Coco/Atari OS9 new hardware

[B00tDisk]

I've ordered one of Cloud-9s 6809 adapters and I'm going to install a Hitachi 63B09E in it.
One of the first things I'd like to do is explore porting a GUI to run on top of NitosOS9.

I've seen a pseudo-GUI running OS/9 - it's like an early DOS window manager/tree type interface (uses text in discrete boxes separated by ASCII borders versus blitting, etc.)
 

BTW - Does anyone know if its possible to overclock an 8 bit Atari?
I can get 63C09E processor that can easily be clocked to 3.58 MHz.

That is incumbent on how reliant the Atari is on specific opcodes, local bus speeds. etc.  You mean for running OS/9 though, not the Atari's basic interpreter and DOS, right?

[Iggy]

I've seen a pseudo-GUI running OS/9 - it's like an early DOS window manager/tree type interface (uses text in discrete boxes separated by ASCII borders versus blitting, etc.)

In the late '80s a company I worked for (Delmar Co.) ported a GUI called GWindows to our 68K based OS9 systems, but that was X Windows/Motif based and by today's standards it would pretty dated. Also it was running on a much faster machine.
 
Tandy had a product called Multi-Vue for its variant of OS9, but it was pretty dreadful. If I remember correctly you couldn't overlap windows.
 

That is incumbent on how reliant the Atari is on specific opcodes, local bus speeds. etc. You mean for running OS/9 though, not the Atari's basic interpreter and DOS, right?

From what I can tell, 8 bit Atari computers are a lot like the Color Computer in that a lot of their timig is derived from a common clock.
 
This make overclocking impractical.

[Iggy]

I don't think it's all that much of a shocker; people think preemptive multi-tasking and multi-user capability are more advanced than they really are because it took so long for Mac and Windows machines to get them, but even by the late '60s mainframes could run OSes implementing these features. The 6809 (like the 6502) also has the advantage that there aren't so many registers to save as modern CPUs have, so context switches are fairly quick.

There are a couple things I failed to point out about OS9 and NitroOS9.
Not only are they both real time multi-tasking, multi-user OS', but they both use position independent re-entrant code.  
While this can make programming more complicated as you can't hard code locations, it allows multiple processes to call the same module (requiring only one copy of a program module for multiple uses).
With the limited amount of memory in an 8 bit system this allows for my efficient coding.
And I've seen 6809 systems with as many as 255 active program modules.

I'm looking forward to using this with the Atari 130XEs list driven graphics processors.

[commodorejohn]

Yup, it does sound like a good design for a small-memory system.

Nothing like space constraints to bring out the best in programmers...

[XDelusion]

So does this OS work with the VBXE?


Either way it looks like I'm going to have to order one of these. My Atari's love to be upgraded!

[Iggy]

So does this OS work with the VBXE?


Either way it looks like I'm going to have to order one of these. My Atari's love to be upgraded!

Actually, xdude, I'd hold off buying one of these unless you're really into coding.
Because as near as I can see, there no software for it at all.
My first moves will be to study the hardware memory maps for Atari 8 bit systems and write some simple routines i can use for graphics and sound.

I also hope to get Pascal running fairly quickly (as it doesn't have a native graphics library) and then hope to manage to get Basic09 to run (without its Color computer specific GFX library).

Enhancing an assembler with some routines specific to Atari hardware would also be useful.

In some ways a 16 bit 6502C replacement would make more sense as the 6809 isn't 6502 compatible (so no existing software is going to run).

I am going to start compiling a list of OS9 titles that work or can be modified to work.

And I really look forward to using Antic and the GTIA.

[XDelusion]

Not much different than some of my other Atari upgrades... Like the VBXE.

Actually, xdude, I'd hold off buying one of these unless you're really into coding.
Because as near as I can see, there no software for it at all.
My first moves will be to study the hardware memory maps for Atari 8 bit systems and write some simple routines i can use for graphics and sound.

I also hope to get Pascal running fairly quickly (as it doesn't have a native graphics library) and then hope to manage to get Basic09 to run (without its Color computer specific GFX library).

Enhancing an assembler with some routines specific to Atari hardware would also be useful.

In some ways a 16 bit 6502C replacement would make more sense as the 6809 isn't 6502 compatible (so no existing software is going to run).

I am going to start compiling a list of OS9 titles that work or can be modified to work.

And I really look forward to using Antic and the GTIA.

[haywirepc]

Porting nitros-9 to 8 bit atari hardware is not that exciting to me. I don't think the graphics and especially the sound are that much better than a coco3, especially an expanded one with an orchestra sound pack and speech synth card. A 512k coco 3 running nitros-9 with a 6309 upgraded processor is very interesting to see. When you see how well it performs and how smoothly it multitasks on such slow ancient hardware, its pretty amazing. Put against something like dos, desqview or win 3.1 with tons more processor speed and ram it is really quite amazing.

On nitros-9...
I'd rather see it ported to x86 or arm, but I suppose that will never happen.

[commodorejohn]

In some ways a 16 bit 6502C replacement would make more sense as the 6809 isn't 6502 compatible (so no existing software is going to run).

It would, except the 65C816 is kind of a compromised design. It's good for providing expanded capability, higher clock speeds, and near-perfect backwards compatibility, but it's nothing you'd really want to build an OS on top of.

[Motormouth]

When I was a lad, I wanted to buy a coco2.  I ended up buying a c64 because of the games.  

OS9 and the 6809 as stated in the thread are a very nice combination.  I learned how to machine language and assembly on a multi-68020 OS 9 cluster.  This is part of the reason I wanted an Amiga, that and a production job.  Assembly on the 680x0 is so easy as compared to x86.

[Iggy]

When I was a lad, I wanted to buy a coco2.  I ended up buying a c64 because of the games.  

OS9 and the 6809 as stated in the thread are a very nice combination.  I learned how to machine language and assembly on a multi-68020 OS 9 cluster.  This is part of the reason I wanted an Amiga, that and a production job.  Assembly on the 680x0 is so easy as compared to x86.

Ah, someone else with OS9 68K experience.
I was the retail manager of Delmar Company when we introduced the System IV and System V computers (68000 and 68020 based respectively).
I even encouraged our owners to invest in a port of Gwindows (a GUI written by Steve Adams for Gespac) for our systems.

In fact, I just exchanged a message today with a guy who wrote a basic text editor we used a lot (VED) Bob van der Poel.

But Steven is right, the Coco3 actually has some advantages over the 8 bit Ataris. Its display generator doesn't have Sprites, but it does support up to 640 by 192 resolutions and 80 column text displays. And unlike earlier Cocos, its got a interrupt generator that eliminated the need for software timing loops (and it can be expanded to 512K).
Plus it will run older Color computer software, Coco3 specific titles, and OS9 Level 2.

Right now an Atari modified with this board will only boot NitrosOS9.

I just like the 6809 processor more then the 6502 (almost as much as the 68000).

[Iggy]

I've also decide to buy a TerASIC DE-1 Board and run Gary Becker's FPGA implementation of the Coco3.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoCo3FPGA/

Apparently it overclocks quite well.

[Iggy]

It would, except the 65C816 is kind of a compromised design. It's good for providing expanded capability, higher clock speeds, and near-perfect backwards compatibility, but it's nothing you'd really want to build an OS on top of.

Probably not, but they're still available in 4 and 5 MHz versions with both Plastic DIP 40 pin and PE —PLCC 44 pin packages.
16MB addressing and good backward compatibility.

As the company that used to produce these was bought by ON Semiconductor (which doesn't appear to support this anymore), does anyone know where to get in depth technical data?

I'm interested in some of the added addressing modes in the 16bit operating mode.

[commodorejohn]

WDC's old site is still up, so you can get a lot of information, including the datasheet, from their 65816 page. If you're just looking for a quick reference to the architecture, the SNES homebrew community has some good guides; here's a pretty comprehensive one.

[Iggy]

Good stuff CJ.
At least this will get me started.
I already have a design that would allow replacement of a 6502 with one of these (some Commodore fanatic got one to run in a VIC20).

[Gulliver]

Speaking about OS-9, I found out there was an Amiga port done by Microware back in the old days (It was priced about 400 to 800 USD). The port was being updated on each OS-9 release, and if I am not mistaken, it is still supported by the company that took over Microware OS-9 development.

Has anyone ever had some experience with it?