🚀 go-pugleaf

     I just saw a blurb for OS9 v3.0 in "Electronic Design".
The blurbwriter obviously didn't know OS9, for example she
considers disk drivers, etc part of the kernal. So it had to be
fairly tightly quoted from whatever press release the author got,
since it was fairly accurate, and follows the same pattern as
other OS9 info I've seen.
     Perhaps MWare should rethink thier press releases.The
impression is OS9 is only useful for very large, very involved,
closely timed embedded aps. Sure, you have to push your
strengths, but here OS9 sounds like a mammoth hunk of ROM eating,
RAM quaffing OpSys and a passing mention of Atomic OS9 (20%
smaller!) makes it sound even bigger!
     Of course, there is no mention of desktopability per se, you
wouldn't expect such a thing in a rag like this. However, all the
desktop drivers (including tcp/ip) are mentioned, while the fact
these are optional modules doesn't make the article. I'm sure
many engineers have read releases like this, and envision this
OpSys as requiring 4-8 megs or so. (Although Atomic is 20%
smaller:-)
     Still it was nice to see mention of a nineoid system call
(F$FIRQ may be new, but it's surely OS9) in a non-dedicated
magazine.
                              -rickuland@delphi.com