U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (05/05/90)
G'day,
once upon a time in the folklore of Amiga wisdom there was a widely held
opinion that CBM software engineers would write an OS {ostensibly called
AmigaDOS 2.0 :-)} where they got to break "all the rules" ...
I do not suspect that this AmigaDOS 2.0 will be that one mentioned above
but I am curious as to whether the sentiment within CBM still allows for
the construction of an OS where the current ( ? ) problems with resource
sharing, memory protection etc can be fixed. "By breaking the rules" :-)
But seriously, I cannot imagine that CBM could ever introduce very large
backwards compatibility problems (with software/hardware) in any efforts
to gain the advantages of proper resource sharing etc.
Perhaps it is time to update the Amiga folklore with CBM's current think
-ing in these areas?
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (05/07/90)
In article <684@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes:
)G'day,
)
)once upon a time in the folklore of Amiga wisdom there was a widely held
)opinion that CBM software engineers would write an OS {ostensibly called
)AmigaDOS 2.0 :-)} where they got to break "all the rules" ...
)
)I do not suspect that this AmigaDOS 2.0 will be that one mentioned above
)but I am curious as to whether the sentiment within CBM still allows for
)the construction of an OS where the current ( ? ) problems with resource
)sharing, memory protection etc can be fixed. "By breaking the rules" :-)
)
)But seriously, I cannot imagine that CBM could ever introduce very large
)backwards compatibility problems (with software/hardware) in any efforts
)to gain the advantages of proper resource sharing etc.
)
)Perhaps it is time to update the Amiga folklore with CBM's current think
)-ing in these areas?
)
)yours truly,
)Lou Cavallo.
For a folklore update, I can say, "No, this release of the software
is not 'the 2.0 that we've been talking about for years'" because
it wasn't designed to be incompatible and, to the extent possible,
is not incompatible.
Some things always break as you "give a little to get a lot", the
new window borders being the most obvious example, although the
damage is being minimized. Compatibility is critical, and probably
always will be.
I cannot say (don't know, too) what the C= perceptions are on the
possibility of a incompatible proprietary OS for the high-end Amiga market.
I would suggest that it wouldn't be too trendy; before that I'm sure
they're going to try Unix in that role.
I'd like to be able to have a "both worlds" box, probably unix
running "virtual amigas" like AUX 2.0 does with the Mac.
That would probably define a "restricted compatibility rule" that
would only accomodate some program behavior; likewise completely new
graphics models and protection schemes might run "well-behaved"
or "vanilla" Amiga programs, again by defining a "restricted
compatibilty" spec.
The designation of this release being V2.0 is something that's
always bothered me when suggested, for various reasons. Lately,
somebody told me that if it was called V1.4, people would say,
"What, are you still fixing bugs in V1.0?"
That convinced me ... ;^)
By the way, its REAL name is V36, but don't tell the Marketing guys.
jimm
--
-------------------------------------------------- - opinions by me
"This voice console is a *must*. I press Execute.
`Hello, I know that you've been feeling tired.
I bring you love and deeper understanding.' " -lyrics by Kate Bush