Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: OS for the X1000  (Read 6544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cgutjahr

Re: OS for the X1000
« Reply #90 on: August 07, 2011, 05:00:03 PM »
Quote from: dammy;653545
Exactly which AOS source codes were used in OS4?

DOS, Intuition, Graphics, the GUI system(s), Workbench, Shell and pretty much all other core components, except Exec.

Quote

I'm interested to hear exactly what Amiga Inc IP was used in what portion of OS4.

I'm guessing, DOS was used in... (thinks very hard...) DOS maybe? I don't get that question.
 

Offline commodorejohn

Re: OS for the X1000
« Reply #91 on: August 07, 2011, 05:12:17 PM »
Quote from: Terminills;653544
Windows did run on a 286.   Windows 95 might not have but Windows 1 - 3.1 most certainly did.
Well yeah, but that was kind of the whole point. Windows up to 3.1 was fundamentally a 16-bit OS (Win32 extensions for 3.1 notwithstanding,) and thus it was perfectly feasible for it to run on a 286 (though I don't recall if it ever made use of the 286's protected mode - not a lot did, aside from OS/2 and Xenix.) Windows 95 on the other hand was the first real step forward for the OS, using 386 protected mode to provide some actual process separation and memory protection (albeit not very well-handled) in a potentially greatly-expanded memory space.

xeron's point, if I'm not mistaken, was that OS4 is similarily a step forward from OS3.x and is not backwards-compatible for similar reasons. Not sure I agree 100%, but his analogy was sound; buzzfuzz's wasn't.
Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/MT-32/D-10, Oberheim Matrix-6, Yamaha DX7/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini, Ensoniq Mirage/SQ-80, Sequential Circuits Prophet-600, Hohner String Performer

"\'Legacy code\' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling." - Bjarne Stroustrup
 

Offline Iggy

Re: OS for the X1000
« Reply #92 on: August 07, 2011, 05:44:11 PM »
Quote from: commodorejohn;653548
Well yeah, but that was kind of the whole point. Windows up to 3.1 was fundamentally a 16-bit OS (Win32 extensions for 3.1 notwithstanding,) and thus it was perfectly feasible for it to run on a 286 (though I don't recall if it ever made use of the 286's protected mode - not a lot did, aside from OS/2 and Xenix.) Windows 95 on the other hand was the first real step forward for the OS, using 386 protected mode to provide some actual process separation and memory protection (albeit not very well-handled) in a potentially greatly-expanded memory space.
.

No, I dealt in the retail market before and after Win3 was introduced. A 386SX was the minimum requirement. Tandy even released a 1000 with the 386SX processor just to address this demand.

Quote from: commodorejohn;653548
xeron's point, if I'm not mistaken, was that OS4 is similarily a step  forward from OS3.x and is not backwards-compatible for similar reasons.  Not sure I agree 100%, but his analogy was sound; buzzfuzz's  wasn't.

Not at all a good analogy. The 286 and 386 were part of the same processor line. A 68K and a PPC are completely unrelated. 386s can run earlier X86 code. PPCs do not run 68K code without re-interpretation.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 05:46:13 PM by Iggy »
"Not making any hard and fast rules means that the moderators can use their good judgment in moderation, and we think the results speak for themselves." - Amiga.org, terms of service

"You, got to stem the evil tide, and keep it on the the inside" - Rogers Waters

"God was never on your side" - Lemmy

Amiga! "Our appeal has become more selective"