Nitros9 for the masses (was) Re: [Coco] COCO4 Emulator

[James Hrubik]

Thanks, Boisy.  Its always interesting to hear what the do-ers (as  
opposed to the talk-ers) on this list have to say.  My skills in C  
have degenerated to the point where I would probably have trouble  
getting "Hello Wrldo" to compile properly any more <G>.  So I ain't  
gonna write the OS.  I'm just the asker of stupid questions.

 From the comments that have flown around the past day or so  
regarding this suggestion, it appears that there are quite a few  
people who either don't read posts through to the end, or don't know  
what NitrOS-9 is, or simply lack imagination.  Maybe they don't read  
all the threads before they add to the tangle.  Its fascinating to  
see people immediately jump to the conclusion that a port of the OS  
to the Intel chipset must automatically point to OS9000 and the  
Microware/Radisys licensing expenses.

Out of curiosity, how would writing a 6809/6309 emu compare in  
difficulty to rewriting NitrOS-9 for the same chipset?  I thought  
that perhaps the two tasks would be similar in nature.

And, as one poster implied, are there really some grey areas with  
regard to whether or not NitrOS-9 is a reverse engineered OS-9?  My  
impression was that it was completely rewritten, first for the 6309,  
then for the 6809, and that there were no licensing restrictions.   
That was what appealed too me to suggest it as an alternative OS-on- 
Intel; the concept that it could be truly free of the Big Boys'  
meddling.

On May 7, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Boisy Pitre wrote:

>
> On May 7, 2006, at 3:29 PM, James Hrubik wrote:
>
>> Yup, converts one by one.  BUT -- we need to hear from the  
>> important people on this -- the ones who maintain Nitros9.   
>> Curtis, Boisy -- what is YOUR opinion regarding a port of Nitros9  
>> to the Intel chipset, ala Linux?
>
> Porting NitrOS-9 to an x86 would be a major undertaking.  So much  
> of what NitrOS-9 is, is because it welds itself to the 6809/6309:  
> registers, memory footprint, etc.  I just can't see it being done  
> in a reasonable amount of time, nor could I see it being done  
> without some major design changes and concessions to the OS itself.
>
> If one wanted to truly write a NitrOS-9 type OS for x86, it could  
> be done, but in some higher level language such as C.  That said, I  
> don't see how this is anything remotely close to a CoCo 4.
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the CoCo 4 is a myth.   
> In my opinion, the only organization that could have ever put out  
> such a thing as a CoCo 4 would have been Tandy, and they are  
> defunct.  The best we can hope for is a CoCo 3+ (ala the SuperBoard).
>
> Boisy
>
>> On May 7, 2006, at 11:12 AM, John Donaldson wrote:
>>
>>> Alex,
>>>   What you said is all true. I forgot that the COCO3 could  
>>> display 16 colors, not 8. I kinda like the idea of porting  
>>> NitrOS9 over to the PC and let it be a real PC OS. This may be  
>>> the best of both worlds. It would allow a new hardware platform  
>>> and allow use of upgrades that are coming out for the PC's. The  
>>> OS source could be kep the the Net Dispostory so upgrades,  
>>> changes, bug fixs and such could quickly be implimented. We then  
>>> have true 80 column screens, all the colors we will ever need,  
>>> speed would be determined by which PC Process your using. You  
>>> could then envoke the current emulator programs to give backward  
>>> compatiblity to the COCO2/3. Just think Multi-View could become  
>>> our verison of Windows.
>>>
>>> John Donaldson
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------
-----Items below rated "PCX"; news anchor approval advised before  
reading...----
---------------------------------------------------
It is one of those interesting facts of nature that, the more  
democratic a society becomes, the fewer rights each individual  
possesses.
---------------------------------------------------
  From the sayings of Grampa Jim, Copyright 2006.
Unauthorized use of my stuff may cause senility.