[Coco] Coco FLEX

[jdaggett at gate.net]

Frank 

I tend to agree. Though both Flex and OS9 were available back as far as 1982 
time frame. I believe also that Flex was easier to get running and modified to your 
particular system. I seem to remember that Flex was also cheaper than OS9. I 
seem to remember from back in 1982/3 time frame OS9 was around $300 and 
then you had to adapt it to your own system. 

Oh well most of that is now water under the bridge. As I did mention it would be 
interesting see how difficult it would be to port to the Coco3. 

james

On 9 May 2007 at 18:45, farna at att.net wrote:

> As I recall the big reason FLEX never caught on with the CoCo was that
> when the 32K barrier was broken OS-9 was considered more powerful. Not
> only that, but OS-9 was supported by Tandy. Os-9 worked fine with 64K,
> but any less and it really wasn't worth messing with. FLEX was sort of
> between DECB and OS-9 -- it was a real disk OS that was expandable,
> but Tandy had a vested interest in OS-9 by that time and wasn't
> interested in supporting it. Most CoCo users just told the Flex guys
> that OS-9 was more powerful and as easy to learn. So there was no
> interest in Flex on the CoCo except from Frank Hogg, and even he
> stopped "pushing" it after 64K became standard -- and it had to be
> partially due to the reception he got after stating the Flex was a
> better OS for the CoCo than OS-9. He received a lot of negative press
> and "fan mail" after publishing those remarks! 
> 
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
> (free download available!)
> 
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date:
> 5/8/2007 2:23 PM
>