Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.m6809 Subject: Re: os9 level II full screen editor Message-ID: <1799@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-May-87 12:22:08 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.1799 Posted: Sun May 17 12:22:08 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 17-May-87 13:35:17 EDT References: <20@abvax.abnet.com> <58400005@gorgo.UUCP> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Organization: Consultant, Toronto Lines: 69 Summary: Whaaaa? In article <58400005@gorgo.UUCP> bsteve@gorgo.UUCP writes: > >Larry Harmon writes: > >> One of the minor complaints I have with OS9 level II is the >>lack of a full screen editor. I purchased a copy of tsedit and tsword >>for OS9 level I, but they don't seem to work with level II. Perhaps it >>is because I have configured my system to use the window driver rather >>than the vdu driver. I don't know. Even if tsedit can be made to work >>under (over?) level II , would it take advantage of the 80 column video >>hardware of the CoCo 3? How about tsword? I think tsword is one of the >>easiest to use nroff type formatters ever written and I would love to see a >>new improved version for use with level II OS9. Does Tandy have any plans >>for releasing new versions of these programs? How about the original >>author? Are there any other vi type editors available for level II? > >I believe that you are wrongly critical. OS9 Level II is a different operating >system from OS9 Level I. It is only by lucky coincedence that Level I binaries >run under Level II. More often than not level I binaries make assumptions >that the entire address-space of the machine is available, when with hardware >memory management, it is not. I believe that this is the fundamental problem Whaaaaat? Where the heck did you get a silly set of ideas like this? The point of OS-9 is that the majority of code properly written following the OS-9 conventions are directly usable under both OS-9 Level I or Level II. This is possible because addressing within the program is all relative and addressing of data is all base register relative. Level II presumes a hardware Dynamic Address Translation which maps the final address to hardware address beyond the 64K limit of the 6809 processor. Under *neither* system would you assume that the entire 64K of addressing is available to the program space. Further, you can assume that you'll have more dataspace in a Level II system because the program space will not be conflicting with the dataspace. Practically speaking you can also assume greater program space as well for the same reason. Furthermore, system calls were maintained between Level I and Level II unless there was an absolute necessity for differences. You have added DAT related system calls under Level II, and some programs which report system status and thus may require the ability to look beyond the current processes address space need to be re-written to use these facilities. It's certainly no accident or matter of luck that code is portable between Level I and Level II. >with programs like tsedit and tsword. There is a variety of public-domain >programs of this kind available from the OS-9 users group. I am rather fond >of uEmacs which will compile and run quite nicely under Level II. Steve, it seems to me that you probably know better than what you seem to have said in this posting. I have a feeling you just said what you meant a bit vaguely. Don't consider my comments a "flame". They are not intended to be. I'm just confused by what you've said and I think people less knowledgable might find it even more confusing. As a point of interest, does anybody know what version of MicrEMACS the Users' Group has in their library? Is it still the Conway/Lawrence/Santy/ Larson port or is it the new MicroGNU, or something else entirely? Has anybody tried the MicroGNU on a 6809 machine yet? Cheers! -- Jim O. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura