From: utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie Newsgroups: net.micro Title: Re: Replies to OS-9 2 Article-I.D.: watarts.1727 Posted: Thu Mar 10 11:09:57 1983 Received: Fri Mar 11 01:52:41 1983 Reply-To: bernie@watarts (Bernie Roehl) References: ihuxf.240 OS-9 is good, but I think "wonderful" is a little strong. I'll assume you already know its good points (which are many); its faults are as follows : 1. Error messages. OS-9 gives you terse error numbers by default (a practice that I had thought dead once and for all); even with a (rather large) table of error messages loaded into memory, you only get a "CAN'T OPEN PATH" message when a file is inaccessible; not only is there no indication of *why* the file can't be opened, it doesn't even tell you *which* file it couldn't open. 2. Documentation. It may be better by now, but the stuff I saw was extremely primitive. 3. Reliability. We've had pretty good luck overall, but the system seems to hang a lot. (In fairness to OS-9, this may be due to a hardware glitch on our system; however, it does not show up when we run Flex, only OS-9). --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie