Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: In defense of J. Demar (Bit longer than I wanted)
Message-ID: <349@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 17:18:22 EST
Article-I.D.: graffiti.349
Posted: Wed Oct 23 17:18:22 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 01:35:12 EST
References: <869@cvl.UUCP> <297@graffiti.UUCP> <855@lsuc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 33
Xref: linus net.micro.atari:1429 net.micro.amiga:4357

> >Anyway... you can regain your respect for AMIGAdos. It's not UNIX by any means,
> >but it is certainly an improvement over Crummy-Dos, Trash-Dos, Messy-Dos, or
> >any of the other little computer "operating systems".
> 
>      But I have to disagree with this.  Have you ever worked on the
> computers you've just slighted?

Yes. All of them. As well as ATARI and APPLE. I just haven't thought of any
good slanderous names for theit operating systems yet.

> I don't like Commodore's DOS (I assume
> that's the first one you meant), but the Shack's DOS is quite good.  In
> fact, probably better than the Amiga DOS from what I've heard so far.

Not if it doesn't multitask it isn't. If it doesn't multitask it doesn't
qualify for the name "operating system". An operating system should have
a memory manager and a scheduler as well as a file server and device drivers.

> I'll reserve judgement.  MS-DOS isn't that bad either.  It could have
> been better, but it's development was originally an outgrowth of CP/M.

I rest my case (good thing, too. It was getting pretty heavy).

>      As for other 'little computer "operating systems"', ahem, like
> Unix maybe?  Or OS-9? I have heard *nothing* which indicates *any*
> superiority of AMIGAdos as such over OS-9 in *any* way.  But, mainly
> remember that even Unix *started* as a small OS.  It just grew a lot.

Both of them are real operating systems, instead of "DOS"es. And neither of
them are widely available on a home computer. I know you can get OS/9 on a
CoCo, but I still have yet to see one in action... and it's severely limited
on that little machine. I'd much prefer a 68000 with OS/9 or UNIX, but I'm
not likely to afford one on my budget.