Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Multitasking discussion
Message-ID: <1588@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 21:15:11 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1588
Posted: Fri Feb 20 21:15:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 04:54:35 EST
References: <8702131709.AA28497@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: root@lsuc.UUCP
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Organization: Consultant, Toronto
Lines: 54
Summary: OS-9, X-Windows ST's, CoCo's--what else?

In article <8702131709.AA28497@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> K538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNET.UUCP writes:
>An example that multitasking can be done quite well on a 68000 without MMU is
>OS-9 (no, I haven't got it on an ST, but on a VME board). I personaly don't
>think that it would be worth the trouble trying to write a real multitasking
>kernel which GEM would run on top of (anyway there was some talk about DRI
>writing a multitasking GEM). I think it would be more sensible to spend the
>time writing a graphic user interface for MINIX or OS-9. One more word on my

     There is a lot of interest in a full multi-tasking window support
system on the ST.  I've had a lot of Usenet mail on OS-9 by itself and
lately I've been looking into the possibility of windowing systems under
(over?) OS-9.  Please do NOT expect me to do this myself!  I'm looking
into it mostly out of curiosity, although if I can do something towards
a solution, I'll do what I can.  I'm *very* busy lately.

     Anyway, the options I've seen are as follows:

1.  GEM calls from OS-9.  This likely won't work.  I don't *know* that they
won't work, but GEM just wasn't designed for multi-tasking and I expect at
the very least that interrupt handling may become contentious.  I *think*
that the graphics routines might be addressable, but that the actual
window handling might have to be re-created.  I'm mainly guessing at this
however, since I don't know really what's going on inside GEM.

2.  X-Windows.  If X-Windows is going to be the big standard for Unix systems,
why not port X-Windows to OS-9?  It must already address the problems of
multi-tasking.  Data compatibility for networking would be wonderful (hook
up ST's in the same system as VAX, Sun, Appollo, etc.)  It looks like the
money would be available to someone who would do the port.  I was hoping
to arrange to have sources posted to BIX, but an estimate of the size of
the sources proved prohibitive (something like 10 Meg. in sourcefiles!).
I have found there is strong interest in this approach, but it looks like
a big job.

3.  The CoCo Window interface (what-ever-it's-called).  I haven't seen it yet.
It should be on the market shortly.  I hear it's wonderful.  OS-9 has network
support software available.  OS-9 has a number of machines to network
between which might be able to use this standard (my 68020 machine should
arrive shortly--they've just started shipping them).  I don't know how
receptive Microware would be to the idea of allowing someone to port the
software for them for this purpose (assuming it's Microware's code and not
Tandy's).

4.  Any other worthwhile approach?  NEWS by Sun--I can't see any reason
to favour this over X-Windows at this point.  Sun claims that it's a
superset of X-Windows.  If this is so, then fine, I don't see any reason
to think we couldn't upgrade it to NEWS later if we do X-Windows now.
Intuition-like interface?  I hear it's easier to program for than the
Mac interface.  I don't know what that proves really.  In fact, I don't 
know at this stage if all these approaches are necessarily mutually
exclusive.


Cheers! -- Jim O.