What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

A place to discuss general QL issues.
User avatar
1024MAK
Super Gold Card
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Looking forward to summer in Somerset, UK...

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby 1024MAK » Sat May 25, 2019 6:56 am

How are we defining multitasking?

Only the Sinclair ZX81 could be described as a very limited multitasking system because in normal (slow) mode the CPU was constantly (as far as the user was concerned) switching between running the users program and generating the serial data stream to maintain a steady non flickering video picture.

Is it anything like modern multitasking systems, of course not. But CPU technology has moved on rather a lot.

Mark


QL, Falcon, Atari 520STFM, Atari 1040STE, more PC's than I care to count and an assortment of 8 bit micros (Sinclair and Acorn)(nearly forgot the Psion's)
stephen_usher
Trump Card
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:00 pm

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby stephen_usher » Sat May 25, 2019 1:55 pm

Arnould wrote:Also look at MS Xenix (was it the name ? I do not remember correctly) : total failure.


Xenix was supposed to be MSDOS 3 but was killed by it not being backwardly compatible with MSDOS 2 and hence didn't run Lotus 123. At the time business wouldn't buy anything which didn't run that spreadsheet as it was the only package they thought mattered.

MSDOS 2 introduced transitional feature to allow the transition in which the command "switch" character and directory separator could be changed to '-' and '/' respectively so as to match the UNIX usage. There was a flag in the system variables to tell applications which version to use. However, almost all applications ignored this and hard coded '/' and '\' in their code.

MSDOS 3 had partial support for this but by that time even Microsoft weren't following their own rules, especially when Xenix was relegated to a specialist product.


User avatar
RalfR
Gold Card
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:58 pm

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby RalfR » Sat May 25, 2019 5:15 pm

Xenix was used on Siemens computers here in Germany and I remember to try (and found via MausNet) someone, to copy all those text files for use on WIN 3.1.


Arnould
ROM Dongle
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:37 am

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby Arnould » Mon May 27, 2019 5:02 pm

Hello Stephen,

I did not know that Xenix was foreseen to become MS-DOS. However if they could not make a "simple" system like MS-DOS compatible with an "advanced" system like Xenix, certainly based on all the best theories about system software, then:

- either they had utterly bad programmers at Microsoft,
- or Xenix was an uncontrolable total mess that never worked well enough.

I would say the second option must have been true. Because of that team of thinking/eating philosophers not even able to afford 2 forks per person.


User avatar
tofro
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:53 pm
Location: SW Germany

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby tofro » Mon May 27, 2019 5:53 pm

What I recall on Xenix is that it was intended to be the Standard OS for PCs, (later, the same plan applied to OS/2) which does not necessarily mean MSDOS 3. (Just like OS/2 was not necessarily planned as a replacement for MSDOS at all.)

Considering the last stand-alone version of MS-DOS (6.22) was released in 1994, MS-DOS lived way longer than Xenix inside MS (last MS version released in 1985, after that it went to SCO [of later dubious fame]).

Xenix required at least 256kB RAM and a harddisk - something which simply couldn't be expected "standard" in the early 1980s. MSDOS had to stay around for quite a bit longer... In 1983, MS started development on OS/2 - and lost interest in Xenix.

The Xenix for Siemens PC was actually called "Sinix" - Which was based on Xenix.

Tobias


ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ ǝq oʇ ƃuᴉoƃ ʇou sᴉ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʇxǝu ʎɯ 'ɹɐǝp ɥO
User avatar
ql_freak
Gold Card
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:29 am

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby ql_freak » Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:01 am

RalfR wrote:
ql_freak wrote:nor the Atari ST have had any Multitasking at all, not even cooperative Multitasking.


Just as long, as you do not use Mag!X


Problem: With Mag!X (there was also another Multitasking-OS) a lot of programs didn't run any more or have had a lot of obscure bugs (we´re talking about the ST, not the QL).


http://peter-sulzer.bplaced.net
GERMAN! QL-Download page also available in English: GETLINE§() function, UNIX-like "ls" command, improved DIY-Toolkit function EDLINE$ - All with source. AND a good Python 3 Tutorial (German) for Win/UNIX :-)
User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby Peter » Wed Apr 15, 2020 4:04 pm

1024MAK wrote:Only the Sinclair ZX81 could be described as a very limited multitasking system because in normal (slow) mode the CPU was constantly (as far as the user was concerned) switching between running the users program and generating the serial data stream to maintain a steady non flickering video picture.

Is it anything like modern multitasking systems, of course not. But CPU technology has moved on rather a lot.

Not a shortcoming of the Z80 CPU. For example, there is an operating system called SymbOS that supports preemptive multitasking on machines like Amstrad CPC and MSX2. Those machines also use Z80 CPU and lack memory protection.


stephen_usher
Trump Card
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:00 pm

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby stephen_usher » Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:55 am

And there is, of course, FUZIX, which is a UNIX-like OS for Z80 processors.


User avatar
Pr0f
Super Gold Card
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:54 am

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby Pr0f » Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:58 am

stephen_usher wrote:And there is, of course, FUZIX, which is a UNIX-like OS for Z80 processors.


I seem to remember an UZ180 too - for the HD64180/Z80180 series


User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: What makes the OS for QL any better, different, unique ?

Postby Peter » Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:04 pm

stephen_usher wrote:And there is, of course, FUZIX, which is a UNIX-like OS for Z80 processors.

Also for 68K, I was almost tempted to do a quick Q68 port.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests