Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ From: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Grrrr....BCPL..... Message-ID: Date: 4 May 89 05:20:22 GMT References: <14562@louie.udel.EDU> Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 35 In-Reply-To: <14562@louie.udel.EDU> wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu (BROWN, KEVIN) writes: > Why, why, WHY did you guys have to write AmigaDOS in BCPL?!?!?!?!??? > And WHO was responsible for APPROVING such a STUPID move??? It was written in BCPL because the developers didn't have a choice. The machine had to go out the door, and there wasn't enough time for the original plans (a DOS done in-house) to go through. > And if all that isn't bad enough, you've had THREE YEARS to FIX IT!!! But > here we are, three years later, with the SAME limitations!!! They have had to deal with other problems, such as the slow filing system and bad printer drivers. They are not super-people. They are doing a good job of curing the system's deficiencies one by one. I would rather see Workbench overhauled first. At least you can do something with AmigaDOS. > So why am I writing this? I'd like an explanation for all this. If you phrased your question more nicely, the people from Commodore might actually give you a response. > I feel the Amiga is an excellent machine. It doesn't deserve to be dragged > down by a lousy disk operating system... It has always been the intention of the system developers to replace AmigaDOS in a future version of the operating system. -- Michael Portuesi * Information Technology Center * Carnegie Mellon University INET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu * BITNET: mp1u+@andrew UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ MAIL: Carnegie Mellon University, P.O. Box 259, Pittsburgh, PA 15213