Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Jul 2009 15:30 UTC
Amiga & AROS So we finally meet! You can't imagine how hard I've tried to get my hands on a machine that could run AmigaOS 4 in all its glory. I've never used the Amiga before - not during its heydays, and not during its afterglow - so it meant an unexplored world for me. You can imagine my excitement when ACube Systems, makers of the sam440ep board that runs AmigaOS 4.1, offered a review machine to me, built around their own PowerPC sam440ep flex motherboard.
Thread beginning with comment 373406
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lproven
Member since:
2006-08-23

It doesn't make sense, inasmuch as the PC has its own native partitioning system already. Trying to impose one's own rules when one is working in someone else's territory is not a winning tactic.

When Linux runs on SPARC hardware, it uses SPARC partitioning. When it runs on Macs, it uses Mac partitioning. When it runs on PCs, it uses PC partitioning.

Run Mac OS X on a PC, it uses PC partitioning.

Etc. etc.

This is, I'd argue, The Right Way. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Adapt to the prevailing local customs and systems.

AmigaOS grew up in isolation; e.g., for many Amiga fans, Intuition was probably the first windowing system they ever used. Now, though, there are accepted ways of working, so AmigaOS /has/ to conform to the way everyone else works now.

It is a case of conform or die, I'm afraid.

I'm all for putting in support for working the old way for users who prefer it, but it needs to work the way non-Amigans expect out of the box. Firstly, there may be hundreds of thousands of old Amigans out there, but they are a small potential market. Secondly, even all those old fans have probably been using Windows, Macs or Linux since they moved on from their Miggys.

It's a theoretical point, really - AOS4/4.1 manifestly hasn't done this, and the BSDs are unlikely to change their ways now. If either it, it would infuriate loyal fans. I'm just trying to point out a philosophical difference in outlook, that's all!

Reply Parent Score: 1

kolla Member since:
2009-07-15

It doesn't make sense, inasmuch as the PC has its own native partitioning system already. Trying to impose one's own rules when one is working in someone else's territory is not a winning tactic.

When Linux runs on SPARC hardware, it uses SPARC partitioning. When it runs on Macs, it uses Mac partitioning. When it runs on PCs, it uses PC partitioning.

Run Mac OS X on a PC, it uses PC partitioning.


Bullocks

Really, this is just nonsense, please check up your so called facts. What kind of prtitioning to use is largely determied by the firmware on the machine, and what the heck do you mean by "SPARC partitioning" anyways? Check out what the Tivo used, for example.


This is, I'd argue, The Right Way. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Adapt to the prevailing local customs and systems.


This is done of necessity, nothing more. With some luck the old MBR partitioning crap is soon gone.


AmigaOS grew up in isolation;


Pure speculations and mostly utter nonsense, again. AmigaOS grew up in fierce competition with both old MacOS, Atari, old windows and more. The OS itself is a compromise of different systems of the days, and it was largely compiled on SunOS in the start.


e.g., for many Amiga fans, Intuition was probably the first windowing system they ever used.


Probably true or some, but for how long? There were at least a handfull of systems that I tried before I ended up on AmigaOS, each with their own windowing systems, and back in the days there was actually plenty to chose from and you were more likely to stumble upon them as well. Today the chances that you find something other than windows or OSX are slim, and when it happens, chances are very high it's linux with either Gnome or KDE.

Now, though, there are accepted ways of working, so AmigaOS /has/ to conform to the way everyone else works now.


Utter nonsense. That would remove the very point of keeping AmigaOS around.


It is a case of conform or die, I'm afraid.


Nonsense again. It's much more "conform and die". Did Apple conform to anything with OSX? Does Microsoft conform to anything with Windows Vista/7?


I'm all for putting in support for working the old way for users who prefer it, but it needs to work the way non-Amigans expect out of the box. Firstly, there may be hundreds of thousands of old Amigans out there, but they are a small potential market.


Oh no... please dont bring in "the market" - there is no market to speak of, and there wont be - just drop it already. AmigaOS today is for and by old stubbern users, noone else.


Secondly, even all those old fans have probably been using Windows, Macs or Linux since they moved on from their Miggys.


And you think altering how amigaos works will bring them back somehow? Fat chance.

Reply Parent Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Actually, it does make sense. The partitioning scheme of a system is determined both by the firmware on the machine (bios in the case of most PC systems), and the operating system or systems installed on that machine. The reason we have the MBR partitioning scheme today is that DOS and later Windows clung to a system that was never designed to be extendible and was extended by a hack (extended partition and logical drives). It is all the bios can handle (ugh, bios go away!) and since the Microsoft family of oses use the bios for a large part of their disk access, it is what we're stuck with. It makes much more sense, imho, to have a partition for each os and be able to slice each os's partitions up in the way most beneficial to that os--this is how *BSD and Solaris work, for example. This way, each os is self-contained inside its own partition, making it much easier to work with the partition table when necessary and much safer, as a mess-up in one os will not kill any of the other oses. Compare this to the MBR partitioning scheme that Windows and PC-based Linux both use, if you aren't careful you can easily delete the wrong partition or make another mistake, and there's no clear division as to which os is controlling what partition without looking at the partition type and possibly checking your volume mounts in all affected oses. The entire X86-based PC, from bios to typical disk access and partitioning, is one giant cludge of a hack.

Reply Parent Score: 3