[Coco] Windows vs. Linux (was 512K upgrade)

Wed Mar 12 22:39:12 EDT 2014

Nick, I was going to stay out of this one (even though it started from my post :-) until you said OS9 is slow....
First, ANY operation in OS9 using OS9 system calls is faster than ANY Microsoft Disk Extended Color Basic routine... and there's your sign... "Microsoft" Disk Extended Color Basic.

The only thing I've ever run across in OS9 that I find to be slow is Basic09 which is STILL much faster than RSDOS basic (DECB). If you had ever bothered to learn the system and write your code in position independent code using OS9 system calls, you would know this...but wait... that requires reading some manuals. So what's wrong with knowledge? You bothered to learn assembly... It works the same in OS9 just with more flexibility. And more support from the system. 

The programming you do is NOT RSDOS. If anything, you MAY use the (really bad) hooks in RSDOS to do disk access or read the keyboard... because it's too complicated to write your own. Your programming is 6809/6309 assembly/machine language and is not done in "RSDOS". To say RSDOS has everything you need is a complete understatement. You do most of your work on other machines and transfer it to the Coco to put it all together (based on your own posts). Why not use some of those wonderful "fast" apps you're talking about? Because they're slow and cumbersome. 

Disk access and keyreads are definitely faster in OS9 as they are low-level system calls with passable parameters. Even mouse access is faster and more accurate (and already done, including hi-res interface). You name an app in RSDOS and I'll give you one in OS9 that's better.... TeleWriter80 / DynaStar... EDTASM / Asm and/or RMA... TSEdit (RSDOS) / TSEdit (OS9)... CocoMax3 / MV Canvas (since MVC was unfinished, this is questionable)... VIPCalc / DynaCalc... You get the picture... or do you?

And yes, games run faster in "RSDOS"...  as they should... since they don't (usually) run in RSDOS anyway. If they were written in Basic, they would be painfully SLOW. They are just "loaded" from RSDOS then take over the machine once executed. Some even "overwrite" the RSDOS rom itself. They run in machine language as stand-alone programs and are only dependant on RSDOS for disk access or keyboard routines if even that. You could even say (for the most part) that most ML games turn the Coco into their own personal "Game Console" with their own OS. Given that, they should be fast.

OS9 is a multi-tasking, multi-user environment so yes, it does interrupts to check and give other programs processing time. This could make some timing critical software slow, BUT, this can be avoided in a situation where multi-tasking is not required or wanted or for short periods of time for critical events (as in serial or disk activity). The manuals advise against this because most "so called" programmers would have abused this excessively and driven OS9 down the tubes given the freedom to do so. Have you ever played "Leisure Suit Larry", or "King's Quest III"? I see nothing slow there. Even PacOS9 and Smash, really fast paced. But yes, independant ML games are faster, but those examples show that it can be done without "breaking the rules".

Yes, OS9 is complicated and does have a high learning curve, but so does Linux, Unix, and if you want to write programs... even Windows can be tough.... Just try writing something using Visual C# with no knowledge of the system... I find very few things worth using that have an "EASY" button.

The real problem you have with OS9 is you don't want to take the time to learn it. I find it funny that the only people who say things like "OS9 is slow" or "OS9 has no apps" are people who don't use or know how to use OS9. They can't get past the cmd prompt... or the first chapter of the manual. Most people who bothered to learn OS9, are still using it today if even in a hobbyist capacity. I don't think you can say that for DECB users. They left for better things long ago. I have used OS9 since Level 1 and saw even then, the power available to me. And that was coming from an RSDOS assembly background. With the advent of OS9 Level 2, we gained even more power. More than just a few new cmds and flakey hi-res graphics routines, but the ability to access up to 2 meg of memory (so far) from within the system, not with program "tricks". Also came the ability to run several independant programs and pass data between them... from within the system.... and much more.

I don't usually write games, but instead write useful apps that expand the capabilities of the OS and utilize the capabilities of the new technologies still being developed today, and also to help make the OS easier to use. Again, most of the new hardware being developed is geared for OS9 use anyway (there are exceptions and inclusions)... There's no room in "RSDOS" to add such "niceties". You have to rewrite the OS to add new stuff..... But WAIT!!.... we already did that... it's called NitrOS9... modular... structured... customizable... expandable... complete.

Sure, if you want to write games that need all the processor's time and need no system control, the 6809/6309 assembly is the way to go and they way you most likely should go, but if you want a structured system with most everything (system calls) readily available as well as speed and ease of use.... I wouldn't give you a kick in a hog's butt for RSDOS. It's SLOW, BUGGED, and for the most part. UNDOCUMENTED (on purpose) CALLS. I mean... and some people seem to forget... it is written by Microsoft.... 'nough said.

So before you say "OS9 is slow", know what you are saying and be ready to prove it. When it comes to OS9, I am ready to prove it.

BTW... I don't see anyone still developing DECB...  :-P

Bill Pierce
"Today is a good day... I woke up" - Ritchie Havens

My Music from the Tandy/Radio Shack Color Computer 2 & 3
https://sites.google.com/site/dabarnstudio/
Co-Webmaster of The TRS-80 Color Computer Archive
http://www.colorcomputerarchive.com/
Co-Contributor, Co-Editor for CocoPedia
http://www.cocopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
E-Mail: ooogalapasooo at aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nickma2 <nickma2 at optusnet.com.au>
To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Coco] Windows vs. Linux (was 512K upgrade)

 I can understand where your coming from and for me, Windows is the
better choice than Linux.

To bring this topic back into the CoCo realm...

Linux and OS-9 share similarities.

I haven't been sold to OS-9 because of the very same issues as linux.
I just don't find the software running under OS-9 to be as good or
useful to me as what I can find or do under RS-DOS.

Case in point... my game "Popstar Pilot" would be impossible to do
under a normal OS-9 environment. 

I know OS-9 is very powerful and I'm aware of it's features. It's a
dream to those OS hacker types, much in the way Linux is.

But I don't believe I should be concentrating on constantly fixing the
OS. I believe that the OS should be there to allow applications to run
and allow the user to achieve things. There are very few OS-9 apps
that are of interest to me.

That's not to say that these OS hacker types are stupid and wasting
their time. That's what they like, that's fine.

I'm just saying that it doesn't exactly "move the earth"  *for me*.

If OS-9 had a decent GUI and ran a bit faster, I could be swayed but
till then, I'll stick with RS-DOS (instant boot, easy and fast program
development, allows me to hit-the-hardware and get the max from the
hardware)

Nick

----- Original Message -----
From: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" 
To:"CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" 
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:37:12 +1100
Subject:Re: [Coco] Windows vs. Linux (was 512K upgrade)

 On 10/03/2014 4:36 AM, Louis Ciotti wrote:

 > My biggest problem with linux is the lack of software that works as
well
 > as software on windows or OS X.

 I was loathe to weigh in on this religious (& OT) debate but I must
say I'd 
 agree very strongly with this statement.

 A few years ago I decided to trial running a Linux desktop at home, 
 attempting to break my dependency on Windows. I lasted 3 days, and it
was a 
 dismal failure; not because I prefer Windows over Linux, but because
the OS 
 and applications simply couldn't deliver the quality and
functionality I got 
 under Windows. And I'm afraid that has put me off using Linux on the
desktop 
 for life.

 Regards,

 -- 
 | Mark McDougall | "Electrical Engineers do it
 |  | with less resistance!"

-------------------------
Email sent using Optus Webmail

--
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco