[Coco] Why DECB is important to OS-9 folk.

[Willard Goosey]

>From: "Stephen H. Fischer" <SFischer1 at MindSpring.com>
>Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 22:54:30 -0700

>I understand that the non OS-9 users have made up the bulk of CoCo users
>right from the start.
>
>IMHO this division of the CoCo users remains the same today.

Well, when Tandy charged as much for OS-9 as they did for the
computer...

>Whether we are talking about a hardware project or software project, if we
>wish to increase the numbers of people ordering / buying / using our
>projects we must include features that DECB folk want. 

I understand what you're saying.  But since DECB it so limited, DECB
support can be a huge job.  Even for something simple, say a parallel
port.  Do you really wanna have to make a patch for every CoCo word
processor ever sold?  It's what you'd have to do.  

The other extreme is a piece of new hardware that can only be used
with included software.  A digitizer for example.

As far as software... From an assembly programmer's point of view, the
CoCo ROMS have a handfull of documented entry points and is otherwise
32K of wasted memory space.

>There is a big problem on this list for DECB folk.

I haven't really noticed that. <Shrug>

>The discussions we are having are so overwhelming about OS-9 that I suspect
>many DECB folk that are signed up for our messages have or are thinking
>about leaving as what is in their interest is discussed so little. I am
>revising my previous statement.

Well, discuss it then.  It seems to me that DECB is hardly as
neglected as you're saying, but I admit I haven't been following that
"OS-9 as replacement" thread.  A fair bit of the stuff actually going
on as been for DECB.  

For example, the various GCC ports, AFAIK, still can't target OS-9, as
they're not producing PIC code yet.  But they can be used for DECB, if
anybody can manage to port libc.  I believe ADOS has been released for
free distribution.  Sock Master did that neat Matrix demo.   There's
one that doesn't go for this OS-9 thing!  A few years ago he (and
Niick Marentes) did a DECB-only hardware project!  

>Splitting this list up into three or four lists *may* increase our DECB and
>OSK (I am trying to get over my previous option and not discourage them)
>members and produce more projects for them. The current list remaining for
>posts that involve all CoCo Users.

I think that would fragment an already-too-small base.  As an example
I give you FLEX.  There were (apparently) versions for the CoCo 1 & 2.
Somebody (I think) on this list has a version that is CoCo 3 tolerant.
IMHO I think a truly native CoCo 3 FLEX (by that I mean one that uses
the 80-col. hi-rez text mode) would be a good base layer for GCC and
libc.  But the FLEX list doesn't wanna hear about OS-9 at all, and is
barely tolerant of the CoCo FLEX port...  They might have some useful
input about 6809 C compilers, but nobody from their list (that I know
of) is on this list, and vice versa.

Willard
-- 
Willard Goosey  goosey at sdc.org
Socorro, New Mexico, USA
"I've never been to Contempt!  Isn't that somewhere in New Mexico?"
   --- Yacko