shoggoth wrote:
Atheist wrote:
Yes, I don't like it because it wasn't originally implemented, so I guess it wasn't critical to have.
That was true when applications and operating systems had a small footprint.
Hi shoggoth,
Last time I checked, AOS
IS a small footprint operating system to this day!
Are applications on Amiga still small foot print? Well, gee, it's all relative, so, like IBrowse's ~3 megs vs. FF2's 60+ Megs, gee, I wonder?
/Scratches head
Today it's imperative if you want to be sure that your system doesn't crash due to some bug (or other side effect) caused by something outside of your control.
Those Neanderthals of 1986-1994 weren't concerned of such things I suppose?
MP doesn't make it impossible for those things to happen anyway. The need is for programming to BECOME SIMPLER so that less mistakes can happen in the first place.
Use your sense of logic, Atheist. They didn't invent this concept because it was stupid, inefficient or useless.
I can understand that, I also understand that it WAS done without at one time as well.
Well, we lived without medicine as well, but that's not something I'd advocate, even though 93% of the world's population doesn't have access to it, or at least way sub par when they do.
Also, MP slows a system down, and with the pathetic speed we have available to us as it is, we need every cycle we can get.
I disagree. We're talking about a negligible slowdown, hardly noticeable. If you have figures to back your statement up, please give them here. I can benchmark this stuff on a 68060-based machine here if needed, but let's how I don't need to.
Sorry, I do not have stats, nor can I generate them, but we're up against CPUs that are 50 and more times faster than the fastest we can get, so it all counts.
ALSO, isn't it true that most SW would need to be recompiled if AOS went MP?
It is. The discussion was not about that however. No offence, but you give people the impression that you have no idea what memory protection and multi-user setups is all about, yet you seem to have a deeply rooted need to bash it. Of course, I may be wrong, in such case please accept my humble apologies.
I bash because it's unnecessary overhead. It's an obstacle. It's clutter. It's bloat. Can we have ONE SIMPLE OS please??? Others are available if this one doesn't meet your needs.
Seriously, is that "The Law"?
EVERY SINGLE OS that is buyable by the consumer must have:
1. multiuser logins
2. virtual memory/swap space
3. memory protection
Doesn't MOS (and possibly AROS? Don't know about AOS4...) offer some degree of memory protection? Can't MOS run applications in different sandboxes depending on their implementation (MP-aware vs. legacy).
Yes, and how many AOS programs run on AROS? Answer, none, because they can't without recompiling, and it doesn't even have anything to do with MP. That dilemma is on top of that problem.
Are you a coder by any chance, Atheist?
I am limited to the ability of being able to use AMOS Professional. It's insanely easy to use and understand.
This includes Truebasic, Blitzbasic and Hollywood not exactly being standard (as I see it) are hard to use.
C is impossible for me to understand. I can't cope with being forced to define my variables before I use them. There are many, many complications that are subtle and too mind bending for me.
I've written ADOS scripts, only very basic programs. It's very, very, very powerful (and single commands are lightning fast, too), but NOT EASY to understand. Tons more documentation is needed.
You got access to all the source code of all the AOS sw out there for that to be done?
Again, we're talking about the *concept* of memory protection, and why it's an essential in a modern context. I'm not bashing AOS in any way, since I've been fascinated by it from day one.
Well, AOS last I checked (as I mentioned above), gets smaller and smaller foot print wise by the day, compared to the gargantuan behemoths the competition has become, and yet we just want the mouse to scroll across the screen so we can double click.
In addition to all of that, who's rewriting AOS3.1 to use MP anyhow?
Dude, that wasn't the point.
Oh, then please disregard my statements.
