Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000?
Message-ID: <459@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 18:23:10 EST
Article-I.D.: graffiti.459
Posted: Fri Nov 22 18:23:10 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 06:45:59 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <428@ecn-pc.UUCP> <289@well.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 30
Xref: watmath net.micro:12820 net.arch:2157

> would have languished for far longer than it did.  Also, without that
> starting point, it would have taken a lot longer for the state of the
> software art (as far as PCs go) to advance to where it is now.

Maybe to advance to the point it was at in 1982 or 1983. Since then more
effort has been spent on bypassing the limitations of the "OS" and CPU
of the IBM-PC.

Evidence:

	#1 witness: Sidekick, a program that would be totally redundant
	   in a multitasking operating system.

	#2 witness: The rash of "integrated" applications on the market.
	   As has been shown by the Macintosh "Switcher" program and the
	   multijob programs for the PC, most if not all users are better
	   served by a series of co-operating programs.

	#3 witness: Concurrent this, concurrent that, concurrent the other
	   thing. None of these multitaskers is as easy to use, nor as
	   versatile and reliable, as RSX... an O/S running on a machine
	   with even worse memory restrictions... let alone UNIX.

	#4 witness: The AMIGA. This is where the PC should have been years
	   ago.
-- 
Name: Peter da Silva
Graphic: `-_-'
UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter
IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter