Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: OS-9 Topics for Discussion
Message-ID: <821@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 14:11:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.821
Posted: Sun Sep 29 14:11:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 16:27:08 EDT
References: <11834@rochester.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Distribution: net
Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
Lines: 67
Xref: utcs net.micro.6809:505 net.micro.68k:1162
Summary: The Fall
In article <11834@rochester.UUCP> dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) writes:
>Here are some topics that readers who are familiar with OS-9 might
>like to share their thoughts about:
>
>Many of the fields in the OS-9/68K module header are not yet used.
>I am particularly interested in the usage field. Do you think we
>are heading for tops-20-like prompting or maybe something move like
>XDE (Xerox Development Environment), or will it just be the syntax
>string that 68K programs now print when they don't know what else to do?
How about system definition information, such as which processor
is targetted? It would be nice if you could have a multi-processor
system and freely mix modules for 6809, 68000, Z8000 or 32032 families.
On a VME Bus system this is quite possible. On a practical level
it means being able to upgrade in stages without problems.
>
>Microware has said that they will keep the versions of OS-9 as
>compatible as possible. I think that most of the nice 68K features
>will not be ported to the 6809 because of memory constraints
>(and the connected issue of assembler versus C programming).
>Anyone care to make a prediction about just what features will
>be ported. Wild cards? Events? Named pipes?
Wild cards and Variable names would be nice.
>
>OS-9/32016, interesting rumor. Unsubstantiated but fun to think
>about.
>
>CoCo 2. The CoCo for OS-9 level two. Has Tandy waited too
>long?
Last Christmas, or thereabouts, I posted an opinion on Compuserve
(both on the OS9 and CoCo SIGs) that if Tandy didn't have their machine
out by Feb. 85, they'd be frozen out of the market by the Atari ST-520
and the Amiga (as well as the Sinclair if it came over). I think
it's happened. A bank switched CoCo will sell in "gratifying"
quantities, but unless they can keep the design upgradeable to a 68K
family chip in the future I could not in good conscience recommend
to a freind that they buy a Color Computer or replacement thereof.
Think about that carefully and tell me that you could make such a
reccommendation. We'll see. It *can* be done, but will it?
>
>If you could have any single program made available for OS-9,
>what would you pick?
Framework. Also, a Modula II compiler.
>
>Why didn't the OS-9 modules in ROM concept ever catch on
>(or did it)?
>
><some informed discussion of OS-9 going. Post your thoughts and let
>us all share them.>>
>
>Peter Dibble
>
>Note:
>I'm not a bit unbiased. I have a strong interest in OS-9.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura