Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mephisto!udel!sbcs!root
From: root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Systems Staff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Stability of Commodore/Amiga
Keywords: Unix, Amiga, OS/2, DOS
Message-ID: <5936@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 90 21:25:53 GMT
References: <476087196@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> <19000039@attcc.UUCP> <2840@mtuni.ATT.COM> <676@xdos.UUCP> <3881@nmtsun.nmt.edu>
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 26

In article <3881@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes:
>As long as CBM keeps coming out with improvements on there OS, it would be
>a great OS for a computer with it's power.   As far as the Machintosh is 
>concerned... well...  we won't get into that.

	Agreed that AmigaDOS is about the right level for the lower end
	of what Commodore sells.  The question is whether it can, in the
	architectural sense, add the few missing items that handicap the
	system and still be AmigaDOS:

		memory protection
		resource tracking
		virtual memory
	
	As we move forward in time, and the the 68030 becomes what the 
	68000 is today in cost then trading away the aforementioned 
	capabilities for memory consumption/speed doesn't make as much sense 
	as it did in 1984/1985.  And at some point the obvious question needs 
	an answer: is it easier or a better investment of time to provide an 
	AmigaDOS compatible environment under eg Mach than it is to re-invent 
	the parts of Mach we want under AmigaDOS?  
	
>                    -Dino Khoe

					Rick Spanbauer
					State U of NY/Stony Brook