akcs.dunnbri@vpnet.UUCP (Brian Dunn) (01/11/90)
I'm wondering, if everyone who wanted to see OS9 with a good graphical shell available for popular personal computers for a reasonable price were to post a little message here, just how many replies there would be...
knudsen@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (michael.j.knudsen) (01/16/90)
In article <25ac4f3b:45comp.os.os9@vpnet.UUCP>, akcs.dunnbri@vpnet.UUCP (Brian Dunn) writes:
: I'm wondering, if everyone who wanted to see OS9 with a good graphical shell
: available for popular personal computers for a reasonable price were to post
: a little message here, just how many replies there would be...
Well, here's mine. I've been happy with 6809 Level 2 on a Coco 3
for some time, and have held off getting an ST or AMiga mostly
since the OS9/68K for them has no grafix. Waiting to see how the
KMA-68/CocoPro-4 project turns out, too.
BTW, I don't really care about a grafix Shell (a la Mac or MultiView)
per se, but I want easy-to-use support to write grafix applications
programs for users who'll control it all from the mouse.
--
Mike Knudsen knudsen@ihlpl.att.com (708)-713-5134
"Round and round the while() loop goes;
Whether it stops," Turing says, "no one knows."
The Air Is Free -- or $50 with a PADI card.sneezy@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Frank Farm) (01/16/90)
In article <12663@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> knudsen@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (michael.j.knudsen) writes: >[Brian Dunn's message deleted] >Well, here's mine. I've been happy with 6809 Level 2 on a Coco 3 >for some time, and have held off getting an ST or AMiga mostly >since the OS9/68K for them has no grafix. Waiting to see how the >KMA-68/CocoPro-4 project turns out, too. And here's mine: My sentiments are nearly identical to Michael's. However, I don't have a hard drive (yet) and so am probably not quite as happy as he is. I investigated a bit into Ataris and Amigas, but when I discovered that OS-9 would not run as the base operating system on them, I knew I would never buy one of them. And words cannot describe my anticipation in seeing the results of the KMA-68. >BTW, I don't really care about a grafix Shell (a la Mac or MultiView) >per se, but I want easy-to-use support to write grafix applications >programs for users who'll control it all from the mouse. Request seconded! Frank Farm
Grunwald@Weimar.Berkeley.EDU (Grunwald Betr. Tichy) (01/16/90)
I would like a grafical interface too, but the access should be a bit standardtised. In Germany there is the MGR for the ST and Eltec VME-Bus machines, a fine, fast product, which does not consume to much memory. (The documentation is english, price 550.- DM) There are at least two implementations of X11.R3, which run only on some bigger VME-Bus machines with TCP/IP and at least 2 M Memory. There are implementations of GEM for some other machines with an ACRTC graficcontroller. There is also RAVE and some other not so well known window systems, including one system, which has an window filemanager, which has some opportunities over a UNIX-like approach with PTY's or TCP/IP connections. If you want grafics, you can get it, but you will have no grafic system, which is shared by most OSK users, because one system is not very widespread, the other is very expensive (TCP/IP) and an other uses special hardware. Since MGR is public domain, fast and leaves you some memory for other tasks it is my choice, but other guys may think of the X-software.
rh2y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Russell E. Hoffman, II) (01/17/90)
Mr. Dunn asks how many people would be interested in a graphical shell
for OS9... I say ixnay on that. Why turn great os9 hackers into MacInslosh
idiots? Who needs to have point-and-grunt capability added to what is
already the greatest operating system ever invented? What WOULD be nice,
though, is a standard for graphics calls so that software developers
could write graphics-oriented programs that could attempt to run on
different os-9 based systems. I am presently developing my own personal
library of C routines to do graphics on my Tektronix 4014 compatible
terminal (thanx to andyd@pogo.gpid.tek.com, BTW). Hopefully, the tek
4014 is in widespread use enough so that I may have a snowball's chance
you-know-where that the code I write for myself may someday actually
be running on somebody else's computer. So far as I know, up to now
if a particular firm decided it needed graphics capapbility AND os-9,
it had to develop the hardware and/or software itself. I do recognise and
commend Radio Shack on its CCIO and CC3IO/MultiVue drivers/software which
allow the development of graphics-orientd programs on the coco, but,
then again, any graphics software developed for CCIO or CC3IO or
MultiVue will ONLY run on a CoCo. Nothing wrong, with CoCos, mind you,
it's just that there are faster machines which would make for some
VERY serious graphical applications, if only there were a standard..
-Russ Hoffman
Carnegie Mellon University
rh2y+@andrew.cmu.edu
"It's ok, you're only human; you're not perfect... that's why
we have computers....25or624@vpnet.UUCP (Ken Gideon) (01/17/90)
I'm not much for graphx shells as such... but I am all for os-9 handleing graphx better...(and yes I do a the grfdrv patch...but its not enough...) why do you need to use a mouse for everything anyway? whats the point? (and click...) if its a word/pros., or a calc or even a term prog. you still have to go back to the keyboard .... Ken...(db) (cr)