Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809
Subject: Re: stuff from May *Rainbow* - (nf)
Message-ID: <682@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 22-Apr-84 12:40:15 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.682
Posted: Sun Apr 22 12:40:15 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Apr-84 20:48:29 EST
References: <3500033@uokvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 33

Frank Hogg's column in the May Rainbow may be taken as a bit self-serving,
but I don't think that he is incorrect.  For those of you who haven't
seen the magazine, Hogg owns a company which sells 6809 software for both
FLEX and OS-9.  One of his big sellers was a special version of FLEX for
the TRS-80 Color Computer.  Naturally, this product is being squeezed out
a bit by the introduction of Radio Shack's version OS-9.

Hogg's point is that trying to squeeze OS-9 onto a stock CoCo is a bit like
trying to put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 1 pound bag (at least I think that
was his analogy.)  For example, limited disk space (150 kb/drive) and
correspondingly poor support from Tandy on how to cope with additional
software packages given the limited space.  Poor RS232 support (only 300
baud full-duplex, 2400 baud simplex for a printer).  Poor design of the
disk controller such that the CPU is halted during data transfers, thus
mucking up any pretentions to multi-tasking ability.  No support for any
drives other than the R/S 35tk SS abominations.  And, a choice between a
small screen (16 x 32) OR using Hogg's own O-PAK software which must then
steal 8K of graphics memory, thus preventing many OS-9 packages from running.

Now, many of the driver-level problems can be addressed by 3rd party
vendors, but let's face it the hardware is still minimal, and a CP/M-like
system such as FLEX is less likely to expose such basic design limitations.
So, in that sense, he's right.  64K and slow, small non-DMA disk drives all
conspire to make OS-9 on the CoCo less likable and productive than it ought
to be.  OS-9 is still pretty neat, and I think that anyone who is at all
interested in a cheap UNIX-like system should check it out.  But for the
average non-techie who isn't interested is shelling out a lot for additional
hardware and software to make OS-9 truly usable on the CoCo, I would recommend
sticking to RSDOS.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA