From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:09:50 GMT
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Gregory R Block (bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu) wrote:
:
: Okay.  Mind if I split your sentences up and take each point one by
: one?
:

Only if you let me do the same :-)

:
: > Windows was designed to work with mainstream
: >(very large) applications, so it has virtual memory, unlike AmigaOS.
:
: Firstly, let me tear this apart.  Firstly, one could say that AmigaOS
: was designed for optimal real-time response.  Virtual Memory as a
: concept opposes that, philosophically and realistically.  Therefore,
: only real memory is supported.
:

Yes, but is it so difficult for you to accept that there may be people
out there for whom virtual memory is a heck of a lot more important than
optimal real-time response?  Why is it that you believe that real-time
response is somehow a more desirable OS feature than virtual memory?

:
: >Windows was also designed to work on hundreds of different machines with
: >vastly different hardware, so it has complete device independence, unlike
: >AmigaOS.  On the other hand, AmigaOS was designed to work with video and
:
: [...]
:
: Vastly different hardware?  Not really.  Windows just supports
: graphics drivers, that's all.  (if that's what you mean by hardware)
: The fact exists that if you WANT to support anything in the PC world
: these days, it MUST support vastly different hardware, due to everyone
: and their grandmother coming out with their own version of SVGA.
:

The point I was making is that Windows has device independence.  This allows
it to support lots of different video cards, and take advantage of video
coprocessors if available.  It also allows it to support lots of different
sound cards, dumb and intelligent printers, etc., all through a single API.
AmigaOS doesn't have this, because originally there was no need for it, as
there was only one Amiga hardware standard.  But now AmigaOS is in dire need
of device independence.

:
: >other realtime applications, so it has very efficient multitasking and a
: >tiny context switch time, unlike Windows.  Don't you see that it doesn't
: >make sense to compare them?
:
: And yet they are both multiprocessing operating environments, both
: designed with GUI's, both with filesystems.  It just so happens that
: one is architected so much better than the other that it shows what a
: HACK the other is.
:

Your article has proved NOTHING about what you say.  We seem to agree that
AmigaOS and Windows have different, although overlapping, sets of features.
Yet you believe that AmigaOS's feature set is somehow "better" overall, while
I say that the two serve different markets and cannot be compared.

:
: Alright.  If it replaces everything, THEN WHY DO YOU NEED MS-DOS?
:

There are two reasons.  First, DOS is necessary because people still want to
run DOS commands and applications.  Second, Microsoft would much rather sell
two products per PC than one.

:
: Greg
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy