[Coco] origins of OS-9

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 04 March 2010, Aaron Wolfe wrote:

>Hi,

>

>I'm writing an article about OS-9 for a "retro computing" magazine.

>I'm interested in exactly how and why OS-9 came to exist and any

>related stories.

>

>What I have found so far (and let me be quick to confess I am not sure

>this is accurate) is that in the late 70s Microware sold software for

>the 6800, a version of Lisp and a monitor/debugger of sorts called

>RT/68MX.  One SWTPC user describes it as a replacement for Motorola's

>MikBug.  In an A-VIDD catalog from 1977

>(http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/avidd/Avidd.htm), it is listed as "RT/68

>MX - Multi user ROAA for the SWTPCO M6800".   What is an ROAA?  Did

>this multi user monitor for 6800 eventually become OS-9?

>

>It seems the general consensus that Motorola contracted Microware to

>create Basic09 because they wanted to showcase their new 6809 with a

>language that took advantage of it's power.  Does anyone know how this

>relationship came to be?  It is suggested in more than one place that

>Motorola introduced Microware to Tandy which eventually lead to OS-9

>being used on the CoCo.

>

>OS-9 is described as being created "because once they finished

>Basic09, they decided they needed an operating system to go with it".

>Considering that OS-9 is much larger and more complex than B09 is, I'm

>not sure this makes sense.  Does anyone know more detail or can anyone

>confirm this is indeed why OS-9 came to exist?  I wonder if they were

>already porting RT/68MX to 6809, and this is what became OS-9.  Just a

>theory :)

>

>If anyone knows more detail and doesn't mind sharing, I'd would love

>to get a better understanding of these events.

>

>-Aaron


I am not the historian for os9, but I would make the comment that since 
basic09's success as a language is pretty well intertwined with the systems 
subfunctions, I'd have to say that os9 would have to predate basic09 somewhat 
unless they were working from a framework chart of what os9 was to become by 
the time they shot the last programmer.

That last comment is because I've heard for decades now that the only time a 
program is truly finished is when somebody shoots the programmer writing it.

There have been several times when I had to 'shoot myself' because what I was 
working on was working well for the job I wrote it for, and stability was 
needed for the everyday production use.  And I'd say that if its still 
working well a decade plus later, that it was worth the effort.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Too much of everything is just enough.
		-- Bob Wier