es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May14.180148.23635@athena.mit.edu> reynaldo@athena.mit.edu (Rey Villarreal) writes: >I am sort of confused about all the importance being put on >operating systems. Sure a nice OS is nice, I love my Amiga's ability to >do multitasking. But when you get down to it, all an operating system >really has to do is getting your programs to run. > From the way you phrase things, you make it sound like you forget that an OS should be much more than a DOS, but then I see you are posting from MIT and I don't accept it. The Operating System is ONE factor. It is also one of the Amiga's strong points. Why not play it up? AmigaDOS, Intuition, Exec, etc., are a large part of the reason many of us here actually USE Amigas. Whereas the IBM is a machine people have to use, but don't want to use, the Amiga is a system people WANT to use. If the quality of the OS is so unimportant, why is even IBM, one of the major benefactors of brain-dead OS sales, trying to so hard to get out a more sophisticated OS? namely OS/2. Things change. Yes, MS-DOS currently "rules" the business world. Nothing is forever. (God! Can you only imagine in 10 years when Intel has released the 350MHz 81486 that we'll still have those machines running MS-DOS with its 640K memory stupidities? Scary. You have an important point. The quality of the software will make or break a machine. But you can't just say, "well for video and games its OK," because everyone has a different reason for buying their computer. What if you want to DO video and games? Should we not mention the fact that the Amiga can get a Video Toaster because we all know that it is software that makes the system? If I thought the way you did about computers, I'd own nothing but clones. However, I like my computers smart, not brain-dead. For me, the OS is one of the number one reasons I own the machine. P.S. This overlooks the whole issue of OS support for things like windowing, printing, fonts and multitasking. MS-DOS has none of that. They can be VERY important to software development. Ask Apple. -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May14.180148.23635@athena.mit.edu> reynaldo@athena.mit.edu (Rey Villarreal) writes: > I am sort of confused about all the importance being put on > operating systems. Sure a nice OS is nice, I love my Amiga's ability to > do multitasking. But when you get down to it, all an operating system > really has to do is getting your programs to run. No, not really. The operating system, more than the hardware, determines the potential of the machine. The problem is actualising that potential. If the Amiga hadn't had a first class O/S it wouldn't have sold 3 million machines. If Commodore (1985+) had been able to effectively market it, it would have sold much more. But just marketing isn't enough: the Atari ST has very similar hardware, but system software that's bug-for-bug compatible with the IBM-PC. It had much better marketing from the word go, but it's not going anywhere. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May14.180148.23635@athena.mit.edu> reynaldo@athena.mit.edu (Rey Villarreal) writes: >I am sort of confused about all the importance being put on >operating systems. Sure a nice OS is nice, I love my Amiga's ability to >do multitasking. But when you get down to it, all an operating system >really has to do is getting your programs to run. No. IMHO an operating system should enable the user to easily control his computer, and allow the easy development of programs for that computer. > >More generally all that is really important is what you can do with >your computer. If one computer has a beautiful operating system but >no software and another has a crappy OS and tons of professional, and >elegant software guess who sells 80 million computers and who sells 3 million. >Just look at the macintosh for god's sake. I ask people why in the world >would the buy a $4500, MacIIsi, over a $3000 amiga3000, guess what they say. >They say it has cool software which the amiga cant match. Sure the amiga >does great animation, and is elegant but who really cares except video >people and hackers. Hell my A500 blow away a 386 machine with a dedicated >sound card--Boy my girlfriend was really upset about this. But when >you get down to it who cares if all you want to do is have a safe >computer that will run any application in the world. > >To summarize, all you techies have to understand that a computer >needs to appeal to the common man. There a whole lot more of us >regular users than there are programmers. That is why the ibm and >apple will always dominate the amiga. OK. Let's suppose you are introducing a new computer. You have a choice between developing a real OS or saving a few $$ and shipping it with only a real crude OS thrown together in a hurry. Let's also assume that you are a big three letter corporation and what you say is standard is standard. So, everyone develops for your computer with its primitive OS. That's OK, because you can always ignore the OS and write your own. Of course, this is much more work for the developer and every program works differently from others. This is also great because you can charge more for the program and the user's will have to buy more computers because all the programs are so big and if they try to run more than one, the computer will crash. Now, of course, the really big $$$ can be made. Large software corporations can develop "solutions" to the brain dead OS the users mistakenly purchased. Of course, these solutions will break much of the existing software on the market, but thats nothing more $$$ can't fix. So, the real reason why apple and ibm will always dominate is because they can write really bad software, then persuade users to buy it and companies to write applications for it. Obviously, these are just my personal opinions. Martin
plummer@hercules (Dave Plummer) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May14.180148.23635@athena.mit.edu> reynaldo@athena.mit.edu (Rey Villarreal) writes: >I am sort of confused about all the importance being put on >operating systems. Sure a nice OS is nice, I love my Amiga's ability to >do multitasking. But when you get down to it, all an operating system >really has to do is getting your programs to run. I think you're confusing DOS and OS. The DOS launches your program, but the OS has a major influence on how the program operates as it runs, esp. in terms of user interface etc. >More generally all that is really important is what you can do with >your computer. If one computer has a beautiful operating system but >no software and another has a crappy OS and tons of professional, and >elegant software guess who sells 80 million computers and who sells 3 million. >Just look at the macintosh for god's sake. I ask people why in the world >would the buy a $4500, MacIIsi, over a $3000 amiga3000, guess what they say. >They say it has cool software which the amiga cant match. Sure the amiga >does great animation, and is elegant but who really cares except video >people and hackers. Hell my A500 blow away a 386 machine with a dedicated >sound card--Boy my girlfriend was really upset about this. But when >you get down to it who cares if all you want to do is have a safe >computer that will run any application in the world. I have an A500 and a 386, and while I love my A500, "blow away" is a strong term, in my esitmation. >To summarize, all you techies have to understand that a computer >needs to appeal to the common man. There a whole lot more of us >regular users than there are programmers. That is why the ibm and >apple will always dominate the amiga. This may or may not be the case, but I think the real problem is the attitudes of consumers who expect everything to be PD or shareware (to many people, unfortunately, the same thing). And yes, there are 10s of 1000s of PC applications, but the "common man" will need only 10-20 of them. As long as those are available, and most are, the "common man" should be more than happy. I've done my best to redirect followups, but this is a new mailer, so be nice!
DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.121145.8618@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) says: >machines. If Commodore (1985+) had been able to effectively market it, it >would have sold much more. But just marketing isn't enough: the Atari ST >has very similar hardware, but system software that's bug-for-bug compatible >with the IBM-PC. It had much better marketing from the word go, but it's I have to disagree....the Amiga hardware is vastly better than the ST. Personally I bought the Amiga for its hardware, as do most people. (well, non-Unix people ?!) I never paid any attention to the OS until after I bought it..... (Not to downplay the OS, which is really excellent these days). -- Dan Babcock
hhxxee@mixcom.COM (C. Richard Miller) (05/29/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > If I thought the way you did about computers, I'd own >nothing but clones. However, I like my computers smart, not >brain-dead. For me, the OS is one of the number one reasons I own >the machine. Rey was talking from the perspective of a casual user, and he was right. From that perspective, it is the software that runs on the computer that is important, not the nature of the operating system itself. -- Rick Miller hhxxee@mixcom.com Milwaukee, Wisconsin or hhxxee%mixcom@uunet.uu.net
s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Luke Mewburn) (05/30/91)
martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt) writes: > [stuff on big 3-letter corps with junky machines :-) ] >So, the real reason why apple and ibm will always dominate is >because they can write really bad software, then persuade users >to buy it and companies to write applications for it. Well, I don't know how you can call the system software on the mac "really bad". It is much better presented than the crap workbench (which I use on my a500 at home...) that C= supply with the amiga. I'm not going to debate the merits of the hardware, but commodore have _never_ beaten macintosh in terms of quality of software shipped with the box, or software they make available for the box... >Obviously, these are just my personal opinions. & these are mine... >Martin -- ____________________________________________________________________________ | | | | Luke Mewburn (Zak) | This side for lease... | | s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au | (No disclaimer, can't afford it:-) |
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/30/91)
In article <870@mixcom.COM> hhxxee@mixcom.COM (C. Richard Miller) writes: >es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >> If I thought the way you did about computers, I'd own >>nothing but clones. However, I like my computers smart, not >>brain-dead. For me, the OS is one of the number one reasons I own >>the machine. > >Rey was talking from the perspective of a casual user, and he >was right. From that perspective, it is the software that >runs on the computer that is important, not the nature of the >operating system itself. > > That may have been one of the points of the discussion, but it began to go beyond that with the followups. It is hard to tell WHAT an MS-DOS users reaction would be to a "real" operating system since they've never A) been exposed to one or B) been willing to even consider one Many people, being currently required to use MS-DOS, have settled down into their little computer world and aren't interested in what happens elsewhere. The "casual user" is probably being required to use a specific system and so his opinion on computers is irrelevant: it is the person telling him what he needs who counts. Of course, now I'm rambling on into other areas... >-- >Rick Miller hhxxee@mixcom.com >Milwaukee, Wisconsin or hhxxee%mixcom@uunet.uu.net Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May30.031517.17099@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Luke Mewburn) writes: > Well, I don't know how you can call the system software on the mac "really > bad". It is much better presented than the crap workbench (which I use on > my a500 at home...) that C= supply with the amiga. The Mac system software consists of a great user interface library stuck on top of total piece of junk CP/M-class file manager/program loader. To get multitasking working, they had to kludge around with the desk accessory interface (an interface that Amiga programmers would find truly gross: writing a Mac DA, even a simple one like a clock, requires the same sort of techniques as writing an interrupt handler). And even now it's staggeringly slow: a Mac II with more than one program running is less responsive to user input than my old Amiga 1000. > I'm not going to debate the merits of the hardware, but commodore have > _never_ beaten macintosh in terms of quality of software shipped with the > box, or software they make available for the box... On the contrary, the Amiga is the first mass-marketed computer to support a window system with anything like a modern operating system. The internals of the Mac "operating system" are straight out of the '60s. These, my opinions, are based on two decades of involvement in the computer business, and on the experience of having written better operating systems than the Mac's... both in an undergraduate CS class and later, for the fun of it. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.143511.23228@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >On the contrary, the Amiga is the first mass-marketed computer to support a >window system with anything like a modern operating system. The internals >of the Mac "operating system" are straight out of the '60s. In general, I agree with Peter, but Apple _did_ ship the Lisa with a windowing system and a fairly real multitasking OS before the Amiga (and before the Mac). However, they exorcised the multitasking and some other stuff when creating the Mac. Also, you can't really say the Lisa was mass- marketed, at $10,000 in the early 80's. -- Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion. "No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (05/31/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > It is hard to >tell WHAT an MS-DOS users reaction would be to a "real" operating >system since they've never >A) been exposed to one >or B) been willing to even consider one > Many people, being currently required to use MS-DOS, have >settled down into their little computer world and aren't >interested in what happens elsewhere. The "casual user" is >probably being required to use a specific system and so his >opinion on computers is irrelevant: it is the person telling him >what he needs who counts. Yes! If a manager wants his people to become more productive he could opt for Amigas (barring some specific s'ware requirements). But the /user/ is out in left field somewhere. I have tried to get people where I work to upgrade from an XT or 3270 to a 386 or at least a 286. I can put one on their desk in an hour, free to them (big company) out of my stock, but they won't do it! Usually because the keyboard is a little different or something. Never mind that it runs 28x faster. Sheesh... -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sri Ramkrishna) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.075316.11040@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > Many people, being currently required to use MS-DOS, have >settled down into their little computer world and aren't >interested in what happens elsewhere. The "casual user" is This reminds me of my brother, he uses the MSDOS operating system but the only commands he knows is CLS, and CD. After that he asks me what command he uses to run the game. :-) Sri
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.143511.23228@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >On the contrary, the Amiga is the first mass-marketed computer to support a >window system with anything like a modern operating system. The internals >of the Mac "operating system" are straight out of the '60s. The first mass-marketed computer in the United States, perhaps; otherwise, I would point at the Fujitsu FM-11 and FM-77, dual-processor 6809s running OS-9/6809, as counterexamples. James Jones
Alex_Topic@resbbs.UUCP (Alex Topic) (05/31/91)
Yeah I agree with you there too! Yep the Atari ST hardware is not as good
as the Amiga's. It may have a blitter, but not all of them. Also its blitter
is not as complex as the Amiga's. Ohya but its sound chip is supposely a tad
bit better with that PCM (Pulse Coded Modulation). But still the Amiga is
practically the same, and the Amiga is alot bigger!
Hmmm yep I bought the Amiga for the same reason HARDWARE! Those
custom chips and at that price! I did not buy the Amiga for the OS! I heard
it could multitask and that was good enough for me...heh whatever! But
personally CBM should of revised the custom chips alot more when they
introduced the A3000. Which was a stupid mistake on behalf of CBM! They
should of totally upgraded them. Like a faster blitter, better sound, more
colors..ect I bet if they did that they would see alot more people going
Amiga! Personally the only reason I would buy the A3000 is cuz of its
expansion bus slot, its look, and haveing upto 2megs of chip ram, which could
of been put to better use! Like try haveing 24-bit graphics built right in!
All that does is make money for other companies... bah..heh
A.t.peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May31.040236.2950@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: > But the /user/ is out in left field somewhere. I have tried to > get people where I work to upgrade from an XT or 3270 to a 386 or > at least a 286. I can put one on their desk in an hour, free to > them (big company) out of my stock, but they won't do it! Usually > because the keyboard is a little different or something. Never mind > that it runs 28x faster. Sheesh... Why do they need something that's 28x faster? Most of the stuff people use DOS PCs for they don't need but an 8088. You know what I have on my desk at work? An HP 150, with 256K of RAM and 2 floppies. Why? Because I don't *need* anything more. Most of the time it's turned off and I'm using a dumb terminal anyway, and it runs Lotus (which we use for some reports) just fine. I could get a 386 in a minute, since I'm in the O/S support group, but why make the company spend the money if I'm not going to benefit? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (06/02/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991May31.040236.2950@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >> But the /user/ is out in left field somewhere. I have tried to >> get people where I work to upgrade from an XT or 3270 to a 386 or >> at least a 286. I can put one on their desk in an hour, free to >> them (big company) out of my stock, but they won't do it! Usually >> because the keyboard is a little different or something. Never mind >> that it runs 28x faster. Sheesh... >Why do they need something that's 28x faster? Most of the stuff people use >DOS PCs for they don't need but an 8088. Someone who spends 6 hours a day using a computer to search and update databases, plus has to login to a LAN, a mini over broadband, a mainframe over a bridge or direct-connect needs the speed /and/ multitasking! I can throw in an IRMA or FORTE card into a 386 for the direct connect, but for everything else the user spends half his day starting and stopping applications! We have to use MARK and RELEASE on our 3270s, which shuts down our LAN cards, to keep its 'special' s'ware from getting trashed. Every time he needs to login to our LAN its like doing a 120 reset. I can give him a 386 and IRMA so he doesn't loose the speed of his direct connect, runs 28x faster, even let him use Windows (gag), DesqView, or PC-MIX for 'multitasking', but he doesn't want a new keyboard. He'd rather bitch about how slow everything is. This is only one of dozens of different situations I can give you. We run a lot of statistical and forecasting software which would benefit. If your software runs faster you may spend less time looking at the CRT. Certainly a Super VGA is easier on the eyes. Disks are larger and faster. Everything is better all around. Let me quote briefly from a recent Dave Haynie post: "..the masses aren't all that clever" -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (06/04/91)
In article <22057@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > > In general, I agree with Peter, but Apple _did_ ship the Lisa with >a windowing system and a fairly real multitasking OS before the Amiga (and >before the Mac). However, they exorcised the multitasking and some other The Lisa O/S used non-preemptive scheduling, just as MultiFinder does. -- Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. lsr@apple.com (or AppleLink: Rosenstein1)