English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Nostalgia & memories

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 20 January 2017, 05:04   #21
appiah4
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpine9000 View Post
The thing I wonder about if C= did survive is what they would have done with the OS.

As much as we all loved Amiga OS, without memory protection it would never have been able to compete with Windows NT/Linux/OSX.

Apple failed in their attempt at producing a next gen operating system, Microsoft spent mega bucks developing NT.

Short of putting a skin on Linux/bsd I can't see that a next gen operating system would have arrived in time?
We should probably take note at this point that Microsofts first consumer OS with the NT kernel was released in 2001. NT before before WinXP (Win2K if we push it.. I used it but then my dual boot OS was redhat 5.0) was not a home computing thing at all. Lets not pretend Win95/98/Me were secure OSs by any definition of the word..
appiah4 is offline  
Old 20 January 2017, 14:31   #22
Bastich
Registered User

Bastich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 327
UFO Enemy Unknown AGA and the PC XCom equivalent were produced at the same time (dual development). The ECS version was a later port. So not an Amiga original. In fact the early prototypes were actually developed on an ST before the Amiga or PC were considered. It was more of a Laser Squad 2 game at that point mind (missing geosphere etc).
Bastich is offline  
Old 20 January 2017, 17:09   #23
Leo42
Senior Member
Leo42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Paris
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
[Commodore's own shortsightedness and mistakes notwithstanding].

In terms of arcade games, the 1Mb A500 level of hardware was competitive with its key rivals (SNES and Mega Drive) right up to Christmas 1994 once you look at it category by category (with the SNES perhaps on top overall and the Mega Drive last, other than beat 'em ups and perhaps sports games). Even before you consider the A1200/CD32, it could have remained quite competitive in those fields another couple of years, even without the under-development AAA or Huron hardware.
There's no way the A500 could compete with the SNES in 1992. Even the later released A1200 could not.

In 1992 there were already lots of games that were almost perfect arcade conversions or original games that couldn't happen on un-expended A1200: Street Fighter 2 (and I won't even mention the sequels: the Turbo version, etc..), Mario Kart, etc..

There's no way this could happen on A500 or A1200.
Leo42 is offline  
Old 20 January 2017, 17:47   #24
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by appiah4 View Post
We should probably take note at this point that Microsofts first consumer OS with the NT kernel was released in 2001. NT before before WinXP (Win2K if we push it.. I used it but then my dual boot OS was redhat 5.0) was not a home computing thing at all. Lets not pretend Win95/98/Me were secure OSs by any definition of the word..
My experience with Windows 95 is that it was a lot more stable than AmigaOS.
idrougge is offline  
Old 20 January 2017, 20:12   #25
appiah4
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
My experience with Windows 95 is that it was a lot more stable than AmigaOS.
Yeah maybe but thats not really an accomplishment when your benchmark is a half decade old OS. Os/2 warp 3 released in 94 and was lightyears better than Win95. Truth be told the Windows kernel was a mess prior to WinXP.
appiah4 is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 09:08   #26
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by appiah4 View Post
Yeah maybe but thats not really an accomplishment when your benchmark is a half decade old OS. Os/2 warp 3 released in 94 and was lightyears better than Win95. Truth be told the Windows kernel was a mess prior to WinXP.
Age and stability aren't really related. AOS can be unstable because it lacks memory protection, and there are certainly operating systems older than AOS that have memory protection. How stable would a good Unix flavor from that time be compared to Win95 and OS/2? Don't know the facts, but I'm willing to bet that it'll hold up quite well.
Thorham is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 10:53   #27
Cobe
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Belgrade / Serbia
Age: 35
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
Even the A1200 with its internal IDE controller was stuck to expensive 2.5" hard drives, making the A1200 look like a bad financial proposition if you wanted even moderate storage capacity, and even as memory prices came down, those cost reductions were absorbed by the cost of the trapdoor expansion where you could mount those SIMMs.
At least here, all of us were cramming 3.5" hdds into A1200.
Cobe is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 11:56   #28
clebin
Registered User
clebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody View Post
Amiga helped Commodore, not the opposite. They were just selling some other crazy/dreamer guys machine. Even the multitasking OS would have cost them millions to build from scratch, not mention the sophisticated custom chips
After reading the preview of Commodore: The Amiga Years I began to what would have happened if Atari got the Amiga. And how Commodore would've fared with the C900, C64 LCD and PCs. They didn't have the razzle-dazzle of the Amiga but may have suited Commodore better.
clebin is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 14:28   #29
appiah4
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
Age and stability aren't really related. AOS can be unstable because it lacks memory protection, and there are certainly operating systems older than AOS that have memory protection. How stable would a good Unix flavor from that time be compared to Win95 and OS/2? Don't know the facts, but I'm willing to bet that it'll hold up quite well.
I don't know about *nix in general but Linux in 1995 was rock solid and a million times more secure compared to Win95. As for OS/2, it had its own share of problems but it was leagues ahead of Win95 as well.
appiah4 is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 14:50   #30
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
Age and stability aren't really related. AOS can be unstable because it lacks memory protection, and there are certainly operating systems older than AOS that have memory protection. How stable would a good Unix flavor from that time be compared to Win95 and OS/2? Don't know the facts, but I'm willing to bet that it'll hold up quite well.
XFree86 wasn't exactly stable back then, and if the X server crashes, it takes all your GUI applications down with it. You can't separate the stability of your OS kernel from the stability of all apps on your screen in a desktop OS.
idrougge is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 14:52   #31
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobe View Post
At least here, all of us were cramming 3.5" hdds into A1200.
Yeah, but equally many of us didn't because it was hacky.
idrougge is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 14:55   #32
Locutus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
XFree86 wasn't exactly stable back then, and if the X server crashes, it takes all your GUI applications down with it. You can't separate the stability of your OS kernel from the stability of all apps on your screen in a desktop OS.
Thats already infinitely ahead from where a single rogue pointer will crash and burn everything.
Locutus is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 15:07   #33
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,640
Of course it is. But rock solid it wasn't.
idrougge is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 16:13   #34
appiah4
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
Of course it is. But rock solid it wasn't.
Id say X with a mature window manager like fvwm was pretty solid in 95 it was kde and gnome in their infancy that often crashed everything. Xserver vga drivers were also an issue but the very basic X vga driver was stilll better than what AGA could do. Also a crashing gui with an intact os is a testament to how good its kernel is. With Win95 and AOS all crashes are catastrophic.

Last edited by appiah4; 21 January 2017 at 16:19.
appiah4 is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 16:52   #35
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,640
You can ROMwack a crashed AmigaOS as well. But your apps are still dead.
idrougge is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 19:03   #36
appiah4
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
You can ROMwack a crashed AmigaOS as well. But your apps are still dead.
Well yeah but when the Xserver crashes in Linux your kernel and processes dont so its not quite the same thing..
appiah4 is offline  
Old 21 January 2017, 21:44   #37
clebin
Registered User
clebin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
Age and stability aren't really related. AOS can be unstable because it lacks memory protection, and there are certainly operating systems older than AOS that have memory protection. How stable would a good Unix flavor from that time be compared to Win95 and OS/2? Don't know the facts, but I'm willing to bet that it'll hold up quite well.
We had Solaris at Uni back then and I don't remember it crashing once, even running the rubbish code I wrote the night before my deadline. CDE was ugly as hell though.

Just think of poor Apple keeping the classic MacOS going until 2001. UI aside, that OS was a steaming pile of crap. Commodore wouldn't have had to work nearly as hard on AmigaOS in that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpine9000 View Post
Short of putting a skin on Linux/bsd I can't see that a next gen operating system would have arrived in time?
BeOS. *goes misty eyed*
clebin is offline  
Old 22 January 2017, 02:39   #38
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by appiah4 View Post
Well yeah but when the Xserver crashes in Linux your kernel and processes dont so its not quite the same thing..
Except if your processes happen to use the GUI.
idrougge is offline  
Old 22 January 2017, 03:36   #39
rare_j
Zone Friend

rare_j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 848
So what would commodore have come up with to compete with playststion/3dfx?
And how would it have slotted into the chipset while retaining software compatibility? Mips? PowerPC? Custom RISC?
Wild speculation welcome.
rare_j is online now  
Old 22 January 2017, 09:02   #40
appiah4
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
Except if your processes happen to use the GUI.
Which still excludes pretty much every OS critical service/daemon. You had to try really hard to hard crash a Linux box even in 95. It was easy as pie with Win95 and AOS.
appiah4 is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Searching Portuguese Amiga owners AmigaFriend Amiga scene 176 17 January 2016 16:39
Hi to all Amiga owners. Andrew1971 Member Introductions 3 02 July 2012 17:42
Google Map of Amiga owners peo News 42 13 August 2009 20:26
Aladdin 4D Special for Amiga Video Toaster Owners Pyromania MarketPlace 2 08 January 2009 21:22
Hellenic Amiga owners are many ... dir_marillion Amiga scene 92 22 May 2006 10:20

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.10860 seconds with 13 queries