Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ius2.cs.cmu.edu Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw From: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) Newsgroups: net.micro.6809,net.ham-radio.packet Subject: Would os-9 and packet be a winning combination? Message-ID: <223@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 15:34:11 EST Article-I.D.: ius2.223 Posted: Tue Oct 29 15:34:11 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 09:23:42 EST References: <835@lsuc.UUCP> ??@eddie.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 29 Keywords: packet, os9 Xref: linus net.micro.6809:548 net.ham-radio.packet:98 I've collected five pieces of information in the past few months that seem to indicate this is so. I've read on the net that some people in Hamburg are working on a 'eurocard' TNC, and that another company in the US makes a 'eurocard' 6809 system that can run OS-9. I've also heard that the TAPR TNC-1 is 6809 based, and that a amateur radio operator in the Pittsburgh area is doing packet on his Color Computer (another 6809 based machine) by hooking up FSK chips to I/O channels. Why would the 6809 be better than, say a z-80? Would the fact that good implementations of multasking OSes (like OS-9) are available for it? (This would seem to make software which supports multiple connections easier to write.) Or is the Z-80 the preferred processor for packet, simply because of cost? -- - Ralph Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa) Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp Fidonet: Ralph Hyre at Fido #385 Pitt-Bull (or maybe Net 129, node 0) Snail Mail: don't bother -- - Ralph Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa) Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp Fidonet: Ralph Hyre at Fido #385 Pitt-Bull (or maybe Net 129, node 0) Snail Mail: don't bother