Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bagate!cbmvax!martin
From: martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: '030 Ami vs '040 NeXT
Message-ID: <16492@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 13 Dec 90 00:40:30 GMT
References: <1990Dec9.224705.24123@rice.edu> <1990Dec9.234749.9687@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <22081@well.sf.ca.us> <1990Dec10.165612.20747@engin.umich.edu> <1858548b.ARN07ad@easy.UUCP>
Reply-To: martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 20

In article <1858548b.ARN07ad@easy.UUCP> lron@easy.UUCP writes:
>In article <1990Dec10.165612.20747@engin.umich.edu>, Ralph Seguin writes:
>
>> trying to maintain compatability.  Personally, I think that the should create
>> a new line of machines, and port the OS to it.  Also, I think that they should
>> do several things to the OS:
>>
>> -virtual memory support (I know that it's coming)
>
>I hope not, I can just see the disk swaping making AmigaDos useless for
>Multimedia.  I still think it would be better to make AmigaDos apps run
>under Unix, then the VM support becomes a moot point.  Either that or
>an option to turn it off.
>
You can't have a real-time OS without control over exactly what data
can be in VM.  Same with programs swapping out.

And running AmigaDOS apps under Unix would kill the real-time response
of AmigaDOS and force everyone to buy 100+ Meg harddrives to do anything
useful.