View Single Post
Old 21 March 2007, 06:54   #27
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Parramatta NSW
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by killergorilla
I think you mean:

It really shows how much better AmigaOS was.
No mistake, how much better it *is*. The combination of blistering speed, small size, low system requirements, friendliness, power, configurability, ease of development and intuitiveness really can't be bettered by anything else on the market. I don't see anything not to like about it, it's as close to perfection as I've yet seen in software. (I think you are talking about OS3.0 KG, you may as well use the past tense for that, I'm talking about OS3.9.)

If you can do what ever it is you do on the amiga, super.
Indeed I can, I just need to run 1 piece of software which is currently only available for Linux, so I have no choice but to install it and waste many hundreds of megabytes of hard disk space (sigh).

Oh, and regarding Linux being based on a 70s OS - AmigaOS was based on TripOS, which was (ta da!) a UNIX derivative.
Where did you get told that TripOS was a UNIX derivative? that is the first time I have heard that one. Even if that were the case, the only part of AmigaOS that was ever based on TripOS was dos.library 1.x (which was generally agreed at the time to be the worst part of AmigaOS, and very poorly integrated into the rest of AmigaOS), and it was rewritten from scratch for 2.0 anyway. So to say AmigaOS is UNIX is like saying Windows Vista is CP/M.

Windows is essentially based on the work of one American student hammering out some half-baked code in his dorm room.
Hmm, where did you hear this one!? Ridiculous.

You buy a Mac and you get the OS free. Sound familiar?
You buy an ST and you get the OS free. You buy a TRS-80 and you get the OS free. You buy an Apple IIGS and you get the OS free. Etc. That doesn't mean all those operating systems are the same or even remotely similar.

Three levels of hardware
Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro. A600, A1200, A4000.

There are more kinds of Mac than just that. And more kinds of Amigas than that. You could say similar things about different Spectrum models, TRS-80 models, Atari ST models, Apple 2 models, Archimedes models, etc. Plus that has nothing really to do with operating systems.

Powerful command line and GUI
I will take your word for it that they have finally got around to putting a CLI into MacOS. About time!

Designed for the average user
Last time I looked MacOS was designed just for lamers, it was designed to be an arse to actually do much low-level stuff. Eg. the lack of a CLI. Maybe they have rectified this finally.

Ehrm... Linux bloated? The standard Linux kernel can be adapted to pretty much any environment, including to run in embedded systems with very limited resources.
Yeah, if you're happy with just a command line. A usable Linux environment requires base+xwindows+kde+kdm+metacity etc., it's hundreds of megs. After it was supposedly successfully installed, I just got a CLI, I then had to install all that other crap.

Linux is not slow
If you're used to Windows and you throw a superfast CPU at it, it probably doesn't seem slow. But compared to eg. AmigaOS, it crawls.

Have you tried running Windows Vista on an unsupported graphicscard
Vista sux big time.

unless you're willing to spend a small fortune getting hold of kit then you're stuck with good-ol-classic Amiga where it's time for the guru to start meditating every few hours.
AmigaOS is fast enough that you can emulate it on eg. a Windoze box and it is more responsive, even with the emulation overhead, than Windoze. I suggest you stop running buggy software, I haven't seen any guru alerts for months.

Linux is not a version of UNIX
Are you just trolling now or what? Amiga is UNIX but Linux is not UNIX? Even the name Linux is a play on the word UNIX, did you never notice this? And the other bloke says Amiga is MacOS? Hell, I may as well say GEOS is QNX: both are fast and reliable, so they are the same thing! Funny that no Amiga stuff runs on MacOS, or on Linux, then isn't it? There is only one OS, they are all just rip-offs of UNIX. Yeah right.

Oh, and regarding the article: Microsoft didn't write Amiga apps because they wouldn't make money? Garbage. Hundreds of companies found it quite profitable to make Amiga applications (and games too of course), or they wouldn't have been doing it. Eg. just looking at the apps side of things: Aegis, Gold Disk, Digita, SoftWood, Newtek, Dr. T's, Scala, H&P, etc. I think the real reason is a combination of (a) Microsoft couldn't develop software as cost-efficiently as these companies (ie. they were and are not very good at keeping their development costs down) and (b) the available Amiga software was light years ahead of what Microsoft and similar IBM-PC vendors could offer. Eg. WordPerfect was released on Amiga but very few people bothered with it because it was far behind the other Amiga word processors of the time and didn't make proper use of the Amiga's features.

Last edited by Shamino; 21 March 2007 at 07:49.
Shamino is offline  
Page generated in 0.04259 seconds with 10 queries