[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Codename G-OS



On 14 Oct 1997 18:14:46 GMT, fachat@physik.tu-chemnitz.de (Andre
Fachat) wrote:

>Glenn Saunders (krishna@primenet.com) wrote:
>: The mortal Lazy Bone wrote:
>: :       Platform                CPU
>: :       Amstrad CPC             Z80
>[...]
>: :       Commodore 64/128        6502
>[...]
>: :       MSX (various)           Z80
>
>: This much I can understand since they are all similar.
>Except for the CPU. most have a Z80, while the C64 has a 6502.
>
>: a CPU with enough features to support preemptive multitasking.
>
>Well, even a 6502 can do that. Look at
>http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~fachat/csa
>
>: None of the 8-bit systems would qualify, and the overhead of a HAL is
>: probably too much for a 64K RAM system anyway, that you'd get more
>: mileage out of their native OSs.
>
>That, on the other hand is true IMHO. If you could write a 
>HAL and p-code interpreter for an 8 bit machine, it would eat
>up already quite some amount of memory. For the application not much 
>would be left. Probably a single-tasking OS would work.
>But running a multitasking system like that, with an appropriate
>speed? 
>
>Well, anybody said that real multitasking would be impossible on a
>6502, and I (amongst others) did it, so I should probably 
>shut up. But I think that only precompiled code would run well
>on an 8 bit machine. And then you still have to handle relocation
>and linking (shared libs) questions.
>(See also on my homepage for the OS/A65 operating system for a 
>filesystem standard for 6502 programs.)
>
>
>Andre
>

Didn't compute publish a multitasking program for the 64 years and
years ago?
Later,
dabone