peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/13/85)
> JD(cont):...the amiga has a non-standard disk configuration and does > much of the disk support in software (ie. slow). The drives have > slightly more capacity than the the ST's DS drives (880K to 720K) but > this is at the expense of speed. The Amiga directory format (or > lack of) is done much like a commodore-64. In fact, to get a > directory, the Amiga goes out and finds a program called DIR, > loads it and goes back searching! > > I: If that is true, I have lost all respect for AmigaDOS. I think what he means to say is that "DIR" is an external program, like UNIX' ls, not a built-in like MS-DOS' "dir". To get a directory in CLI it loads a file called ":/c/Dir" and executes it. Since there are disks without CLI *or* dir on them, and they do have directories, it's pretty obvious that they're not hidden inside a program. Especially not one that's itself 2 levels deep in the directory tree. I would like to suggest that Mr. Demar is less than well acquainted with the machine... And why wasn't net.micro.amiga included in the distribution of this message? Maybe because some people who actually *have* an Amiga and understand it are more likely to respond to it? Anyway... you can regain your respect for AMIGAdos. It's not UNIX by any means, but it is certainly an improvement over Crummy-Dos, Trash-Dos, Messy-Dos, or any of the other little computer "operating systems".
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/19/85)
In article <297@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >I think what he means to say is that "DIR" is an external program, like UNIX' >ls, not a built-in like MS-DOS' "dir". To get a directory in CLI it loads >a file called ":/c/Dir" and executes it. Since there are disks without CLI *or* >dir on them, and they do have directories, it's pretty obvious that they're >not hidden inside a program. Especially not one that's itself 2 levels deep >in the directory tree. I would like to suggest that Mr. Demar is less than >well acquainted with the machine... In this much I think I agree. I've said before on other systems that memory resident utilities aren't always a good idea. It impinges on user memory, whereas generally it's not critical to maximize their speed (sorry, I meant to say 'they impinge'). Most of my day is taken up using terminal emulators and word processing. On my system directory calls take a fair bit of time. It's really not that important. If you want to razz somebody on this point you can say to them "hey man, don't you ever do any *work* with your computer, what do you do just copy and delete files all day?" -- then duck fast. > >And why wasn't net.micro.amiga included in the distribution of this message? >Maybe because some people who actually *have* an Amiga and understand it are >more likely to respond to it? > >Anyway... you can regain your respect for AMIGAdos. It's not UNIX by any means, >but it is certainly an improvement over Crummy-Dos, Trash-Dos, Messy-Dos, or >any of the other little computer "operating systems". But I have to disagree with this. Have you ever worked on the computers you've just slighted? I don't like Commodore's DOS (I assume that's the first one you meant), but the Shack's DOS is quite good. In fact, probably better than the Amiga DOS from what I've heard so far. I'll reserve judgement. MS-DOS isn't that bad either. It could have been better, but it's development was originally an outgrowth of CP/M. As for other 'little computer "operating systems"', ahem, like Unix maybe? Or OS-9? I have heard *nothing* which indicates *any* superiority of AMIGAdos as such over OS-9 in *any* way. But, mainly remember that even Unix *started* as a small OS. It just grew a lot. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (10/20/85)
> But, mainly > remember that even Unix *started* as a small OS. It just grew a lot. > James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto *sigh* -- I wonder if DMR still has one of the old punched tapes lying around? -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/24/85)
> >Anyway... you can regain your respect for AMIGAdos. It's not UNIX by any means, > >but it is certainly an improvement over Crummy-Dos, Trash-Dos, Messy-Dos, or > >any of the other little computer "operating systems". > > But I have to disagree with this. Have you ever worked on the > computers you've just slighted? Yes. All of them. As well as ATARI and APPLE. I just haven't thought of any good slanderous names for theit operating systems yet. > I don't like Commodore's DOS (I assume > that's the first one you meant), but the Shack's DOS is quite good. In > fact, probably better than the Amiga DOS from what I've heard so far. Not if it doesn't multitask it isn't. If it doesn't multitask it doesn't qualify for the name "operating system". An operating system should have a memory manager and a scheduler as well as a file server and device drivers. > I'll reserve judgement. MS-DOS isn't that bad either. It could have > been better, but it's development was originally an outgrowth of CP/M. I rest my case (good thing, too. It was getting pretty heavy). > As for other 'little computer "operating systems"', ahem, like > Unix maybe? Or OS-9? I have heard *nothing* which indicates *any* > superiority of AMIGAdos as such over OS-9 in *any* way. But, mainly > remember that even Unix *started* as a small OS. It just grew a lot. Both of them are real operating systems, instead of "DOS"es. And neither of them are widely available on a home computer. I know you can get OS/9 on a CoCo, but I still have yet to see one in action... and it's severely limited on that little machine. I'd much prefer a 68000 with OS/9 or UNIX, but I'm not likely to afford one on my budget.