Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:3285 comp.sys.amiga.programmer:3966 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uupsi!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Operating Systems Message-ID: <1991May28.121145.8618@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 28 May 91 12:11:45 GMT References: <1991May14.145528.23369@neon.Stanford.EDU> <1991May14.165718.19646@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1991May14.180148.23635@athena.mit.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 18 In article <1991May14.180148.23635@athena.mit.edu> reynaldo@athena.mit.edu (Rey Villarreal) writes: > I am sort of confused about all the importance being put on > operating systems. Sure a nice OS is nice, I love my Amiga's ability to > do multitasking. But when you get down to it, all an operating system > really has to do is getting your programs to run. No, not really. The operating system, more than the hardware, determines the potential of the machine. The problem is actualising that potential. If the Amiga hadn't had a first class O/S it wouldn't have sold 3 million machines. If Commodore (1985+) had been able to effectively market it, it would have sold much more. But just marketing isn't enough: the Atari ST has very similar hardware, but system software that's bug-for-bug compatible with the IBM-PC. It had much better marketing from the word go, but it's not going anywhere. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .