Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mcrware.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!isucs1!mcrware!kim
From: kim@mcrware.UUCP (Kim Kempf)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: OS-9 vs. UNIX vs. homoousianism vs. heteroousianism
Message-ID: <142@mcrware.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 22:48:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcrware.142
Posted: Wed Oct 16 22:48:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 08:33:21 EDT
References: <576@sftig.UUCP> <1001@bnl44.UUCP> <11467@rochester.UUCP> <6014@utzoo.UUCP> <139@mcrware.UUCP> <2877@sun.uucp>
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, IA
Lines: 19

> argument), but it's not clear what it has to do with 68000s.  (None of the
> OS-9 concepts described here have much to do with the 68000 family
> architecture, so nothing prevents them from being implemented on
> non-68000-family machines.)
> 
Certain aspects of OS-9 do require a minimum level of "robustness" provided
by the host architecture.  Many of the older MPU designs have serious
deficiencies that would seriously impair the resulting OS-9 implementation,
(e.g., 6502, 8086).

On the other hand, some architectures would be excellent hosts for OS-9 such
as the 32000 series or (yipes) the VAX.

----------------
Kim Kempf, Microware Systems Corporation

  {{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver}\
 {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,sunup} >!fluke!mcrware!kim
{ssc-vax,hplsla,wavetek,physio,cae780,tikal,telematic}/