From: jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour)
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000/Atari Falcon
Organization: Medar, Inc.     Farmington Hills, MI
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:37:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.065608.3906@desire.wright.edu> fheitkamp@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.150225.18199@ctr.columbia.edu>, jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>> fheitkamp@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
>> Oh, I see.  And you have the divine right to decide what is a kludge and
>> what isn't, right Fred?.  Later in your article, you admit that you're not
>> too informed about the architecture.  So please, get informed before you
>> call it a kludge.
>> 
>	I think XMS and EMS fits the discription of kludge that someone
>	posted.  I believe the definition was from Byte.  Would someone
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	repost the definition?  I don't want to paraphrase.
>

Nope, not from Byte.  Somewhere on a CP/M disk somewhere I have a
"news" article (from a MINICBBS posting) that indicates the
definition(s) originated with letters or articles in a magazine called
Datamation (sp?) quite some time ago.  In the included text below I
took these definitions (#1 & #2) and added one (#3) from a recent
dictionary entry.  Then I put the whole thing together in a dictionary
entry format just for this type of occasion :-).

------------------------- begin included text --------------------------

    kludge (klooj) or kluge (kluj) [origin unknown]  n.  1. An ill-sorted
     collection of poorly matching parts forming a distressing whole.
     2. An ill-conceived, and hence, unreliable system that has
     accumulated through patchwork, expediency, and poor planning.  3. A
     system and esp. a computer system made up of poorly matched
     components.  intr.v. -ed, -ing, -es.

-------------------------- end included text ---------------------------

Now, I don't know as I'd call MS-DOS/clone systems kludges as per
definitions 1 & 3, but I'm certainly of the opinion that "modern"
DOS-boxes fit #2 perfectly.  EMS/XMS is just one reason.  There's a
whole raft more.

The IBM-PC/MS-DOS system was kinda revolutionary at the time it was
introduced.  If nothing more than for the fact that it was IBM (of all
folks) that introduced the open hardware/software architecture and for
the vastly improved documentation.  (Try plowing through a CP/M 1.x
or 2.x "users" manual sometime and you'll see what I mean!)  As originally
designed, and for what it was originally intended (home users and *small*
business users), it was a beautiful thing.  I didn't say perfect, just
the best of most anything else available at the time.  Problem is: for
the sake of maintaining "compatibility" with the original (and by today's
standards rather limited) hardware and software architecture, and at the
same time trying to keep up with advancing technology, it's evolved into
a kludge.

I would note that CBM, IMHO, is dangerously close to following the same
path, for the same reasons.  And I don't like it :-(.

And Jerry, FYI I'm more familiar with the architecture of these things
than I ever wanted to be.  If one can even call it architecture anymore.
The word 'architecture' to me implies a plan -- an organized and
coherent design of some type.  Think about how these DOS-box
hardware/software systems are put together anymore and then re-read #2
(in the definitions above) again.  I'm not saying they don't work.  I'm
not saying that for some people and for some applications they're not
the best solution.  Indeed, I've even recommended these systems over
other possibilities when, in my opinion, it was the best for the intended
use.  What I am saying is that regardless of this, technically speaking
and in my opinion, they're a kludge.

That kludge factor alone was enough to take DOS-boxes out of the running
when it came time for me to spend my own hard-earned money for a machine
for home use.  Amongst other things, I wanted the most elegant solution
for my money.  In spite of some of the failings of CBM, the Amiga, and
various Amiga ISVs and IHVs, I still feel they're it.

I try hard not to be, or come across as, an Amiga fanatic.  I also try
(less successfully I'm told) not to be rabidly anti-DOS-box.  But as
one repeatedly sees "the most popular" computer undeservedly promoted
and accepted over better, sometimes even more rational, solutions, it's
real difficult to remain objective.

Besides, being as Motorola processors are better than Intel processors
it follows that anything based on a Motorola processor *must* be better
than anything based on an Inter processor, so there :-).

>
>> --
>> +-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
>> | Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
>Fred Heitkamp,  ** Not an organization,  My opinions only **


-- 
Jim Seymour				| "If NT is the answer, it must
...uunet!medar!jseymour			|  be a really silly question"
jseymour@medar.com			|      Warner Losh
CIS: 72730,1166  GEnie: jseymour	|      Computer Power Software