD sockets. The Idris kernel had sockets written for it to support X. Also Idris supports VDI and LineA calls, but not AES. Check it out! -- {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!dale : {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!dale Dale Thomas R & D Associates,3625 Perkins Lane SW,Tacoma,Wa 98499,206-581-1322