Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!styx!lll-lcc!well!msudoc!umich!jtr485
From: jtr485@umich.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: OS9/68000 for Atari ST
Message-ID: <48@umich.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Jan-87 11:21:35 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.48
Posted: Tue Jan 27 11:21:35 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Feb-87 07:09:24 EST
References: <162@wlbreng1.UUCP> <4170@utah-cs.UUCP> <797@drivax.UUCP>
Organization: EECS, University of Michigan
Lines: 21
Keywords: OS9 ATARI 68000

In article <797@drivax.UUCP>, alexande@drivax.UUCP writes:
> In article <4170@utah-cs.UUCP> atwell@utah-cs.UUCP (Bart L. Atwell) writes:
> >Maybe OS-9 can solve the 40 folder situation!
> I'm sure it can, but it wouldn't do you much good if you wanted
> OS/9 to be disk-file-system-compatible with TOS, which I doubt it is.
> (Can somebody verify this?)
WRONG!  Even if it is disk compatible(which I doubt) the directory logging
does not have to be the same.  That 40 folder limit is a product of the op
system IMPLEMENTATION not the file system.  IBM PC's don't have that limit
and the whole ST disk system is a bad crib of PC/MS-DOS (very bad crib!).
> It also wouldn't do you much good if you still wanted
> to run your TOS/GEM programs, unless someone went to all
> the trouble of writing a TOS front end for OS/9 and ported
> all of GEM, which I also doubt.
So.  You keep two systems for the machine.  Big deal.
Keep TOS/GEM to play games.  Use OS9/68K to do everything else.
If the price for ST OS9 was reasonable I would seriously recommend this to every
ST owner and every new system purchaser.  As it is, it is NOT reasonable!
OS and REAL language cost more than the hardware--ouch!
--j.a.tainter
>Mark Alexander{hplabs,ucbvax!decvax}!decwrl!pyramid!amdahl!drivax!alexande