Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 00:54 UTC
Google This tweet from Tom Warren made me smile. So, it's 2012 and tablets are finally able to do what the Amiga did in 1985. Seems like a bit of a stretch to be excited about that, right? Sure, until I caught myself getting excited - only a bit, but still - by this piece of news. Update: removed me being an annoyed child.
Thread beginning with comment 529587
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Random idea
by Yoko_T on Sat 4th Aug 2012 03:01 UTC in reply to "Random idea"
Yoko_T
Member since:
2011-08-18

So for multi-user operating systems you choose... Amiga?
Really? You make it seem like those dudes in 1969 that came up with UNIX used the Delorean (before it was built) to jump forward in time to 1985 to rip off Amiga... oh and Multics, which was already multi-user and over-the-hill when Unix copied some of its parts, must have had a *second* Delorean to go forward in time to 1969 to rip off Unix's copy of the ripped off Amiga multi-user support! Wow.. that's a lot of Deloreans!

Oh.. P.S. --> In addition to me questioning your dubious references... your reference to Amiga is also factually inaccurate since Amiga in 1985 did *not* support multiple users (in fact, much much newer versions of Amiga still don't support multiple users).
Don't believe me? Here's a quote from an article detailing the Fast File system that was not even available in the earlier versions of Amiga:
"There are many bright design ideas making the AmigaOS a very special thing, but the file system was not exactly part of it. It is prone to invalidation, holds redundant data, and its directory structure is comparatively slow to traverse. It also lacks any concept of multi-user environments." See: http://wiki.osdev.org/FFS_%28Amiga%29

If your filesystem doesn't support multi-user access control, then you don't have a multi-user OS, even if there is a stupid login screen for multiple users (which there wasn't BTW).

You seem to have confused *multi-tasking* with *multi-user*. While Amiga did have multi-tasking, that ain't the same thing as a multi-user environment. Oh, and multi-tasking wasn't all that unique since real Unix flavours had already gotten pre-emptive multi-tasking by 1985 anyway.

If you are going to pine for the fjords, why not whine about SkyOS or HURD or some other dead OS that was *really* out there. Amiga was a corporate sellout compared to those guys.


The Amiga in 1985 also didn't have usb support,an integrated display,ect,ect,ect.


It's really funny to see these Amiga and Beos fan boys running around acting like the Amiga and Be machines were the machines that most people wanted. They weren't.

In fact they were far from it. In fact if I remember right the Commodore 64 outsold the Amiga during the Amiga's production run.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Random idea
by stew on Sat 4th Aug 2012 08:41 in reply to "RE: Random idea"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

True. As much as I loved my Amiga, the damn thing didn't have memory protection! At least I don't have to reboot my iPhone when Mobile Safari crashes.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Random idea
by Laurence on Sat 4th Aug 2012 10:39 in reply to "RE: Random idea"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


The Amiga in 1985 also didn't have usb support,an integrated display,ect,ect,ect.


It's really funny to see these Amiga and Beos fan boys running around acting like the Amiga and Be machines were the machines that most people wanted. They weren't.

In fact they were far from it. In fact if I remember right the Commodore 64 outsold the Amiga during the Amiga's production run.

Yeah, because USB was a killer feature on the C64

</sarcasm >

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Random idea
by MOS6510 on Sat 4th Aug 2012 18:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Random idea"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

There weren't any USB devices, so it would have been a Useless Serial Bus I guess.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Random idea
by leech on Sat 4th Aug 2012 16:07 in reply to "RE: Random idea"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

The Amiga in 1985 also didn't have usb support,an integrated display,ect,ect,ect.


It's really funny to see these Amiga and Beos fan boys running around acting like the Amiga and Be machines were the machines that most people wanted. They weren't.

In fact they were far from it. In fact if I remember right the Commodore 64 outsold the Amiga during the Amiga's production run.


Granted the original post was wrong, Amiga still doesn't have Multi-User support. But 1985? USB? You do realize that USB wasn't even around in 1985? The only ones who had integrated displays were the piece of crap Macs that weren't even color in 1985.

USB wasn't even widely adopted until version 1.1 came out in '98, which is 4 years after Commodore imploded.

For what it's worth, I could get a USB card in my Amiga 4000, and eventually will so I can use an optical mouse with a wheel (probably the one thing that REALLY kills on usability.)

The fact that Amiga and Be both died before their time, and that they still have a decent amount of fans after all this time, goes to show that they are extremely usable operating systems and the light weight approach does have advantages. I'd like to see anything Microsoft has made in the last ten years run with as little resources. Or even software written for a Microsoft operating system that isn't heavily bloated and requires at least 512MB of RAM within the last 10 years.

512MB of RAM is a crapload for AmigaOS, even for AmigaOS4.

I surely miss the days when programmers actually had to optimize their software, because they didn't have Gigabytes of memory to work with. Hell, the company I work for now... there have been rumors that their software is going to start recommending 8GB of RAM to run! That's just insane.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Random idea
by zima on Tue 7th Aug 2012 07:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Random idea"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The only ones who had integrated displays were the piece of crap Macs that weren't even color in 1985.

Not the only ones, there were some other machines. Though yeah, none as prominent as Macs (OTOH there's also Commodore PET - from an earlier era, but still certainly used in quite large numbers in 1985).
But TBH I kinda preferred B&W in the machines from those times - 16 shades of grey (on a small B&W TV that was only mine, in my room) ultimately looked much better, more "refined" than the 16 colours of C64 (on the TV in a living room), IMHO.

The fact that Amiga and Be both died before their time, and that they still have a decent amount of fans after all this time, goes to show that they are extremely usable operating systems and the light weight approach does have advantages. I'd like to see anything Microsoft has made in the last ten years run with as little resources. Or even software written for a Microsoft operating system that isn't heavily bloated and requires at least 512MB of RAM within the last 10 years.

Windows Mobile, Windows Fundamentals. And there is quite a lot of such light software.
And I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 3.x or, particularly, Windows 95 have much more active users than BeOS and ~Amiga operating systems combined... does that mean you argue the worth of 3.x and 95 even more?

Anyway, requirements of Amiga OS or BeOS were also insane at some point. I certainly don't miss the software from the old days, much more craptastic than is the case now (sure, there's still a lot of crap around - but the point is, you have much greater chances of finding something decent at all, in a given software category; back then, that was less likely)

Edited 2012-08-07 07:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2