#Motorola RISC & DOS
5 messages in this thread
I would be very interested in talking to anyone who is doing software
development for the Motorola 88xxx RISC processor. I'm presently working
on a project involving the 88100 + 88200 and am seeking information about
running MS-DOS or OS/2 on this architecture. I'm using an OPUS 88xxx and
Motorola Platform 88 as hosts for native mode code development and recently
developed a curiousity about running DOS applications in a "window" environ
on the 88xxx. I'm fully aware of the BIOS problems and 386 vs 88xxx
architectural differences, but can't discount the possible performance
advantages of running applications on a RISC processor.
If you have similar interests, leave me a message here. I can also arrange
remote login to the Platform 88 if you're interested in running simulations
or native mode code on a 25 mhz 88xxx RISC host.
Jim,
It seems to me that, to run MS-DOS or OS/2 on any non-80×86 processor,
you would have to write, not only an emulator for the 80×86 processor but
also provide a BIOS in either native or emulation mode. It also seems to
me that any possible performance advantage would be eaten by the necessary
emulation software.
It might well be easier to write a DOS lookalike operating system.
Then DOS applications that were written entirely in a high level language
could be recompiled. After you wrote the compilers of course ….
There is ongoing work at Microsoft (I concert with IBM, I presume) to
produce a more portable OS/2. Unfortunately for you, the next physical
target is the Intel i860. It will likely be many years before you'll see
an OS/2 on any Motorola processor.
Scott
Butting in here… Exactly what is an i860? -Martin
Jim,
A couple of thoughts. Consider the DOS compatibility box under
OS/2. A whole bunch of DOS applications don't work at all, or
at least not very well in that environment. If Microsoft, who
ought to know what they're doing, can't even support DOS under
OS/2, who could do it on a completely alien machine architecture?
The problem isn't that DOS is so complex, it's that it has provided
a completely unprotected environment for bit-twiddling prorgammers
to play around in for 8 years or so. The applications make such
arcane and horrendous assumptions about the OS and environment
that nothing but DOS can fill the bill.
Also, why run DOS on a whiz-bang system at all? It's a little
like putting a rocket engine in a Connestoga wagon. You might
be able to do it, but for heaven's sake why? We need to put
our creativity into building powerful, elegant, easy-to-use
operating systems for tomorrow's application programs. Not
supporting some brain-damaged dinosaur into the next century.
Tom