🚀 go-pugleaf

ewill@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com (Eric Williams @ PCB x5577) wrote:
>In article <3v6q0k$e6c@nyheter.chalmers.se>, Martin Nisshagen <d4nisse> writes:
>|> beverins@aol.com (B E Verins) wrote:
>|> >A dream OS would contain all of the best parts of all of the OS's out
>|> >there, while doing away with crap. An example:
>|> >
>|> >Combine these ingredients and stir well for an unbeatable OS:
>|> >
>|> >Amiga's Pre-emtive multitasking
>|>
>|> Who is rather primitive (no real multithreading and so on...)
>
>???
>
>I am not exactly sure how to respond to this post;
>not having used threads, I have no experience with them,
>but it is possible that threads are either embedded
>cooperative multitasking within a single process
>in a preemptive multitasking machine, or a workaround
>around the expense of task-preemption.
>
>There are user-level threading packages available for Unix.

Almost all UNIX has it nowdays including Solaris, AIX, NextStep, Unixware,
OSF/1 and serveral other OS like NT and OS/2.

Having the kerenel to do the scheduling of the threads has serveral benefits
over thread-libs. The pre-emption will be more fair as one thread in a process
with lower priority may have a higher prioity and pre-empt a thread what
runs in onother process with higher priority. In thread-libs then scheduling
of the threads are done seperatly within each own process, this is not possible.
Having kernel threads also lets You easily implement an efficient way of using
several CPU:s in an SMP machine without adding too much system overhead.

Besides this the Amiga also lacks the possibilty to handle realtimelike
prcosses in an efficient way. Both Solaris, NT and VMS has much better
support for this.

>|>
>|> >Amiga's low memory overhead
>|>
>|> My Psion pocketcomputer hass much less...
>
>How much functionality does it have, though?

It has pre-emptive mulitasking with memory protection, build in IPC,
dynamic link libraries, godd layering of the OS with isolated device
drivers and a lot of other advanced features. It also has a very nice
3D looking GUI who is very efficient to use.

Besides that it comes with several nice applications including
Word-comptible wordprocessor, an lotus 1-2-3 like spreadsheat and a
very advanced calendar. A nice programming lanuage wich easy hooks
into the other applications data to let You build your own apps.

All this in 128K RAM (who also is used as an solid-state disk) and
512K ROM runing on an NEC 8086 CPU! MUCH more resource efficient and
more advanced than the Amiga in many ways!

>Certainly, the smaller the footprint, the better the O/S.
>I think that's the point that beverins was trying to make.
>
>|>
>|> >MS Win95 memory protection (to isolate crashes)
>|>
>|> Win96 memoryprotection??? haha... maybe better than amigas but that
>|> doesn't say much...
>
>Win95 memory protection should be at least as good as Linux's
>for Win32 applications, from what I've heard.
>However, I cannot say for sure.  (Win16 should be problematical.
>DOS applications probably are enclosed in their own little
>world.)

Have seen both Linux and Win95 crash _several_ times... For real
stabilty and memory protection You would isntead like ta have a
like NT (with C2 security build in), VMS or stable unixes like
AIX for example. Besides having _very_ good memory protection and
security, all of this OS:es also includes very stable journal based
filesystems who tracks all transactions in the OS. It's almost
impossible to corrupt this filesystems!

Now THIS is stability!!

>But certainly it's better than the Amiga's (which had none
>to speak of).

Agree. I'm rather amsed that the amiga who is by some considerd to
be 'such great OS' totally lacks _any_ kind of memoryprotection!

>|> >Amiga & Mac 30 or more character filename limit
>|>
>|> In Unix, NT and OS/2 You have at least 255...
>
>One would hope that's enough.  Another poster in a different
>post brought up the issue of "maximum pathname length" (as opposed
>to "maximum filename length".  We could use something better
>than Unix's 1024-character limit if we thought that a lot of
>people would use very deep trees and very long names.

Also agree here. This is one thing I would like to be improved in
the OS:es I use (Unix, NT and OS/2). It would make the use of long
names much more usable.

>|> >Mac "look & feel"
>|>
>|> Who's got the most boring look of all GUI (B&W, mostly 2D)!
>|>
>
>That is easily fixed.  And it's not how it looks, but how it
>feels, that may be important (e.g. does every application present
>a consistent series of menus to the user?  does every application
>behave consistently when certain keys, such as delete,
>are pressed?)

I agree. But as the original poster said what he liked the "look &
feel" of tha Mac, I had to oppose that as it's one of the most
dreaded GUI:s I used. The WPOS in OS/2 and GUI in NextStep is almost
'state of the art'.

>|> >Amiga, MS Win95 Plug 'n Play (no need for configuration of add-ons)
>|>
>|> Ok.
>
>I'll agree to that!  ISA configuration is a pain in the IRQ.

Yepp. Too much times to fiddle with too many jumpers! This is actually
_something_ what the MacOS and Win95 is rather good at dealing with.

>|> >Amiga, Mac built in mouse control
>|>
>|> Ha.. if You want to limit You to TWO or ONE buttons only...
>
>Amiga can support 3 buttons.  Not many programs use
>the middle mouse button though (with GfxBase's X server
>being a rather significant exception).

I have never used or seen an Amiga with three buttons. My appologies
for that. (But it still do applies to the dreaded Mac mouse.)

>I would personally go for 4 buttons...
>
>|>
>|> >Amiga built in joystick control (gotta have those games)
>|>
>|> I don't know the Amiga, I hope it has an analog joystick. otherwise...
>
>Regrettably, it's not.  It's an Atari-compatible
>joystick connector (and you know how primitive those are...)
>
>And now for some other things to add to the dream OS:
>
>- hierarchical windowing (Win95 and X both have this;
>  Mac and Amiga do not)
>- option to display graphics over the network (X)
>- resource sharing (libraries, volumes, devices)
>  between processes and nodes
>- resource locking (semaphores)
>- VM <=> file association [make a file look like
>  virtual memory] (Unix)
>- user interrupt (^C) always works (Unix)
>- the ability to replace the default window manager
>  (Win3.1, X)
>- automatic resource deallocation upon program exit
>  (Unix; Amiga did *NOT* have this as of 2.0)
>- option for multiuser
>- option for multiprocessor
>- option for networking
>- Amiga-like monitor database (i.e., the program can query
>  the system for permissible display resolutions)
>- A great multi-window text editor (Apollo/DOMAIN)
>  (NOT like Edlin! :-) )

I do remember the time then HP was Apollo with some nostalgia... my first
workstation I used! :)

m a r t i n  n

--
mts@cd.chalmers.se
http://www.cd.chalmers.se/~mts
mts @ IRC (on #MTS)



































...