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: 31 Dec 1992 16:43:55 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1992Dec31.154916.16022@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Don't you think that for some people, VM, MP, DIG, etc., may be worth a few
>extra CPU cycles?  If real-time response is always the most important thing,
>why do all these other OS's bother with all these other things?

With VM, it isn't the CPU cycles that drop your performance like a
rock...

And how many real-time OSes _HAVE_ VM?  Think about it.  Sure, you'll
see lots of bloated pigs with it, but...

>You're ducking the fact that it's an advantage.  The benefit is that it works
>with all types of video, cheap SVGA to super-fast coprocessed video.  You say
>that there are many incompatible graphics standards on the PC?  Take a look

It _IS_ an advantage.  But the fact that it's _REQUIRED_ lessens the
impact of that advantage.  That's like saying "xxx uses yyy", when it
MUST have yyy in order to run.

>at the Amiga!  You've got three different chipsets from Commodore, and several
>high-end graphics cards which are compatible only with themselves.  Wouldn't
>it be nice to have the Resolver work with all Amiga software?

Of course it would.  And we have RTG for the three chipsets, the OCS,
ECS, and AGA.  The OS treats them identically.  Hardware-wise, OCS and
ECS are nearly identical (on the outside...).  And since RTG will give
us all of the advantages of the high-end cards (which are not
STANDARD...  The only STANDARDS that exist on the Amiga for graphics
are the three chipsets, and that's it.  Everything else is
application-dependent, currently, unlike the IBM world where there's a
new standard for the same old shit every morning, and everyone has
their own version of the standard...  Take SVGA for example.  What is
it?  Is it 640x480, as the original SVGA cards were, or is it
1024x768?  800x600?  Is it a 24-bit pallete instead of a 15-bit one?
Is it a truecolor display?  Nobody knows.)

>And that much more advantageous!

Again, it IS an advantage.  But that advantage is greatly reduced by
it's NECESSITY.  That same advantage exists for nearly all
productivity software on the IBM, each coming with its own graphics
drivers.  On those systems, it's referred to as a pain in the ass, not
an advantage.

>: Seriously.  Ever see a lemming scream
>: seconds after he should have?

>No.

It doesn't happen on the Amiga.  It's real cute to watch stuff on an
IBM system running Windows because the sound is nearly NEVER on cue.

>Windows does give you virtual DOS.  But the two products are unbundled because
>MS can make more money that way.

I don't believe that's the only reason, I never have, and your point
below proves it.  I do know a good bit about Windows, and frankly, the
more I learn about it, the less I like it.

>Absolutely incorrect.  You have no basis for saying this.  Windows certainly
>contains code which allows it to co-reside with the original copy of DOS which
>loaded it, but while it runs, DOS is dormant, and practically no DOS code is
>being used.

"practically no DOS code is being used".  That is NOT _NONE_.  And if
it wishes to escape the kludges brought from MS-DOS itself, then it
MUST be NONE.  DOS must be totally unnecessary as anything but
bootstrap.  You don't use bootstrap code within your OS, do you?

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 :)