uncharted wrote:
I give up. :-(
Please dont give up. I apologise for the tone of my previous post, it was a little rude.
Could AmigaOS have become the most bloated OS of all time? Yes. Was the size of the OS limited by the storage options? Yes. Does that answer your original questions?
No. Because those were not questions I was asking. Did you read the original post?
Yes I did read the OP. These were the questions you asked:
1. Is AmigaOS really mean and lean because of its design philosophy or is it more to do with its situation?
2. If you think about it, could it be that AmigaOS is so lean because it was never given the resources by Commodore and has been left to rot ever since?
3. Back in the early 90's AmigaOS was, size-wise, on a par with MacOS. Could it be that had development continued with a decent amount of resources that AmigaOS would be as fully featured and as large as modern OSes?
My answers:
1. The hardware AmigaOS runs on did stop Commodore going too over the top with the design. However, you have to consider the time when AmigaOS was designed (the first version, the rest followed the same template). AmigaOS was certainly more flash than the other OS's released at the same time, it only seems small in comparison with modern OS's.
2. AmigaOS had no need to be bloated, especially considering it wasn't an open platform (all Amiga h/w produced by Commodore at the time), so they could make it compact. I'm a bit worried that you're looking for a bloated OS (that's how I'm interpreting it, apologies if I'm wrong).
3. I already answered this, but yes as long as there was new Amiga h/w produced there is nothing intrinsic in the design of the OS that would prevent AmigaOS becoming bloated. Whether the developers would have chosen to take this route is another matter.
It's more interesting to debate how AmigaOS compares with more modern OS's, especially considering the role of the OS has stayed constant.
How is that more interesting? It's so {bleep}ing tedious reading through the same antiquated arguments over an over again.
You may not have found it interesting, but others might have. Your questions only make sense when you consider the historical context so it is natural to compare what AmigaOS is now with the modern computing world.
uncharted wrote:
HenryCase wrote:
That's because there was nothing to discuss.
Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain that further?
My comment was a reaction to your comment: "I thought I'd sit back and see what people's opinions where on the matter. There are a couple of interesting thoughts in here, but it seems that more people either completely missed the point or are still hung up on the same old arguments from 1996."
From that I was quite rightly assuming that you weren't interested in listening to a debate about bloat on AmigaOS vs modern OS'. Hence why I gave you the two answers to the questions we could ask if we weren't going to discuss AmigaOS in comparison with newer/other systems.
Does that help you see my point of view?
