From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:06:13 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1993Jan21.160414.27695@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, Jerry Shekhel (jerry@msi.com) wrote:
: Agreed, but how much can you gather from just observing something for which
: you don't have source code or even a description of the internals?

The API tells an application programmer a LOT about the OS.  Look at
the API, and you can see why things in higher layers happen due to the
lower layers they're built on.  The API gives a great DEAL of
description of the internals, generally speaking.

: Excuse me, I never said that I know better than an OS developer how to
: develop an OS.  What I did say was that the features that go into an OS
: are determined by the market and the type of applications the OS is expected
: to run.  For example, if the OS is designed to run a fixed set of time-
: critical processes in an embedded system, adding VM would not only be
: pointless, it would probably also be detrimental to the real-time nature

As an insert, there's no reason to limit this to embedded systems,
there are lots of systems where VM could be detrimental...  Not trying
to continue the subject, just an observation.

: of the OS.  On the other hand, if the OS is expected to run on a desktop
: system and support multiple modern (big) productivity apps, VM not only

Modern does not equate with big, and the most common use for VM is not
for the sake of code, but for the sake of data, I'd say, which can be
huge.

: makes sense, it becomes a necessity.  The point is that no OS feature
: is inherently better than another; it depends on the market and even the
: intended application.  The Amiga buffs seem to believe that their pre-emptive
: multitasking is more important than Windows' VM or DIG, and that's just not
: right.

Isn't it?  Are you sure?  DIG is simply one way of doing things, it is
NOT the only way.  When fast graphics are a concern, and they always
have been on the Amiga, display-list DIG is simply NOT a viability.
There is _NOTHING_ wrong with a raster-based graphics system, even
though Marc Barrett would have everyone think so.  VM can sit on top
of the existing operating system, and its speed penalties are NOT
small (due to the fact that we DON'T have VM, and therefore the MMU
isn't already taking up time) in comparison.  Therefore, only those
who need it need run it.

So, I'd say we're left with the pre-emptive nature of AmigaOS coming
out very important in the Great Scheme/Lisp of Things.  :)

: Come on, Greg.  All that was pointed out is the fact that there is a
: DOS3Call() function in the Windows API.  So?  Does that mean that Windows
: applications have to use it?  I can tell you that none of mine do, and
: they work just fine.  Does it mean that Windows is not an OS if it uses
: DOS for file system access?  You tell me, but please provide a definition
: of "OS" which disallows this.

EEK!!!  ARGH!!!  (thud)

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Just because Workbench isn't painted like a pimp's BMW doesn't    :)
(:  mean it's not sharp, elegant, and functional."    -Ian Kennedy    :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)