Wayne: Memory and hard drives are cheap, especially for the outdated slower PPC systems, so stop {bleep}ing about the resources.
Precisely. When I was working with AMOS (my first programming experience since MLX on the C64), I knew that was the direction that computers were going to take -- interpreted code and no more pre-compiled, low-level stuff. Since I've started working with PHP, Perl, and Java, I will *NEVER* go back to compilers and C. Sure, these run-time and JIT compiled languages are slower and use more memory, but it saves you a HUGE amount of time worrying about low-level stuff, and lets you focus on what you want to do. I don't want to see a new micro-OS that has a 1MByte footprint, because it probably has very little in the way of error correction and reporting, and has flimsy programming interfaces that are easily broken quickly obsoleted by yet more incompatible interfaces. It boggles the mind to think of how many times Microsoft has rewritten the core of thier OS.
Don't forget why UNIX has been around so long. Using Perl to write your scripts is a perfectly viable option to slimmer, more efficient languages, because it gets the job done and saves you a LOT of time.
Now, if only Perl could be updated so it wasn't so damned obtuse. It's good, but frightfully confusing, especially since it has a terrible way of "faking" function calls with subroutines. :-)
Having helped quite a few users, I must disagree. Most users don't care for features of any given OS, but rather cares for what applications said platform provides
Prejudice plays a part. I doubt many people really know how many applications are available for Linux that properly mimic the most popular applications for Windows.
Design is a lost art, though. It's easy to replace ten popular Windows apps with a single, simple tool built into the OS. Very, very few people are truly competent at interface design outside of the Windows and Mac market. Linux drives me nuts. It looks like Windows, but is nowhere near as informative and convenient when it comes to the GUI. Linux people do what pleases themselves and usually lack the level of intuition needed for designing software for ordinary people. It really is still a UNIX clone and a command-promt environment, and will likely stay that way.
Wayne: ...though they still love the Amiga if only for it's philosophy and sense of nostalgia.
Definately. My favorite part about the Amiga is the fact it was so good at balancing the CLI and GUI at the same time, had the most interesting software (like graphic and audio programs which the PC/Mac couldn't handle), and most importantly, was the first personal computer with a truly extensive public domain scene. There were tons of free, useful programs in the Amiga domain long before Linux and PC "shareware" came along!
I still don't think today's GPL'd scene is as good as the PD scene was on the Amiga.
FastRobPlus: There are a LOT of ex-Amiga, Sierra, C64, Atari etc. folks influencing the US software and hardware industry even today!
Which is precicely why the Amiga will never shine again. All the people who
originally made the Amiga terrific have moved on to other platforms. With the rediulous licensing schemes used by Hyperion, Amiga, and Genesi, I doubt that kind of free, creative energy will ever come back. I see the Amiga as a reference for a new platform, and a nostalgic toy. But the Amiga itself and its development community is very much dead.
DonnyEMU: DirectMusic (part of directX) was done by none other than Todor Fay (the bars and pipes guy) of Amiga fame.
I'm not surprised. DirectX is a bit quirky, but nevertheless helped make Windows more Amiga-like in terms of multimedia. DirectInput, in particular, was a huge and largely underappreciated leap forward in OS design for which Microsoft deserves a lot of credit. I would never have traded my A1200 for Windows 3.1, but when Win95 OSR2 came along with DirectX, I converted without hesitation.
