what alternate OS's are you referring to? I also love the 68k processors.
Probably not one you would easily get into. I used to sell boards that used Microware's OS-9. But getting a GUI running can be difficult (there usually isn't one bundled).
And learning to handle a CLI that can take MUCH more complicated command lines than MS-DOS actually can offer some challenges.
You really don't want to make a small typo on an OS that can send the operating system off doing something complicated that you never intended (but then that is a problem UNIX, BSD, and Linux share).
I do have a fair amount of software for OS-9 68K (very little that makes much use of graphics).
Makes a killer server though
And the Atari version was available, cheap, and is now free.
The Amiga version is close to $2000.
One argument I used to get into with Amiga users was the size of the libraries. If anyone recalls, the first huge batch of games, probably from 85-89, were mostly Atari ST then ported to Amiga. Then it was around the time of Shadow of the Beast that the Amiga was getting more 'native' games that were then ported to the Atari ST (oh my god, the travesty of the ST version of Beast....) Then of course there was the lack of stereo sound, or even a decent sound chip in the ST...
slaapliedje
The problem with porting Amiga apps is that instead of running through drivers they frequently relied on libraries.
And I never understood why sound support wasn't better in the Atari line myself. There were good off the shelf sound chips that could have been used.
I
have seen some neat mods to increase the color palette.
68K systems should have been built with more modularity (ours were).
If Atari and Amiga had built systems with their sound and video placed on expansion cards, they might have advanced quicker.