Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen From: knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.m6809 Subject: Re: True Multitasking, and some history lessons Message-ID: <1722@ihwpt.ATT.COM> Date: Wed, 3-Jun-87 18:37:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ihwpt.1722 Posted: Wed Jun 3 18:37:00 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jun-87 01:55:17 EDT References: <943@cooper.UUCP> <159@tahoma.ARPA> <3708@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1835@lsuc.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 39 Xref: utgpu comp.sys.amiga:5070 comp.sys.atari.st:3591 comp.sys.m6809:298 Summary: thanks why OS9 wasn't born as buggy; sharable code In article <1835@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > said was essentially correct. While the OS's of the > Amiga and ST have had massive bugs, which make up the > bulk of the postings in the net postings regarding those > machines, the OS-9 Level II port on the CoCo is amazingly > bug-free. I have not kept transcripts of the "column feet" of > bug reports regarding TOS/GEM and AmigaDOS/Intuition. About the bugs in the As' OSes -- I guess OS9 is relatively clean because it was around for some years before the Coco port (and Microware didn't try to rush it out at KMart prices). People probably think OS9 was written for the Coco (I've seen it referred to in consumer computer mags as "Tandy's proprietary OS"). Just like people think IBM wrote MSDOS (oops, excuse the profanity...) > Anyone who has paid reasonable > attention to the postings of the 'm6809', 'amiga' and 'atari.st' > newsgroups know darned well that Mike was right on these > points. It's almost beyond debate. > Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 > ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura > Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Thanks for the spirited defense, Jim! Tag-team computer wars. BTW, I got a perfectly nice email response from an Amiga user to the effect that Intuition does indeed support shared libraries and routines, but you have to write them in 68K assembler; their C compiler won't make sharable code--he was rather burned up about that! I have the opposite problem--I wish I could make the Microware C put out non-sharable code, which could be much smaller in the initialized data department. Have to go to assembler to beat that. Or go to Level 2 since most of my data are graphics icons. -- Mike J Knudsen ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) Delphi: RAGTIMER CIS: "Just say NO to MS-DOS!"