csmith@student.ecok.edu (Smith Colin) (01/18/91)
In article <22@sandv.UUCP> Steve@sandv.UUCP (Steve Laisch) writes: >I called Frank Hogg Labratory the other day and asked about their TC9, it >seems that their WAY BEHIND schedule. They are not selling any models as I >was told. Basically, why would you want a TC9? Its basically a suped up CoCo >3 and doesnt seem worth it, which is besides the point, theirs no operating >system, or languages included! I am whole heartly after the MM/1 and its >powers, by the way, does any one know if the MM/1 can handle 38.4K? I heard >it could only handle 19.2K. Silly question, but 19.2K what? Colin J. Smith East Central State University, Ada, OK Email : csmith@student.ecok.edu CompuServe : 73777,1360 Delphi : MAELSTROM
Steve@sandv.UUCP (Steve Laisch) (01/22/91)
Sorry Colin.. I should of been more specific. I was talking in terms of BAUD rate. I am just suprised for a 15mhz monster that it couldnt handle a speed faster than 19.2K (or 14.4 for that matter :-) -- ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | "They just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and going, | | | | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Steve@Sandv<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< | | | | ...and going, and going, and going TILL THEY DRIVE YOU MAAAAAD!" | |___________________________________________________________________________|
halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) (02/04/91)
In article <22@sandv.UUCP>, Steve@sandv.UUCP (Steve Laisch) writes: > I called Frank Hogg Labratory the other day and asked about their TC9... > ...Basically, why would you want a TC9? Its basically a suped up CoCo > 3 and doesnt seem worth it, which is besides the point, theirs no operating > system, or languages included! I am whole heartly after the MM/1 and its > powers, by the way, does any one know if the MM/1 can handle 38.4K? I heard > it could only handle 19.2K. > > -- > ___________________________________________________________________________ > | | > | "They just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and going, | > | | > | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Steve@Sandv<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< | > | | > | ...and going, and going, and going TILL THEY DRIVE YOU MAAAAAD!" | > |___________________________________________________________________________| I dunno... depends... I'm a little disappointed with Frank on only a couple of points with the TC9... I was hoping for more than 2MHz on that 6809 box... I was wishing for 3MHz, but Oh Well.... that is about my only disappointment... This board would make upgrading the 3 nice... you get an immediate speedup from the hardware, although not alot... with the new Bruce Isted drivers, 19200 without dropping characters would be possible (I was running 2 9600 baud lines at full throughput on the 6809 without dropping characters without a problem... with any activity on the 6809 CPU besides multitasking OS9, I had problems doing 2 19.2KBaud lines... that extra .21 MHz would probably be the boost it needs to get over the edge and be successful... If a 68K board was dropped in, existing OS9 would get a boost without the need for 68K OS9... That, my friend, is the key... 6809 OS9 software is becoming available... GOOD 6809 RSDos software is becoming available monthly now... with 1Meg, packages already written in 6809 assembler which will never be ported (like Studio Works, Sound Trax, etc) will gain a little speed, double the memory, and be clear winners... I think if he would have designed it around a 3 MHz 6309 and 2 Meg expansion memory, the board would have been a clear winner giving a descent upgrade in throughput as well as memory... having the ability to boot the system at 1MHz, 2MHz and 3MHz would have definitely been a winner. Old hardware could be used and more advanced hardware which could handle the 3MHz clock rate would really fly... 6809 software being as efficient as it is would fly unlike anything you have ever seen... but alas, 3 MHz was NOT implemented, so I should get off my wishing box. Overall, it is a neat idea, may sell a enough to recoupt his development costs. It is not a bad machine, rather pretty interesting and a great idea. The new keyboard would help cut down CPU usage by not polling the keyboard, the serial port for the serial mouse would sap up less CPU time, pop a 68K in a KBus slot and get lightening fast block moves for graphic screens which scroll like hardware screens, and still having it compatable with the thousands of existing 6809 OS9 programs out there... well, that is not too shabby if you ask me... Lets say you tack on a 68030 card at 16 MHz and go fo OS968K... those lucky stiffs like me with an Eliminator would have just made themselves a 68K computer with 4 serial ports, d/a, a/d, 2 parallel ports, 16MHz 68030, 4 DS 1.44 Meg floppies, 3 120Meg hard drives... 640x225x4 or 320x225x16 color graphics on an analog RGB monitor- sure, slow down with memory and hard disk access, but once the memory boards are added on and populated, no more memory slowdown! (With 1 Meg of RAM on a CoCo3, my buddy Neil hardly EVER uses his hard drive...) When the 68040 board is released, drop one of those in... how about a VSC video card when one is released? How about using a VGA card in a PC-to-KBus adaptor card for some more resolution? I sort of like super VGA.... The point is the growth to a super powerful 68K machine is made more simply... as you upgrade, you can see off your old equipment to someone who is upgrading... With that 68030 card, SVGA, and memory cards, sell the TC9 and CoCo equipment for cheap-cheap and get the serial, floppy and hard drive ports (maybe singular CARD by then) you want. If you ask me, I think that old CoCo equipment will always be useful in that configuration since by that time, SOMEONE will figure out how to program the 6809 on the TC9 to be a smart serial/parallel server... or turn it into a smart Ethernet controller (using the 2 parallel ports, thus not taking up any 68K CPU time.) Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.... The more I think about the TC-9, the more excited I get about it! David J. Halko
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (02/11/91)
In article <2567@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: >I'm a little disappointed with Frank on only a couple of points with the >TC9... I was hoping for more than 2MHz on that 6809 box... I was wishing >for 3MHz, but Oh Well.... that is about my only disappointment... I'm disappointed by that, too. That means that the only respect in which a TC09 as such will run OS-9 faster than a CoCo 3 is that some of the device drivers won't have to go through bogosity such as the CoCo high-res mouse adapter (but there are already ways to hook up a serial mouse to a CoCo 3) or the keyboard matrix scan. >If a 68K board was dropped in, existing OS9 would get a boost without the >need for 68K OS9... Has FHL written the software needed for that? >That, my friend, is the key... 6809 OS9 software is becoming available... GOOD >6809 RSDos software is becoming available monthly now... with 1Meg, packages >already written in 6809 assembler which will never be ported (like Studio >Works, Sound Trax, etc) will gain a little speed, double the memory, and >be clear winners... How will non-OS-9 software gain speed? It's the software that will have to go through the I/O emulation rigamarole--each instruction that peeks and pokes at what are memory-mapped I/O addresses will be trapped and disassembled, and what the results would have been on a CoCo 3 figured out and emulated, so that, unless non-OS-9 software is converted, it will slow down when it does I/O, to some extent that I don't know, not having seen a running TC09. Every non-OS-9 program is a law unto itself, and would have to be individually converted to avoid the I/O emulation, aside from a couple of routines like POLCAT--is FHL going to supply patches for all those applications, or will CoCo software houses sell two versions of everything? (I wonder just how fast non-OS-9 CoCo terminal programs will run, with I/O emulation of the bit-banger pseudo-serial port.) James Jones
halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) (02/21/91)
In article <4996@mcrware.UUCP>, jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: > In article <2567@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: > >I'm a little disappointed with Frank on only a couple of points with the > >TC9... I was hoping for more than 2MHz on that 6809 box... I was wishing > >for 3MHz, but Oh Well.... that is about my only disappointment... > > I'm disappointed by that, too. That means that the only respect in > which a TC09 as such will run OS-9 faster than a CoCo 3 is that some of > the device drivers won't have to go through bogosity such as the CoCo > high-res mouse adapter (but there are already ways to hook up a serial > mouse to a CoCo 3) or the keyboard matrix scan. > > >If a 68K board was dropped in, existing OS9 would get a boost without the > >need for 68K OS9... > > Has FHL written the software needed for that? He should have... I would imagine routines requiring block moves on the 6809 would be the first thing to be replaced (instead of doing loops, pop through a 68K instruction) and minor stuff like that. Not very difficult, just needs to patch some video drivers, I would imagine.... > >That, my friend, is the key.. 6809 OS9 software is becoming available... GOOD > >6809 RSDos software is becoming available monthly now... with 1Meg, packages > >already written in 6809 assembler which will never be ported (like Studio > >Works, Sound Trax, etc) will gain a little speed, double the memory, and > >be clear winners... > > How will non-OS-9 software gain speed? It's the software that will have > to go through the I/O emulation rigamarole--each instruction that peeks > and pokes at what are memory-mapped I/O addresses will be trapped and > disassembled, and what the results would have been on a CoCo 3 figured > out and emulated, so that, unless non-OS-9 software is converted, it > will slow down when it does I/O, to some extent that I don't know, not > having seen a running TC09. Programs, like StudioWorks, should have little or no problems since it would need little modification to use the 8 bit D/A- it has the ability of using an 8 bit D/A converter, now, as an add on pak. If the 1 Meg is appealing enough (and he decides to purchase one for his CoCo3, soon) then I am sure the support for the 1 Meg would come almost immediately afterwards. Since it handles the extra memory very similarly to the way the Disto handles it (I assume), then there should be little compatability problem there, also. The extra CPU boost should make any program at least as fast as it was originally. If the RSDos routines were merely patched to work properly, with the new hardware, I don't see too much of a problem, except with specific packages which use the bit banger, keyboard, and cassette port (if even supported.) > itself, and would have to be individually converted to avoid the I/O > emulation, aside from a couple of routines like POLCAT--is FHL going to > supply patches for all those applications, or will CoCo software houses > sell two versions of everything? I have seen the old AT Keyboards which were compatable with RSDos programs before... they were very nice and worked well. I actually played with one at an old RainbowFest... I am confident things will work fine. > (I wonder just how fast non-OS-9 CoCo terminal programs will run, with > I/O emulation of the bit-banger pseudo-serial port.) So do I... would be neat... > > James Jones Dave Halko
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (03/01/91)
In article <2752@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: >The extra CPU boost should make any program at least as fast as it was >originally. What extra CPU boost? Since, if I understand correctly, the 6309 in the TC9 won't run any faster than the 68B09 in the CoCo 3, I don't know what you mean by that. James Jones
halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) (03/15/91)
In article <5172@mcrware.UUCP>, jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: > In article <2752@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: > >The extra CPU boost should make any program at least as fast as it was > >originally. > > What extra CPU boost? Since, if I understand correctly, the 6309 in the > TC9 won't run any faster than the 68B09 in the CoCo 3, I don't know what > you mean by that. > > James Jones From what I understand, the 68B09 in the TC9 is running at a full 2 MHz instead of 1.78 MHz, which is .22 MHz faster... this is a little extra boost in speed... Dave Halko