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