Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site drivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!intelca!amdcad!amdahl!drivax!braun
From: braun@drivax.UUCP (Karl Braun)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: OS9 on Amiga
Message-ID: <242@drivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 13:01:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: drivax.242
Posted: Thu Sep 26 13:01:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 06:00:01 EDT
References: <576@sftig.UUCP> <1001@bnl44.UUCP> <167@bnrmtv.UUCP>
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.micro.68k:1154 net.micro.amiga:241

> > > Actually, I'm surprised that the same thought didn't occur to the
> > > developers of either (both) of the amiga or the 520ST.  It would seem that
> > > OS9/68K would be an ideal substrate for the 'visual/mac-type' user
> > > interface that they provide.  Does anybody know why they decided to "go
> > > their own way" and develop custom OS's for their machines.  
> > 
> > The Amiga does run a custom operating system, but the ST runs GEMDOS which
> > is available on more than just the ST (Northern Telcom has announced it is
> > using it, others have licensed it but have not announced their product yet).
> > DRI has Concurrent DOS almost finished, and GEM can sit on top of that for
> > multitasking operation...
> 
> Are you suggesting that GEM and Concurrent DOS can be used together on the
> IBM PC?  Given that Concurrent DOS takes 180K of memory, and that you must
> set up a partition with at least 220K to run GEM Desktop, you can barely
> run two copies of GEM Desktop in a fully loaded IBM PC.  Since the 220K
> figure grows to 256K or greater to run actual applications under GEM, like
> GEM Draw, you can see why I am skeptical...  Given that IBM has (a) just
> signed a working agreement with Microsoft, (b) IBM has retracted its
> original statement about selling GEM and ConcDos, (c) Microsoft has released
> a "fully-functional" DOS 4.0 to OEMs, do you really want to suggest that
> the presence of ConcDos on the IBM PC matters one iota?
> 
> ...Glenn


The marketing people at DRI have contributed to a great deal of confusion in
debates of this sort.  There are several versions of operating systems with the
name "Concurrent Dos" (CDOS) attatched.  

CDOS/86 is what used to be called CCPM v3.1, v3.2, etc.  This is the system
which runs DOS apps as well as CPM apps, and is obviously not protected mode.

The CDOS which is 'almost finished' is CDOS/286 and CDOS/68k which are
protected mode systems, and obviously exclude the PC from it's target line (it
does, of course, run on the PC/AT).

When discussing attributs of "Concurrent Dos", it would be more meaningful and
less confusing to use the terminology "CODS/{86,286,68k}".


-- 

					" I Can Play That Song In 3 notes, man "


			kral
ihnp4!-------- \
mot! ---------- \
ucbvax!unisoft!  >	drivax!braun
ucscc!--------- /
amdahl!------- /