View Single Post
Old 25 July 2015, 09:12   #18
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: usa
Posts: 64
hmm, well the Amiga was always a few years behind the times when it came to CPUs (68000 released in 1979, used in A500 in 1987; 68020 released in 1984, used in A1200 in 1992) and the custom chips were in many ways not as impressive as the graphics and sound hardware in contemporary arcade machines, or even consoles, but there was something about the particular choices and combinations that made it work.
Yes, and look at it in perspective: chip were expensive; they won't sell as many units as they sell phones today. Also custom chips were quite advanced, considering that were multi-purpose...a bar JAMMA card would work with some rom, but fundamentally was tied to a specific programming design, which is why some chipset were better for fighting games, some were better for 3d and racing and so on. The Amiga would do all in one; which has the trade off to loose a bit in comparison to dedicated solution.

The PC-Engine was also a similar machine, using a 8 bit processor to drive the powerhouse from NEC; which was a 32 bit design if I recall correctly, although the bus was set to 16 Bit. That console was amazing, considering what was running on it; and after a bit, Sega and Nintendo started with the custom chipset architecture; which show that it was actually a winning choice.

When a program goes down on amiga os, it takes the whole os with all the other programs down requiring a restart, generally. Same for windows 95/98. Whats the point of multitasking when you lose all your work in progress because one of the tasks goes bad? Windows 2000 was a revalation, crappy software went down and the os just cleaned itself up and carried on. Uptime for a workstation went from days (if lucky) to months. From a productivity point of view, this was golden.
Also, security was not any sort of consideration for amiga os. I dont think I'd do my internet banking on it.
So I think that is the biggest difference between amiga os and modern os
You are talking of an OS that was based on monolithic kernel; main thread was running the boat; the other threads were the children, so if children die and does not affect other component, AmigaOS would continue to run; but if something happens to main; then it is sadness and grief.

Today we learned how to do things better; Unix for example is the baseline for reliable OS architecture; and somehow AmigaOS was based on that; although it could not work in the same way, because 5 guys, as much talented as they can be, cannot write something like Unix, that was developed by hundreds of people.

Give time and tools to a talented group today; like 40-50 people; and you will see that they can actually grab what is needed by any linux distro and make a custom based OS, that would act like a modern os; but still retain the look and feel of AmigaOs.
I do not want a sloppy frontend that look like WB; I want something with the same structure of the file system that I see on 3.1; with the same dos commands; same way to use the startup-sequence; and so on, but without the negative of a 30 year old OS

Plus, I am not telling you to replace your "reliable" windows machine; a low power device based on Amiga technology and OS, would work for many cases, but won't be your default desktop replacement (although I saw people running Amiga today, and do all that they need; and still it is faster than a PI running Raspbian )
guybrush is offline  
Page generated in 0.04087 seconds with 11 queries