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

[Stephen H. Fischer]

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.

Robert Gault wrote:
> Stephen H. Fischer wrote:
>>
>> I have been thinking about this a little more.
>>
>> The first Target:
>>
>> A new ROM that is installed into a "normal CoCo 3" in place of the
>> original.
>
> Possible but problematic as the Coco3 ROM is not socketed while the disk
> cart ROM is. Removal of the Coco3 ROM and replacement with a socketed
> EPROM is not a job for the untrained or timid user. Complete destruction
> of the Coco3 is a likely outcome. Who is going to program your EPROM and
> do the soldering?

This is at present a thought exercise so the use of Magic is allowed.

I will be invoking magic to defer some questions to get at the heart of the
project. Some problems must be addressed at the proper time of course and
some will disappear and others appear. Some of the assumptions and things
that I apply magic to are to define the constraints of the discussion that I
am trying to start.

I am looking for new thinking and suggestions that might make the project
work. So much of the time the instant and overwhelming response to a new
project is a list of items that will stop the project and a litany of bad
comments. I have been holding back another tantrum on this subject for quite
some time now.

---------

As soon as I thought of this project I realized that it might be a non
starter.

The potential users, DECB folks, have heard so much about OS-9 problems and
there is an ongoing example of this right now. They may not be reading any
message with "OS-9" in the subject and may have placed all the "OS-9" folk
into their kill file with my name there for several reasons. They expect no
help in their desire to improve DECB but they lack the talent to do it
themselves. They may not realize this.

The people who could best do this project, the "OS-9" folk have long ago
moved on from DECB and will assume that they will receive no benefits from
this project so  they will not be interested.

I am not trying to slander any person or group and am talking in
generalities so there will be many exceptions that void my comments. Just as
Keven Darling and others moved on when they felt constrained by the CoCo 3
environment, persons who felt constrained by DECB  moved on to OS-9 and the
persons left who love DECB are happier with less power and capabilities and
in many cases are not able to enlarge their CoCo world. They may have no
idea what they are missing that is just a "DOS" command away.

I do see some preparation to start the DECB enhancement project and some
stating of what might be desired.

I estimate this effort to be at least 2-3 times the effort needed doing it
by using OS-9 and would accomplish minor enhancements to DECB and will
require large efforts to add more in the future.

Using OS-9 will be a much lesser project with many times the benefits sooner
and make additional improvements easy to do. Many doable by individuals that
are less trained.

I would suggest that many of the persons who might best do this project not
be involved so that their other very important efforts will not be delayed.

I believe that the numbers of people on the CoCo List are approaching 400 or
500. I have not seen the latest numbers. The number of people posting is a
very small number, a good thing in that a few months ago the traffic was so
high that I was having problems keeping up and had to just skim many
messages.

The reasons that the silent members are reading these messages is unknown.
>From the past I assume that most are DECB only users and those that love
games. What we are discussing must be interesting to them or they would have
left.

Attempts to take votes in the past have resulted in a very small numbers. If
we could come up with a method that an anonymous vote could be taken with
many more persons doing so, we might learn what their interests and
capabilities are.

The number of silent members is large, perhaps their are persons that would
be willing to help if my idea of using OS-9 results in a plan that has a
good chance of success and will provide many benefits with less work.

> If you are referring only to the disk ROM, there is nowhere near enough
> room for a self contained OS-9.

I invoke magic to assume that the ROM is large enough. (And do not limit the
use of other non- volatile storage.)

>> Plug the CoCo into the Wall and connect a monitor.
>>
>> Turning power on the exact same messages are displayed and it is not
>> possible to determine that anything has changed, but OS-9 is running.
>
> You want Extended Color Basic displayed even though it no longer exists
> on the Coco? That does not make any sense unless you want to confuse the
> user.

I wish to not intimidate the DECB user. They have heard so many bad things
about OS-9 that they must be in an environment that they are use to and can
do things as before.

That's why a new shell must be written. This new shell must present
information in the same way as DECB does. Defining what this shell does and
how it does it are at the heart of this project. A starting point for
discussion is all of the DECB manual. Perhaps the "DOS" command starts the
normal OS-9 shell and is the only way to access other OS-9 features.

>> Plug in a game and it runs just as before. Remember, the ROM is available
>> and will get control after the 3 wise men are displayed so control can be
>> given to a game completely.
>
> If by this you mean a game cart. for a Basic or ml. game, it might work
> but only if the game is completely self contained and does not expect
> the presence of the Coco3 ROM.

I invoke magic to make all cart's work. I was aware of this and many more
problems when I typed that.

What I am really saying is to leave the possibilities open for OS-9 to give
up control of the machine if we cannot find an another way to do something
under OS-9. We should try very hard to find ways that do not require this. A
reset would bring us back to the new shell with OS-9 in good shape. If a
reset on a unchanged CoCo 3 leaves part or all memory intact, then the
memory can be assumed to operate the same for this project.

>>
>> No learning of OS-9 is necessary.
>
> Please explain how the exchange of a ROM will teach you OS-9. Do you
> mean that it is no longer needed to learn how to create a bootable OS-9
> disk? The latter is true but you would lose the ability to customize
> OS-9 disks with individualized os9boot files, unless only the contents
> of track 34 are ROMed.

There must NOT be any learning of OS-9!

Creating boot disks will not be necessary unless the person wishes to move
to OS-9 completely.
Even then, I envision changes that will reduce or eliminate boot disks
completely. Remember, OS-9 is in ROM. OS-9 has the ability to load drivers
and descriptors dynamically into memory.

As I have said a ram disk will be present, it may made sense that the disk
software is in the ROM. If a disk controller, drive and disk are detected
then a system configuration file is looked for on the disk. If not found
then the user can describe his system by using a new friendly utility that
writes the configuration file. This is a text file that takes care of
describing a nonstandard disk drive if need be. Needed to be done only once
unless the system is changed. We should try to not ask the user and
configure automatically. If there is a 80 track 2 sided disk in the drive 
then we
can tell the user and preset the configuration which could be changed if we 
got
it wrong.

>> Now this is a goal that may not be reached, but it is the starting
>> target.
>
> Some of it unrealistic as requested.
>
>>
>> I have not played with RGBdos and I do not know if it can be turned into
>> a OS-9 Shell.
>
> As stated in another thread, both RGBDOS and HDBDOS will automatically
> run an AUTOEXEC.BAS file from a hard drive on power up or a hard RESET.
> If the AUTOEXEC.BAS is programmed to use the DOS command on a Disk Basic
> partition of the hard drive containing an OS-9 boot disk, then the net
> result will be exactly what you want from changing the ROM. However,
> there would be much more flexibility, no os9boot size constraint, and
> Disk Basic would still be present for 100% compatibility with any
> program requiring it.

I do not feel constrained by how things are done now with OS-9
and are trying to communicate better that OS-9 is apparently not running
but it is. (Parse that sentence and build one that says what I want to say
better.)

If a capability is already present that will work fine, then it will be
used.

The new shell may require some changes in RGBdos. The new shell will use
RGBdos to allow the typing in or editing of existing DECB programs or data
and for running DECB programs.

I specify that a system without a disk drive will work just fine.

The same capabilities as an unchanged CoCo 3 will be present, tape I/O and
ability to print and load / save cassette files and programs.

>> Can someone knowledgeable tell me more and think about what is needed in
>> OS-9 to run on a disk less system. I consider 2 Meg. Memory as a
>> requirement so a ram disk can be used.
>
> Not good enough because the RAM will be wiped clean at power off. You
> will need something like a flash card that would be semi-permanent or a
> hard drive. You still need a method of populating the semi-permanent
> memory which means a disk somewhere.

Wiping RAM at power up is a normal CoCo 3 operation and will not be changed.

>>
>> Stephen H. Fischer
>
> Why this burning desire for a disk less system? There are no advantages
> and many disadvantages to such a system. If you hate floppies, use a
> hard drive system with an RS-232 pak.

The first target of this project would be providing a CoCo 3 with the same
capabilities as a CoCo 3 now with just power and monitor connections.

Adding a disk drive would provide the same capabilities as a CoCo 3 with a
disk system.

Please understand, I am not trying to move all the current DECB users to
OS-9.

I am trying to define a system that looks like, feels like and responds like
an unchanged CoCo 3 but OS-9 is running and providing the OS services that
are so primitive in DECB. The user is not aware that OS-9 is running as much
as possible.

There are many things in OS-9 that make it hard to configure and use. Many
times the same problems come up and we respond with help to get the
difficulty solved but do not get at the root cause of the problem and find a
way to eliminate or simply the problem. I expect that parts of this project
will require addressing and solving these problems. That will be useful for
all OS-9 people.

Stephen H. Fischer