From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:49:54 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1993Jan4.155935.23568@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>But Greg, Windows is NOT fubar!  It works great, and has more support
>and better applications than AmigaOS ever will.

Support and apps does NOT make it a better OS, in any respect.  If
that were true, MS-DOS would be wonderful.  It's fubar, too.

>So?

So, the point is that a modern OS has NOTHING to do with DIG, VM, or
any other nonsense you'd like to throw in.  Those are nice features,
but they're not intrinsic to a modern operating system.

Most modern OS's have support for multiple threads of execution within
the operating system itself... as an example.

>As of 1987, MS-DOS does *NOT* provide sufficient support for modern
>applications.  The real-mode memory limitation is one reason.  No device
>independence is another.

Alright, you got me on the real-mode mem part, I forgot about that...
But do remember that device independence does not have an intrinsic
part to play in a modern OS design.

Now there are some rather common modern features in OSes that are out,
such as Plan9/AmigaOS's/NT's file motif.

>I see three words in quotes in that last sentence.  Could it be that you
>are having difficulty explaining exactly what you meant?

I'm trying to give you the meaning BEHIND the words I'm saying.  Would
you prefer some meaningless explanation that is more wordy?  I'm
trying to give you the "jist" behind it, not some teacher's dribble.

>I agree, and believe that Windows has an excellent user and programmer
>interface.  Do you disagree, and why?

The user interface is rather nice.  The programmer's interface isn't.

>Drop-in filesystems are indeed nice.  OS/2 has always had the facility.

And so will NT.  It's a relatively common modern-OS capability.  But
the filesystem motif does go much further than just drop-in
filesystems.

>OK, this is what I've been waiting for you to say.  Exactly WHAT is wrong
>with the Windows API?

I've been waiting for the right moment.  :)

What is wrong with it?  I don't like the way anything is layered.  I
don't like the system of calls, I think it lacks a good "hierarchy" in
all-too-many places.  Then again, I'm spoiled by the AmigaDos
programming model, where the only really bad parts are in
dos.library's BCPL usage.

Have you ever seen any API other than Windows'?

>You keep forgetting to post proof for your claims.

I don't forget to post proof.  You're asking for opinions, I'm giving
you them.  You want specifics?  I don't own windows programming
references.  Those are in the PC labs at school.  That's where I've
had all of my experiences with Windows, and that's where I formed
these opinions.  I took the opinions with, I left the books there.

How much programming have you done under the Windows API?

Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Our father, who art in Iowa, Hollow be thy head, Thy ideas run    :)
(:  Thy will be done, At Commodore as it is at Apple"  -Dan Barrett   :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy