Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!dibble
From: dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble)
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809,net.micro.68k
Subject: OS-9 Topics for Discussion
Message-ID: <11834@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 20:08:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.11834
Posted: Tue Sep 24 20:08:43 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 04:11:24 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 36
Xref: watmath net.micro.6809:510 net.micro.68k:1148

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?

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?

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?

If you could have any single program made available for OS-9,
what would you pick?

Why didn't the OS-9 modules in ROM concept ever catch on
(or did it)?

<<Mail responces to me if you like, but I'm really aiming to get
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.