[Coco] How much memory

[Frank Swygert]

I was mainly referring to DECB and other early "home" computers, and even the original IBM-PC when concerning GW-BASIC. I did state that only a system like OS-9 could easily utilize a full 64K. I didn't consider multi-tasking at all. That would quickly burn up a lot of memory for sure!

That's the main reason Frank Hogg was saying that Forth was a much better OS for the CoCo than OS-9 in the early days -- Forth allowed multi-tasking and used memory a lot more efficiently than OS-9. Of course when the CoCo3 and OS-9 Level II came out he had to eat some crow in a way, but considering the limitations of Level I and the CoCo 1/2 he was correct as far as Forth being "better".

-----------
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:57:19 -0500
From: Roger Merchberger<zmerch-coco at 30below.com>

On 11/28/2010 10:07 AM, Frank Swygert wrote:

> >  As Steve said, OS-9 was designed in the late 70s/early 80s when anything
> >  more than 64K was a dream for 8 bit computers. Memory was a bit
> >  expensive, and everything was done with text screens. Who needed even
> >  64K? Only a (for the time) sophisticated OS like OS-9 could fully use
> >  64K! Then graphics came along and needed more memory, programs became
> >  more sophisticated (and slopier coded!), memory and computer prices
> >  started dropping, etc.
I'd have to disagree -- I was constantly bumping up against the 64K
barrier on my CoCo2 with OS-9 even without graphics, and 512K was a
godsend in my CoCo3 -- being able to run TS-Edit in one window, with
DynaCalc in a 2nd window, Rogue in a 3rd window, and still be able to
run a 200K ramdisk was when the CoCo was finally "roomy enough" for my
needs, and I could get a*lot*  more work (or play;-)  ) done without
constantly exiting applications to free up RAM.


-- 
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
Magazine (AMC)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://www.amc-mag.com
(free download available!)