🚀 go-pugleaf

For those of you in Amiga, Mac, and ST

In article <821@ihwpt.UUCP> knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) writes:
>> In article <1185@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>> >
>> >     Mike K. mentioned a CD-ROM standard based on OS-9 68K.  In fact, it's
>> >called CDI. 
>> >                                            Cheers! -- Jim O.
>> >James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
>> 
>> I can sense Jim's glee now that OS-9 is the darling of JerryP and the
>> InfoWorld circles of journalism, by virtue of its incorporation in
>> the CDI standard, but I have reservations and I would like to hear some
>> net input.
>> 
>> As I understand it, OS-9 will be used as an internal control operating
>> system within a closed, appliance type of product (i.e., like
>> a stereo component) which will use custom--and we can assume proprietary--
>> chips for graphics and audio.
>> 
>> The question is: What advantage is held by a computer running OS-9 if
>> the CDI standard becomes a success?
> ...
>>     6- that OS-9 is really great, independent of CDI, and that you
>> 	come out ahead even without any of the above panning out.
>> 		    jimm
>
>When I posted, I thought only of (6) above -- that this CD
>standard was a nice feather in the cap of OS9 and we could all
>brag about "knowing OS9 when."  True, OS9 will be sealed up inside
>a box, and hardly anyone will know it's there.
>But I will, and so will you... mike k

After the fiascos with 5 1/4" disks, and 3",3 1/2",100mm,... disks,
it looks like the drive makers have learned their lesson.  It looks
like they are trying to agree on one interface (SCSI), one size,
one format, and one file system (OS-9).  This reduces the risks
to the drive makers, their customers, and the end users.  At the
same time, there are a wide range of areas for competition, such
as rotational speed, caching, queuing, seek times, other speed
related issues, and price.

This compatibility is extra important when you consider that CD-ROMs
will have to be "Printed" like records.  Especially when you realize
the quantity of information that will be stored.  Things like an
entire encyclopedia, net.* for 1 year, every public domain source
ever published, all of Shakespears plays with illustrations, the
index to the library of congress, the telephone directory for the
state of New York,...  The mind boggles.  The point is that all
of these things cost money to develope.  Even 10% of the IBM
market wouldn't cover it.  All this before the first device is
even released!

My guess is that the BIGGEST reason for using OS-9 in CDI is that
OS-9 is the ONLY system which has a TRULY sharable Remote File System.
This not a file server like TCP/IP, FTP, or UUCP. Or a block server
like certain other systems.  This is a "remotely executed  device
driver".

With it you can send an "open /usr/lib/libc.a" or whatever file name,
and the treat it just like a standard block mode file.  You don't
have to know anything about how the files are structured, how
they are stored, or what the format of the disk is.  Just "read(3)" :-).
Furthermore, the PC side can do any translations of ":,\,<,>,..."
to a simple path format.  From the little bit of information I DO
have on it, it sounds like a VERY GOOD choice.

In addition, the OS can be ROMed, MMU is not required, but is
supported, and since it will probably run mostly the RFS server, heap
compaction isn't a real strain.  In addition, OS-9 has a VDI interface
for presentation graphics, good network protocols, and lots of other
good things.

I can see it now, 68070, 2 256Kx4 rams, SCSI controller/adapter,
and CD interface.  SCSI/ethernet adapter makes it available to
several hosts.  SCSI on the hosts make direct connection as simple
as "plugging in".

Besides, you should see the royalty schedule for 10K copies of
OS-9 :-).

I wonder if any of the 68K box makers will "follow suit". :-).

Note: followups to this article will be posted to net.micro.68k
(No need to always keep the net cluttered with duplicates)