Re: OS-9 vs. OS/A65 vs. UNIFlex vs. LUnix/LNG

[puritan_2076@yahoo.com (Leon Howell)]

> >>Well, some of those cheat: Instead of an actual 6502, they want the
> >>16-bit 6502 superset chip Apple created (IIRC) for the IIgs.  Sorta
> >>what you'd get if you based the 8086 off the 6502 instead of the
> >> 8080. I fergit the model number and don't know the technical
> >> details.

OS/A65 and LUnix/LNG are both available for the C=64, so they will
work on the 6502.

> > Wasn't that the 65816?
> > 
> Yes.

There is also the 65802, apparently a pin-compatible replacement for
the 6502 that was 8/16 bit. A 6502 version of the 6809?

> When the 6502 was pretty big, there was all kinds of speculation about
> what would come next.  I remember a number of what-if articles in the
> magazines, that talked about the author's "dream 6502" or what they
> thought was the logical extension of the 6502.  The 6809 came along,
> and it seemed to be what the articles had been talking about, though
> not on the level of compatibility that the authors had forseen, and
> of course suddenly those 6502-specific magazines had coverage of the 
> 6809.  I suspect I bought my CoCo, and it's 6809 (and OS-9), becasue
> of such coverage.

What!? They didn't know about the 65802? Or did it come out too late?
That happens. Or was it just not any good? That would supprise me.

> The only computer I can think of that had the 65816 was the Apple IIGS.
> And it came rather late, after the 16-bit IBM had been around for maybe
> as much as five years.

The CMD Super CPU for the C=64/128 has a 65816, and up to 16 megs ram.
I'm pretty happy with a 6809 and 512k, but the Apple IIc+ and C=SX-64
don't take much room, and I need a *good* portable.

Come on now, some of you Apple or Commodore people must know about
OS/A65 & LUnix/LNG. What can you tell us?