dnelson@umbio.MIAMI.EDU (Dru Nelson) (10/05/88)
I have noticed that very few people look at os9 as much as they
should. Why isn't it that more companies and computer manufacturers
use os9? The Atari ST runs os9 well (from what I here) and the only
place I here about the ST and os9 are from the germans who post.
Is there some major deficiency in this operating system that is
present that causes more people to choose unix?? (other than the
modules and incompatible os calls shouldn't make one difference
when your compiling C !?)
?
--
Dru Nelson UUCP: ....!uunet!gould!umbio!dnelson
Miami, Florida MCI: dnelson
Internet: dnelson%umbio@umigw.miami.edupiner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) (10/05/88)
In article <709@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> dnelson@umbio.MIAMI.EDU (Dru Nelson) writes: >I have noticed that very few people look at os9 as much as they >should. Why isn't it that more companies and computer manufacturers >use os9? The Atari ST runs os9 well (from what I here) and the only >place I here about the ST and os9 are from the germans who post. >Is there some major deficiency in this operating system that is >present that causes more people to choose unix?? (other than the >modules and incompatible os calls shouldn't make one difference >when your compiling C !?) OS9/68K is smaller, faster, and cheaper than UNIX. Why would anyone want to sell that? Actually, OS9 is not common because ignorance is. All we can do is keep telling people to check out OS9 before they buy. If they want a user system, UNIX comes with more tools. If they want a programmer's system OS9 comes with better tools, e.g. very good compilers. BTW, a company in Wisconsin, Heurikon, sells systems that run OS9 or VRTX or VRTX32 (not on the same machine of course). I just got their latest catalog, and boy, they sell neat stuff. And yes, I do have one of their systems and it has been rock solid. Richard Piner
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/06/88)
Your question could be answered separately for two groups: those making computer systems (like the ST) where the user works directly with the chosen OS, and embedded control processors for industry and gadgets where the end user never sees the OS at all. The latter has long been OS9's main bailiwick, both for 6809 and 68K. For every Coco or SS-50 (Gimix, Hleix, SSB) system, there are probably a dozen boards buried in a factory floor somewhere. The CD-ROM systems, should they ever appear, are another example. A friend here needed an embedded OS for a 68000-based controller board. No disks, just ROMs. Real time. So he didn't even consider U**X. I convinced him to look into OS9, and he agreed it was perfect for the job. Until he looked at costs. Now Microware wanted a royalty of $50 per board, which is not unreasonable. But they also wanted something like $6000 for the software development system, plus more for a hardware setup to run it on (unlike Coco or ST, his board couldn't possibly support editing and compiling). Since he wasn't planning a really big production run of his board, the cost of all this development stuff came to significantly more per board than the royalty. So he ended up using XINU I think. Maybe an ST setup[ could have been used, for under $2000 total, tho OSK/ST wasn't too stable at that time. But OSK seems to be economical only if you're either going to make a lot of one system, or develop lots of different systems with that expensive development system. My feeling at the time was that Microware should lease the development system cheap, or give it away at cost, to encourage more OS9 usage and make their bread & butter on the royalties. But then what do I know about aggressive marketing?
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/07/88)
In article <1505@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes: > buy. If they want a user system, UNIX comes with more tools. If > they want a programmer's system OS9 comes with better tools, e.g. > very good compilers. I wouldn't presume to judge whose compilers are better, but one thing I know from experience: My $100 RadShack C compiler for OS9 Level 1 or 2 on the Cocos gives out much better error diagnostics than the big mainframe U**X jobs ever did. (Just try putting an extra right brace in the middle of your source and see which one gives something more than "syntax error.".)
wortley@hwee.UUCP (Tim Wortley) (10/11/88)
In article <709@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> dnelson@umbio.MIAMI.EDU (Dru Nelson) writes: >I have noticed that very few people look at os9 as much as they >should. Why isn't it that more companies and computer manufacturers use os9? >Is there some major deficiency in this operating system that is >present that causes more people to choose unix?? (other than the I don't know wether you know of anyone within the "real-time" computing industry, but I think you will find that at present OS9 is used mostly by companies producing microprocessor controlled equipment, eg digital servo motor control, to name one I am familiar with. The great benifits of OS9 in target systems ( eg single-PCB micro-computer mounted along side high power servo drive amplifiers ) is that the system does not need to be disc based, i.e. totally romable, in the microware jargon. All application programs can be stored in rom, and actual ram required is a minimum, you compared that to the simplest UN*X system. I think it will just take time for this to spread to the home market. ttfn Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Wortley UUCP: <world>!uunet!mcvax!ukc!hwee!wortley Elec Eng 4 ARPA: wortley@ee.hw.ac.uk Heriot-Watt University JANET: wortley@uk.ac.hw.ee Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
linimon@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Mark Linimon) (10/13/88)
In article <1505@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes: > BTW, a company in Wisconsin, Heurikon, sells systems that run > OS9 or VRTX or VRTX32 (not on the same machine of course). I just > got their latest catalog, and boy, they sell neat stuff. And yes, I > do have one of their systems and it has been rock solid. For those looking for hardware recommendations: at Buscon in New York last week, Microware had copies of a book which I think was called the "OS-9 Product Guide" or something similar (sorry, our booth hasn't arrived back here yet, so I don't have the book in front of me). This is a pretty complete list of suppliers supporting both the "home" and "commercial" versions of OS-9. I presume that Microware will mention the existance, price, and availability of the book herein, but since it hadn't shown up yet, I thought I would throw this in. (Disclaimer: both Heurikon and Mizar are listed, of course, among others). Mark Linimon Mizar uucp: {convex, killer, sun!texsun}!mizarvme!linimon
bdw@rwing.UUCP (Brian Wright) (10/15/88)
It's already happened. The Tandy Color Computer line is the first and ONLY
micro to offer OS-9 at a low price. There is plenty of software for the casual
user, and a international users group that is recognized by Microware.
I've used OS-9 Level 2 on a Tandy CoCo 3 for over a year, and I'm VERY impressed
with it's performance!
--
Brian Wright
UUCP: {backbones}!uw-beaver!tikal!toybox!rwing!bdw
" "!camco!eskimo!bdw
"Gravity is a myth; the Earth sucks"ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Wolfgang Ocker) (10/19/88)
In article <379@rwing.UUCP> bdw@rwing.UUCP (Brian Wright) writes: > >It's already happened. The Tandy Color Computer line is the first and ONLY >micro to offer OS-9 at a low price. And the ST? OS-9/68000 for this machine isn't expensive, too! /// Wolfgang Ocker -- | Wolfgang Ocker | ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | | Lochhauserstr. 35a | pyramid!tmpmbx!recco!weo (home) | | D-8039 Puchheim | Technische Universitaet Muenchen | | Voice: +49 89 80 77 02 | Huh, What? Where am I? |
kirkenda@psu-cs.UUCP (Steve Kirkendall) (10/25/88)
In article <360@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Wolfgang Ocker) writes: > In article <379@rwing.UUCP> bdw@rwing.UUCP (Brian Wright) writes: > > > >It's already happened. The Tandy Color Computer line is the first and ONLY > >micro to offer OS-9 at a low price. >And the ST? OS-9/68000 for this machine isn't expensive, too! Yes it is. Sure, you can get a minimal system ("Personal OS9") for $150, but if you want the C compiler you have to pay through the nose: $500 for just the compiler, or $600 for the compiler and extra utilities such as `make`. In the ST world, we're used to paying about $150 for a C compiler. The switch to OS9 is *painful*. BTW, has anybody managed to port the GNU C compiler to OS9? Or, failing that, how about a TOS emulator so we can use the less expensive ST compilers? ["Short .sigs are best" -- Steve Kirkendall]
blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson) (10/26/88)
In article <1143@psu-cs.UUCP> kirkenda@psu-cs.UUCP (Steve Kirkendall) writes: >BTW, has anybody managed to port the GNU C compiler to OS9? I'm looking at it. Non-trivial, Gcc isn't realy written in portable C and some things needed or desirable for os9 arn't there yet. It can start as a cross-compiler or possibly a hacked preprocessor would be enough for a first pass. Getting the agument passing to match what Microware C generates would be nice, but assebler stubs could be used for the library interface. The major thing after my quick look through would be convincing gcc to generate memory references as offsets of a6 rather than absolute. The gcc compiler source is about 5 megabytes, not including needed utilities like bison... [Gcc is a free (but not public domain) optimising C compiler from the Free Software Foundation, who put out GNU Emacs and are working on the GNU operating system.] Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu blarson@skat.usc.edu Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson Prime mailing list: info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu oberon!ais1!info-prime-request