Coco/Atari OS9 new hardware

[Iggy]

I know this is far off our usual topics.
But I think I've previously mentioned my fondness for the Tandy Color Computer, the Coco3, the 6809 processor (and its 6309 Hitachi variant), and the OS-9 operating system.

I have some friends who still market hardware for the Color computer (memory expansions, hard drive interfaces, 6309 conversions, stc), Cloud-9.

http://www.cloud9tech.com/

They've just introduced a new adapter board.
It allows you to install a 68B09E (or a Hitachi 63X03E) into an Atari 800XL, 1200XL, or 130XE.
This allows you to run the multi-tasking, multi-user operating system NitrosOS-9 (which is a variant of Microware's OS-9 operating system which powered CD-i video disc players and was available for the Color Computer).

While lacking the polish of AmigaOS, OS9 is a very powerful operating system still used today in a lot of real time process control applications.
With the adaption of Atari hardware, many of the features which the Color Computer lacks will now be available.

I think this will make one neat 8-bit system.

[gaula92]

What I would really love is an FPGA implementation of the Atari 8-bit computer series. I had one when I was a child and it was awesome! Very underrated computers they are.

As for the OS-9 part, I was under the impression that CD-i didn't perform very well at all... even the most basic 2D-games where struggling in the machine. I'm not particularly  fond of that ehmm... piece of crap. I gave mine for free some weeks ago.

[commodorejohn]

The CDi is good for exactly one thing, and that's the hilariously God-awful Nintendo-licensed games, and the best parts of those are all over YouTube anyway.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

The CDi is good for exactly one thing, and that's the hilariously God-awful Nintendo-licensed games, and the best parts of those are all over YouTube anyway.

With a video module, the CD-i had as well some nice video/lightgun games, like Mad Dog McCree, as well as some adventures like the 7th Guest.

[Iggy]

The problem with CD-i was the crappy resolution and the compression necessary to fit a video CD onto a disc with only the capacity of an audio CD.
And the OS underlying the system was virtually transparent.
Anyone that's seen Level II OS-9 on a Color Computer 3 (or the 68K version) would have to admit that its an unusually powerful OS (if somewhat intimidating since it can do some scary things via CLI).

The thing I've always been amazed by is the fact that an 8 bit OS could support a real time multi-tasking, multi-user operating system.

I've seen a Color Computer running this driving three VT100 terminals and operating a Point of Sale system.

[commodorejohn]

The thing I've always been amazed by is the fact that an 8 bit OS could support a real time multi-tasking, multi-user operating system.

I've seen a Color Computer running this driving three VT100 terminals and operating a Point of Sale system.

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.

[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.

True, I've even seen multi-user OS' on a Z80.
Several years ago some one gave me an MPM system to play with.
With all the similarities between CPM and MS-Dos it wasn't very hard to figure out the command syntax.

However, multi-tasking on early Intel processor was difficult, operated poorly, and wasn't very useful. Until the i386 came out, it didn't really make sense.
That's one of the things that's always bugged me about the Amiga.
Early on, it had so many advantages over the PC.
Pity it didn't develop as quickly.

[commodorejohn]

However, multi-tasking on early Intel processor was difficult, operated poorly, and wasn't very useful. Until the i386 came out, it didn't really make sense.

Blame the segment-register kluge - without an MMU, programs are either stuck with 64KB code + 64KB data, or they play around with the segment registers themselves and imperil system stability, or the OS has to do any segment-switching for the program, which would be cumbersome as all hell. (The 286 had an MMU, but bone-headedly it wasn't compatible with ordinary 8086 code such as any given PC BIOS and went essentially unused - I think Xenix might've supported it, but that's it.) The 386 was the first to combine the ideas that "memory-mapping would be useful" and "but it should also work with the software and hardware everybody's already using" and come up with something useful.

[Iggy]

Blame the segment-register kluge - without an MMU, programs are either stuck with 64KB code + 64KB data, or they play around with the segment registers themselves and imperil system stability, or the OS has to do any segment-switching for the program, which would be cumbersome as all hell. (The 286 had an MMU, but bone-headedly it wasn't compatible with ordinary 8086 code such as any given PC BIOS and went essentially unused - I think Xenix might've supported it, but that's it.) The 386 was the first to combine the ideas that "memory-mapping would be useful" and "but it should also work with the software and hardware everybody's already using" and come up with something useful.

Weird, isn't it?
the 68000 (and even the 6809 before it) could support multi-tasking quite well (even without an MMU), but it took Intel three revisions before they could get it right.
How'd we blow that advantage?

[haywirepc]

Anyone that's seen Level II OS-9 on a Color Computer 3 (or the 68K version) would have to admit that its an unusually powerful OS (if somewhat intimidating since it can do some scary things via CLI).


I was a color computer guy before amiga... I had like 10 color computers over time. I still have 5 of them. os9 blew msdos so far out of the water, I used to dial a bbs, play a game while downloading files, render fractals, and play music files all at the same time, and that was in 1988. I had a pc too at that time (A 286 I think) but the coco was much more use, especially for fun stuff.

I switched to a friends pimped out amiga 1000 next. Being so used to multitasking, I couldn't stand a pc as my main computer...

I still use color computer 2's and 3's for hardware projects, because they are so easy to interface too. I have an alarm system built from a coco2, and a home automation controller built from a coco2. I have also built a bunch of robot projects using the coco2's or 3's because it draws less than 1amp.

Besides amiga, color computers were and still remain one of my favorite computers... I learned to program in basic on then, I learned to do hardware projects on them. Mostly, I learned how to push a computer to its limits and beyond on them.

I have seen this atari 6809 project and yes looks interesting. I am still on the coco mailing list... Which is quite active.

Steven

[psxphill]

Weird, isn't it?
the 68000 (and even the 6809 before it) could support multi-tasking quite well (even without an MMU), but it took Intel three revisions before they could get it right.
How'd we blow that advantage?

Software.
 
The reason that you need a 386 to multitask is because everyone wanted to run their old dos software, which assumed it was the only program running.
 
It would be trivial to write a multitasking operating system for an 8086, however you'd have no software to run on it. There was no reason to ditch all the software and start again, because the 8086 wasn't quick enough to warrant it.
 
I don't think anyone realised just how big and important the PC would become, or it would have been designed better.

[Iggy]

Software.
 
The reason that you need a 386 to multitask is because everyone wanted to run their old dos software, which assumed it was the only program running.
 
It would be trivial to write a multitasking operating system for an 8086, however you'd have no software to run on it. There was no reason to ditch all the software and start again, because the 8086 wasn't quick enough to warrant it.
 
I don't think anyone realised just how big and important the PC would become, or it would have been designed better.

Yeah, software, I almost forgot that.
That's why I left Delmar Co in the early '80s.
you can have a better system, but without sottware it doesn't matter.

[B00tDisk]

Software.
 
The reason that you need a 386 to multitask is because everyone wanted to run their old dos software, which assumed it was the only program running.
 
It would be trivial to write a multitasking operating system for an 8086, however you'd have no software to run on it. There was no reason to ditch all the software and start again, because the 8086 wasn't quick enough to warrant it.
 
I don't think anyone realised just how big and important the PC would become, or it would have been designed better.

It's worth noting that the Data General NOVA and later the seminal Xerox Alto both ran on bit-slice ALUs, not even what we would think of as proper "CPUs".

Minix runs passably well on an 8086, although one needs to keep in mind memory issues (max 1mb addressable).  While I don't think you could run a GUI on top of that, you never know.  There's a guy building a Mac-like OS for 8-bit Atari systems and it looks slick.  If that'd hit back in the 80s I'd probably still have one

[Iggy]

It's worth noting that the Data General NOVA and later the seminal Xerox Alto both ran on bit-slice ALUs, not even what we would think of as proper "CPUs".
 
Minix runs passably well on an 8086, although one needs to keep in mind memory issues (max 1mb addressable). While I don't think you could run a GUI on top of that, you never know. There's a guy building a Mac-like OS for 8-bit Atari systems and it looks slick. If that'd hit back in the 80s I'd probably still have one

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.
 
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.

[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?