MS/DOS, PC/DOS on Motorola 68K based PC
PRIETO
Does anyone have or knows of an MS/DOS or PC/DOS type OS
that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many
which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a
port?
ihnp4!aluxp!prieto
ste...@kontron.uucp
"Gemdos" which is a part of "tos" of the atari st series was meant to be very
"ms/dos" like. You might want to look into it.
Michael Gingell
> that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many
> which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a
> port?
A complete emulation of MS-DOS is available to run on the Amiga 68000
based computer. It actually emulates an 8088 and executes programs
like Lotus 123. Of course it only runs at half PC speed.
Mike Gingell, ..decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg
John McMamee
> that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation, I do know of many
> which have dual CPU in them Motorola and Intel. IS anyone working on such a
> port?
>
> ihnp4!aluxp!prieto
DRI's GEMDOS is an MSDOS 2.x clone that runs on the 68K. It uses the
same disk structure as MSDOS and even has the same system call numbers
(except that DRI left out of obsolete FCB functions of MSDOS and only
provided the handle oriented calls. They will not be missed). GEMDOS
is probably best known under the name "TOS" which is what it is called
on the Atari ST computer. GEMDOS also runs on other 68K boxes (can't
talk about who). Unfortunately DRI only talks to large OEMs, so unless
you want to license a lot of copies you are probably out of luck.
--
John P. McNamee Quadratron Systems Inc.
UUCP: {sdcrdcf|ttdica|scgvaxd|mc0|bellcore|logico|ihnp4}!psivax!quad1!jpm
ARPA: j...@BNL.ARPA
Jim Omura
Is this some kind of joke or don't you know what OS's currently
are available for 68K's? If not, then I'd advise you to take a look
around. We have *much* better OS's for the 68K than MS-DOS. Furthermore,
an MS-DOS clone OS wouldn't get you any advantages anyway. You'd still
not be able to run PC software. If you don't know any OS's for 68K,
then I suggest looking into OS-9, Uniflex, Unix System V, Concurrent,
Regulus and VRTX for a start. I think you'll find most of these to
be well supported and capable of outperforming an MS-DOS clone. OS-9
and Unix System V have the bulk of the off the shelf software available
(and are among the oldest).
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880
Bill Mayhew
/////
I can personally atest to the fact that ms-dos will run on
a 68K box. The "transformer" program accomplishes the feat.
Transformer costs $269 (US) or so and comes with a 5.25 inch drive.
I'm not sure exactly how the magic is done; it appears that the
bios functions are grabbed, and run in native 68K code, while
object programs' 808x instructions are interpreted as p-code on a
virtual cpu.
Amazingly, the thing works qutie well. Obvioulsy, speed is
a penalty. It only runs about 1/2 to 1/6 the speed of a genuine
pee-cee XT. Relative speed depends on what's being done. Things
that make heavy use of ms-dos interrupts seem fast. A recalcuate
in a 1-2-3 spreadsheet takes about 6x the normal pee-cee.
For the people who say "why the h*ll run ms-dos on a 68K?"
You should keep politics and economics in mind. Sometimes, it is
difficult to justify buying a second computer just to run a program
(that is only available in ms-dos). Also, sometimes similar things
exists in other operating systems, but they often cost xxx more,
and there is also a cost attached to operator retraining for the
not-quite the same program.
Bill Mayhew, Electrical Engineer
Division of Basic Medical Sciences
Northeastern Ohio Universities' College of Medicine
Rootstown, OH 44272 USA (216) 325-2511
...!allegra!neoucom!wtm
John Woodruff
> Is this some kind of joke or don't you know what OS's currently
> are available for 68K's? If not, then I'd advise you to take a look
> around. We have *much* better OS's for the 68K than MS-DOS. Furthermore,
> an MS-DOS clone OS wouldn't get you any advantages anyway. You'd still
Unfortunately, that ability is *MANDATORY* for some folk... Our boss
dosen't care if he's using a Univac I, and never liked Unix...
but he *loves* Lotus 123. As much as I (and Jim, I suspect) dislike
it, the fact is that MS-DOS is a de-facto standard, and a method of
combining the two (so he can use Lotus and I can do real work) is
quite marketable.
Hewlett-Packard has a board that goes into their 68010/020 workstations
containing an 80286, and accompanied by software that arranges for
DOS and HP-UX to share a single filesystem and windowed display.
You get a single box that does both a PC/AT and Unix at the same time.
If it works the way they claim, it's *real neat*... but I've never
seen it. Call your HP rep for reliable information on this.
h...@uicsl.uucp
RE:
>Does anyone have or knows of an MS/DOS or PC/DOS type OS
>that runs under Motorola 68k based PC or workstation,
"Is this some kind of joke..."
I believe HSC may sell an MSDOS like O/S for their 68K coprocessor.
I think the idea was that the user already knew MSDOS, so using the
coprocessor would be simple.
----
harold ravlin {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uicsl!hr
jimo...@lsuc.uucp
I've had a few discussions going on the topic of running MS-DOS
stuff on 68K machines and I thought there were a few things worth
posting which are not really relevant to the main discussion but may
be of general interest.
First, the best idea for getting a "2nd computer" is to put in
a proposal for an "adapter". This can be quite legitimate. You have
"adapters" for all kinds of thing. What your "adapter" will consist
of will be a small Singleboard computer and a Floppy disk (possibly
with powersupply) and RS-232 (and whatever software you require).
If you check around, you'll be surprised at how cheaply this can be
had.
Some thoughts on Lotus:
Under OS-9 we have a program called Dynacalc. The 68K version
is quite powerful (better than the 6809 version which itself was equal
to the later Advanced Visicalc which had split screen and individual
column widths--I use the 6809 version myself). Both Lotus and Dynacalc
being fairly much Visicalc, you can adapt the sheets you have fairly
easily. I'm not sure yet, but I *think* the DIF files are directly
compatible (if crossloaded).
The Radio Shack Color Computer running a 1 mHz. 6809 outperformed
an IBM-PC on the Byte Spreadsheet benchmark (I did the Color Computer
run on Dynacalc myself). A 68020 ran the benchmark roughly 20 times
faster than the IBM-PC (Dynacalc and no math co-processor).
You cannot legally use Lotus on more than 1 machine for each copy
purchased (yes, I know, first you have to get caught ...). A single
copy of Dynacalc will serve more than one user under OS-9 (and quite
efficiently, due to it being re-entrant code).
If you don't know enough about Lotus to port sheets to Dynacalc,
you have *no* business relying on the data that you get from Lotus.
It's easy to muck up a spreadsheet if you *really* don't know what
you are doing.
ph...@osiris.uucp
find this concept ironically fascinating in light of the recent (~
3 months or so ago) discussion on 68k or 32k coprocessor boards for
ATs. I remarked then that putting a 68k or 32k board with its own
memory management, a meg or so of memory, and SysV into an AT as a
"slave processor" was a funny notion (in more ways than one). Now
we've got 286 "slave processor" boards for 68k systems, which I
feel is getting things in the right order for a change.
The point about giving PC-dazzled decision makers a good reason to
buy a good box instead of a PC clone is quite valid. I know of
several people who would never consider a machine that couldn't run
PCFile (fortunately *I* don't work for them, but my poor saintly
grey-haired mother [honest, she is!] has gone through a lot of
abuse because her office had to be automated with PC clones).
Look at it this way: when those managers gets tired of beating
their heads against 123, they may just try out the *main* side of
the box and get spoiled...
Phil Kos ...!decvax!decuac
The Johns Hopkins Hospital > !aplcen!osiris!phil
Baltimore, MD ...!allegra!umcp-cs
"Reach out your hand if your cup be empty,
If your cup is full, may it be again." - Robert Hunter
Jeff Lee
of building a homebrew system with some rudimentary memory management
(on the order of the PDP-11/45-70). I have built operating systems
before (on a ... gag ... Pr1me and an MV 10000) but I would prefer to
not have to do it all again from scratch. Which brings me to my question
of where can one get OS9/68K? Do sources come with it, and if not,
how does one bring it up on a homebrew? Finally the biggie: How much
does it cost for binary and/or source?
--
Jeff Lee
CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
jimo...@lsuc.uucp
Source code is available. Microware has a sort of graded cost
system. If Kim Kempf is around, you should send him mail (I can't
recall the full Usenet address). Essentially, the more actual source
code you get, the more you pay. You really shouldn't need much source
though. The bare minimum port is a couple of drivers and a clock.
For memory management it's more difficult and (I can just imagine
the arguments this next comment is going to touch off :-) not
really that advantageous for a single (actual) user system.
Keep in mind that OS-9 object code is written position independant
and fully relocatable. We mix and match modules freely without
hardware MMU's.
Rex Ballard
>In article <12...@lsuc.UUCP>, jimo...@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>> Is this some kind of joke or don't you know what OS's currently
>> are available for 68K's? If not, then I'd advise you to take a look
>> around. We have *much* better OS's for the 68K than MS-DOS. Furthermore,
>> an MS-DOS clone OS wouldn't get you any advantages anyway. You'd still
>> not be able to run PC software. ...
>
>Unfortunately, that ability is *MANDATORY* for some folk... Our boss
>dosen't care if he's using a Univac I, and never liked Unix...
>but he *loves* Lotus 123.
Does it HAVE to be LOTUS? There ARE BETTER spreadsheets, word processors,
databases, mail programs,... that CAN be run as a TRULY INTEGRATED system
without the TRICKY PROGRAMMING of LOTUS!
On UNIX, you can get fully integrated office automation packages that
make Lotus 1-2-3 look like a "toy". There are even spreadsheets that
can go 1024 x 1024 cells! Some of the "virtual memory systems" are
only limited by disk capacity.
On OS-9, there are similar packages, many even object code compatible,
so you don't need source.
>As much as I (and Jim, I suspect) dislike
>it, the fact is that MS-DOS is a de-facto standard, and a method of
>combining the two (so he can use Lotus and I can do real work) is
>quite marketable.
MS-DOS is a mono-tasking, "wait for the printout", LIMITED operating
system, for which applications literally "blow up" the operating
system. Integration, "ram residents", and other "PC-Specific" software
are simply creative solutions to the PROBLEMS created by PC-DOS.
Back when the PC only had 64K, and a floppy or tape drive, these
were necessary.
More than likely, by the end of this year, either Topview or Windows
will bring "real multi-tasking" to the PC. If this happens, the need
for "Integration,et. al." will virtually dissappear. Data standards
will probably be more important than "object code compatibility".
In fact, many of the "Hostile" applications such as 1-2-3 and
side-kick will have to be upgraded to be more "friendly" and
respect the OS. Even the Mac and the Atari have an equivalent
to SideKick (built-in yet).
>Hewlett-Packard has a board that goes into their 68010/020 workstations
>containing an 80286, and accompanied by software that arranges for
>DOS and HP-UX to share a single filesystem and windowed display.
The Little-Board 2 is a $300 add-on that can run "Generic MS-DOS".
Unfortunately, unless the application is willing to give up control
of the "Bit Map", to an exclusively EGA type interface, they are unlikely to
run on anything other than a "PC-Clone".
>You get a single box that does both a PC/AT and Unix at the same time.
Seems like almost ANYBODY can make an AT these days :-).
Seriously. If your boss insisted that everyone wear "Johnny Carson" brand
suits, you'd think it was silly right? Especially if the "Designer Brand"
suits were of lower quality and/or 2-5 times the price. If he requested
that people wear 3-piece suits, then you have a wide range of products
to choose from.
Determine, with your boss, what is actually needed. He might find a package
for a 68K machine such as the Mac, Amiga, Atari, or ?? that gives him even
BETTER service, AND gives him the ability to work while he's "waiting for
the printout".
Peter C. Dibble
> of building a homebrew system with some rudimentary memory management
> of where can one get OS9/68K? Do sources come with it, and if not,
> how does one bring it up on a homebrew? Finally the biggie: How much
> does it cost for binary and/or source?
OS9/68k lists at $400, and I think the Atari version costs more like $200.
You can get it with support and source for device drivers, clock module,
and other modules that are needed for a simple port for a much higher price.
I think development tools are included too.
It's called the Portpack, and I think it costs about $8000. Complete source
is also available, but the price is higher still.
If you are building your own system to save money, a Portpack is not an option.
I think I would recommend getting a version of OS-9 for a machine that's
like what you want to build, then modifying hardware and software until it
works.
dougd@hpfclo
>Hewlett-Packard has a board that goes into their 68010/020 workstations
>containing an 80286, and accompanied by software that arranges for
>DOS and HP-UX to share a single filesystem and windowed display.
>You get a single box that does both a PC/AT and Unix at the same time.
>If it works the way they claim, it's *real neat*... but I've never
>seen it. Call your HP rep for reliable information on this.
The product is orderable from HP as the 98286A (HW) and 98531A (SW). The
combo lists for <$1300 and is currently orderable. HP is quoting 16 week
availability on it but you should be able to see units in field offices
during July.
Doug Drees
Systems Software Operation
Hewlett-Packard
Kim Kempf
>> how does one bring it up on a homebrew? Finally the biggie: How much
>> does it cost for binary and/or source?
>
>OS9/68k lists at $400, and I think the Atari version costs more like $200.
>You can get it with support and source for device drivers, clock module,
>and other modules that are needed for a simple port for a much higher price.
>I think development tools are included too.
>It's called the Portpack, and I think it costs about $8000. Complete source
>is also available, but the price is higher still.
>
I wish we got $8000 for a portpak. No more need to work long hours!
It comes with all the source you need to port OS-9 to the target machine.
The portpak is also a license to run a single copy on the machine you port
to, i.e, no distribution rights. The cheapest portpak runs on an OS-9/68k
host. The UNIX and VMS and most other host versions are more expensive
>$2000. The portpak source code includes source for a number of device
drivers, initialization and bootrom code and the machine-dependent parts
of the kernel in the case of MMU/SPU versions.
>If you are building your own system to save money, a Portpack is not an option.
>I think I would recommend getting a version of OS-9 for a machine that's
>like what you want to build, then modifying hardware and software until it
>works.
THe portpak was primarily intended as a way to evaluate OS-9 for a system
that doesn't require an OEM to buy a license up front. The $1000 price is
required because of the support provided via the Hotline that comes with
the portpak. If it don't boot, you can call us...
Actually, I am just a techie. Call Drew Crane at Microware for up-to-date
OS-9 portpak information at (515) 224-1929.
----------------
Kim Kempf, Microware Systems Corporation
{{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver}\
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,sunup} >!fluke!mcrware!kim
{ssc-vax,hplsla,wavetek,physio,cae780,tikal,telematic}/