Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!davidbro From: davidbro@microsoft.UUCP (Dave BROWN) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga OS *IS* state of the art Message-ID: <71827@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 12 Apr 91 19:12:42 GMT References: <7827@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <1991Mar27.062345.6622@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> <7840@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <1991Apr2.030653.10978@NCoast.ORG> Reply-To: davidbro@microsoft.UUCP (Dave BROWN) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 71 Before I get into this fray, let me give you some background. I AM an Amiga owner. I have a 3000UX (which I just took Unix OFF of, since 5 megs of memory leads to MUCH swapping. AmigaDOS is faster). I did wait a while before I got one -- I wanted full 32 bit support, and a better looking GUI. (It never made sense to me that the Amiga was supposed to be this hot graphics machine, and it's windowing system looked as ugly as it did. I'm glad they did 2.0.) I am friends with the person that got one of the first A1000's in Washington State (back when they just called it an Amiga -- the A1000 designation was unknown), and we played with it intensely, even though it was running AmigaDOS 1.0. So, in short, I love the Amiga. I am in the process of becoming a developer for the Amiga. Don't let the company I work for bias you against me -- I'm on your side. Now that the rationalizations are done... :-) In article <1991Apr2.030653.10978@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > Name one single-user-at-a-time OS that does this (not some kind of LAN >OS like Novell, but a real, optimized for one user at a time but still >multitaksing OS that runs on PC class machines. I hate to say it, but the High Performance File System under OS/2 does this. Mind you, it implements this for upward compatibility with LANs, but the support for Access Control Lists and file ownership is there. > Until there is one that does these things, *AND* does everything else >the Amiga OS does just as well as the Amiga (shared libraries, unlimited >RAM, dynamic device drivers, etc.), you can't compare it. That's like me saying >that "if a car doesn't hover 500 feet off the ground, cruise at mach 2 >at 4 kilometers, and come with sidewinder missiles it isn't state of the >art". For something to be better than something it has to EXIST, not just be >what someone comprehends COULD exist. Also -- OS/2 supports Dynamically Linked Libraries... which function the same as Amiga's shared libraries. Unix supports something KIND of like this, with the "sticky bit." VMS supports it with "shared images." But -- VMS runs only on a Vax, Unix suffers from kernel bloat, and OS/2 RUNS in 2 megabytes, but not well. You really need 5+ before it performs well. > In fact, OS/9 had almost as much as the Amiga did, for it's day, >and it DID have real multi-user abilities. As did MP/M. Does that make it >state of the art? Is Unix state of the art? Hardly. I have yet to see ANY >Unix system that makes as much use of dynamic shared libraries as the Amiga, >or provides dynamic shared libraries as SOP for things such as shells, >so that even common things like regular expression matching could be done in >one place instead of in each program that wan't to do it. > Don't mistake something that is more "powerfull" with something that is >"state of the art". The two aren't the same. Remember though, that "state-of-the-art" generally does NOT make it to the consumer level until after it is no longer SotA. SotA tends to be used more as a marketing term than anything else. Besides -- If you were really concerned about having SotA machines, you'd be buying new computers about every 6 months. Not many people can afford to do that... I certainly can't. > > Dave dave, also -- Dave Brown ...!uunet!microsoft!davidbro ...ni ssendriew eht tel eW "the night doesn't like it... looks just like your face in the moon to me"