Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: sim085 on March 19, 2010, 11:50:49 AM
-
Hi,
I have been keeping this question for a long time trying to better understand what is the real name of the operating system developed by Amiga / Commodore!
Basically when I was a child I always remember that the name was "Workbench", i.e. - Workbench 2.1, Workbench 3.1, etc. At that age I never heard my brother or cousin refer to the os as AmigaOS 2.1 or AmigaOS 3.1 - it was always Workbench.
Then when I came to the community I started to see that 4.0 and 4.1 (and to some extent also 3.9) was mostly referred to as AmigaOS. At first I thought nothing of this, and considered this just a name change due to the fact that Amiga moved hands.
However then when reading wikipedia I see that is was always referred to as AmigaOS from version 1.0.
So my question is; Was AmigaOS ever referred to officially as Workbench? Or Workbench is just part of the OS? i.e. the environment?
-
http://www.amigaforever.com/kb/15-108
-
Thanks :) a very good read. Things are more clear now.
-
@ Thomas
just wanted to thank you once again for all the amazing help you've given myself and many other Amigans over the years..was wondering how you know all this classic miggy info and basically how you got involved with the Amiga...would love to hear your story :-)
-
@ Thomas
just wanted to thank you once again for all the amazing help you've given myself and many other Amigans over the years..was wondering how you know all this classic miggy info and basically how you got involved with the Amiga...would love to hear your story :-)
Indeed!
-
@klx300r
I got my first computer (a C64 with 1541) as a confirmation gift. Many other students at my school had one, too. I changed to an A500 with Kick 1.2 in the late 1980's when most of my friends did so, too. I mostly swapped (copied) games, wrote a few scene intros (nothing famous). When I finished school I lost sight of most of those friends, but I continued using my Amiga. As I lost most of my sources for new software I now concentrated in programming and started to buy software :-)
Soon after my first own car I bought an A4000D (must have been around 1995 or so) and with the money I earned I bought expansions: RAM, larger HDD, more RAM, CD-ROM, 68060, yet a larger HDD, even more RAM, tower case, SCSI HDD, SCSI CD writer, SCSI scanner, modem/internet, DVD-ROM, PPC, much more RAM, X-Surf. Then came my first PC which was an "Eternity1" (http://www.eternity-computer.de) with Win98SE and AmigaForever 4.0 (The author of Tales of Tamar offered preconfigured PCs with Amiga Forever and later with Amithlon in his shop). The X-Surf was used to connect the PC to the Amiga and to share its internet connection using MiamiDx as a router.
Today I have two A4000D, both with PPC, one with Mediator/Voodoo3/Soundblaster/Realtec NIC in a Mirage case, the other one with CVisionPPC and X-Surf in its original case, an A1XE, a Pegasos1 and three PCs. The first PC still is in the case with the Eternity1 sticker on it, but with a much more modern equipment. The second PC is used as a NAS containing files used by all other computers. The third one is a TV recorder and Bluray player as well as internet connection in the living room.
First thing after installing Windows on a PC is installing WinUAE. I never stopped using an Amiga in one or the other form in all the time. That's probably why I know so much and don't forget it. (I forgot almost everything about the C64 because I stopped using it. I even forgot where it is, but I know that I still have it somewhere).
-
Don't forget Intuition!!
-
@ Thomas
great story..thanks! Curious if you would consider buying the new AmigaOne X1000 when it arrives?
btw, all you have to remember about the good ol 64 is:
load"$",8 and sys64738
-
I remember reading an old Amiga workbench 1.3 manual from Commodore, and the operating system in this case was refered as AOS 1.3 :)
It was a small manual, about 3 x 4 inches and 1.5 inches thick. It was long ago!
-
The Amiga os is called Awesome.
-
Don't forget Intuition!!
Depending on your point view. Kickstart was the OS title, as that has to loaded first on the a1000, certainly in the circles where the first amiga's were seen in the UK at least, you would boot kickstart and load workbench. (edit: Akin if you would to: Booting DOS and Running Windows or Booting CP/M and running GEM), And when I first flipped from 64 to 500 I found it very frustrating that the CLI wasn't immediately available until you loaded a bastardised workbench disk.
So the name really depends on where you starting in computing. Workbench for me was just a fancy interface, i.e software, the CLI and writing in the shell was the OS of me
-
BITD, I always looked at it as the Kickstart/ROMs were like the BIOS on PCs.
You couldn't do anything with just them, but they allowed the Amiga to load other stuff.
I always called the command line side of the Amiga (CLI/shell) AmigaDOS, similar to PC DOS or CP/M.
The GUI was Workbench.
desiv
-
I think it's more of a windows/explorer.exe relationship.
-
The GUI was Workbench.
The GUI was Intuition, Workbench is the graphical shell, or desktop as it is known as today.
-
The GUI was Intuition, Workbench is the graphical shell, or desktop as it is known as today.
I didn't know anyone who said "Go into Intuition and launch that application." :-)
Since GUI is a Graphical User Interface, and the Workbench was the "interface", that's what I called it.
Now, when "programming" graphical features, I used the "Intuition" functions to achieve Windows and menus, etc...
But the actual Graphical User Interface we used to interact with the Amiga was Workbench. And it used the Intuition to achieve that..
I'd say that Workbench is similar to the Windows GUI and Intuition is similar to the Windows API that is used to enable Windows.
IMHO..
desiv
-
But the actual Graphical User Interface we used to interact with the Amiga was Workbench.
Nope, the GUI you used to interact with the Amiga was Intution. The graphical shell, offered by the OS, was Workbench, and there were others, like Directory Opus, ScalOS etc. And they all use the same GUI, which is Intuition. It is Intuition that gives you multiple screens, windows, menus etc. that constitutes the amiga GUI - NOT Workbench. AmigaOS has a fully functional GUI also without Workbench.
I'd say that Workbench is similar to the Windows GUI and Intuition is similar to the Windows API that is used to enable Windows.
You are equally confused here, I see. :hammer:
-
You are equally confused here, I see. :hammer:
I don't consider a set of function calls an interface. You do..
Let's just say we disagree on this point..
;)
desiv
-
@ Thomas
just wanted to thank you once again for all the amazing help you've given myself and many other Amigans over the years..was wondering how you know all this classic miggy info and basically how you got involved with the Amiga...would love to hear your story :-)
I was going to write that Thomas knows so much about Amiga history because he is OLD, like me, but if he got his first car in the early 1990's he must be almost 15+ years younger than me, so I had better not call him an old fart.:roflmao: I guess there are not many members here that are older than I am, but at least I still have my hair and it hasn't turned all gray yet (thanks for the great genes Dad).
Thomas, you are a wealth of information and a great addition and resource to A.org. Thanks are deserved and I offer mine to you as well.
-
Nope, the GUI you used to interact with the Amiga was Intution. The graphical shell, offered by the OS, was Workbench, and there were others, like Directory Opus, ScalOS etc. And they all use the same GUI, which is Intuition. It is Intuition that gives you multiple screens, windows, menus etc. that constitutes the amiga GUI - NOT Workbench. AmigaOS has a fully functional GUI also without Workbench.
Interesting explanation kolla. After being a member here for longer than I can remember, I still learn something new here almost every day.
-
I don't consider a set of function calls an interface. You do..
No, you are confused over terminology, that's all. Yes, a set of functions can also be an interface, that's what the I in API is - application programming interface.
Let's just say we disagree on this point..
There is nothing to disagree on, the GUI is Intuition and the graphical shell provided by the OS is Workbench. That is not something to disagree with, it's just how it is.
-
:roflmao:
Wow.. Convinced that you are right, aren't you? :roflmao:
Good to know that, although there is a lot of disagreement on what the terminology means and where the overlap in terms is, you have it all worked out..
I'm glad you were here to save me from having my own ideas of where the breakdown should be...
:p
desiv
p.s. While you're at it, you might want to FIX the Wikipedia article on Intuition. The FIRST line says:
The Amiga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga) computer was launched by Commodore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_International) in 1985 with a GUI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUI) called Workbench (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workbench_%28AmigaOS%29) based on an internal engine which drives all the input events called Intuition
Hmmm.. Sounds familiar...
-
hello everyone, I've made a small blutack arse.
-
No, you are confused over terminology, that's all. Yes, a set of functions can also be an interface, that's what the I in API is - application programming interface.
yeah but you called Intuition a GUI didn't you?
It's more like an engine or handler than a gui. You dont "boot into Intuition" and click around on Intuition windows.
-
Well you have to specifically load Workbench in the S\Startup Sequence to get a GUI environment to play with, but then on a KS 1.x machine you can't boot up to a CLI and you need the Workbench disk to even access a shell window like DOS.
I would say Intuition is to Workbench what DWM is to Vista (desktop window manager) so it can't be Intuition.......so that leaves Workbench as the OS.
I'm going to stick with that reason because Workbench is required to do anything useful other than play games...and on a PC if you make a custom Linux Quake bootable CD then in a similar fashion you can boot your PC to play a game with a blank hard drive and no DOS disks. I know that isn't strictly true but since the 70s PCs were designed to boot a DOS disk or something that does the same job.
Anyway the OS of the Amiga is a bespoke version of TriPos anyway isn't it? So technically the OS is TriPos surely? ;)
-
Hmmmm actually after a little bit more digging...I found a video clip (from Computer Chronicles- Atari ST and Commodore Amiga special) where Rick Geiger who says "what we see here is Workbench, which is the graphical user interface of the Amiga). Also on KS 1.0 and WB 1.0 a CLI window is open labelled AmigaDOS.
So if the General Manager of Commodore Amiga puts it like that then perhaps Kickstart is the OS. If you think about it having a Workbench disk for an Amiga 1000 or 3000 is useless without a kickstart disk....you couldn't even run the most low level game....but at the same time you can't load Workbench either. So maybe Kickstart is the DR/PC/MS-DOS half and Workbench is the Windows/GEM/Top-View side in comparison to PC compatibles. By that definition then kickstart must be the OS.
I don't think Kickstart is the BIOS as per PC computers as on an Amiga 1000 it does plenty of boot up checks (coloured screen on failure to boot etc or hand with KS disk requester image is shown on success) which is what your BIOS does...so clearly Kickstart isn't a BIOS as such. Also it was the same for the original Atari 520ST with TOS (The/Tramiel Operating System) loaded from disk...and GEM sits on top of TOS just like Workbench is loaded after Kickstart.
I think this is a fair assumption as within the KS ROM/Disk is a lot of code execution related stuff, OK at the lowest level, but enough for a game to run. Workbench extends it for sure but essentially on boot up of Kickstart your Amiga is just waiting to be told what to do (run a game, load a WB GUI environment for serious work etc etc)
-
I like to just think of it as "The Amiga Experience."
*lights incense*
-
I do agree that you can't really compare it to either the ST (OS and GUI in one set of ROMS/boot strap disk) or PCs because it is different to both and WB disks certainly have some extra features useful for a full featured OS but at the same time the KS roms have sufficient code on boot up for drivers and basic code execution not just routines to load data from a disk drive (which is basically all a PC bios has...you still need IO.SYS MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM on the boot disk otherwise nothing happens..even on game disks).
-
You don't need IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS, or COMMAND.COM, just a boot sector that loads *something.*
-
Hi,
Basically when I was a child I always remember that the name was "Workbench", i.e. - Workbench 2.1, Workbench 3.1, etc. At that age I never heard my brother or cousin refer to the os as AmigaOS 2.1 or AmigaOS 3.1 - it was always Workbench.
This is one thing that always upsets me about AROS, MorphOS and OS4. Not a single one just calls it "Workbench X.X".
Disappointing. :(
-
This is one thing that always upsets me about AROS, MorphOS and OS4. Not a single one just calls it "Workbench X.X".
Disappointing. :(
In a world without trademarks we/AROS probably would have done that.
Staf.
-
The fact this discussion has dragged on so long says a lot about amiga users. Makes me want to switch to risc os.
-
You don't need IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS, or COMMAND.COM, just a boot sector that loads *something.*
On a floppy disk? I think you need to have those 3 files written to get a bootable floppy using the format /s command IIRC.
Can't think of any games that circumvented this as games run in dos and therefore a dos bootdisk requires those 3 files to get going and do 'something' I am guessing.
-
The fact this discussion has dragged on so long says a lot about amiga users. Makes me want to switch to risc os.
It says the the Amiga 'OS' is completely unique and spread across both Kickstart and Workbench or just Kickstart depending on your definition ;)
-
On a floppy disk? I think you need to have those 3 files written to get a bootable floppy using the format /s command IIRC.
Can't think of any games that circumvented this as games run in dos and therefore a dos bootdisk requires those 3 files to get going and do 'something' I am guessing.
To get an MS-DOS bootdisk, yes, it needs those files. Bootable games that ran on DOS would've had them, but there are things besides games that boot from floppy. Some utilities are written from scratch and don't use those DOS files, and then there are Linux boot floppies which have no use for them as well.
-
I don't consider a set of function calls an interface. You do..
Let's just say we disagree on this point..
;)
desiv
You absolutely cannot start an AmigaDOS shell without Intuition. You can't even enter the early startup bootscreen without Intuition. Whether you use Workbench or Shell to to interact with your Amiga, you are doing it through Intuition, which manages every aspect of the "human" interface to AmigaOS.
Intuition has always been used to refer to AmigaOS embedded windowing/gui system, so Kolla is right.
-
You absolutely cannot start an AmigaDOS shell without Intuition.
I never said otherwise???
You can't even enter the early startup bootscreen without Intuition. Whether you use Workbench or Shell to to interact with your Amiga, you are doing it through Intuition, which manages every aspect of the "human" interface to AmigaOS.
I always said that Intuition is a PART of the GUI. And yes, it's a foundational PART of the SHELL.
Intuition has always been used to refer to AmigaOS embedded windowing/gui system, so Kolla is right.
Not by a lot of people. In fact, until I came by this thread, I had yet to meet anyone who called the OS, "Intuition".
But as I said, you can call it what you want. I don't believe there is a right or wrong as to what it should be called. Apparently some people think I shouldn't call it what I call it. Funny world.. :roflmao:
I happen to love the Intuition. I listed it as the most important part of the Amiga in another thread. Above custom chips and multitasking. The Intuition is core and important and awesome.
And the OS and GUI are built with it. IMHO (which I'm not allowed to have).
desiv
-
Not by a lot of people. In fact, until I came by this thread, I had yet to meet anyone who called the OS, "Intuition".
Of course not. Nobody calls the OS "Intuition". It is the windowing/gui system that is called Intuition, and people have been calling it that since it was created.
It just so happens that as a user you can't actually get to the OS without going through Intuition. This is in contrast to most unix like OS, for example, where you can log into a shell without ever starting up the X server.
-
Of course not. Nobody calls the OS "Intuition". It is the windowing/gui system that is called Intuition, and people have been calling it that since it was created.
You keep stating opinions as FACT. That doesn't make it so tho.. :hammer:
It just so happens that as a user you can't actually get to the OS without going through Intuition. This is in contrast to most unix like OS, for example, where you can log into a shell without ever starting up the X server.
Which again, doesn't make it a GUI. It makes it a PART of the GUI. That's what APIs do.
It's not only Wikipedia that agrees with me, it's ARS as well:
http://raceways.free.fr/_Amiga/A%20history%20of%20the%20Amiga%20By%20Jeremy%20Reimer.html (http://raceways.free.fr/_Amiga/A%20history%20of%20the%20Amiga%20By%20Jeremy%20Reimer.html)
The resulting API was called Intuition
Not that the above proves anything other than the issue that not everyone agrees with you.
In fact, it looks like it's just you and Kolla so far...
Which is surprising considering Intuition has always been used to refer to AmigaOS embedded windowing/gui system
...
I'm just saying...
desiv
-
Seriously, the AmigaOS GUI is called Intuition and it always has been called Intuition since 1.0. Whatever else people call the GUI is pretty much irrelevant. I've heard people calling Reaction the GUI, Workbench the GUI and so on. That doesn't make them correct. Reaction is a widgetset derived from BOOPSI and is thus a component of Intuition and workbench is a desktop environment and is thus an application written for Intuition. Intuition is still the GUI.
That, sir, is not an opinion, it is a fact. You can check it out in the RKM under User Interface libraries if you are in any doubt. They will tell you that the AmigaOS GUI is provided by Intuition, the API for which is documented therein.
-
Seriously, the AmigaOS GUI is called Intuition and it always has been called Intuition since 1.0.
Seriously, it's not.
The GUI is Workbench, which is built USING the Intuition API.
That, sir, is not an opinion, it is a fact. You can check it out in the RKM under User Interface libraries if you are in any doubt.
Oh great, can you quote where in the RKM is says the GUI is called Intuition?
In fact, if it's in the section about libraries, that kind of leads to my point, that it is a foundation, and not the GUI, which is Workbench.
Seriously..
desiv
p.s From the RKM:
Chapters 2-16, User Interface Libraries (http://cataclysm.cx/random/amiga/reference/Libraries_Manual_guide/node0002.html). An in-depth tutorial
on how to create a graphic user interface for Amiga application
software using Intuition
Thanx for mentioning the RKM. It's awesome! More from that tome:
Intuition is the collective name for the function libraries, data
structures and other elements needed to create a graphical interface for
Amiga applications.
AND MORE! I LOVE THE RKM!!
Workbench is the graphic user interface to the Amiga file system that uses
symbols called icons to represent disks, directories and files.
-
Whatever else you may say, Workbench is most assuredly not the GUI. If it were, you would not be able to run GUI applications without it. It is, as the RKM describe, a GUI front end to the file system.
-
Whatever else you may say, Workbench is most assuredly not the GUI. If it were, you would not be able to run GUI applications without it.
Well, according to the RKM, it is the GUI... (quote above)
So, again, we can just agree to disagree...
Have a good one...
desiv
-
The fact this discussion has dragged on so long says a lot about amiga users. Makes me want to switch to risc os.
Users of many other OSes can and do drag stupid discussions on just as long as Amiga users in many different places and ways. Amiga users are just famous for being stubborn and having more patience than most other groups because we have been forced to wait for things much more often than other computer user groups. Not that this topic is really stupid, but does it really matter what anyone calls or names the AmigaOS as long as everyone involved in the discussion understands what is being talked about is the OS that runs Amiga applications on an Amiga computer, or emulator.
Having stated that, I also get frustrated by some of the discussions here and by the stubborn nature of some people that express themselves over the Internet. What angers me most often is when people express their opinions as FACTS and then almost as often they follow their statement with "IIRC", or some statement that they are just repeating something that they read or heard from someone else that may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic that is being debated. In other words, they are not sure about their "facts" or assertions, but they are perfectly ready to disagree with someone that may have better knowledge, or experience with and/or access to the "real facts", based on their possibly faulty memory, or hearsay from another questionable source. Personally I think that the group of members we have here at A.org are better than most other Amiga related sites, but I have noticed that either my patience for other peoples opinions which I think are stupid at the time has decreased, or the frequency of truly stupid or irrelevant remarks has increased over the last couple of years. I am guessing that it is a little of both.
I like to think that, having come to the above realization, I have chosen to express my own opinions less often without better research or facts to backup my claims, or reasons, than I might have done in the past, but I am sure that I can and have still gotten sucked into a few discussions that I should have stayed out of.
With all the other things going on in this World right now, aren't there many other more important things we all could better concentrate our thoughts and energy on besides arguing about the proper name for a 25 year-old OS?
-
Well, according to the RKM, it is the GUI... (quote above)
So, again, we can just agree to disagree...
Have a good one...
desiv
No, according to RKM, Workbench is a GUI front end to the file system.
The problem here seems to be in the what we mean by "the GUI". I don't disagree that Workbench is a GUI, but when you qualify "the GUI", you are referring directly to the system upon which all GUIs, Workbench included, are built. And that component is Intuition, not Workbench.
You don't open workbench.library when writing apps that use a graphical user interface except in the case that you need some particular workbench integration. You use intuition.library for all your GUI building.
-
... but when you qualify "the GUI", you are referring directly to the system upon which all GUIs, Workbench included, is built. And that component is Intuition.
That's not what "I" am referring to when I refer to "the GUI." That, as I read it, is an API, a "component" as you put it.
When I refer to "the GUI," I mean the interface which is primarily used to launch applications. Yes, you can launch apps from the SHELL. But the "primary interface" (IMHO) for for launching apps is Workbench, which I consider "the GUI" which is built on top of Intuition.
I hadn't ever heard someone say "I'm going to launch JRComm from Intuition" before.
So, that's my definition.
So, we're not disagreeing about Workbench or Intuition or even GUI.
We are disagreeing about the use of the word "the?"
Hmmm... :roflmao:
TTYL
desiv
-
Boo you suck. You run workbench from a shell, so clearly the shell is the GUI...
(joke)
-
My monitor is my GUI! My mouse is gooey!
-
Hi,
@ all Amiga users,
The original name for the operating system for the Amiga 1000 was Intuition. It came with the 1.0 disks that were soon upgraded to the 1.1 disks, which totally torqued me off since Electronic Arts made Artic Fox to run with the 1.0 disks. Arctic Fox wouldn't run with the 1.1 disk set. So the orginal name for the Amiga Operating system was Intuition. Everybody that said this gets an Amiga point, those new members that didn't need to study the history of the Amiga some more.
smerf
-
smerf disagrees with me.
That proves I'm right!! ;-)
desiv
p.s. Actually, looks like smerf said Intuition was the OS, which nobody else said. hmmm. ;) No Amiga points..
-
@desiv
Listen to Karlos. He knows what he's talking about. You might learn something to boot...
-
@desiv
Listen to Karlos. He knows what he's talking about. You might learn something to boot...
I did listen to him. I just don't agree with him..
Why is that such a problem here? :confused:
desiv
-
It isn't a problem. You can call whatever you wish "the GUI", it's a question of perspective.
I look at these things from the perspective of what makes whatever else work at a component level. You are looking at it from the perspective of an end user of the system as a whole. Or at least that's how it looks from here.
-
I think you should take a point off everybody who didnt mention intuition. 'cos that way as i've said it now, I get a 2 point head start.
@Thomas, you've gotta pull out your old C64 man. Start it up and it will all come flooding back to you. But do it soon, that SID chip's internally glowing red LED is starting to slowly fade as quickly as a Terminators eye...!
gertsy