Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!udccvax1!don From: don@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Donald R Lloyd) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!! Message-ID: <5370@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> Date: 21 Dec 89 04:16:36 GMT References: <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <9106@cbmvax.commodore.com> <627@bogart.UUCP> Reply-To: don@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Donald R Lloyd) Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 98 In article <627@bogart.UUCP> jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <9106@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> > >I don't see the point of all these arguments, comparing the latest version >of Mac system software against some old version of DOS. If we're talking >about native operating systems, why not compare MacOS to OS/2? I strongly >suspect that the discussion would have been over dozens of articles ago. Not likely. These things generally are pretty tough to stop. I've never used OS/2, and, no offense intended, you're the first person I've ever "met" who likes it. (Of course, most of the people on the net are Unix junkies who don't want to think that they might have slight compewtition against their favorite OS.) Based on what little I know of OS/2, and my only slightly more limited experience with Macs, I will agree that OS/2 seems to be more of a 'real OS' if by real you mean that it encorporates things like provisions for multi-tasking, IPC, virtual memory, etc. etc.; but as I understand it, OS/2 has no built-in GUI but is almost always used with Presentation Manager as a front-end. It seems to me this is an attempt to become more like the Mac's 'non-OS'. > >> >>OS/2 could probably do the >>same things, though it would take significantly more memory, it's less efficient, >> > >Take away the DOS compatibility box from OS/2, and it doesn't require any more >memory than the upcoming MacOS 7.0 -- 2MB. Less efficient? Let's have some >proof, eh? > Take away DOS comaptibility from OS/2 and you've got a software base slightly larger than the list of this year's best-selling vic-20 programs. (Well, maybe I am exaggerating a LITTLE :-) It seems to me MS-DOS is holding back the development of some very nice OS's & software. >> >>and it's limited to 16 megs of address space. >> > >Yep, that's a processor limitation. However, OS/2 programs have access to >1GB of virtual space. Why don't you call me when you upgrade your 68000-based >Amiga beyond 16MB of physical RAM and an operating system with true >memory management and protection. > What about the 640K limit for MSDOS programs, which is what most people will be running under OS/2? My 68000-based Amiga 2000 is expandable to 9 megs. The other 7 megs are reserved for access to the custom chips or some such thing. But, since AmigaDOS supports 4 gigabyte addressing, if I could upgrade to the 020/881/851-based 2500/20, the 030/882-based 2500/30, or buy one of the numerous 3rd-party accelerator cards, I would have a much greater expandability (unfortunately, I'm having to dig pretty deep to come up with the money for a used 2-meg board, so the speed increase is a long way off :-( ). Memory management was left out of the original design because the hardware for it at the time would have upped the price of the machine by several hundred dollars. The hardware is there in some of the newer models, but unfortunately very few programs at this time make use of it. Version 1.4 of the OS, though, due out RSN (how about RIGHT NOW, do you hear me Commodore?! :-) will take some steps towards provisions for virtual and protected memory, as well as overhauling WorkBench (the GUI portion of the OS) to make it much more functional and customizable. I've had my 2000 since September, and in that time I've only twice had a crash that interfered with the rest of the system (and, yes I have had the computer _on_ more than twice :-). So while memory management would definately be a very good thing to have (are you still listening, Commodore ?! :-), I seem to do pretty well without it (and will have to get used to not having it until I can afford to upgrade.....). >>-- >>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" >> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy >> Too much of everything is just enough >--- >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ >| | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | >| Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | >| | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ This does at least seem to be evolving (slowly) into a somewhat intelligent discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various sytems/OSs rather than a "My computer is absolutely undeniably better in all ways possible than yours, and you're a fool to think otherwise!" conversation. Somebody send me a 90MHz '040, 68883, and a few gigs of RAM for christmas, OK? Please? -- Gibberish .sig for sale or lease. is spoken Contact don@vax1.acs.udel.edu for more information. here. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.