[Coco] Re: OS-9 as Replacement for DECB.

[jdaggett at gate.net]

Stephen

I concurr that DECB or RSBASIC what ever you wish to call it has a 
need for modernization. From my limited inspection of the 
dissaembled ROM in the tre, it is becoming quite evident that SECB 
is nothing more than a layer on top of ECB and CB from the CoCO1 
and 2. There are slight modifications to those roms that make them 
work better with the tre. I can unerstand why it was done the way it 
was considering Microware seems to hve assigned only three 
engineers to write SECB along with the time constraints, they did 
the best they could. 

I personally think the 8K of SECB bloats the whole 32K potential 
ROM space. I agree with you in that RSBASIC needs a make over 
and at least a look at what can be done to consoldate routines and 
compact code to add more features. 

IF some hardware is  needed to be developed to off load software 
tasks then we have plenty here that can design that and make it 
work. 

just my thoughts.

james 

On 31 Aug 2005 at 20:31, Stephen H. Fischer wrote:

From:           	"Stephen H. Fischer" 
<SFischer1 at MindSpring.com>
To:             	"CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" 
<coco at maltedmedia.com>
Subject:        	Re: [Coco] Re: OS-9 as Replacement for 
DECB.
Date sent:      	Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:31:10 -0700
Organization:   	A. Nani Mouse Inx.
Send reply to:  	CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts 
<coco at maltedmedia.com>
	<mailto:coco-
request at maltedmedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
	<mailto:coco-
request at maltedmedia.com?subject=subscribe>

> Hi,
> 
> Please consider reading all that I have said about this project again
> before offering comments. I again feel that I am not communicating the
> main point. I am suggesting not that all the DECB users be moved to
> OS-9, but that OS-9 be used to replace the DECB code with a solution
> that is running OS-9 but appears that nothing has changed to the DECB
> user.