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: 29 Dec 1992 05:37:43 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1992Dec28.201436.17383@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Your point about sales vs. quality is obvious.  However, why do you call DOS
>a non-OS?  Even the ROMs in my Atari 800 were called an OS.  It seems like
>the term changes meaning as time goes by.  If that's the case, then this
>discussion is pointless.

I'm NOT going to get into an OS argument about DOS.  It's a program
loader, and that's as far as I'll go.  Ask Henessey & Patterson for
details, if you like, they're available.

>: No, everybody'd be buying machines that had some technical merit,
>: likely.

>Your opinions are showing again!

Then let me try to detach my opinions.

They'd be buying machines whose hardware fit their tasks as well as
their software.  They'd be buying machines, not because everybody else
has one, not because "well, there's a whole network of them" as if you
can't network more than one type of computer.  You'd buy the system
which, probably, had the most up-to-date hardware and software.

I wouldn't venture to call ISA ground-breaking architecture, would
you?  I wouldn't call it up-to-date either.  As a matter of fact, not
even EISA falls under that.  Though some of the new buses along our
future, such as the scaleable coherent interface, promise to bring
much more power to future systems.

>My statement was about Windows, not DOS.  AmigaOS lacks certain features of
>Windows, and vice versa.  The point is, they are different; they were designed
>for different markets and purposes, so comparing them is like comparing
>Porsches to Mercedes-Benz S-Class sedans.

They do a similar task--they play the part of operating system.  The
AmigaOS, designed from the ground up to be an OS, has obvious merits,
as does Windows.  But in the end, if you want Windows to be an OS,
you'll have to go the way they have of NT.  Because in the end, it's
nothing more than a program that sits on top of MS-DOS, and plays the
part of system-wide moderator.

It's a "grey-area".  It's almost an OS, it's almost not.

>What generalizations?  Careful, though; make sure you only list things I
>actually said.  Mr. Bickers has posted enough lies already.

How's this:
>Actually, I believe it *is* fortunate.  If everyone thought like you, they'd
>all buy the same machine, and the industry would stagnate.  As bad as you may
>think Windows is, it did force Commodore to polish the WB and start thinking
>about DIG/VM.

That was what it was in reply to.  Sweeping generalizations in the
above sentences:

	1) Don't be foolish enough to assume that Windows is the
reason that the Amiga's GUI changed.  There are some people here who
remember 1.4.

	2) They haven't "started thinking about DIG/VM".  First,
they're not currently CONSIDERING VM.  Frankly, that's just fine.  It
exists as a third party program, and works just fine.  Second, they've
put a lot of time into DIG so far, and they've got a ways to go.
Don't assume that suddenly Windows became the first DIG pseudo-OS
available, long before it was two of the premiere to the Unix users,
NeXTStep and NEWS, both postscript.  Before that, there's the Mac,
which has DIG, and has had for a long time... it would be a far more
likely assumption that it was high-end pressure from the Mac, and a
real desire to crack the higher-end markets that brings on the RTG
(note, NOT DIG, there IS a difference) you will see.

	3) "If everyone was like you"?  Do remember, he isn't the one
that bought the mainstream computing machine that everybody and their
grandmother owns and supports...  He's an Amiga user, and as so, to
coin a phrase, has taken "the road less travelled".  The comment you
made actually fits the average PC-Clone user/purchaser's mindset
closer.

>I never made any such claim.  I only objected to John's Windows-bashing.
>You seem to have perceived it as a claim of Windows superiority.  It wasn't.

The perceptions I have are nothing more than that ascertained from
what you write.  You ask if I have a bias against Windows?  Perhaps,
but only in that it is doing a beautiful job at what it isn't--an OS.
I shall stand by that for a long time, I think.  At least until the
release of NT.  Where Windows falls short, NT has overshot.  But it,
at least, is an OS, which is, again, where my predjudice lies.

>Opinions, opinions, opinions...

Are they?  Perhaps you should ask H&P what they think, you'll see that
while it shouldn't be considered a "non-os", it's in that lovely grey
area that so few OSes have ever fallen into.

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