🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41u08b$que@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes...


}Well, as long as we're showing how low you can go, Windows 95 will run on
}a 386SX at 16 MHz, the lowest speed they made; I have it on a 386SX/25. 
}It runs fine on a 386DX/33, by the way, and its obvious that you've no
}experience with the OS on that processor.  

Either Win95 is a damn site faster than 3.1, or you have a lot more
patience than I have. Win3.1 on a 386 seems infinitely slower than my
'030 running 7.1.

}The 8088 and 80286 rather passe, so Windows 95, Windows 3.1, and os/2 2.x
}and up don't run on it.  Sorta like trying to run system 7.x on a 68000.


If you put enough RAM in a 68000 machine, it'll run System 7 just
fine.


Dylan

In article <blaster-2908951351290001@blaster.microserve.com> blaster@blaster.microserve.com (Louis Gerbarg) writes:
>From: blaster@blaster.microserve.com (Louis Gerbarg)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:51:29 -0500

>You can run 7.x on 68000, which was the point of the last message. BTW,
>the Mac classic and plus can only have 4 MB of ram, not 6. The only 68000
>macintoshes with the ability to use more than 4 MB of ram were the Mac
>Portable and the Powerbook 100.
>Louis
>-- 
>blaster@blaster.microserve.com
>Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code

Now I've seen it all...."my OS will run on a lamer / weaker box than *yours* 
will" (insert singsong voice). 

Ultimate nerddom has been achieved.

In article <41u08b$que@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>,
jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) wrote:

> In article <hotelca-2808952252320001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel
California) writes:
> >[snip stuff about modern systems running on 030s and 386s]
> >At my school they are running system 7something on 6MB Classics and
> >Pluses.  For those of you who don't know, a Classic uses the 68000 chip,
> >used in the original 128k Mac introduced on January 24, 19*84* and the
> >Plus is the 3rd Mac model, the first to be platinum instead of beige and
> >also the first with a SCSI port.  What is the minimum requirements for
> >Windows 3.1, a 286?  Windows 95, doesn't that require at *LEAST* a 386 but
> >runnnns baaaaad onnnnnn iiiiiit.  Don't even think about putting it on a
> >8088 or even 80286.  Heck, a 020 Mac can run 7.5 with no prob.
> 
> Well, as long as we're showing how low you can go, Windows 95 will run on
> a 386SX at 16 MHz, the lowest speed they made; I have it on a 386SX/25. 
> It runs fine on a 386DX/33, by the way, and its obvious that you've no
> experience with the OS on that processor.  
> 
> The 8088 and 80286 rather passe, so Windows 95, Windows 3.1, and os/2 2.x
> and up don't run on it.  Sorta like trying to run system 7.x on a 68000.

You can run 7.x on 68000, which was the point of the last message. BTW,
the Mac classic and plus can only have 4 MB of ram, not 6. The only 68000
macintoshes with the ability to use more than 4 MB of ram were the Mac
Portable and the Powerbook 100.

Louis

-- 
blaster@blaster.microserve.com
Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code

On the other hand I can't see any reason for PC users 
to run W95 when you can run Linux or Warp.

 /mill

-- 
#######################################################
# S-mail: Olof Oberg     #  tdv94oog@cs.umu.se        #
#         Gnejsv. 10B    #  mill@ludd.luth.se         #
#         S-907 41 Umea  #  mill@ts.umu.se            #
# Phone:  090-197395     #  http://ludd.luth.se/~mill #
#######################################################

daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
:Olof \\berg <tdv94oog> wrote:
:>On the other hand I can't see any reason for PC users 
:>to run W95 when you can run Linux or Warp.

:Duh.  Software support?

Eh? OS/2 runs more software -- DOS, Windows, and OS/2 programs --
than any other operating system. 

Barry Nance
  author of "Using OS/2 Warp", "Introduction to Networking",
  "Client/Server LAN Programming", "Networking Windows for Workgroups",
  and "Connecting with LAN Server". BYTE Magazine Contributing Editor.

Olof \\berg <tdv94oog> wrote:

>On the other hand I can't see any reason for PC users 
>to run W95 when you can run Linux or Warp.

Duh.  Software support?

Joseph T. Malloy (jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu) wrote:
: In article <hotelca-2808952252320001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel California) writes:
: >[snip stuff about modern systems running on 030s and 386s]
: >At my school they are running system 7something on 6MB Classics and
: >Pluses.  For those of you who don't know, a Classic uses the 68000 chip,
: >used in the original 128k Mac introduced on January 24, 19*84* and the
: >Plus is the 3rd Mac model, the first to be platinum instead of beige and
: >also the first with a SCSI port.  What is the minimum requirements for
: >Windows 3.1, a 286?  Windows 95, doesn't that require at *LEAST* a 386 but
: >runnnns baaaaad onnnnnn iiiiiit.  Don't even think about putting it on a
: >8088 or even 80286.  Heck, a 020 Mac can run 7.5 with no prob.

: Well, as long as we're showing how low you can go, Windows 95 will run on
: a 386SX at 16 MHz, the lowest speed they made; I have it on a 386SX/25. 
: It runs fine on a 386DX/33, by the way, and its obvious that you've no
: experience with the OS on that processor.  

i would suggest you don't know much either. different disk controllers and the apsence of a co-processor can make a huge difference. and if you have a scsi taht can't be loaded high and need to install to that drive or a hard card, you can forget it too. in a pc, almost anything unusual can mess things up. the number of hardware configuration is huge. 

: The 8088 and 80286 rather passe, so Windows 95, Windows 3.1, and os/2 2.x
: and up don't run on it.  Sorta like trying to run system 7.x on a 68000.

barryn on BIX (barryn@BIX.com) wrote:
: daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
: :Olof \\berg <tdv94oog> wrote:
: :>On the other hand I can't see any reason for PC users 
: :>to run W95 when you can run Linux or Warp.
: 
: :Duh.  Software support?
: 
: Eh? OS/2 runs more software -- DOS, Windows, and OS/2 programs --
: than any other operating system. 
I am not so sure, do you know how many emulators are on the Amiga.
I think the Amiga runs more software than any other platform.

-------------------------------------
Don Schmelling   Port Angeles, WA USA
    A1200/540/CD + A1230 50/50/8
           OMNIA EXTARES
-------------------------------------

Don Schmelling wrote:
] barryn on BIX (barryn@BIX.com) wrote:
] : Eh? OS/2 runs more software -- DOS, Windows, and OS/2 programs --
] : than any other operating system.
] I am not so sure, do you know how many emulators are on the Amiga.
] I think the Amiga runs more software than any other platform.

Absolutely True!  The Amiga can run all Amiga programs, most Mac
programs (Powermac ones?  I'm not sure), All ibm programs (OS/2,
Windows, Linux, DOS) with the emplant or most dos programs with the
emulators.  Plus you can get emulators for like Atari ST, C64,
Sequent, etc (Name a computer/OS).

--
     thur  Mail Address: LordArthur@vt.edu or jmaxwell@vt.edu
  n  r     "A man should keep his little brain attic stocked with
  a JAMax  all the furniture that he is likely to use, and the
  h o   w  rest he can put away in the lumber room of his library,
  tan lle  where he can get it if he wants it." 
              --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ("Five Orange Pips")

Dave Glue (daveacg@interlog.com) wrote:

> >On the other hand I can't see any reason for PC users 
> >to run W95 when you can run Linux or Warp.
> Duh.  Software support?

Quoting the Jargon file:

   support n. <P> After-sale handholding; something many software vendors
   promise but few deliver. To hackers, most support people are useless
   -- because by the time a hacker calls support he or she will usually
   know the software and the relevant manuals better than the support
   people (sadly, this is not a joke or exaggeration). A hacker's idea of
   `support' is a tête-`a-tête with the software's designer.

This basically sums it up -- if you are really into computers and want to
make them fly, run OS/2, or better, Linux. If you are Joe Sixpack, run Win
95, or better, buy Caldera Desktop or pay a student to support your Linux
box. Students are cheap, and the support is much better than MS.


-- 
Lars Marowsky-Bree   Voice: +49-571-63663   PGP-key avail. via server
HomePage: http://www.teuto.de/~lmb/    Mail: lmb@pointer.in-minden.de
PGP-Id: 0xDAB57941 / CF FC 3A F0 86 F1 D3 EB  79 8A CF 75 4F 4C 81 DF
>          Live, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it          <

In article <19950902.117E5D8.8BEA@olympus.net>
           dons@olympus.net "Don Schmelling" writes:

> I am not so sure, do you know how many emulators are on the Amiga.

Yes. Now here's a question for you.

Do you know how many of them actually work properly?

The Amiga's a toy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mike Dickson [Team OS/2], Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland
   mike@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino

Mike Dickson (Mike@blackcat.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <19950902.117E5D8.8BEA@olympus.net>
:            dons@olympus.net "Don Schmelling" writes:
: 
: > I am not so sure, do you know how many emulators are on the Amiga.
: 
: Yes. Now here's a question for you.
: 
: Do you know how many of them actually work properly?
How many emulators or Amigas?
I think to be considered an emulator a piece of software has to truely
emulate a computer.
: 
: The Amiga's a toy.
Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
platform?  I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.

-------------------------------------
Don Schmelling   Port Angeles, WA USA
    A1200/540/CD + A1230 50/50/8
           OMNIA EXTARES
-------------------------------------

In article <42adn6$iri@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, jmaxwell@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jon
A. Maxwell) wrote:

> Absolutely True!  The Amiga can run all Amiga programs, most Mac

I'd hope so.

> programs (Powermac ones?  I'm not sure), All ibm programs (OS/2,

It cannot run PowerMac programs, and it cannot take advantage of the
greater PM speed.  

> Windows, Linux, DOS) with the emplant or most dos programs with the

It cannot run -ANY- of the above at a reasonable speed with the Emplant -
Windows is incredibly slow, and the others don't work.  If you said
"Bridgeboard" I'd have agreed with you, but that, too, if slow compared to
today's current machines.  

> emulators.  Plus you can get emulators for like Atari ST, C64,
> Sequent, etc (Name a computer/OS).

You've obviously never tried the above.

In article <19950904.1178078.10674@olympus.net>,
Don Schmelling <dons@olympus.net> wrote:

>Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
>How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
>platform?  I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
>continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.

Have you used a PC OS besides Windows?

On MY Amiga, when I drag a window while playing a MOD, the quali-
ty of the MOD suffers greatly.  When I do a substantial amount of
work  while downloading a file, it gets CRC errors, and sometimes
it even crashes.  Not my idea of good multitasking, my OS can  do
quite  a bit better.  Any modern OS besides MacOS and Windows 3.1
can, for that matter.

Cheers, Terry Murphy

In article <19950904.1178078.10674@olympus.net>
           dons@olympus.net "Don Schmelling" writes:

> Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.

Yeah, right.

> How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
> platform?

Because there are more IBM PC's?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mike Dickson [Team OS/2], Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland
   mike@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino

In article <42if2s$gkg@sashimi.wwa.com> blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com (G) writes:
>From: blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com (G)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: 5 Sep 1995 16:22:36 -0500


>On MY Amiga, when I drag a window while playing a MOD, the quali-
>ty of the MOD suffers greatly.  When I do a substantial amount of
>work  while downloading a file, it gets CRC errors, and sometimes
>it even crashes.  Not my idea of good multitasking, my OS can  do
>quite  a bit better.  Any modern OS besides MacOS and Windows 3.1
>can, for that matter.

What Amiga do you have? What module player do you use? I have no problems 
dragging windows, downloading in the background while tracing a picture.

Amiga 3000/040 28MHz, Retina Z2, AmigaOS 2.1

Ciao,
    Juergen "Yogi Bear" Wahlmann

----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:

>: The Amiga's a toy.
>Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
>How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
>platform?  I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
>continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.

Simple.  Take out the memory protection, make the GUI bog-ugly, add
confusing uses for the left and right mouse buttons, tie the OS to
custom chips where adding new graphics and sound hardware is a
hack,and erradicate all software support.

There you go- AmigaDOS!

dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:

>Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.

Watch Linux multitask and repeat that! Does AmigaDOS really multitask 
better than Linux?

>I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
>continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.

I've used AmigaDOS a couple of times very briefly. I'm not too impressed,
but I'd like to try it out some more though. But knowing it lacks memory
protection (yes - one program can bring the whole system down), multi-
userness, networking and security, I would hardly call it a BETTER OS than
Linux or Unices in general.

-- 
Fredrik Sandstrom, Finland
fred@spider.compart.fi

G (blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: In article <19950904.1178078.10674@olympus.net>,
: Don Schmelling <dons@olympus.net> wrote:
: 
: >Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
: >How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
: >platform?  I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
: >continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.
: 
: Have you used a PC OS besides Windows?
Sure have.
: 
: On MY Amiga, when I drag a window while playing a MOD, the quali-
: ty of the MOD suffers greatly.  When I do a substantial amount of
: work  while downloading a file, it gets CRC errors, and sometimes
: it even crashes.  Not my idea of good multitasking, my OS can  do
: quite  a bit better.  Any modern OS besides MacOS and Windows 3.1
: can, for that matter.
I do not play many mods on my A1200, I just haven't found to many
metal mods.  (Megadeth, Metallica, Ozzy Osbourn, etc)
I never claimed that AmigaDOS was without problems, but as a whole
package, I have not seen anything better.
Buy that way, what kind of configuration do you have on your Amiga?
Do you have an aga machine with 3.1?  How about your cpu.
Do you have an '030 50 Mhz '882 50 Mhz? or better.

I usually do a substantial amount of work when I download files
I do not get CRC errors or crashes.  I even use Ymodem-g for
downloads and set my dte to 115200.

I do not seem to have the same amount of trouble you do while
multitasking.  I will agree that two megs of chip is not really
enough, I would prefer 4 megs anyway.


-------------------------------------
Don Schmelling   Port Angeles, WA USA
    A1200/540/CD + A1230 50/50/8
           OMNIA EXTARES
-------------------------------------

Mike Dickson (Mike@blackcat.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <19950904.1178078.10674@olympus.net>
:            dons@olympus.net "Don Schmelling" writes:
: 
: > Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
: 
: Yeah, right.
PMT certainly works better than CMT.  It works better than any os
I have seen run on either platform.
: 
: > How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
: > platform?
: 
: Because there are more IBM PC's?
True enough, but I figured that if there are that many games for the IBM PC
than it must be a game machine.


-------------------------------------
Don Schmelling   Port Angeles, WA USA
    A1200/540/CD + A1230 50/50/8
           OMNIA EXTARES
-------------------------------------

G (blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: On MY Amiga, when I drag a window while playing a MOD, the quali-
: ty of the MOD suffers greatly.  When I do a substantial amount of
: work  while downloading a file, it gets CRC errors, and sometimes
: it even crashes.  Not my idea of good multitasking, my OS can  do

Yeah? And what's YOUR Amiga? A1000?

--
       ____ 
 ---- / / / -- Jason Murray - <*> - http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~s9507594 -
 ____/ / /  
 \ \/ / / "They came at us out of nowhere, we never had a chance. The sky was
  \/_/_/  full of stars, every one of them an exploding ship - one of ours."
 -[ I have the last 4 season 2 Babylon 5's! ]---[ IRC: Morden / Uridium ]----

In article <42kq36$aqq@gate.compart.fi>,
 Fredrik Sandstrom <fred@spider.compart.fi> writes:
> dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:
> 
> >Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
> 
> Watch Linux multitask and repeat that! Does AmigaDOS really multitask 
> better than Linux?

The Amiga's scheduling uses fixed priorities, meaning
that it tends to be more responsive to the single user
than the dynamic priorities provided by Unix and OS/2.
It also means that real-time guarantees can be made
about process response time.

Fixed priorities are of course completely unsuitable
for a multi-user machine, but that's not what the Amiga
is intended to be.

> >I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
> >continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.
> 
> I've used AmigaDOS a couple of times very briefly. I'm not too impressed,
> but I'd like to try it out some more though. But knowing it lacks memory
> protection (yes - one program can bring the whole system down), multi-
> userness, networking and security, I would hardly call it a BETTER OS than
> Linux or Unices in general.

AmigaDOS is definitely not a better OS than Unix. OTOH,
Unix is definitely not a better OS than AmigaDOS either.
They are designed for entirely different things, and,
for what I use my Amiga for, I prefer it to some form of
Unix. As far as networking goes, the only thing it lacks
is applications (as in most areas); multiple users and
security are pretty much unsupported.

Memory protection would be very useful. However, no
matter how well it is implemented, it is bound to have
a significant overhead. It would be useful to be able
to turn memory protection on and off -- when running
only trusted software it could be turned off for extra
speed; when developing new software, or running dodgy
software, it could be turned on.

I very rarely have a need to turn virtual memory on --
if I used it more, the performance overhead of memory
protection would probably be less significant.


-- 
 -- Duncan Grisby                                    --
  -- dpg1001@cam.ac.uk                                --
   -- finger dpg1001@cus.cam.ac.uk for PGP public key. --

In article <42kd55$c62@steel.interlog.com>,
 daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
> dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:
> 
> >: The Amiga's a toy.
> >Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
> >How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
> >platform?  I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
> >continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.
> 
> Simple.  Take out the memory protection,

Fair enough.

>  make the GUI bog-ugly,

You haven't seen an Amiga more recently than v1.3 then.

>  add
> confusing uses for the left and right mouse buttons,

Eh?  The left mouse button is the command button (for
clicking on icons, window activation, etc.) and the right
button is for menus (and, by convention, rubbing things
out in graphics programs). How is that confusing?

>  tie the OS to
> custom chips where adding new graphics and sound hardware is a
> hack,

This has been partly addressed. If Commodore hadn't
committed suicide, it would have been fixed by now.

> and erradicate all software support.

That's hardly the fault of the OS though.


-- 
 -- Duncan Grisby                                    --
  -- dpg1001@cam.ac.uk                                --
   -- finger dpg1001@cus.cam.ac.uk for PGP public key. --

In article <42kd55$c62@steel.interlog.com> daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>From: daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 18:01:55 GMT

>dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:

>>: The Amiga's a toy.
>>Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
>>How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
>>platform?  I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
>>continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.

>Simple.  Take out the memory protection, make the GUI bog-ugly, add
>confusing uses for the left and right mouse buttons, tie the OS to
>custom chips where adding new graphics and sound hardware is a
>hack,and erradicate all software support.

Wow! Win95 and OS/2 are so precious with their memory protection. Do you run 
one of those? I seen them both and I'm not impressed. They are as unstable as 
AmigaOS (or as stable as, depends on if you're a optimist or a pessimist).

What is confusing about the two mousebuttons? Maybe, PC and Mac users are not 
able to use more than one, seems to be too difficult for them. I prefer the 
left for selecting and the right for menus. BTW, I DON'T have to click on the 
menu line to select it, I press the right mouse button, the menu appears on 
the screen top and I could select it easy by moving the pointer on it. 
Additionaly I've installed a tool named MagicMenu which provides PopUp menus.

The OS is able to run without the custom chips with a few changes. I think, 
you should take a look on MacroSystems Draco.

Software support is increasing.

>There you go- AmigaDOS!

It's named AmigaOS, Operating System. Compared to DOS/Windows and Win95 it 
is one, that really matches the name.

Cheers,
    Juergen "Yogi Bear" Wahlmann

----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

In article <42kq36$aqq@gate.compart.fi> Fredrik Sandstrom <fred@spider.compart.fi> writes:
>From: Fredrik Sandstrom <fred@spider.compart.fi>
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: 6 Sep 1995 18:42:46 GMT

>dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:

>>Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.

>Watch Linux multitask and repeat that! Does AmigaDOS really multitask 
>better than Linux?

Yes, if you count the RAM that's used.


----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

Fredrik Sandstrom (fred@spider.compart.fi) wrote:
: dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:
: 
: >Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
: 
: Watch Linux multitask and repeat that! Does AmigaDOS really multitask 
: better than Linux?
Well, I think that if you are talking about protected memory then you have
a good argument.  I think if you are talking about multiuser support than
you have a good argument.  But I think in terms of resources used, speed,
and ease of use the AmigaOS wins.  Does that make one better than the other?
I my mind yes, but I do admit that is just my opinion.
: 
: >I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
: >continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.
: 
: I've used AmigaDOS a couple of times very briefly. I'm not too impressed,
: but I'd like to try it out some more though. But knowing it lacks memory
: protection (yes - one program can bring the whole system down), multi-
: userness, networking and security, I would hardly call it a BETTER OS than
: Linux or Unices in general.
I suppose it really depends what your needs are.
I know the Amiga has networking, I have seen limited security
programs for the Amiga, but clearly nothing like what you are
talking about.  But the tradeoff for those features is resources.  Is it a
good trade, well sence I am the only one that uses my Amiga PC, no.  If
there is more than one person using an Amiga maybee it would be a fair trade.


-------------------------------------
Don Schmelling   Port Angeles, WA USA
    A1200/540/CD + A1230 50/50/8
           OMNIA EXTARES
-------------------------------------

NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net
rganization: Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Uni Dortmund <ibl-juwa.130.0014458D@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:64750 comp.os.linux.advocacy:28640 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:77689 comp.os.os2.advocacy:158964 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141083 comp.sys.intel:60410 alt.destroy.microsoft:9967

Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
: >
: >Watch Linux multitask and repeat that! Does AmigaDOS really multitask 
: >better than Linux?
:
: Yes, if you count the RAM that's used.
:

No, if you count the functionality AmigaOS lacks.

: Juergen Wahlmann 
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
jerry@cybercom.net

In article <42ogf3$9tg@orion.cybercom.net> jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>From: jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: 8 Sep 1995 04:22:59 GMT

>Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
>: >
>: >Watch Linux multitask and repeat that! Does AmigaDOS really multitask 
>: >better than Linux?
>:
>: Yes, if you count the RAM that's used.
>:

>No, if you count the functionality AmigaOS lacks.

Please tell me what functionality do you mean?
MultiUser, Memory protection, virtual memory, the ability to switch the 
display to other terminals or workstations? 

Agreed, but that are functions a home user OS most likely do not need.

I have nothing against UNIX, with all it's abilities it's the OS I would 
prefer against all other PC OS's (unless there is AmigaOS available).

Besides, who treat you to have only one OS on your computer?


----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net
rganization: Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Uni Dortmund <ibl-juwa.132.00107710@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:64894 comp.os.linux.advocacy:28883 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:78022 comp.os.os2.advocacy:159443 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141200 comp.sys.intel:60582 alt.destroy.microsoft:10054

Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
: >: >
: >: >Watch Linux multitask and repeat that! Does AmigaDOS really multitask 
: >: >better than Linux?
: >:
: >: Yes, if you count the RAM that's used.
: >
: >No, if you count the functionality AmigaOS lacks.
:
: Please tell me what functionality do you mean?
: MultiUser, Memory protection, virtual memory, the ability to switch the 
: display to other terminals or workstations? 
:

The first three at least.

:
: Agreed, but that are functions a home user OS most likely do not need.
:

Why not?  Is a home user never going to run a program with bugs?  (Hint:
all non-trivial programs have bugs).  Is a home user never going to run
several programs at once, or edit a large image or document, or do something
else which may overcommit physical RAM?  Is a home user never going to do
any kind of programming on his/her computer, hoping the whole system doesn't
go down due to a programming error?  Will a home computer always be used by
only one person?  Do people never use their home computers to do real work?

:
: I have nothing against UNIX, with all it's abilities it's the OS I would 
: prefer against all other PC OS's (unless there is AmigaOS available).
:

Fine.  But please don't tell me that AmigaOS is *better* than UNIX simply
because it chose to leave out a whole bunch of features in order to save
some memory back in the days when it cost hundreds of dollars per megabyte.

By the way, when you figure in the amount of OS code sitting in ROM on an
Amiga, AmigaOS's overall memory usage isn't all that great.

: Juergen Wahlmann 
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
jerry@cybercom.net

In article <42sid2$fq0@orion.cybercom.net> jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>From: jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: 9 Sep 1995 17:20:34 GMT

>Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:

>: Please tell me what functionality do you mean?
>: MultiUser, Memory protection, virtual memory, the ability to switch the 
>: display to other terminals or workstations? 
>:

>The first three at least.

>:
>: Agreed, but that are functions a home user OS most likely do not need.
>:

>Why not?  Is a home user never going to run a program with bugs?  (Hint:
>all non-trivial programs have bugs).  Is a home user never going to run
>several programs at once, or edit a large image or document, or do something
>else which may overcommit physical RAM?  Is a home user never going to do
>any kind of programming on his/her computer, hoping the whole system doesn't
>go down due to a programming error?  Will a home computer always be used by
>only one person?  Do people never use their home computers to do real work?

It's in the hands of the programmers to avoid shipping buggy software with 
their whole power. Sounds a bit idealistic, I know, but so it has to be.

I have had 8MB of RAM installed in my Amiga and I only used virtual RAM for 
image processing. Even running the Raytracer, the word processor and TeX 
together does not fill up my memory. I've then add 8MB to do more image 
processing and since this time I'd never uses VM again.

Useful software must not be as bloated and recource hungry as MS always states.

There is a MultiUserFileSystem available (as Shareware) that supports more 
than one user. At least the security is not worth a blink, but I trust my 
family to not destroy any of my data. To set up different user bases it's very 
good.

I do real work everyday with my Amiga.

>:
>: I have nothing against UNIX, with all it's abilities it's the OS I would 
>: prefer against all other PC OS's (unless there is AmigaOS available).
>:

>Fine.  But please don't tell me that AmigaOS is *better* than UNIX simply
>because it chose to leave out a whole bunch of features in order to save
>some memory back in the days when it cost hundreds of dollars per megabyte.

Curious. Just that mentality provides you with more and more bloated PC-OS's. 
Why should a system developer write an efficient OS when all the people runs 
into the shops to buy more RAM, bigger HD's and a faster processor? Why must I 
have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast as on my Amiga with a 
68040/28MHz? Very curious...

Memory costs a few hundred D-marks per 4MB yet. Too much for me and many 
others who want a computer but also a real life. 

BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than "some 
memory", isn't it? 

System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps the 
faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.

>By the way, when you figure in the amount of OS code sitting in 
ROM on an>Amiga, AmigaOS's overall memory usage isn't all that great.

512kb. I figured it in because my system copies the ROM into the fast 32 bit 
ram to increase system performance, so the memory usage is "over all"

Cheers,
   Juergen "Yogi Bear" Wahlmann

----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net
rganization: Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Uni Dortmund <ibl-juwa.141.001E632E@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65086 comp.os.linux.advocacy:29372 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:78591 comp.os.os2.advocacy:160145 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141430 comp.sys.intel:60863 alt.destroy.microsoft:10238

Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
: >
: >Why not?  Is a home user never going to run a program with bugs?  (Hint:
: >all non-trivial programs have bugs).  Is a home user never going to run
: >several programs at once, or edit a large image or document, or do something
: >else which may overcommit physical RAM?  Is a home user never going to do
: >any kind of programming on his/her computer, hoping the whole system doesn't
: >go down due to a programming error?  Will a home computer always be used by
: >only one person?  Do people never use their home computers to do real work?
:
: It's in the hands of the programmers to avoid shipping buggy software with 
: their whole power. Sounds a bit idealistic, I know, but so it has to be.
:

It's also in the hands of the OS to protect the user's machine from crashing
due to a bug in one of the programs he's running.  And developing software in
an environment without memory protection is a nightmare compared to the
alternative.

:
: Useful software must not be as bloated and recource hungry as MS always
: states.
:

Damn right -- good old "ls" and "vi" are useful pieces of software -- but
what's your point?  Heck, MS's own MS Works is damn useful and a whole lot
smaller than MS Office.

: >
: >Fine.  But please don't tell me that AmigaOS is *better* than UNIX simply
: >because it chose to leave out a whole bunch of features in order to save
: >some memory back in the days when it cost hundreds of dollars per megabyte.
:
: Curious. Just that mentality provides you with more and more bloated PC-OS's. 
: Why should a system developer write an efficient OS when all the people runs 
: into the shops to buy more RAM, bigger HD's and a faster processor?
:

Didn't you just answer your own question?

:
: Why must
: I have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast as on my Amiga with
: a 68040/28MHz? Very curious...
:

You needn't have a P100; a 486/33 will do quite nicely.

:
: BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than "some 
: memory", isn't it? 
:

It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.

:
: System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps
: the faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.
:

When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.

: Juergen Wahlmann 
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
jerry@cybercom.net

dons@olympus.net (Don Schmelling) wrote:

>Mike Dickson (Mike@blackcat.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <19950902.117E5D8.8BEA@olympus.net>
>:            dons@olympus.net "Don Schmelling" writes:
>: 
>: > I am not so sure, do you know how many emulators are on the Amiga.
>: 
>: Yes. Now here's a question for you.
>: 
>: Do you know how many of them actually work properly?
>How many emulators or Amigas?
>I think to be considered an emulator a piece of software has to truely
>emulate a computer.
The Amiga can emulate lot's of computers, well! It can emulate a Mac
100% and since an Amiga can multitask properly it runs Mac
applications better than on the Mac. The Mac sucks anyway (take it
from me, I have the sole responsibilty for a computer room full of
Macs). 

 
>: The Amiga's a toy.
>Well the AmigaOS can multitask better than any Mac or IBM PC os can.
>How come more games are sold for IBM Personal Computers than any other
>platform?  I think that IBM PCs are toys, and you know what, they will
>continue to be toys until they can write a better os than AmigaDOS.
The PC is a toy. I use it for games. The PC is a workhorse, I use it
for heavy apps. I love my PC for doing both.

I enjoy the Amiga too. I've spent many happy years without and I've
regarded it as more than a toy - but of course it works perfectly well
as a toy too.

It's what you use a computer that determines if it's a toy or not. If
you use it for pure entertainment, it's a toy. If you use it to do
work it's not a toy. I know that many use an Amiga for TV production
(with Scala) and it's the best option for their work. Maybe they're
just a bunch of unserious workers?

Sven



|Sven Anders Robbestad | Visit my homepage:
|Merkantilvn 19a4      | Besøk min hjemmeside:
|2800 Gjøvik, Norway   | http://www.oslonett.no/~svena
|Svena@Oslonett.no     | http://www.oslonett.no/home/svena
--------------------- ------------------------------------   
|A pertinent plumber called Lee
|was plumbing his girl by the sea.
|She said: "Stop plumbing!
|There's somebody coming!"
|"I know", said the plumber, "it's me!"

In article <4335ku$np8@orion.cybercom.net> jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>From: jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: 12 Sep 1995 05:25:50 GMT


>: >
>: >Fine.  But please don't tell me that AmigaOS is *better* than UNIX simply
>: >because it chose to leave out a whole bunch of features in order to save
>: >some memory back in the days when it cost hundreds of dollars per megabyte.
>:
>: Curious. Just that mentality provides you with more and more bloated PC-OS's. 
>: Why should a system developer write an efficient OS when all the people runs 
>: into the shops to buy more RAM, bigger HD's and a faster processor?
>:

>Didn't you just answer your own question?

It was a rethorical one.

>:
>: Why must
>: I have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast as on my Amiga with
>: a 68040/28MHz? Very curious...
>:

>You needn't have a P100; a 486/33 will do quite nicely.

I doubt that seriously. I've seen WinCrap on a DX66 with EIDE and a VL gfx 
card.

>:
>: BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than "some 
>: memory", isn't it? 
>:

>It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.

Tell me your's please.

>:
>: System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps
>: the faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.
>:

>When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.

You will run much later out of RAM on an Amiga. That's the point.


----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net
rganization: Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Uni Dortmund <ibl-juwa.153.0165875D@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65237 comp.os.linux.advocacy:29754 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:79046 comp.os.os2.advocacy:160808 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141611 comp.sys.intel:61080 alt.destroy.microsoft:10390

Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
: >:
: >: Why must
: >: I have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast as on my
: >: Amiga with a 68040/28MHz? Very curious...
: >
: >You needn't have a P100; a 486/33 will do quite nicely.
:
: I doubt that seriously. I've seen WinCrap on a DX66 with EIDE and a VL gfx 
: card.
:

Me too.  It blew away a 68040-based Amiga.

: >:
: >: BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than
: >: "some memory", isn't it? 
: >
: >It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.
:
: Tell me your's please.
:

I've seen Linux running on a 2MB PC, with 850KB free.

: >:
: >: System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps
: >: the faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.
: >
: >When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.
:
: You will run much later out of RAM on an Amiga.
:

Not if you run similar apps on both machines.

: Juergen Wahlmann 
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
jerry@cybercom.net

ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de (Juergen Wahlmann) writes:

>It's in the hands of the programmers to avoid shipping buggy software with 
>their whole power. Sounds a bit idealistic, I know, but so it has to be.

And doesn't work. Even when you try to avoid bugs "with your whole power",
you still ship buggy software. That's just a fact of life.

>I have had 8MB of RAM installed in my Amiga and I only used virtual RAM for 
>image processing. Even running the Raytracer, the word processor and TeX 
>together does not fill up my memory. I've then add 8MB to do more image 
>processing and since this time I'd never uses VM again.

Which just shows that

a) you _did_ need VM
b) you don't do very resource-hungry stuff.

>Useful software must not be as bloated and recource hungry as MS always states.

That's "needs not". The negation is different in German and English.

And some very useful software _must_ be resource hungry. How would I get
random access to any single frame from a 400 frame sequence, with every
single frame being 25k in size, without using 10M of RAM?

>>Fine.  But please don't tell me that AmigaOS is *better* than UNIX simply
>>because it chose to leave out a whole bunch of features in order to save
>>some memory back in the days when it cost hundreds of dollars per megabyte.

>Curious. Just that mentality provides you with more and more bloated PC-OS's. 

Which, also, have heaps of essential (to me) functionality.

>Why should a system developer write an efficient OS when all the people runs 
>into the shops to buy more RAM, bigger HD's and a faster processor? Why must I 
>have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast as on my Amiga with a 
>68040/28MHz? Very curious...

Because you use the wrong OS?
I could send you some C code and some data that code works on. We could then
compare how long it took to run that code on your machine and how long on
mine. OK?
There are efficient, lean OSs out. Not as lean as AmigaOS, but doing a whole
lot more, too.

>BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than "some 
>memory", isn't it? 

Unix runs smooth in a whole lot less than that. Even Unix+X runs smooth in
8M, once you spend some time on setting things up for saving memory. 
And there is a lot in UNIX (and linux, especially) to save memory that the
Amiga could not save. Extensive sharing of memory, lazy allocation, demand
paging, even the "evil" VM helps (kicking out all your currently unused
daemons and stuff). There is a break-even point at which, with a given
amount of RAM, you not only get the better OS functionality, but also more
available resources for your processes. That point, however, is not at 4M.

>System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps the 
>faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.

Yep. An OS that needs to swap but doesn't know how to certainly is very fast
--- in putting up an error message or in crashing. 

Bernie

-- 
==============================================================================
Anybody out there who knows how to connect a Wyse terminal keyboard to a PC
_without_ the terminal in between? Current keyboard lses chracters evr so
oftn.............  Getng wrs al te im. Hp!

svena@oslonett.no (Sven Anders Robbestad) writes:

>I enjoy the Amiga too. I've spent many happy years without and I've
>regarded it as more than a toy - but of course it works perfectly well
>as a toy too.

What a wonderful Freudian Slip ;-)))

Must've been a sad day when you got your Amiga.....

Bernie

-- 
==============================================================================
Anybody out there who knows how to connect a Wyse terminal keyboard to a PC
_without_ the terminal in between? Current keyboard lses chracters evr so
oftn.............  Getng wrs al te im. Hp!

In article <437r73$8h@orion.cybercom.net> jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>From: jerry@cybercom.net (Jerry Shekhel)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: 13 Sep 1995 23:58:27 GMT

>Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
>: >:
>: >: Why must
>: >: I have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast as on my
>: >: Amiga with a 68040/28MHz? Very curious...
>: >
>: >You needn't have a P100; a 486/33 will do quite nicely.
>:
>: I doubt that seriously. I've seen WinCrap on a DX66 with EIDE and a VL gfx 
>: card.
>:

>Me too.  It blew away a 68040-based Amiga.

That's laughable. WinBloats does not run with PMT, the apps are by times 
larger therefore you need a much faster Intel machine to compete with a 68040 
Amiga.

>: >:
>: >: BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than
>: >: "some memory", isn't it? 
>: >
>: >It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.
>:
>: Tell me your's please.
>:

>I've seen Linux running on a 2MB PC, with 850KB free.

You've seen it. Does X run? Do you worked with it? Do you have lounched a 
single application such as FrameMaker?
The Point is, with AmigaOS you can WORK in 2MB.

>: >:
>: >: System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps
>: >: the faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.
>: >
>: >When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.
>:
>: You will run much later out of RAM on an Amiga.
>:

>Not if you run similar apps on both machines.

Gods sake, the same bloated, overloaded apps as on Windows PC's? Even those 
will run better on AmigaOS, though I don't miss them (and I don't need them).


----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

 <4335ku$np8@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tycho.gbar.dtu.dk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65390 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30037 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:79412 comp.os.os2.advocacy:161541 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141755 comp.sys.intel:61235

On 12 Sep 1995 05:25:50 GMT Jerry Shekhel (jerry@cybercom.net) wrote:
> Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
> : Why must
> : I have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast as on my Amiga with
> : a 68040/28MHz? Very curious...

> You needn't have a P100; a 486/33 will do quite nicely.

That would be a very magic 486/33.

> : BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than "some 
> : memory", isn't it? 

> It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.

True. Amiga OS runs smoothly in as little as 2 MB. The HP Unix workstations
we have at DTU have 128 MB of physical RAM and still keep swapping all the
time.

> : System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps
> : the faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.

> When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.

The Amiga OS doesn't stop if it runs out of RAM (it doesn't run out of RAM
often anyway, but that is not the point). And if you want to use virtual
memory with Amiga OS, then you can do so if your Amiga has a MMU.

--
Regards,
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                         \
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
|            WWW homepage: http://srv2.gbar.dtu.dk:8001/Rask/             |
|  Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue   |
\_________________________________________________________________________/

svena@oslonett.no (Sven Anders Robbestad) wrote:

>The Amiga can emulate lot's of computers, well! It can emulate a Mac
>100% and since an Amiga can multitask properly it runs Mac
>applications better than on the Mac. The Mac sucks anyway (take it
>from me, I have the sole responsibilty for a computer room full of
>Macs). 

An over priced Amiga with an overpriced graphics card can emulate a
Mac, assuming you don't mind slow 040 emulation and IIci-level
graphics speed.  (Can anyone post graphics speeds with the S3-Trio and
S3 864-based chips, like the Cybergraphics 64 card?)  Use Speedometer
3.23 and 4.0, please.

gc948374@tycho.gbar.dtu.dk (Rask Lambertsen) writes:
>On 12 Sep 1995 05:25:50 GMT Jerry Shekhel (jerry@cybercom.net) wrote:

>> It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.

>True. Amiga OS runs smoothly in as little as 2 MB. The HP Unix workstations
>we have at DTU have 128 MB of physical RAM and still keep swapping all the
>time.

And I bet they are doing the same thing, too. NOT!

>> When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.

>The Amiga OS doesn't stop if it runs out of RAM (it doesn't run out of RAM
>often anyway, but that is not the point). 

Then what does it do? If there is only 3 megs free, and my process wants to 
allocate 4 megs, what happens? 

>And if you want to use virtual
>memory with Amiga OS, then you can do so if your Amiga has a MMU.

And your programs are all well-behaved and used the proper memory classes in 
allocation requests. Now quite a few don't, so you have to disable Gigamem
for them (GM comes with a list of such programs). What happens when VM kicked
in, you still have 20M swap space free, but all your physical memory has been
comitted already, and now one of these non-VM aware programs requests 20k?

Bernie
-- 
==============================================================================
Anybody out there who knows how to connect a Wyse terminal keyboard to a PC
_without_ the terminal in between? Current keyboard lses chracters evr so
oftn.............  Getng wrs al te im. Hp!

NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net
rganization: Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Uni Dortmund <ibl-juwa.155.000A9333@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65577 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30489 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:80025 comp.os.os2.advocacy:162595 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141921 comp.sys.intel:61450 alt.destroy.microsoft:10658

Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
: >
: >Me too.  It blew away a 68040-based Amiga.
:
: That's laughable. WinBloats does not run with PMT, the apps are by times 
: larger therefore you need a much faster Intel machine to compete with a 68040 
: Amiga.
:

The Amiga would be no competition.  The large sizes of Windows apps are due
to their larger capabilities.  Hell, I suppose you think the C64 word
processors were superior to them all, since they ran in 64KB.

: >
: >I've seen Linux running on a 2MB PC, with 850KB free.
:
: You've seen it. Does X run? Do you worked with it? Do you have lounched a 
: single application such as FrameMaker?
:

FrameMaker isn't available for Linux, and no, it wouldn't run in 2MB.  On
*any* platform.

:
: The Point is, with AmigaOS you can WORK in 2MB.
:

How do you know?  Have you launched an application like FrameMaker on it?
Again, on a C64 you can WORK in 64K.  Does that make it a superior machine?

: >:
: >: You will run much later out of RAM on an Amiga.
: >
: >Not if you run similar apps on both machines.
:
: Gods sake, the same bloated, overloaded apps as on Windows PC's? Even those 
: will run better on AmigaOS, though I don't miss them (and I don't need them).
:

Get used to the fact that other people *do* need them.

: Juergen Wahlmann 
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
jerry@cybercom.net

 <43bp68$on2@unidhp.uni-c.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65578 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30490 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:80026 comp.os.os2.advocacy:162597 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141922 comp.sys.intel:61451

Rask Lambertsen (gc948374@tycho.gbar.dtu.dk) wrote:
: >
: > You needn't have a P100; a 486/33 will do quite nicely.
:
: That would be a very magic 486/33.
:

Nah, any run-of-the-mill 486/33 with a decent local bus graphics card.

: >
: > It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.
:
: True. Amiga OS runs smoothly in as little as 2 MB. The HP Unix workstations
: we have at DTU have 128 MB of physical RAM and still keep swapping all the
: time.
:

So?  Does that change the fact that *some* versions of UNIX run happily in
2MB?

: >
: > When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.
:
: The Amiga OS doesn't stop if it runs out of RAM (it doesn't run out of RAM
: often anyway, but that is not the point).
:

It *stops* allowing you to run more programs.  And who knows what an individual
program will do when the machine starts failing allocation requests?  Many
will die horrible deaths.

:
: And if you want to use virtual
: memory with Amiga OS, then you can do so if your Amiga has a MMU.
:

Sure, there are tacked on, afterthought solutions.  For *some* Amigas.
That work *some* of the time, from what I hear in this newsgroup.

: | Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
jerry@cybercom.net

On Fri, 15 Sep 1995 19:45:38 GMT David Corn (dcorn@metronet.com) wrote:
> svena@oslonett.no (Sven Anders Robbestad) wrote:

> >The Amiga can emulate lot's of computers, well! It can emulate a Mac
> >100% and since an Amiga can multitask properly it runs Mac
> >applications better than on the Mac. The Mac sucks anyway (take it
> >from me, I have the sole responsibilty for a computer room full of
> >Macs). 

> An over priced Amiga with an overpriced graphics card can emulate a
> Mac, assuming you don't mind slow 040 emulation and IIci-level
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why would '040 emulation be needed?

--
Regards,
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                         \
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
|            WWW homepage: http://srv2.gbar.dtu.dk:8001/Rask/             |
|  Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue   |
\_________________________________________________________________________/

  <4335ku$np8@orion.cybercom.net> <43bp68$on2@unidhp.uni-c.dk> <DEzrLq.1D2@wombat.hanse.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tycho.gbar.dtu.dk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65662 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30736 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:80381 comp.os.os2.advocacy:162984 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:141998 comp.sys.intel:61557

On Sat, 16 Sep 1995 09:27:26 GMT Bernd "Bernie" Meyer (root@wombat.hanse.de) wrote:
> gc948374@tycho.gbar.dtu.dk (Rask Lambertsen) writes:
> >On 12 Sep 1995 05:25:50 GMT Jerry Shekhel (jerry@cybercom.net) wrote:

> >> It would be, if your numbers were accurate.  They aren't.

> >True. Amiga OS runs smoothly in as little as 2 MB. The HP Unix workstations
> >we have at DTU have 128 MB of physical RAM and still keep swapping all the
> >time.

> And I bet they are doing the same thing, too. NOT!

> >> When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.

> >The Amiga OS doesn't stop if it runs out of RAM (it doesn't run out of RAM
> >often anyway, but that is not the point). 

> Then what does it do? If there is only 3 megs free, and my process wants to 
> allocate 4 megs, what happens? 

Then the process it told that the allocation failed. What happens then it up
to the process.

> >And if you want to use virtual
> >memory with Amiga OS, then you can do so if your Amiga has a MMU.

> And your programs are all well-behaved and used the proper memory classes in 
> allocation requests. Now quite a few don't, so you have to disable Gigamem

and if there are no hardware faults and if the power is on and if there is
not an earthquake and if ....

For me, this would not be much of a problem: I'd simply not use those
programs, just as I don't use any other badly behaved programs.
The philosofy is simple: If a programme breaks because I upgrade or expand
in any way, I won't let that programme take up space on my hard disk.

> for them (GM comes with a list of such programs). What happens when VM kicked
> in, you still have 20M swap space free, but all your physical memory has been
> comitted already, and now one of these non-VM aware programs requests 20k?
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no such thing as an VM aware or non-VM aware programme on the Amiga.
There are non-broken programmes and broken programmes. There are no special
ways to support VM. To answer your question: Some of the physical memory
would be swapped with some of the virtual memory, in this case at least
20 kB.

--
Regards,
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                         \
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
|            WWW homepage: http://srv2.gbar.dtu.dk:8001/Rask/             |
|  Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue   |
\_________________________________________________________________________/

 <43iqc4$mu2@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tycho.gbar.dtu.dk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65665 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30740 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:80389 comp.os.os2.advocacy:162991 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:142000 comp.sys.intel:61559

On 18 Sep 1995 03:51:32 GMT Jerry Shekhel (jerry@cybercom.net) wrote:
> Rask Lambertsen (gc948374@tycho.gbar.dtu.dk) wrote:

> : > When I run out of physical RAM, I'd much rather have my OS swap than stop.
> :
> : The Amiga OS doesn't stop if it runs out of RAM (it doesn't run out of RAM
> : often anyway, but that is not the point).

> It *stops* allowing you to run more programs.  And who knows what an individual
> program will do when the machine starts failing allocation requests?  Many
                                                                        ^^^^
> will die horrible deaths.

I can't think of a single one, but I'm sure you know a few million of them.

This is not different on any other OS, is it? Then stop blaming the
Amiga OS for being worse than the competition.

> : And if you want to use virtual
> : memory with Amiga OS, then you can do so if your Amiga has a MMU.

> Sure, there are tacked on, afterthought solutions.  For *some* Amigas.
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As I stated, you need an MMU.

> That work *some* of the time, from what I hear in this newsgroup.

Some people don't use their brain when programming - the results speak
for themselves.

--
Regards,
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                         \
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
|            WWW homepage: http://srv2.gbar.dtu.dk:8001/Rask/             |
|  Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue   |
\_________________________________________________________________________/

In article <DEw6sx.FB8@wombat.hanse.de> root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie" Meyer) writes:
>From: root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie" Meyer)
>Subject: Re: JUST REMEMBER WHY WINDOWS WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!
>Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 11:05:16 GMT

>ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de (Juergen Wahlmann) writes:

>>It's in the hands of the programmers to avoid shipping buggy software with 
>>their whole power. Sounds a bit idealistic, I know, but so it has to be.

>And doesn't work. Even when you try to avoid bugs "with your whole power",
>you still ship buggy software. That's just a fact of life.

Don't have any problems with it.

>>I have had 8MB of RAM installed in my Amiga and I only used virtual RAM for 
>>image processing. Even running the Raytracer, the word processor and TeX 
>>together does not fill up my memory. I've then add 8MB to do more image 
>>processing and since this time I'd never uses VM again.

>Which just shows that

>a) you _did_ need VM
>b) you don't do very resource-hungry stuff.

What IS recource hungry? Would you please specify that?
What is more recource hungry than image processing and rendering large scenes?

>>Useful software must not be as bloated and recource hungry as MS always states.

>That's "needs not". The negation is different in German and English.

Got it.

>And some very useful software _must_ be resource hungry. How would I get
>random access to any single frame from a 400 frame sequence, with every
>single frame being 25k in size, without using 10M of RAM?

That's image processing again.

>>>Fine.  But please don't tell me that AmigaOS is *better* than UNIX simply
>>>because it chose to leave out a whole bunch of features in order to save
>>>some memory back in the days when it cost hundreds of dollars per megabyte.

>>Curious. Just that mentality provides you with more and more bloated PC-OS's. 

>Which, also, have heaps of essential (to me) functionality.

Well, for me, not. Win95 uses much ram and drive space and even cannot force 
the 16bit apps to multitask smoothly.

>>Why should a system developer write an efficient OS when all the 
people runs >>into the shops to buy more RAM, bigger HD's and a faster 
processor? Why must I >>have a Pentium with 100MHz to perform my tasks as fast 
as on my Amiga with a >>68040/28MHz? Very curious...

>Because you use the wrong OS?
>I could send you some C code and some data that code works on. We could then
>compare how long it took to run that code on your machine and how long on
>mine. OK?
>There are efficient, lean OSs out. Not as lean as AmigaOS, but doing a whole
>lot more, too.

Just your opinion.

>>BTW, Unix runs smooth in 16MB of Ram, AmigaOS in 4MB. That's more than "some 
>>memory", isn't it? 

>Unix runs smooth in a whole lot less than that. Even Unix+X runs smooth in
>8M, once you spend some time on setting things up for saving memory. 
>And there is a lot in UNIX (and linux, especially) to save memory that the
>Amiga could not save. Extensive sharing of memory, lazy allocation, demand
>paging, even the "evil" VM helps (kicking out all your currently unused
>daemons and stuff). There is a break-even point at which, with a given
>amount of RAM, you not only get the better OS functionality, but also more
>available resources for your processes. That point, however, is not at 4M.

>>System performance depends on the data throughput. The lesser the OS swaps the 
>>faster it is. That's one great advantage of AmigaOS over other OS's.

>Yep. An OS that needs to swap but doesn't know how to certainly is very fast
>--- in putting up an error message or in crashing. 

>Bernie

>-- 
>==============================================================================
>Anybody out there who knows how to connect a Wyse terminal keyboard to a PC
>_without_ the terminal in between? Current keyboard lses chracters evr so
>oftn.............  Getng wrs al te im. Hp!

----------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Wahlmann 
Universitaet Dortmund            Phone:  +49 +231 755 3198
Fakultaet WiSo                   Fax:    +49 +231 755 3189
Industriebetriebslehre           Street: Otto-Hahn Str. 6
D-44227 Dortmund

"MacOS multitasks... on my Amiga!!"
 (C.Bauer, Author of the ShapeShifter Mac-Emulator)

 <43m5te$lol@unidhp.uni-c.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65675 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30759 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:80410 comp.os.os2.advocacy:163019 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:142006 comp.sys.intel:61563

Rask Lambertsen (gc948374@tycho.gbar.dtu.dk) wrote:
: > :
: > : The Amiga OS doesn't stop if it runs out of RAM (it doesn't run out of RAM
: > : often anyway, but that is not the point).
: >
: > It *stops* allowing you to run more programs.  And who knows what an
: > individual program will do when the machine starts failing allocation
: > requests?  Many will die horrible deaths.
:
: I can't think of a single one, but I'm sure you know a few million of them.
:

Actually, most will.  I've never seen an application that checks the results
of *all* memory requests.

:
: This is not different on any other OS, is it? Then stop blaming the
: Amiga OS for being worse than the competition.
:

In this respect, the AmigaOS *is* worse than the competition.  The competition
has virtual memory support in the OS.

: | Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
--
Jerry J. Shekhel
jerry@cybercom.net

In article <43cks1$5cq@maverick.tad.eds.com>, dcorn@metronet.com (David Corn) writes:
|> svena@oslonett.no (Sven Anders Robbestad) wrote:

|> >The Amiga can emulate lot's of computers, well! It can emulate a
|> >Mac 100% 

Last I heard, it could emulate a Mac plus running system 6, but with
no sound or networking.  Has this changed?

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@aol.com

 <43mkjc$rl6@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lorenz.gbar.dtu.dk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65756 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30969 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:80694 comp.os.os2.advocacy:163439 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:142090 comp.sys.intel:61685

On 19 Sep 1995 14:37:32 GMT Jerry Shekhel (jerry@cybercom.net) wrote:
> Rask Lambertsen (gc948374@tycho.gbar.dtu.dk) wrote:
> : > :
> : > : The Amiga OS doesn't stop if it runs out of RAM (it doesn't run out of RAM
> : > : often anyway, but that is not the point).
> : >
> : > It *stops* allowing you to run more programs.  And who knows what an
> : > individual program will do when the machine starts failing allocation
> : > requests?  Many will die horrible deaths.
> :
> : I can't think of a single one, but I'm sure you know a few million of them.

> Actually, most will.  I've never seen an application that checks the results
> of *all* memory requests.

Then download SmartCopy from Aminet. All allocations (not just memory) are
checked. I know because I wrote it.

> : This is not different on any other OS, is it? Then stop blaming the
> : Amiga OS for being worse than the competition.

> In this respect, the AmigaOS *is* worse than the competition.  The competition
> has virtual memory support in the OS.

It doesn't matter where the virtual memory support is. What matters is
how well it works.

--
Regards,
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                         \
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
|            WWW homepage: http://srv2.gbar.dtu.dk:8001/Rask/             |
|  Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue   |
\_________________________________________________________________________/

 <43mm8d$rl6@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lorenz.gbar.dtu.dk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Xref: xlink.net comp.sys.powerpc:65757 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30970 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:80695 comp.os.os2.advocacy:163442 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:142091 comp.sys.intel:61686

On 19 Sep 1995 15:05:49 GMT Jerry Shekhel (jerry@cybercom.net) wrote:
> Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
> : >
> : >Nah, any run-of-the-mill 486/33 with a decent local bus graphics card.
> :
> : Funny. He can't be serious.
> : NO PC OS including LINUX runs as smooth in that amount of RAM than
> : AmigaOS do. Get it.
> :

> Get what?  What exactly is your argument here?  "AmigaOS is smoother"?  What
> the hell does this mean?  Can you prove it?  I've used both AmigaOS and Linux
> extensively, and for me, Linux blew the doors off AmigaOS in terms of
> efficiency, multitasking, robustness, stability, reliability, and intelligent
> memory utilization.  Crash-happy AmigaOS was a joke in comparison, and slow
> too.

I crash HPUX systems more often than I crash my Amiga, and I use both
dayly, so calling Amiga OS crash-happy is a joke.

> : I got much more work done with my Amiga than on
> : any PC with WinCrap or OS/2.

> So?  Millions of people do *all* their work in Windows, and *none* in AmigaOS.
> So what?  What the heck are you trying to say?

He is saying that the Amiga get his work done where Winslows and OS\2 fails
to do so. So the Amiga is better in his case.

> : >It *stops* allowing you to run more programs.  And who knows what an
> : >individual program will do when the machine starts failing allocation
> : >requests?  Many will die horrible deaths.
> :
> : Wrong. Programmer's fault. You always HAVE to check wether your RAM request 
> : was a success. 

> So AmigaOS is the perfect choice for people who (a) write their own software
                    ^^^^^^^
Nothing is perfect, not even Amiga OS.

> for everything, and (b) never make mistakes during programming.  Such people
> are always guaranteed to run bug-free software.  Now guess how many such
> people exist.

0. So with the number of people using Amiga OS, not (a) and not (b)
doesn't prevent you from using the Amiga. Hint: It is nowhere near as
bad as you try to make it sound.

--
Regards,
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                         \
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <gc948374@gbar.dtu.dk>, <e9864029@ebar.dtu.dk> |
|            WWW homepage: http://srv2.gbar.dtu.dk:8001/Rask/             |
|  Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue   |
\_________________________________________________________________________/