[Coco] How much memory

Little John sales at gimechip.com
Mon Nov 29 10:53:47 EST 2010

Flex was indeed based on CPM... but for 68xx processors, or so I've read...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aaron Wolfe" <aawolfe at gmail.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Coco] How much memory

I think you might have said "forth" when you meant "FLEX".   I've been
reading through the 68 Micro Journal and F. Hogg was a big proponent
of FLEX.  AFAIK, normal FLEX does not do multitasking and is a much
more spartan/basic system than even OS9 L1.  I've been playing with
FLEX on the FPGA (John Kent's System09).  It feels a lot like CPM.

There were some enhanced FLEX systems that could multitask and offered
more features.. UniFLEX was one I think.  Don't know much about them
but I've read the ads, they sound interesting.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Frank Swygert <farna at att.net> wrote:
> I was mainly referring to DECB and other early "home" computers, and even
> the original IBM-PC when concerning GW-BASIC. I did state that only a 
> system
> like OS-9 could easily utilize a full 64K. I didn't consider multi-tasking
> at all. That would quickly burn up a lot of memory for sure!
> That's the main reason Frank Hogg was saying that Forth was a much better 
> OS
> for the CoCo than OS-9 in the early days -- Forth allowed multi-tasking 
> and
> used memory a lot more efficiently than OS-9. Of course when the CoCo3 and
> OS-9 Level II came out he had to eat some crow in a way, but considering 
> the
> limitations of Level I and the CoCo 1/2 he was correct as far as Forth 
> being
> "better".
> -----------
> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:57:19 -0500
> From: Roger Merchberger<zmerch-coco at 30below.com>
> On 11/28/2010 10:07 AM, Frank Swygert wrote:
>> > As Steve said, OS-9 was designed in the late 70s/early 80s when
>> > anything
>> > more than 64K was a dream for 8 bit computers. Memory was a bit
>> > expensive, and everything was done with text screens. Who needed even
>> > 64K? Only a (for the time) sophisticated OS like OS-9 could fully use
>> > 64K! Then graphics came along and needed more memory, programs became
>> > more sophisticated (and slopier coded!), memory and computer prices
>> > started dropping, etc.
> I'd have to disagree -- I was constantly bumping up against the 64K
> barrier on my CoCo2 with OS-9 even without graphics, and 512K was a
> godsend in my CoCo3 -- being able to run TS-Edit in one window, with
> DynaCalc in a 2nd window, Rogue in a 3rd window, and still be able to
> run a 200K ramdisk was when the CoCo was finally "roomy enough" for my
> needs, and I could get a*lot* more work (or play;-) ) done without
> constantly exiting applications to free up RAM.
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://www.amc-mag.com
> (free download available!)
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco

Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com

More information about the Coco mailing list