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: 1 Jan 1993 03:39:13 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1992Dec31.172959.17455@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>That's not fair.  While it's not swapping, we're talking about a few extra
>CPU cycles.  When it is swapping, it's running a heck of a lot faster than the
>equivalent non-VM system under the same load :-)

Correct--again, we get back to design philosophy...

>Yes, yes, yes -- most of them don't.  But why is it that you feel that
>real-time response is absolutely more important than VM?  Don't you agree
>that it may depend on what you need to use the machine for?

ABSOLUTELY.  But "what you use the machine for" becomes, in a very
large way, a function of the design philosophy of the OS.

One can EASILY see the philosophy that lies behind the Amiga's OS.  A
large part of that philosophy centers around real-time response.  It
has a well-architected and layered design (even if there are some iffy
parts...).  Look at Windows?  What was its design purpose?  What was
the point?  It's messy, it has no uniform design, it is layered rather
poorly, and its BASE is very, very poor.

That makes it a bad OS.

What is windows?  Is it a real-time OS?  Not really.  What is it?  I
sure as hell don't know.  It's some kind of twisted hybrid, and it
didn't work.

>VGA is 640x480x4.  SVGA is 800x600x4.  And there does seem to be a standard
>in SVGA -- Microsoft's SVGA Windows driver supports all SVGA's.  The rest
>are extended SVGA, with resolutions up to 1280x1024x8, 800x600x15, and
>640x480x24.  There are several different extended SVGA chipsets, and they
>are not compatible.  So what?  Load the appropriate driver, and all Windows
>software works automatically.  It's just like the Mac world -- all the cards
>are different, but they all work with all Mac software, and nobody cares
>about "standards".  Is there some reason why they should?

Actually, it's nowhere NEAR being like the Mac world, but I'll let you
get away with that.

>That's incorrect.  If you develop your software for the Windows platform
>(and Windows development is now the majority in the PC world), all you have
>to do is use the Windows API.  No worries about graphics hardware, chipsets,
>standards, etc.  Your comment is true for DOS software, but not for Windows.

Right--Because Windows, just like every other major program for the
IBM, comes with a huge number of drivers for it.  And if you count
programs that run under windows, considering them "children", it fits
in with the standard philosophy that exists on IBM systems.

>I have never seen what you describe.  On the other hand, I don't have much
>Windows sound software.  I do play background music sometimes, but I guess
>that doesn't have anything to be "on cue" with.

Not really, no.

>You're well within your rights :-)

>OK.  If you run Windows with the FastDisk driver, DOS isn't even used for
>file management.  I can't say that no DOS code is being used, because I
>haven't seen the Windows source code, and you can't say otherwise for the
>same reason.  However, with FastDisk, Windows manages *all* the hardware
>devices in the system.  Tell me, then, how is it still not an OS?

If it does EVERYTHING that DOS does, then it is, period.  But it is
still a VERY POOR OS at that.  And that goes back to the above, and
the architecture of the OS itself.

IF, and I do mean IF, Windows used zero DOS code.  I'll still bet my
ass that's not true.

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 :)