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: 5 Jan 1993 05:19:58 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1993Jan4.223749.3540@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>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.  What you refer to are
modern applications, not modern operating systems.

>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.

I'm not saying that VM or DIG are bad, in this case, just that they're
NOT INTRINSIC TO A MODERN OS.  See the difference?  I'd just as soon
advocate OS/2, the Mach microkernal, or even NT, heaven forbid.  See
the point I'm trying to make?  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.

>Sure it does.  Without device independence, the API is inconsistent, and
>consistency is always a goal in modern OS design.

While consistency is a goal in modern OS design, this does not imply
device independence.  It implies good structure in the least.  Device
independence in this sense is a magnification of that, but it is NOT
required.

For instance, the Amiga's design isn't inconsistent.  It just doesn't
have intrinsic support for graphics or audio hardware retargeting.
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.
That would be just like co-op multitasking.  Now, I'm not trying to
say that DIG is like that--it isn't.  I'm just saying that's the
REASON it isn't a necessity for modern OS design.

>So that's it?  You keep making claims of how bad Windows is, and all you can
>come up with for proof is a bunch of opinions that aren't necessarily shared
>by a lot of people?

Huh?

>Plenty.  For strictly GUI API's, I'd say InterViews is the best I've seen,
>followed by X/Xt, OS/2 PM, Windows, MacOS, AmigaOS, Atari GEM.  For best
>overall API, I nominate OS/2.  DISCLAIMER: I have not worked with NeXTSTEP.

Then let me nominate NeXTStep.

>Plenty, and it's easily one of the best I've seen.  There are many calls
>and sub-API's, so you need to have a reference at your side, but IMHO, it's
>all organized very nicely.

Well, I disagree in some areas with that, but it's close enough.  I'm
too tired to argue like this for long periods of time, and I'm too ill
to care.

Perhaps I should just do what all people who aren't well, like
Guardian, do.  Render my fool head off.  :)

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 :)