[Coco] multitasking was1000sx update
goosey at virgo.sdc.org
Sun Apr 23 03:12:02 EDT 2006
>From: KnudsenMJ at aol.com
>Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:29:33 EDT
>Well, there's a quote for the ages!
Why, thank you. :-)
>Although multi-tasking did work well on my Coco, I soon learned not to start
>two procs that both had to access the hard drive -- they spent most of their
>time undoing each other's seeks.
Oh yes, as long as everything's in RAM, OS-9 is a beautiful thing to
watch multitask. But I/O is a REAL bottleneck.
>To make a real OS-9 computer, Tandy should have put in a decent
I guess that was part of the problem... Tandy didn't decide that they
should really push OS-9 until the CoCo 3 had been out for a year or
so. And then it was too late. :-(
>but that would have cost another big Moto chip.
A good point. I read once that when Jobs and Woz were building the
Apple 1, they could get a 6502 for $2... or a 6801 for $50. And since
the CoCo was trying to compete with the dirt-cheap-to-build C64...
> Certainly when they went to the Coco 3 and added the GIME, with its
>additional interrupt sources, it would have been nice to separate out
>the clock interrupts from everything else.
Yeah, just doing that would have helped.
>Coco OS-9 had more funny bugs and misfeatures and wasted time with
>interrupts than anything else, IMHO. --Mike K.
Hum, I've never seen anything else running OS-9. I take it other
ports are better?
Willard Goosey goosey at sdc.org
Socorro, New Mexico, USA
"I've never been to Contempt! Isn't that somewhere in New Mexico?"
More information about the Coco