home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hemi!jerry
- From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
- Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipsets
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.170201.5092@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 17:02:01 GMT
- References: <1992Dec28.230801.3534@crd.ge.com>
- Sender: nobody@ctr.columbia.edu
- Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
- Lines: 68
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
- X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
-
- Mr. Mike" Passaretti (mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com) wrote:
- :
- : First, my apologies if I misread your posting on your
- : programming experience. I meant no disrespect.
- :
-
- No problem!
-
- :
- : [long car analogy deleted]
- :
-
- Mike, you said that you are a developer of real-time embedded systems.
- I agree that this makes you uniquely qualified to compare such systems
- and judge which one is the most well-designed. But does it mean that you
- have any more right than I to say what is an OS and what is not? Or even
- what is a good OS?
-
- Suppose I am not interested in real-time embedded systems. Let's say I
- need an OS which supports the most varying hardware, can handle the largest,
- most feature-packed commercial applications, and has an easy-to-use GUI.
- Does your real-time embedded OS qualify as a good OS in my case? No, it
- doesn't, but Windows certainly does.
-
- During all these OS discussions, I've noticed that most people here
- consider some OS features more "noble" than others. More often than not,
- the features that Amiga users praise are those which AmigaOS happens to have,
- and the features that they consider worthless are conveniently those which
- AmigaOS lacks. For example, the preemptive multitasking and fast context
- switch. Amiga users seem to believe that because AmigaOS has these, it's OK
- that it doesn't have VM, MP, or DIG. This is precisely what I disagree with.
- I'm not saying that it's the other way around; I'm just saying that it depends
- on what you use your computer for. Just like there is room in the marketplace
- for several different classes of automobile, there is room (and justification)
- for several different OS designs.
-
- :
- : jerry> OS's don't exist for OS developers; they exist for
- : jerry> application programmers and users; *they* are the ones
- : jerry> who define what goes into an OS, not you.
- :
- : ** Bzzzzt ** Thank you for playing. The OS developer, by
- : definition, decides what goes in his OS. The API is all that
- : matters to the applications programmer, and the applications
- : are all that matter to the user.
- :
-
- I strongly disagree on this point. Why is it that a GUI is now part of Unix?
- Because the *users* demanded it. Why were scalable fonts finally added to
- MacOS? For the same reason. You say that the OS developer decides what goes
- into his OS? That's absurd! Certainly, you have the final decision, but if
- you don't listen to your market (users and app developers), you won't be an
- OS developer for long. Ever heard of market research? No product exists
- without there being some need for it in the marketplace.
-
- And believe me, only in dreamland does the implementation of the API not
- concern the application programmer, and only in dreamland does the OS's
- ease-of-use not concern the user.
-
- : - MM
- : passaretti@crd.ge.com {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
- :
- --
- +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
- | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
- | Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
- | ... In rhythm! | jerry@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
- +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
-