One world, One CPU, One OS
Larry Phillips
>
> It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
>system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
>hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
>Commodore and Atari?
It would be nice to have a unified OS, but the problem is, no OS would please
everyone. Apple could license anything it wanted to Commodore, but it won't
make people want it just because it's there. My reaction would be "That's nice,
the folks that like the Mac OS will be happy. Now I'll go back to Amigados."
If Amigados could be ported to a Mac, how many Mac owners do you think would
run out and buy it? Same thing.
> Not much. Some sales to be sure, but not enough to erode their profit
>levels. After all, people have proven they don't mind paying Apple's prices
>by buying Macs in the first place.
Some people have. A lot haven't. Not all users without Macs are in that
position because of price. Hard as you may find this to believe, there are a
lot who just don't like the Mac OS, and if they were faced with using it, would
seek alternatives.
> What they have to gain is enormous. They could double their installed
>base of Mac machines (making software production more viable) while having low
>cost Macs (from Atari) available without watering down the current Mac line.
I don't want a Mac OS at any price, and I am not alone. That is proven out by
the fact that for under $500, I could have Amax, complete with a Mac floppy
drive, that will run the Mac OS and most Mac programs on an Amiga, faster than
the Mac equipped with a comparable processor, yet I do not have Amax. I would
not have it at half that price, nor would I have it as a freebie. Please note
that this is not a flame against the Mac or its OS, but is only a statement of
my position in regard to the usefulness of the Mac OS to me. I have deep-seated
objections to the entire philosophy inherent in the Mac OS, and don't have time
to muck about with it, even as a diversion.
> In addition, the Mac OS would become the second leading OS, behind DOS
>and in front of UNIX (which Commodore and Atari will have to go to otherwise).
Commodore is not 'going to have to go to' Unix. They will be offering one, it's
true, but it is not the only choice for a user.
>OS/2 will not be viable for PC's. (Arguments against that statement should be
>directed to comp.sys.msx :)
No disagreement on that one.
> Making a mistake like IBM did? Clone wars to follow? Of course not.
>They wouldn't be liscensing Mac computers, just the Mac OS. The other machines
>would still be Amigas and STs.
I don't know if it would be a mistake on Apple's part or not, and I don't
really care. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that just because an OS is
available for another machine, that it would automatically mean that all owners
of the machine would flock to it.
> Well? Please, discussion only. Flames should be directed to
>alt.flame, where they belong.
No flames from me. I will post this response only to the Amiga group though,
because I am sick of getting hate mail from the terminally stupid who take
umbrage at innocuous and non-inflammatory postings.
-larry
--
Entomology bugs me.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| // Larry Phillips |
| \X/ lphi...@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
| COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703...@compuserve.com |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
de...@desire.wright.edu
Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users
are:
It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
Commodore and Atari?
Not much. Some sales to be sure, but not enough to erode their profit
levels. After all, people have proven they don't mind paying Apple's prices
by buying Macs in the first place.
What they have to gain is enormous. They could double their installed
base of Mac machines (making software production more viable) while having low
cost Macs (from Atari) available without watering down the current Mac line.
In addition, the Mac OS would become the second leading OS, behind DOS
and in front of UNIX (which Commodore and Atari will have to go to otherwise).
OS/2 will not be viable for PC's. (Arguments against that statement should be
directed to comp.sys.msx :)
Making a mistake like IBM did? Clone wars to follow? Of course not.
They wouldn't be liscensing Mac computers, just the Mac OS. The other machines
would still be Amigas and STs.
Well? Please, discussion only. Flames should be directed to
alt.flame, where they belong.
Brett Kottmann
de...@wsu.bitnet
Jeff Martens
> Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users
>are:
> It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
>system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
>hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
>Commodore and Atari?
[ ... ]
What would Apple have to gain? What would Commodore or Atari have to
gain? Essentially nothing. If Amiga and ST users had wanted Macs,
they would've bought Macs. I wanted something that multitasks, which
the Mac doesn't (except in a very limited sense), and believe that
very few Amiga users would trade AmigaDOS in for a Mac-like interface.
Of course, most Mac users are also happy with their machines and
wouldn't trade theirs for an Amiga. To each his own.
-=-
-- Jeff (mar...@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Boston art museum director when asked what it means that Cincinnati
art director may face a jail term: "Don't take a job in Cincinnati."
douglas_wa...@sirius.cis.ohio-state.edu
Why would you want it???(Mac-OS). You would be loosing multitasking and be crippling your machine by removing it's flexability.
Richard Piner
> It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
>system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
>hard disks.)
You ask for it, you got it. OS9/68K can be had for all three machines.
Now if we could just convince all three companies to use OS9/68K as
their basic OS we would be in computer heaven. Now that the new
RAVE software is out, some real fancy graphics could be done, and
even that would be portable between machines. It will never happen.
R. Piner
David Schultz
> It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
>system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
>hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
>Commodore and Atari?
>Brett Kottmann
>de...@wsu.bitnet
Let's see how much support we can muster for this so that REAL machines
can take the place of PC's. (REAL = Atari, Amiga, MAC, not PC)
Lock & Load
--
______________________________________________________# # #__________________
_______________________________________ # # #
/ ________________ # # #
/________ / # # #
BAXT...@wehi.dn.mu.oz
> Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users
> What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
> Commodore and Atari?
>
I don't give a stuff what Apple stands to loose! The rest of us would loose
a real OS and be lumbered with an OS that can't even multitask!
Now I've got a MUCH better idea... Why doesn't Apple license (c for us readers)
the Amiga OS, then all these poor folk using a gerry built, discount
Joberised os could find out what REAL computing is about.
:-) <--- This talisman wards off all flames.
Regards Alan
David M. Baggett
>Commodore and Atari?
They would lose the ability to be incredibly pompus about their OS and
to sue the hell out of anyone that even thought about imitating it.
There would be massive layoffs at Apple because they'd have to fire
most of their laywers, which seem to comprise about 1/2 the company.
:-) (Just a joke, guys; just a joke!)
Dave Baggett
d...@cscwam.umd.edu
2fjm...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Actually, Atari and Commodore would be the losers if they adapted the Mac
OS. There's a lot about the Mac OS that just shows bad design and
decision-making on the part of its designers.
Anyone who'd give up the Amiga's unique and fairly efficient OS for one that
has to fake multi tasking becuase it's designers were to dumb to include
interrupts should be shot.
Atari owners would have to give up their superior DMA and overall system speed.
The Mac OS and its evolution seem to represent a band-aid approach to fixing
flaws they inherited from the start.
--Jim Sisul
Flight Research Lab
KU Center for Research
Not necessarily the views of my employers.
Hell, my employers don't even know what Macs and STs ARE.
Edward D. Berger
fall...
-A gentle reminder, please do not submit messages to all three comp.sys
groups, as the followups are almost certain to cause flames.
Michael Wise
>In article <93.26...@desire.wright.edu> de...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
>>Commodore and Atari?
I remember when it seemed like the Apple ][ line had the PC market about
locked up until IBM came out with the PC. The main difference in courses
of action IBM has taken in comparison to Apple is that IBM has provided
the opportunity for clones, vastly incresing their "standard." One just
has to think back to the days of Franklin Computer to see Apple's
course of action which contunues today.
If Apple were to license their OS to Commodore, Atari, or whoever, I
don't think their sales would really lessen, but that overall demand
for the Mac-OS would increase across the board, including demand for
the Macintosh. When other MS-Dos machines emerged, sales of IBMs
didn't drop through the floor, conversely, they have remained strong.
I believe Apple has the reputation to insure that their sales would
continue to be strong. Furthermore, a little more competition in the
Mac-OS industry certainly couldn't hurt.
--
=========================================================================
| Internet: 6600...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | All opinions stated are mine.|
| BITNET: 6600...@UCSBUXA.BITNET | **Save The Earth** |
=========================================================================
F. Michael Theilig
If there is ever going to be a universal OS, it would probably
be Unix. What's OS9 for the Amiga like?
I have this one question about Unix. Let's say for the sake of
argument that I decide to get Amiga Unix. I go to the local K-Mart
and enter the electronics section. On display is the new computer
version of the game show "You bet your life!" I thumb through the
rack to find the Unix version. Is this going to run on my machine?
What about my friend with IBM Unix, and ST Unix?
F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
I am an expert on all subjects, and as long as you
don't ask me any questions, you will remain convinced.
Steven W. Klassen
>are:
>
> It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
>system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
>hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
>Commodore and Atari?
What makes you think the rest of the world wants the Mac OS? If you
want a unified operating system it would be much better to stick
with UNIX. Contrary to popular belief UNIX does NOT require 4-8 meg of
ram and 80+meg hard disks. (Especially if you leave out the on-line
help.) I have seen very useable UNIX look-alikes (namely Minix) operate
quite well on 1 meg machines (Atari 1040ST) with only 20 meg of the
hard drive dedicated for it.
Even if you must reject UNIX, why should the unified OS be the Mac one?
There are a number of reasons why people buy Amigas and Ataris instead
of Macs. Here of some of them:
1. The Amiga or the Atari suits their given purpose better. Changing
operating systems likely wouldn't affect this, so long as the
hardware didn't change.
2. The Mac is expensive. If Mac liscenced their OS to Commodore and
Atari, the Amigas and the STs would also become more expensive.
3. They don't like the Mac, hence they certainly don't want their
Amiga or ST becoming more like it.
4. They don't like Apple Corp., hence they certainly won't want
their purchase of an Amiga or ST to put money in the pockets
of Apple.
(I won't tell you which one(s) of these were my reason(s)).
Of course some people would like the change - namely those who use
their Atari or Amiga to emulate a Mac, but my opinion is that most
people who want Macs purchase Macs, while those who want a computer
to fill a given purpose(s) look more carefully and choose the
computer which best fulfills their purpose(s).
Steven W. Klassen +-----------------------------+
Computer Science Major | Support the poor...buy fur! |
University of Waterloo +-----------------------------+
Edward Joseph Bennett
best, But it is far from flawless and I can see where many users that
have special uses for their computers don't need it and may not want it.
Lets not forget that it wouldn't necessarily be good for Mac users.
Every time Apple developes a new machine it has a bug fix release of
system software to make it work. Example IIfx and system 6.05. Apple
will have a difficult enough time in trying to develope system 7.0 that
works on the plus, the IIfx and everything in between. Imagine trying to
maintain and ensure compatibility for machines from many companies with
each company having many models. I think we would have a stagnate
unchanging operating system like DOS where the lowest common denominator
was the driving force.
Any way One World , One OS brings back horror memories of pre 1984 when
IBM and DOS where king. I think all computer users can agree that we are
all better off because of the competition. Competition breeds inovation.
One world, One OS would breed stagnation.
Ed
de...@desire.wright.edu
Thanx for all the good input (and output)! I guess the gist of my post
(which wasn't really as clear as I intended :) should have been "why can't
these three companies come up with a common base operating system?" It
wouldn't have to be Mac OS (I used that as an exampl), or any existing OS.
With the MS-DOS world (ugh) breeding like rabbits, you'd think these
three companies would be eager to increase the customer base for their
products. The market for MS-DOS supports cheap clones, high priced clones and
high priced IBM's. There's no reason to think the 68k world with a common OS
wouldn't be the same. Already it is segmented into niches by cost and
application. Price/power users with the Atari, multitasking/power with the
Amiga and almost multitasking/(high priced) power with the Apple. I'm sure a
lot of people go with Apple's because of the name, just like in the IBM world.
Without a common OS, one (or two) of the current 68k lines will not be
around in 5-7 years. We can argue about which machine is better, but that is
not my point, all three lines are good machines or they wouldn't still be
around. So, Apple, Atari, Commodore: why can't you get your act together for
the benefit of your customers?
For myself, I'll be buying a 386 clone this year since I can get one
with 1 meg ram, VGA display, 60 meg hard disk and 1.44 floppy for around $1600.
You can't even buy a 2-floppy Mac SE for that price, much less a base Mac II.
I could go with the ST or Amiga, but I use Mac's and DOS machines at work and
WSU and have lots of software for these machines. So...because Apple is too
shortsighted about their profit margins, they lose a customer. There are 3rd
party programs that would let me run Mac or DOS software on ST's and Amigas,
but working with software emulation is not what I want.
How about us as customers? What are the good points of the OS we use?
What from other OS's would we like?
I'll start off by saying TRUE multitasking on the MAC.
Brett Kottmann
de...@wsu.bitnet
(P.S. thanx everyone for keeping this as a discussion and not a "my machine is
great, yours sucks" thread.)
SysOp
> In <93.26...@desire.wright.edu>, de...@desire.wright.edu writes:
> >
> > It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
> >system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
Gee, sounds like utopia, the universal OS. Word of caution: what if everyone
unified around MS-DOS? Scary thought, eh? Wouldn't you rather be in the
minority with AmigaDOS? :-) :-) I think everyone should unite around
AmigaDOS. ;-) (just kidding)
>
...
> >levels. After all, people have proven they don't mind paying Apple's prices
> >by buying Macs in the first place.
...
But price is a big factor... well, maybe I'm funny that way, but price is
a big factor for me.... (You must ask yourself what you get for the higher
price.)
>
> > What they have to gain is enormous. They could double their installed
> >base of Mac machines (making software production more viable) while having low
> >cost Macs (from Atari) available without watering down the current Mac line.
Is that like saying IBM gained a base of machines by having clones? Was it
necessary?
>
> I don't want a Mac OS at any price, and I am not alone. That is proven out by
> the fact that for under $500, I could have Amax, complete with a Mac floppy
> drive, that will run the Mac OS and most Mac programs on an Amiga, faster than
> the Mac equipped with a comparable processor, yet I do not have Amax. I would
....
I think this is an important point: maybe most people aren't aware of
Amax, but if it was that big of a deal, you'd think that there'd be a massive
rush to buy it. It's probably popular enough; I am toying with the idea of
getting it. Anyway, the point of getting a liscense from Apple seems moot.
Today I asked someone I know who has an IBM clone and Amiga if he thought of
getting Amax. He said he had plenty of software for the IBM, and was content
with that. He had a Mac at one time. Anyway, this is just to say that yes,
not all people think that the Mac is desirable, even at a low price.
>
> > In addition, the Mac OS would become the second leading OS, behind DOS
> >and in front of UNIX (which Commodore and Atari will have to go to otherwise).
>
> Commodore is not 'going to have to go to' Unix. They will be offering one, it's
> true, but it is not the only choice for a user.
Shoot, why not allow any? AmigaDOS, Amax, or UNIX, usable whenever the user
needs it. The point is what difference does it make which is the "leading",
you should use whatever is more "useful" for the task. If one was really
a lot "better" than the others (as if one could be better for all tasks),
then most would eventually migrate to the one OS. Now if I could run them
all at the same time, in various windows.... I don't really need various
OS's, but if I had them all, it'd be nice.. at least to have the option....
I'm sure MS-DOS users may find this hard to believe, but I've not needed
MS-DOS for personal use. The same goes for the Mac. So, I agree that there's
no reason to dump AmigaDOS.
>
> >OS/2 will not be viable for PC's. (Arguments against that statement should be
> >directed to comp.sys.msx :)
>
> No disagreement on that one.
By the time you add the megs for OS/2, many of us would rather have UNIX.
But, in OS/2's defense, it seems more of a logical choice for current MS-DOS
users. I can't imagine people going from the simplicity of MS-DOS to trying
to figure out UNIX. And I can't imagine living with a 640K limit forever.
(And yes, I have programmed with DOS Extenders, expanded memory, etc....)
>
> > Making a mistake like IBM did? Clone wars to follow? Of course not.
> >They wouldn't be liscensing Mac computers, just the Mac OS. The other machines
> >would still be Amigas and STs.
>
> I don't know if it would be a mistake on Apple's part or not, and I don't
> really care. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that just because an OS is
> available for another machine, that it would automatically mean that all owners
> of the machine would flock to it.
It seems to me that Apple would prefer to not have any competition near it.
Besides, couldn't the Amiga and new ST machines conceivably have some slight
advantages with blitters and such? And can someone explain to me this talk
of Apple and Amax: is there really anything going on or is it just rumors?
>
> > Well? Please, discussion only. Flames should be directed to
> >alt.flame, where they belong.
>
> No flames from me. I will post this response only to the Amiga group though,
> because I am sick of getting hate mail from the terminally stupid who take
> umbrage at innocuous and non-inflammatory postings.
Not just that, but it's hard to put value in someone who comments on the Amiga
who may have not used one. (Especially if their comments are inflammatory
[like, "Amiga is only good for games," which beyond being stupid, adds nothing
to any discussion... talk about insecure! And people say Amiga owners are
bad... ;-) And hey, when will people learn that it's harder to make a "game
machine"?] .) Sometimes I see things like that, start to reply, but
decide that if it doesn't really help a discussion, why bother? I do think
that it is just a few who make a lot of "noise". Anyway, I don't think much
good will come from crossposting to amiga, mac, and st groups. (Why doesn't
anyone cross-post to comp.sys.ibm.pc? Hmm... ;-)
>
> -larry
...
Um, speaking of emulators, what ever became of that PD (??) ST Emulator
from awhile back? Did anyone find a version that was larger than 40K, or
might have a better chance of working? That'd be neat to try out. I know
a couple of people who have the original TOS disk (so if someone had the
real working emulator or knew a BBS that I could download it from... :-).
And, I'd be interested in knowing how/if the "Soft PC" emulator for the
Mac runs under Amax. (Would it write to IBM format disks, or be confused
by the emulator?) I can see it now, run MS-DOS, Mac, and Amiga programs; it
would be ideal since you could upgrade one machine with an '030 and some
megs, and (at least the Mac emulator) it would upgrade the others. People
often say, "Why not buy both machines?" This might be why not to. Comments?
--
Gary "sorry, I tend to ramble" Wolfe
..!uflorida!unf7!tlvx!sysop
Amanda Walker
Let's not get into this argument YET AGAIN, OK?
If we all stay in our own sandboxes, we'll all have more fun :-).
--
Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation
--
"Y'know, you can't have, like, a light, without a dark to stick it in...
You know what I'm sayin'?" --Arlo Guthrie
wayne wallace
Yes, but then we won't meet anyone new ;-) since programs (for the Amiga)
are out than can convert between Messy-Dos and Amiga and MacNTras---ahem,
Macintosh ;-) it's only logical (when was business ever that way? ;-)
that different systems, ie IBM PS/200 Atari XZ Mac iiYZ and Amiga300,000 will
eventually have file formats close enough, or the same, while retaining their
own distinctive (sometimes infamous ;-) features.
keep hoping, but only for file formats ;-)
Wayne
* // Only /\ Lord Zar,Commander Of All He Surveys *
*\\ // /--\MIGA (and hater of spaces near commas.) *
* \X/ Internet: lord...@ucrmath.ucr.edu QuantumLink & Portal: Lord_Zar *
* "The only good long .signature is a dead one!" --Me (The new,shorter .sig!) *
John Meissen
C. SQuibby Breyman
Just have faith in the single thought process.
Remember your soma ....
Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer
Contrary to popular belief UNIX does NOT require 4-8 meg of
ram and 80+meg hard disks. (Especially if you leave out the on-line
help.) I have seen very useable UNIX look-alikes (namely Minix) operate
quite well on 1 meg machines (Atari 1040ST) with only 20 meg of the
hard drive dedicated for it.
Ho hum. I've seen _real_ Unix run on smaller machines - 256K and a 10
meg disk. I've seen clones run on _much_ smaller machines - say 32K
and a single floppy.
The problem with all these is that they are v6 or v7 Eunices, not
anything modern. Missing things like process control, networking,
modern tty drivers, windowing systems, etc. Adding those things adds a
lot to the size of the system. Worse yet, adding the necessary parts
to the kernel to support those things adds a lot to it's complexity.
That's why the clones tend to be v7-oid clones, and not 4.3 or Vr4
clones.
Of course, you _can_ run a full-fledged, modern Unix system in 1 meg
of real memory and 20 meg of disk (but not the 256K version I used to
run on PDP 11s). However, you won't be very happy. The kernel will
probably run 300K or more; leaving 700K of real memory for your
applications. The window system server eats up about as much space as
the kernel, and simple applications about 2/3rds that. In other words,
you're going to have trouble getting the kernel, window manager & two
terminal windows in memory. Now add a large application (emacs, or a
postscript previewer, or some such), and your system is going to be
going to the disk a lot. Not much fun. But you probably don't have a
windowing system, as the X11R4 binary distribution is ~40Meg, not
including most of the user-contributed software.
The 4-8meg/80meg of disk claim isn't a minimum to run Unix; it's a
minimum to provide the kind of environment that Amiga users are used
to (I don't know the Atari, so I don't know what users are used to; I
don't think an off-the-shelf Unix system is capable of providing the
kind of environment that Mac users are used to, unless it's from
Apple). But unless you are a rabid Unix fan, you probably aren't
willing to give up windowing and multiple shells and the like just to
get Unix.
I'd be glad to have a counterexample. A fully functional Unix system,
complete with window manager, SLIP, UUCP, cron daemon, and the ability
to provide reasonable perforamance to both an editor, a terminal and
multiple trivial applications (xsnap, xclipboard, xwd and xmessage,
for isntance) at the same time as all the above are running (hint:
choose something with shared libraries - they help a lot!). Make it
all fit in 1 or 2 meg of memory, and run from 30 meg of disk (that
seems to be the new "smallest" disk).
<mike
--
All around my hat, I will wear the green willow. Mike Meyer
And all around my hat, for a twelve-month and a day. m...@relay.pa.dec.com
And if anyone should ask me, the reason why I'm wearing it, decwrl!mwm
It's all for my true love, who's far far away.
Boyd Ostroff
>In article <1990Apr14....@watdragon.waterloo.edu> swkl...@tiger.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) writes:
>
> Contrary to popular belief UNIX does NOT require 4-8 meg of
> ram and 80+meg hard disks.
The AT&T UNIX-PC 7300 was originally introduced around 1984 with 512K RAM
and a 10MB disk. It was stripped down pretty much but it was real UNIX and
had its own proprietary bitmapped windowing system and mouse/keyboard
oriented shell.
>The problem with all these is that they are v6 or v7 Eunices, not
>anything modern. Missing things like process control, networking,
>modern tty drivers, windowing systems, etc. Adding those things adds a
No, the AT&T 7300 and 3B1 both run a version of System V somewhere between
Vr2 and Vr3....
>Not much fun. But you probably don't have a
>windowing system, as the X11R4 binary distribution is ~40Meg, not
>including most of the user-contributed software.
Yes, X is big, but there are other alternatives. Read unix-pc.general and
comp.sys.att for discussions of the MGR port to the 3B1 which gives
lots of the same functionality in a fraction of the space...
>I'd be glad to have a counterexample. A fully functional Unix system,
>complete with window manager, SLIP, UUCP, cron daemon, and the ability
>to provide reasonable perforamance to both an editor, a terminal and
>multiple trivial applications (xsnap, xclipboard, xwd and xmessage,
>for isntance) at the same time as all the above are running (hint:
>choose something with shared libraries - they help a lot!). Make it
>all fit in 1 or 2 meg of memory, and run from 30 meg of disk (that
>seems to be the new "smallest" disk).
I have a 3B1 which I got for $2100 new during the big "fire sale" which
AT&T had a couple years ago to clean out their inventory. You can buy
them used now for $1500, including development set software. The stock
3B1 has a 67 MB disk and 2 MB RAM, 10 Mhz 68010 CPU, demand-paged virtual
memory, internal 1200 baud modem, 400 K 5.25 disk, etc.
There has been lots of talk about porting X to the 3B1, but it hasn't been
done yet. Windowing on the bitmapped screen is built into the system
(via kernel and window driver), but is not really ideal. Anyway, this
machine runs quite respectably, even with 3 users. I have lots of public
domain sources and binaries online, several MB of man pages, run a bulletin
board, carry about 6 or 7 MB of usenet news, have 4 UUCP neighbors, 5 MB swap
space and still have about 30 MB free on my 67 MB disk. Yes, it does make
effective use of shared libraries to keep binaries small too.
I know others with 1 MB RAM and 20 MB disks that still make productive use
of their machines. Dave Bozak's cleo.oswego.edu is a 1MB/20MB 7300 with an
ethernet card here on the internet, for example.
With this kind of hardware available for such a reasonable price, why not
just buy a 3B1 for your UNIX needs and use your Amiga, Atari and or Mac
for your other needs; that's what I do.
||| Boyd Ostroff - Tech Director - Dept of Theatre - SUNY Oswego
||| Sys Admin - "The CallBoard" - (315) 947-6414 - 1200/2400 baud
||| ost...@oswego.oswego.edu - cboard!ost...@oswego.oswego.edu
Thomas Busse
I think this is a very fine idea ! How many people have bought an Atari
because they couldn't afford a Mac...
MfG THB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Thomas Busse # t...@tpki.UUCP ...!unido!tpki!thb #
# Kolberg 2e # t...@tpki.sub.org ...!mcshh!tpki!thb #
# 2300 Kiel-Molfsee # ZERBERUS: t...@kbbs.zer #
# West Germany # PcNet: THB;Burg #
# # #
# Tel.: +49 4347 9304 # Living in the so called space age. #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Kaefer
> Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users
> are:
> It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
> system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg
> hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
> Commodore and Atari?
Well, I think there are also some other OS that are worth considering.
For example I'd like to mention OS-9/68000. OS-9 is a small but
efficient OS, with many Unix-like features like multitasking/multiuser.
And OS-9 doesn't need much memory (the Kernel has only 25680 bytes).
Many Unix-utilities have been ported (if PD) or been rewritten for
OS-9, and many sources from comp.sources.unix can be compiled with
minor changes. So, OS-9/68k is the OS if you want to have a good
multitasking OS for your 68000 CPU. To mention some programs I got
running under OS-9: uucp (uupc), news, NN (newsreader), notes,
nethack 3pl7, conquer, (u)larn, moria, omega etc.
(I really do like playing rogue style games :)
Cheers,
Frank
---
+--------------------------------+ Darkness all around us
| Frank Kaefer | f...@stasys.UUCP | We don't close our eyes
| (Compuserve: 72427,2101) | No one's gonna ground us
| (BIX: fkaefer) | We were born to fly
| Starnberg, West Germany | Comin' at us no stopping
+--------------------------------+ Born to amplify [Carry On - Manowar]
Thad P Floryan
[why are these cross-posted to so many (hostile) newsgroups? This response
is directed ONLY to comp.sys.amiga]
m...@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer)
in <MWM.90Ap...@raven.pa.dec.com> writes (in response to my response
to his posting):
Yup, I did. I remember the 3b1. I also remember that with 512K, the
performance was lousy. Turning on the windowing system made it even
worse. That could well have been fixed in later versions of the OS,
though.
Agreed. The original system with 1MB RAM and the 65mS 10MB HD (as reviewed in
May 1986 BYTE, pages 254-262) was a bit of a slouch ... only 80% of the
thoughput of a VAX-11/780 per the BYTE UNIX benchmarks; the test configurations
were a bit skewed (from page 256):
VAX 11/780 4 MB RAM, two 256 MB disks
3B1 UNIXPC 1 MB RAM, one 10 MB disk
In a sense, that's like comparing a 512K RAM A1000 with two floppies and the
Original File System and OS 1.0 to today's 68020 Amiga with fast SCSI HDs and
Fast File System and OS 1.3.2. :-)
As I posted to comp.sys.amiga several months ago in a query re: the Amiga's
Fast File System, I was wondering why my 3B1 consistently outperforms my Amiga
doing many real-world tasks. Reiterating the configurations:
a) Amiga A1000 with Ronin 14.32 MHz 68020/68881, 4MB Ronin 32-bit-wide RAM,
4 MB ComSpec AX2000 (two) 16-bit-wide-RAM, Supra 4x4 with several
Quantum 80S and Maxtor 3380/4380 SCSI drives (all of which test out
greater than 400KB/sec with DiskPerf on this system).
b) 3B1/UNIXPC with 10 MHz 68010, standard "custom" VLSI for DMA and for
its virtual memory demand paging, 3.5MB of 16-bit-wide RAM, Miniscribe
3085 HD (22 mS) (also several systems with several Maxtor XT2190
drives installed).
c) HP9000-840 (UNIX) with ??? RAM and lotsa HDs
I timed how long it took to uncompress the GNU Emacs compressed TAR files on
each system. The Amiga was considerably slower than the other two systems,
and that was with the EXACT same source code (for uncompress) on all 3 systems
compiled with every optimization switch available with each system's C comps.
The Emacs distribution was about 4.5MB compressed and about 12.5MB uncompressed
and this test clearly showed the strengths and weaknesses of each system in
terms of real-world throughput. As I discovered this past weekend, the one
area in which the (above) Amiga excelled computationally was due to its 68881
math co-proc used heavily while I was doing all my IRS calculations! :-)
And as is evident to me (daily), that 3B1 is consistently outperforming BOTH
my office VAX 11/780 systems (one running VMS 4.7 (with 16MB RAM, one RA81 and
three RP07 HDs), the other running VMS 5.3-1 (with 8MB RAM, one RA81 and one
RP07 HD)). And it (the 3B1) ALSO consistently outperforms both office Mac II
systems each of which are running AUX 1.1 (but, of course, the Mac's problem
is due to the multiplexed NuBus (mux'd data and address) and lack of
peripheral support hardware (such as DMA, etc.) (And, for the record, I have
as many Amigas at the office as there are Macs; and the Amigas (stock A1000
with 68000 and SCSI HDs) consistently outperform the Mac II systems! :-)
When I talk about outperforming, I'm talking about compiling/linking the
sources/objects to one of my major products (whose C sources are about 16MB and
whose executable is about 1MB). Yeah, I finally converted to C from assembler
primarily for the UNIX port(s). You might have read about this (product) in
Computerworld (and other places) earlier this year. No, I won't mention the
name because: (1) I'm not in marketing, and (2) it's not germane to the present
discussion. If the Amiga UNIX ever comes out, I should be able to bring it
(the product) up on the Amiga very quickly.
Mike continues:
Um, for the record, what's the price on a new 3b1? Both suggested
retail and street price? And who's selling them, so I can go look at
the modern version?
<mike
I bought my first 3B1 new for $1,950 (2MB RAM, 67MB HD) at MicroAge in Cupertin
o
in 1987. The machine I demo'd at FAUG (and have been discussing above) I got
for $33 (actually, three for $100) ... BUT they were dysfunctional and I had
to rebuild them from scratch (yeah, I'm also a hardware guy). That required
getting RAM chips from Fry's, HDs from Access and from CompuAdd, power supplies
from other places, keyboards from Weird Stuff Warehouse (aka CSS), etc etc.
and spending a lot of time (which was worth it to ME).
It appears MicroAge still carries new systems for around $2,100, and they're
available elsewhere (new) if you look hard enough. Used systems, same config,
are generally $1,400 - $1,500 nowadays; smaller configs go for around $500 and
if you're handy with tools can be hardware-upgraded easily. Then you'd want
to get the Foundation Set and the Development Sets, then call the AT&T Hotline
(toll free) for the free upgrades to the latest kernel (or if you're in a hurry
FTP or uucp the kernel and/or the kernel objects (and other stuff) from places
like osu-cis (cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu, IP 128.146.8.62) or get them from me
at the local users' group meeting (4th Wed every month at the AT&T West Coast
Training Center in Sunnyvale (no, I do NOT work for AT&T even though I sort of
(presently) run the users' group).
You're more than welcome to attend the users' group meetings (and since you're
in Palo Alto, it's easy for you to do so now ... not as bad as driving down
from Berkeley). This open invitation is extended to anyone who reads this.
And lest you bemuse "WTF is this Thad guy pushing AT&T UNIX in the Amiga
group?", I'd like to state that it's my observation that close to 50% of the
people attending the meetings own BOTH Amiga and 3B1 systems. As I said
before, the two systems are complementary and so nearly the same (at least re:
the A1000) that one often wonders if the 3B1 is what the original Amiga was
going to be had there not been the financial crunch (at Amiga) circa 1984-1986.
Even the guy who runs AUGnet, the other Silicon Valley Amiga Users' Group
(besides FAUG), has a bunch of 3B1 systems and comes to the UNIX meetings.
And of the two people presently on the Amiga UNIX port team (comprising Mike
Ditto and Keith Gabryelski), you'll find a lot of Mike's stuff on the 3B1.
And he (Mike) commented last year that the source code from which they're
doing the Amiga UNIX port contains a LOT of 3B1 stuff in it, including the
stuff for the phone manager (the 3B1 has a built-in AT&T modem (natch! :-))
User group Attendance ranges from 15 to 50+ at the meetings (7PM-9PM), though
many members remain 'til around 11PM or 12M. Meeting notices are also posted
to unix-pc.general and to comp.sys.att, and also appear in the COMPUTING
CALENDAR of the preceding Sunday's San Jose Mercury News. Many people, myself
included, bring their systems to the meetings, so you can see a wide variety
of configurations if you attend.
One of the user group members recently located 23 3B1 systems (with 2MB RAM
and 67MB HD) that are going for $1,400, but I know NOTHING MORE about this
deal so don't ask. You can often find 3B1s advertised in trade journals and
even in the San Jose Mercury News.
As someone else replied and with which I agree wholeheartedly, get a 3B1 for
your UNIX needs (today) and get an Amiga for the things it does best. And
don't ask me which system I favor, I cannot answer directly, but I'll state
that I use an Amiga at work 8-10 hours a day and 4-6 hours a day at home, and
a lot of that time has 3B1 usage sandwiched in-between. I like BOTH systems.
And, in closing, I'll briefly restate a portion of one of my postings from
earlier this year, in which I asserted that, once monthly, during the Advanced
Technical Workshop I give at my company to clients, I feature the Amiga front
and center since NOTHING else available (not our VAXen, not the Macs, and not
even my beloved 3B1 :-) can permit me to demonstrate my software as well as
can the Amiga (and you shoulda seen the look on the Apple peoples' faces; yeah,
even Apple buys and uses my software! :-)
Thad Floryan [ th...@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
Lee Glen
>de...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>Summary: Have you tried OS9 ?
>
>Frank
Yes, I've tried OS9 and love it!
Lee Glenn
Software Engineer
Microware Systems Corp.
Sho Kuwamoto
>In article <9...@stasys.sta.sub.org> f...@stasys.sta.sub.org (Frank Kaefer) writes:
>>de...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Summary: Have you tried OS9 ?
>Yes, I've tried OS9 and love it!
>
>Lee Glenn
>Software Engineer
>Microware Systems Corp.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that you seem to work
at the company that manufactures OS9???
-Sho
--
s...@physics.purdue.edu <<-- perhaps an "I may be biased but..." would
have been in order.
Sean Cunningham
Where'd this guy come from???
OS-1? I'm afraid that there's a *LARGE* section of the business, governmetal,
engineering, and education base out there that'll disagree with you...most
strongly...some, violently.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc |
ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!se...@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their
INET: se...@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they
| weave a paradise for
RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. "
Voice: (512) 994-1602 | -Keats
|
Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Malcolm Lithgow
>I think the Mac has a great operating system. In my opinion it is the
>best, But it is far from flawless and I can see where many users that
>have special uses for their computers don't need it and may not want it.
>Any way One World , One OS brings back horror memories of pre 1984 when
>IBM and DOS where king. I think all computer users can agree that we are
>all better off because of the competition. Competition breeds inovation.
>One world, One OS would breed stagnation.
>Ed
I've been reading this discussion with probably a slightly different
view-point from most others involved. I'm a Unix programmer (on PC boxes)
so I am rapidly gaining quite an understanding of Unix, I've programmed
Mac's, and I own (and *very* much enjoy) a machine called the Archimedes
from Acorn in the UK. My favourite is still the Archimedes, but I know
quite a few people who still prefer Macs, Unix, etc. over it.
It's very easy to become complacent when your operating system is very
popular, because you assume that it has to be good, otherwise it wouldn't
be popular. This is totally incorrect. Marketting pressures have far more
impact (particularly international marketting) than technical brilliance.
I know that many of the concepts of RISC OS (the Arch's OS) are being
integrated into the Mac's System 7. I also know that many concepts in RISC
OS come from the older Mac Systems. This cross-fertilisation in good.
What would not be good is to force one of these operating systems on
everybody. Unix is one of the best multi-user operating systems (for a
variety of reasons). The Mac's System X is one of the best office
automation operating systems (remember: this was its original target).
RISC OS is one of the best programmer's and educationalist's operating
systems (due to its inheritance from the Acorn BBC: undoubtedly the *best*
educational system in the world at this moment, counting software and
peripherals).
We don't yet have the skills, software, or hardware to create an operating
system that can fulfil all of these roles well. When we do we can all be
very happy. (Except those of us, like me, who enjoy being contrary. ;-))
I firmly believe that proprietry systems are not only nice to have around,
but vital. Being a programmer, I don't give that much concern to
straight-forward compatibility. Ease of programming and sheer power are
far more important to me. I know there are other mavericks out there, and
I cheer them on: Proprietry Systems Rule!
[My words are not, unlike Holy Scripture, infallible. I suggest no religions
be based on them.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Malcolm Lithgow
/| /| /||\
/ |/ |/ || \ "Gee, I hate it when people mindlessly quote others!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Reynard P. Zingaro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf
>In article <1990Apr14....@watdragon.waterloo.edu> swkl...@tiger.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) writes:
> Contrary to popular belief UNIX does NOT require 4-8 meg of
> ram and 80+meg hard disks. (Especially if you leave out the on-line
> help.) I have seen very useable UNIX look-alikes (namely Minix) operate
> quite well on 1 meg machines (Atari 1040ST) with only 20 meg of the
> hard drive dedicated for it.
>Ho hum. I've seen _real_ Unix run on smaller machines - 256K and a 10
>meg disk. I've seen clones run on _much_ smaller machines - say 32K
>and a single floppy.
>The problem with all these is that they are v6 or v7 Eunices, not
>anything modern.
[...]
>I'd be glad to have a counterexample. A fully functional Unix system,
>complete with window manager, SLIP, UUCP, cron daemon, and the ability
>to provide reasonable perforamance to both an editor, a terminal and
>multiple trivial applications (xsnap, xclipboard, xwd and xmessage,
>for isntance) at the same time as all the above are running (hint:
>choose something with shared libraries - they help a lot!). Make it
>all fit in 1 or 2 meg of memory, and run from 30 meg of disk (that
>seems to be the new "smallest" disk).
A while back, a company called Convergent Technologies developed a
system called the Unix PC (also called the AT&T 7300). This system
was sold by AT&T, and ran SysVr2. Minimal configuraation was (I believe)
256kB RAM, 10MB hard disk (you did have to trim unix to fit in 10Mb --
they recommended at least 20MB).
I ran one of these systems with 512kB RAM and a 40MB hard disk. I also
ran news on that system (and accepted a full feed (which I trashed most of
as fast as it came in) over it's on board 1200 baud modem). It had it's
own windowing system (it was first released about 1984 or so), and was
able to successfully compile Larn and Hack as well as the News software.
The current price on these beastes runs from around $600 to about $1800.
+C
Richard Fozzard
>Yes, I've tried OS9 and love it!
>
>Lee Glenn
>Software Engineer
>Microware Systems Corp.
This seems somewhat suspect - aren't Microware the people who write and
sell OS9? On the net, it's traditional to openly admit one's bias in
an endorsement, you know :-)
========================================================================
Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers"
Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303
foz...@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168
Roger R. Espinosa
> In article <1990Apr13....@wam.umd.edu> d...@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:
>
> >In article <93.26...@desire.wright.edu> de...@desire.wright.edu writes:
> >> What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
> >>Commodore and Atari?
>
> I remember when it seemed like the Apple ][ line had the PC market about
> locked up until IBM came out with the PC. The main difference in courses
> of action IBM has taken in comparison to Apple is that IBM has provided
> the opportunity for clones, vastly incresing their "standard." One just
> has to think back to the days of Franklin Computer to see Apple's
> course of action which contunues today.
WAIT! This isn't the first time I've seen this reference to "IBM providing
the opportunity for clones," and *I* always thought that IBM never wanted
clones, but pretty much couldn't do anything about it. The Apple II ROMs
had BASIC, etc. so for a clone to be an Apple II clone, it had to copy a lot
of ROM code ... which Franklin didn't do (the first time, they just copied
it. Laser makes Apple II compatibles now, which nobody seems to do any legal
thing against...). The IBM BIOS was duplicated by Phoenix (or whatever),
and since the DOS wasn't made by IBM, Microsoft could sell the DOS to be used
on "clones."
I don't think IBM had any say in this. When the first clones appeared, they
weren't 100% IBM compatible, which doesn't make sense if IBM sanctioned them.
In fact, PS/2 was supposed to be the "clone killer:" introduce new hardware
specs, that this time are a little more complicated (so can't be duped via
clones), lotsa hype (Yeah yeah, we'll call it a ... pel :-), etc. Which was
the big surprise when Micro-channel didn't win the entire DOS-world's hearts.
>
> If Apple were to license their OS to Commodore, Atari, or whoever, I
> don't think their sales would really lessen, but that overall demand
> for the Mac-OS would increase across the board, including demand for
> the Macintosh. When other MS-Dos machines emerged, sales of IBMs
> didn't drop through the floor, conversely, they have remained strong.
> I believe Apple has the reputation to insure that their sales would
> continue to be strong. Furthermore, a little more competition in the
> Mac-OS industry certainly couldn't hurt.
No, that's because the Mac OS's best features (IMHO) come out when you become
a *power* user, even in the smallest degree. A casual computer user ain't
gonna care if s/he can cut/paste between different applications, etc. because
they won't need it. The bottom line for the average consumer will always
be price; the jargon scares a lot of people as it is, and the *real* way to
win a Mac (or Amiga or ST) over an MS-DOS machine (so far) has been to get
into the jargon.
Roger
r...@ihlpn.ATT.COM
John Meissen
>In-Reply-To: message from jmei...@oregon.oacis.org
>
>Where'd this guy come from???
>
>OS-1? I'm afraid that there's a *LARGE* section of the business, governmetal,
>engineering, and education base out there that'll disagree with you...most
>strongly...some, violently.
That's a joke, son........a joke! Actually, it is a direct quote from the
developers of OS-1 some years back. The real joke is, how many people remember
OS-1 (no, it wasn't the predecessor of OS/2)?
|======================================| __ __ __
| John Meissen | / \ /| / \ / / \
| jmei...@oacis.org (Internet) | / / /_| / / \
| ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | \__/ / | \__/ / \__/
| jmeissen (BIX) | ----------------------------------
|======================================| Oregon Advanced Computing Institute
Brett Kessler
|> Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users
|>are:
|> It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating
|>hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
|>Commodore and Atari?
|>[A few arguments as to why Apple wouldn't be losing much in the shuffle
|>deleted...]
Maybe Apple/Atari/Commodore wouldn't have much to lose, but the people who
buy these machines lose out on a lot. I have had my Amiga for a number of
years now, and I just wouldn't be happy with anything else. Each of the
different machines has their relative strong points - the Mac for DTP, the
Amiga for DTV, and the Atari for MIDI. If the Mac OS (or the AmigaDOS or the
ST's DOS) became the 'standard,' what about all the features that would be
lost from the other lines...?
|>Brett Kottmann
|>de...@wsu.bitnet
+------///-+------------------| BRETT KESSLER |------------------+-\\\------+
| /// | con...@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | \\\ |
| \\\/// | con...@bingvaxa.BITNET | \\\/// |
| \XX/ | (PeopleLink) B.KESSLER | \XX/ |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------+----------+
Piper Keairnes
>
>Maybe Apple/Atari/Commodore wouldn't have much to lose, but the people who
>buy these machines lose out on a lot. I have had my Amiga for a number of
>years now, and I just wouldn't be happy with anything else. Each of the
>different machines has their relative strong points - the Mac for DTP, the
>Amiga for DTV, and the Atari for MIDI. If the Mac OS (or the AmigaDOS or the
>ST's DOS) became the 'standard,' what about all the features that would be
>lost from the other lines...?
I think that instead of assuming that one system's OS would completely
REPLACE the others we should attempt to support the advantages that all
computers would be able to offer if the better parts of each OS were added
to the whole.
Each company has spent millions (even more, I'd imagine) on the development
of their system software. Would not the entire computer industry be better
off if those millions were "combined" into a single project?? Alas, if that
were done, then the marvels of capitalism would have been abandoned ;)
We definitely have a long way to go in the
realm of cooperation... (myself included)
-----
Piper Keairnes
a...@sage.cc.purdue.edu
BUCHHOLZ stefan
A FRIEND OF A FRIEND OF A FRIEND OF A FRIEND OF C=, told me...
OK: These are 99% accurate.
A3000 launch: 27 March at World of Amiga in New York City. Canadian launches
are May 7 at Ontario Science centre and May 10 in Montreal at Sheraton Laval. I
beleive that there will be a Vancouver launch as well... You need TIX for
Canadian launches.
SPECS: It will be in next BYTE. 2 versions differing only by clock rate of CPU.
1 is 16 Mhz 030 and other is 25 Mhz 030. FULL 32-BIT MEMORY, ON MOTHERBOARD.
AUTOCONFIGS TO 18 (over 15 at least) 32 bit. 2 MEGs of Chip memory. Flicker-
fixer-like device eliminates flicker in all modes, and works with PAL. Has
new Denise and Agnus. Has x# of ZORRO 3 slots ( which are full 32-bit addres-
able). KICKSTART 2.0 = 512K. Initial release will NOT include scalable fonts.
NEW: A CPU slot (?). Less PC slots. Power on the front, sleaker looking.
PRICE: similar to 25/30's.
ULOWEL CARD: Will be released together. 256 + 2 colors out of 16 m.
Amivision: Released at same time.
IE: three products in less than 1 month. Lots to chat about...
Don't expect to see UNIX 5r4 for any system b4 September, ON ANY SYSTEM!
*******************************************************************************
Stefan Buchholz * Concordia University Computer Science * a.k.a Stefy LePew
ste...@doyle.cs.concordia.ca > MITE AVsita Multimedia lab system support <<
******************************************************************************
Edward Joseph Bennett
>locked up until IBM came out with the PC. The main difference in courses
>of action IBM has taken in comparison to Apple is that IBM has provided
>the opportunity for clones, vastly incresing their "standard." One just
>has to think back to the days of Franklin Computer to see Apple's
>course of action which contunues today.
I don't agree.
1) IBM had lots of inroads in the corporate world that allowed them to
roll over the AppleII before lots of clones came into the picture. IBM
had a lock on the typewriter and mainframes before the PC. It was only
logical that when IBM brought out a PC that the business world would
flock to it because they dealt with IBM on everything else while Apple
was seen as uncertain counter culture company. IBM was not flashy but
everyone knew they would still be there 5 years down the road. Who knew
if Apple would make it! Therefore you don't need clones to account for
IBM becoming the standard (they were the standard for everything else)
2) IBM doesn't make the PC line anymore. wonder why? They couldn't
compete with their own clones. Notice how IBM has made certain that the
new PS/2 are incompatable with the old PC's. ( Gee the Apple II is still
around) Now IBM is fighting a war with its former cloners who want to
stick to the old PC standard.
Which leads to the third point:
3) Stagnation!! Look at the trouble that IBM is having pushing the
inovations of their new PS/2 line because people want to stick to their
old standards and the clone makers are more than happy to oblige them.
Not to mention that their was not a lot of innovation to the PC line
while IBM made it. When some something becomes standard the forces that
work to keep it stable, compatible and unchanging overwhelm the forces
of innovation. I mean look its been six years since the Mac came out
and IBM still hasn't been unable successfully market a Graphics, mouse
based interface because it is so standardized that it can't evolve
(except slowly and painfully).
I know everyone wants a cheap Mac clone. It would be great for Mac users
in the short run but I don't know if it may not be destructive in the
long run.
> Apple were to license their OS to Commodore, Atari, or whoever, I
>don't think their sales would really lessen, but that overall demand
>for the Mac-OS would increase across the board, including demand for
>the Macintosh. When other MS-Dos machines emerged, sales of IBMs
>didn't drop through the floor, conversely, they have remained strong.
>I believe Apple has the reputation to insure that their sales would
>continue to be strong. Furthermore, a little more competition in the
>Mac-OS industry certainly couldn't hurt.
I wouldn't be so optomistic about Apple's reputation. From what I hear
on this net most people are loyal to their Macs despite Apple not
because of Apple's good reputation. They don't like Apple's pricing
policy. They don't like Apple's service, etc., etc. (IBM probably had
lots of staisfied customers that bought typewriters, mainframes,etc. )
Also when the clones first came out most weren't fully compatable. It
took them a while to achieve full compatability and credibility. unlike
today, ads a couple of years ago really made a point of how compatable
they were because it wasn't assumed. You don't see that today because PC
compatability has been perfected and asssumed. I don't think it would
take the clone makers nearly as long to achieve compatability and
credibilty with the Mac because they have learned from cloning the PC
(and many have been working on the mac for years waiting for an
opprotunity.)
I think I have shown above that it could possiblly hurt the Mac in the
long run.
Q: Let's face it why does a company spend money to improve their OS
making it evolve and keep it innovative?
A: To sell THEIR machines. Not somebody elses. (IBM didn't )
Kiss inovated system software like system 7.0 goodbye in the future if
their are large sales of clones. Apple won't bother. They will spend
their money to build something new like IBM did with the PS/2 and leave
the Mac behind. If we're lucky maybe we will get a trade in allowance
for our Mac on the Knowledge Navigator.
Ed
David Mason
--
Internet: David...@p0.f2211.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP: convex!castle!tlsi!2211.0!David.Mason
Note: TLSI is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write to root.
John F. Bruno
>In article <1990Apr13....@wam.umd.edu> d...@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:
>
>>In article <93.26...@desire.wright.edu> de...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>Commodore and Atari?
>
>locked up until IBM came out with the PC. The main difference in courses
>of action IBM has taken in comparison to Apple is that IBM has provided
>the opportunity for clones, vastly incresing their "standard." One just
>has to think back to the days of Franklin Computer to see Apple's
>course of action which contunues today.
Do you really think that IBM "provided the opportunity for clones"? Their
main reasons for being successful are that they:
1) Provided card slots in the PC so 3rd party manufacturers could release
cards to compensate for an inferior machine.
2) They have an infinite supply of $$$ and a large following of people
that shout "Now we have a standard!" every time they release something,
even if it uses technology 10-15 years old.
>
>If Apple were to license their OS to Commodore, Atari, or whoever, I
>don't think their sales would really lessen, but that overall demand
>for the Mac-OS would increase across the board, including demand for
>the Macintosh.
But I bet they would charge so much for the licensing that Amiga and ST
prices would skyrocket to the level of Macintosh pricing. Overall demand
for the OS would increase because there wouldn't be any more competition!
>When other MS-Dos machines emerged, sales of IBMs
>didn't drop through the floor, conversely, they have remained strong.
Didn't they stop making PCs after the market was flooded with clones?
>I believe Apple has the reputation to insure that their sales would
>continue to be strong. Furthermore, a little more competition in the
>Mac-OS industry certainly couldn't hurt.
True, more competition wouldn't hurt, but I don't consider licensing out
the Mac OS as competition, the only difference between the machines would
be the box they come in.
>=========================================================================
>| Internet: 6600...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | All opinions stated are mine.|
>| BITNET: 6600...@UCSBUXA.BITNET | **Save The Earth** |
>=========================================================================
---jb (jfb...@rodan.acs.syr.edu)
David C. Navas
>I think this is a very fine idea ! How many people have bought an Atari
>because they couldn't afford a Mac...
>
> MfG THB
Hmm, and how many people bought an Amiga because they didn't *want* a
Mac?
Count me in.
Dave
David Navas na...@cory.berkeley.edu
"Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me
John 'Vlad' Adams
This newsgroup is named comp.sys.amiga, right?
Then why in the HELL am I wading through all these messages
about IBM's, Macintoshes, Apple IIGS's, NeXT's, and Atari's?
#include <reminder.h>
{This newsgroup is comp.sys.amiga. If you want to talk about
some other machine, subscribe to comp.sys.[machine].}
---
#include <disclaimer.h>
My views don't represent those of UF. Mine are rather sane...
Internet: j...@beach.cis.ufl.edu
John Petrangleo
>Q: Let's face it why does a company spend money to improve their OS
>making it evolve and keep it innovative?
>
>A: To sell THEIR machines. Not somebody elses. (IBM didn't )
>
>Kiss inovated system software like system 7.0 goodbye in the future if
>their are large sales of clones. Apple won't bother. They will spend
>their money to build something new like IBM did with the PS/2 and leave
>the Mac behind. If we're lucky maybe we will get a trade in allowance
>for our Mac on the Knowledge Navigator.
If Apple was to open up the clone market for the mac, they would have to
start selling their System Software, instead of just distributing it.
Everyone was thrilled when Apple opened up their system to allow anonymous
ftp'ing of system software, but if Apple allowed Mac clones, they would have
to make up their money by selling the system software. I couldn't believe it
when a friend told me he had to buy the operating software for his PC
compatible, but then I realized that it only made sense. Afterall, he was
buying Microsoft's software, but someone else's computer. I like the idea of
free operating systems, I don't want to see any Mac clones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| j...@wpi.wpi.edu | j...@wpi.bitnet |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Chu
>I've a *BIG* question that I hope someone can answer.
>
>This newsgroup is named comp.sys.amiga, right?
>Then why in the HELL am I wading through all these messages
>about IBM's, Macintoshes, Apple IIGS's, NeXT's, and Atari's?
Don't be a shithead. You should have noticed from the article headers
that the posting you were responding to had multiple newsgroups on it.
The newsgroup header from your article also appears in this reply. If
you're gonna flame other people for posting in the wrong newsgroups,
you should at least Cover Your Ass and make sure you're posting to the
correct group(s) as well. I'm reading your posting in comp.sys.atari.st,
by the way, and it's certainly a surprise for you to tell me and all
the other ST readers "this is comp.sys.amiga." It's even worse that you
say it twice, as two copies of your article have been sent out.
Next time, read the article headers before flaming someone for posting
in the wrong newsgroup. And confine your followups and cross-postings
to the relevant groups. If you're not competent enough to handle that
then you shouldn't have posting privileges.
>
>#include <reminder.h>
>{This newsgroup is comp.sys.amiga. If you want to talk about
>some other machine, subscribe to comp.sys.[machine].}
>---
The wonderful feature of "cross-posting" means there aren't firm
walls between newsgroups. Saying "this is xxx" is meaningless in
this context.
>#include <disclaimer.h>
>My views don't represent those of UF. Mine are rather sane...
>Internet: j...@beach.cis.ufl.edu
Since it appears that your eyes are closed, I wouldn't trust your
views to be much of anything.
--
-- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan
Richard Griffith
< *Mac stuff deleted* >
>
> I've been reading this discussion with probably a slightly different
> view-point from most others involved. I'm a Unix programmer (on PC boxes)
> so I am rapidly gaining quite an understanding of Unix, I've programmed
> Mac's, and I own (and *very* much enjoy) a machine called the Archimedes
> from Acorn in the UK. My favourite is still the Archimedes, but I know
> quite a few people who still prefer Macs, Unix, etc. over it.
(I've read about that machine - supposed to be very nice...)
>
> It's very easy to become complacent when your operating system is very
> popular, because you assume that it has to be good, otherwise it wouldn't
> be popular. This is totally incorrect. Marketting pressures have far more
> impact (particularly international marketting) than technical brilliance.
* Hear Hear !! *
A few others have noted how fast IBM came on to the scene - Remember -
the IBM PC was originally designed to replace the IBM Selectric typewriter
and break into a market that Xerox had a strong showing in: Word Processing.
Add to this the fact that IBM could throw literally millions of dollars at
their PC without feeling the impact - they did. The IBM PC was introduced with
the largest installed base of software of any completely new machine on the
market then and now. (Yes, I think they still hold that record!) Granted, noone
uses that software now - but it was something way back when... Clones
were introduced due to, (I think) IBM's arrogance.
You see, IBM musta figured "go ahead - let anyone TRY and build a machine
as good as WE can - nobody'll buy it" - they were wrong.
Now they have made a real blunder - they offered OS/2 - to replace an old,
patched, and ailing OS - let's hope that the likes of the Amiga, the MAC II's,
and the ST's can jump in there with real Power! :-)
:Richard E. Griffith, "griff" : iNTEL, Hillsboro Ore.
:gr...@anvil.hf.intel.com
:SCA!: Cyrus Hammerhand, Household of the Golden Wolf, Dragons' Mist, An Tir
:These are MY opinions, if iNTEL wanted them, They'd pay for `em!
Bill Taroli
>Then why in the HELL am I wading through all these messages
>about IBM's, Macintoshes, Apple IIGS's, NeXT's, and Atari's?
Well, if you notice the "Newsgroups" line, you'll see exactly why: people are
too lazy to alter the Newgroups line, even when the material changes from that
of the original posting....
--
*******************************************************************************
* Bill Taroli (WWTA...@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand *
* Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson *
*******************************************************************************
kells...@pbs.uucp
Putting in a good word for OS9, I have been using it since 1981 and I, too,
love it!
My multi-user, multi-tasking system uses a Motorola 6809 processor and runs
in 64k of memory! The number of users is limited by program size, of course,
but the nice thing about most properly written programs for OS9 is that they
are re-entrant. If no one is running a HUGE program, four users can
comfortably use the BASIC09 interpreter/compiler simultaneously!
Now, I have a question for Lee and/or anyone else:
Is OS9/68K available for the AMIGA? I, being in the TV business, am
considering the Amiga for use at home because of its excellent video
capabilities. However, I don't want to give up the power and convenience of
OS9 (to say nothing of the hundreds of programs I have written over the years!)