From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:04:50 GMT
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:
:
: >It IS true, and it is precisely why MS-DOS is *not* wonderful -- it provides
: >insufficient support and inadequate applications.
:
: No, it is NOT true.  If MS-DOS had the applications you wanted to run,
: under your conditions, it would be a modern OS.
:

UNDER MY CONDITIONS?!  You're out of your mind, or you just forgot to read
everything I've said during this thread.  Under my conditions, DOS is
certainly NOT a modern OS, simply because it doesn't provide support for
modern applications.  Windows does, and is.

:
: >Oh no.  Only the features that are in YOUR favorite OS qualify as "intrinsic
: >to a modern operating system".  How convenient.
:
: Get a life.  No, VM and DIG aren't intrinsic to a modern operating
: system.  Then again, neither is support for a lot of the things the
: Amiga has.  The definition of a modern operating system is not "this
: was just made two years ago."  This kind of crap from you is really
: getting on my nerves.  They're frills.  It's just that AmigaDOS
: doesn't have these frills.
:

You're still ducking from the issues we're discussing.  You cannot provide
a single iota of evidence for any of your claims: the claim that Windows is
not an OS, the claim that Windows is a bad OS, or the claim that Windows is
not a modern OS.  Apparently, you'd rather add useful bits like "Get a life"
to the discussion.

Fine.  You've been saying lots about what a modern OS is not.  Why don't you
tell me what it is?  Why do I strongly suspect that AmigaOS will qualify,
and everything else will not?

:
: I already feel like I'm beating you
: over the head with this OS thing like you beat others with Ultima
: Underworld, okay, so don't make it any worse.
:

I think it was Dan who talked about Underworld, not me.

:
: For instance, the Amiga's design isn't inconsistent.  It just doesn't
: have intrinsic support for graphics or audio hardware retargeting.
:

You just contradicted yourself.  There is no graphics hardware retargetting,
and that's why you need to do two different things to output the same
graphical object to two different devices, for example the screen and the
printer.  See the inconsistency yet?

:
: See the difference?  DIG is something done UNDERNEATH, it's not
: something you see.  Or, should I say, it shouldn't be.  You shouldn't
: have to think "device independently" to get device independence.
:

This is absolutely false.  The API has to be at a high enough level that the
implementation can work on simple hardware as well as advanced coprocessors.
Placing the API at the level of blitters and Copper lists is exactly what's
biting C= in the ass.

: 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  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+