pete@wlbreng1.UUCP (Pete Lyall) (01/14/87)
Well, well....
It appears that TLM going out of business turned out to be a
pseudo-blessing for the OS9/68000 users on the ATARI ST. The following
is a message left by Microware's (authors of OS9) Bill Moore on
CompuServe:
======================================================================
#: 38868 S13/Atari ST
12-Jan-87 10:48:41
Sb: Atari OS9 Support
Fm: B. Moore 73105,1265
To: All
.
MICROWARE ASSUMES SUPPORT OF OS-9/68000
FOR ATARI 520 AND 1040 ST PERSONAL COMPUTERS
.
Microware Systems Corporation will assume support for the Atari
ST version of OS-9/68000 Operating System. This software was
previously distributed by TLM Systems Inc., which has apparently
ceased doing business. Microware will provide interim support to
users who previously obtained the software from TLM.
.
Microware also plans to introduce Personal OS-9 Version 2.0 for
the Atari ST in the near future. This will be marketed directly
by Microware to Atari dealers and end-users. Those who
previously purchased the TLM package will be offered an
opportunity to upgrade at minimal cost.
.
In order to qualify for interim support service and the future
upgrade, Atari ST users should register with Microware as soon as
possible. As proof of purchase, both of the following items
should be sent to Microware:
.
(1) The greyfront cover of the OS-9/68000 User's Manual,
.
(2) A photocopy of the original OS-9 distribution diskette
as supplied by TLM to the customer.
.
These should be mailed to:
.
Microware Systems Corporation
Customer Support Department
1900 N.W. 114th Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50322
.
Microware intends to very actively support the Atari ST community
in the future with a wide variety of advanced system software,
programming languages, and software tools. We sincerely regret
any inconvenience the TLM situation may have caused to OS-9/Atari
ST Users.
==================================================================
--
Pete Lyall
Usenet: {trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex}!wlbr!wlbreng1!pete
Compuserve: 76703,4230 (OS9 SIG Sysop)
OS9 (home): (805)-985-0632 (24hr./1200 baud)
Phone: (818)-706-5693 (work 9-5 PST)
----------------------------------------------------------------------atwell@utah-cs.UUCP (Bart L. Atwell) (01/16/87)
Is there any information on how much OS-9 will cost from the new company? I remember the old price being pretty steep. Maybe OS-9 can solve the 40 folder situation! Bart
alexande@drivax.UUCP (01/20/87)
In article <4170@utah-cs.UUCP> atwell@utah-cs.UUCP (Bart L. Atwell) writes: >Maybe OS-9 can solve the 40 folder situation! I'm sure it can, but it wouldn't do you much good if you wanted OS/9 to be disk-file-system-compatible with TOS, which I doubt it is. (Can somebody verify this?) It also wouldn't do you much good if you still wanted to run your TOS/GEM programs, unless someone went to all the trouble of writing a TOS front end for OS/9 and ported all of GEM, which I also doubt. -- Mark Alexander ...{hplabs,ucbvax!decvax}!decwrl!pyramid!amdahl!drivax!alexande "This then is my story. I have reread it. It has bits of marrow sticking to it, and blood, and beautiful bright-green flies." --Nabokov
jtr485@umich.UUCP (01/27/87)
In article <797@drivax.UUCP>, alexande@drivax.UUCP writes: > In article <4170@utah-cs.UUCP> atwell@utah-cs.UUCP (Bart L. Atwell) writes: > >Maybe OS-9 can solve the 40 folder situation! > I'm sure it can, but it wouldn't do you much good if you wanted > OS/9 to be disk-file-system-compatible with TOS, which I doubt it is. > (Can somebody verify this?) WRONG! Even if it is disk compatible(which I doubt) the directory logging does not have to be the same. That 40 folder limit is a product of the op system IMPLEMENTATION not the file system. IBM PC's don't have that limit and the whole ST disk system is a bad crib of PC/MS-DOS (very bad crib!). > It also wouldn't do you much good if you still wanted > to run your TOS/GEM programs, unless someone went to all > the trouble of writing a TOS front end for OS/9 and ported > all of GEM, which I also doubt. So. You keep two systems for the machine. Big deal. Keep TOS/GEM to play games. Use OS9/68K to do everything else. If the price for ST OS9 was reasonable I would seriously recommend this to every ST owner and every new system purchaser. As it is, it is NOT reasonable! OS and REAL language cost more than the hardware--ouch! --j.a.tainter >Mark Alexander{hplabs,ucbvax!decvax}!decwrl!pyramid!amdahl!drivax!alexande
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (01/28/87)
In article <797@drivax.UUCP> alexande@drivax.UUCP (Mark Alexander) writes: >In article <4170@utah-cs.UUCP> atwell@utah-cs.UUCP (Bart L. Atwell) writes: >>Maybe OS-9 can solve the 40 folder situation! Yes, it does. >I'm sure it can, but it wouldn't do you much good if you wanted >OS/9 to be disk-file-system-compatible with TOS, which I doubt it is. Quite correct. The disk format is different but I'm not quite sure how important this is to you. For me it is getting less important constantly. The first problem I had was that I had no way to get *anything* from TOS to OS-9 or backwards. Now I can do it via an intermediate computer using Kermit. In a little while, I should be able to do it direct disk to disk by writing a TOS format driver under OS-9. This should be particularly simple since I Obviously just have to disassemble the TOS driver and re- assemble it with fairly minor changes under OS-9 (which comes with an assembler). For most purposes I'll also need a LineFeed stripper and a utility to add LF's after CR's because OS-9 only needs a CR for EOL. >It also wouldn't do you much good if you still wanted >to run your TOS/GEM programs, unless someone went to all >the trouble of writing a TOS front end for OS/9 and ported >all of GEM, which I also doubt. This may not be necessary. I found out recently from Avy Moise that OS-9 sits *beside* GEM in memory and doesn't overwrite the previously used memory. This has its advantanges and disadvantages. The advantage is that it should be fairly easy to write a utility which returns you to GEM intact at the point where OS-9 was called. Furthermore, it may be possible to run GEM under OS-9 with a relatively simple "utility". Ironically, what's proving to be more difficult for me right now is just disassembling an OS-9 driver. I won't go into that right now though. Let's just say it's not all that difficult, but I can't do it right now. Cheers! -- Jim O.