Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm From: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.misc Subject: Re: Re: Mac vs. Amiga Message-ID: <2312@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Fri, 23-Jan-87 00:36:41 EST Article-I.D.: jade.2312 Posted: Fri Jan 23 00:36:41 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Jan-87 23:48:35 EST References: <8520@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <1270@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> <5240@ism780c.UUCP> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 51 Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:1642 comp.sys.mac:925 comp.sys.m68k:150 comp.sys.misc:243 In article <5240@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >In an article, Dave Haynie writes: >> >> The Amiga IS the only computer in this price range that has a >> real OS. If you don't know what a real OS is, I can suggest >> several books on the subject. Or ask a UNIX wiz why MS-DOS >> doesn't qualify as a real OS. > >Please explain how the Amiga has a real OS, but the Mac does >not. While you're at it, please explain why Amiga-DOS is a real >OS, but PX/IX is not. I didn't make the first quote (and I disagree with it), but let me answer the questions anyway: First, a definition. A "program loader" is a program that puts other programs in memory, and passes control of the machine to them. If you enhance these with a set of routines for doing hardware-dependent things in a consistent manner, and make the entry points the same on all hardware, you have something like CP/M. Those who deal with large computers don't consider these to be a "real OS" (I deal with large computers, and have dealt with such creatures; I agree with the snobs :-). My understanding is that this *IS* what the Mac provides. Once an applications program has control of the machine, it's got control of the machine, and has to wait for the program to give it back. There's no way for it to run code - either it's own, or another applications program - unless the application permits it. Am I wrong? Now, the questionable statment also said "in this price range." Gotta be carefull how you define price range. Since peripherals can be added arbitrarily, let's look at the smallest machine that will run the OS in question. ST's apparently start at about $500, and an Amiga can be put together for $900 or so (one drive, 256K and a TV for a monitor). Let's arbitrarily label the price range as $500-$1000 (I assume that minimal Mac's can be found in that price range, also). If you can build a system that runs Pick-Axe for < $1000, then there's a second system with a real OS, even by strict definitions (well, I do know people who don't consider variations on Sys III & V as real OS's, but we'll ignore them for now). On the other hand, I know that the RS Coler Computer runs a real OS (OS/9, either Level I or Level II; the latter meaning you have an MMU and protected memory, even!). I think a low-end CoCo, even enough for level II, is still under $500, so it's not in the price range I chose, either :-). But add a requirement for a good monitor, and it'll be in that price range. This is why I disagree with the above statement; it's caused by under-exposure to the micro market.