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> 
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