Dominant future AmigaOS? MOS vs OS4 vs AROS

[N7VQM]

seer said:

 Maye Hyperion / Genesi should show their OS to Nasa, they could be intersted in a stable / fast booting OS

I doubt that NASA would be very interested.  First, neither AmigaOS4 nor MorphOS could be certified for critical tasks.  Second, they already have thier non-critical tasks covered by more mature and stable OSs.  And, unless my memory is failing, I think they were investigating Linux for many ground-based operations.

[dammy]

by seer on 2003/5/31 19:17:34

Maye Hyperion / Genesi should show their OS to Nasa, they could be intersted in a stable / fast booting OS (Note; not the current hardware)..

NASA has bought some small RTOS in the past for their projects.  But this would mean OS4/MOS would have to go head to head with the likes of River Wind and QNX which have years (decades?) of experience ahead of Hyperion and Genesi.

Which brings up a question, is either OS4 or MOS  a proper RTOS or are they not even close to that standard?

Dammy

[Warface]

*shrughs*

ATM MOS is superior in both usability state, and planned architecture.

Yet, a very important point: MOS has to face negative discrimination, OS4 on the other hand receives positive discrimination, sometimes to a frightening degree. Is it just because the name? Maybe.

I bet OS4 as a winner, but not feature, stability or application wise. It will take 2-6 yers for OS4 to reach the current MOS state. (judging from public and not so public information) Not that it will count.

This community is driven by emotions. So be realistic. AROS will remain with us just as before, MOS will make very happy those who use it, but most of the sales will come from OS4.

(Absolutely IMHO of course :-))

[AmiGR]

The problem is that most ex-Amiga owners, will either
say "The Amiga is dead, bury it" or "Amiga? AHAHAHA, Commodore, then Escom, then HAHAHA,
Gateway, LoL!"

That's what happens in Greece with most people.
Here, the Amiga was dominating 13-12 years ago.

[DaveP]

@Warface

Please elaborate on:

ATM MOS is superior in both usability state, and planned architecture.

Id also like to know if you have used OS4 and if so, which build?

MOS is inferior in its usability to AOS3.5/9 in at the least the Ambient stakes ( based on an over the shoulder waggle or twenty with the mouse ) and from my experience of OS4 *very* inferior to that.

But maybe you mean something else?

[AmiGR]

Actually, say MOS "was" inferior Ambient-wise.
MOS1.3 is old already, 1.4 is about to be released
and its Ambient is much more useful.

(Edited: Typo-fest)

[Warface]

@DaveP:

Please notify me when ur using your OS4 build on an A1 with a Radeon. (With which Eyetech delivers the AmigaONEs) Or visiting this page from OS4 not using the 68K CPU at all.

Since when usability depends on 3.5/3.9 features? I had 3.1 before and was very happy with that.

I meant an everyday usability state, not incorporating each single feature OS3.5/3.9 has. Wonder if I were really that misunderstandable? Or you just wanted to argue?

[DaveP]

Usability is, in development terms here at least, a statement of the "usability" of the human/computer interface. As in UCD analysis. Given we use "usability" as a formal term scoped by roughly what I just described at work in our ODC process I presume this is what you mean.

If AOS4 works the same on A1 as it does on CyberStorm as it does on Blizzard ( with obvious differences such as speed and what-have-you ) does it matter? Does it effect the way the HCI behaves?

Again, what do you mean everyday usability state. Its running on my Amiga all the time?

Im not asking purely to argue, I just want to find out what you mean and frankly Im still at a loss.

[DaveP]

@AmiGR

Is it going to be demonstrated at any shows coming up so I can lean over shoulder and waggle mouse again?

[Warface]

Following your argument MOS 0.4 is superior to MOS 1.4, right?

[DaveP]

@Warface

No. Following my argument MOS 0.4 working with Workbench 3.9 is superior to MOS1.3s "usability". I haven't used MOS1.4 even in a waggle test yet so how on earth can I comment on that.

You cannot seperate AOS4 from all the "features" of previous operating systems. Whilst it is a "revolution" in terms of its PPC nature and its boundary architecture it is an evolution in terms of features available on the HCI.

MOS 1.x up is "unable" to use that HCI heritage ( WorkBench ) but it is advancing rapidly on its own technological merits in this area with Ambient.

If we aren't talking about "usability" in the software development cycle terms that I know and understand can you please explain it from your understanding?

Also, can you take a stab at the other questions.

[Warface]

I've mentioned the word "usability" in it's most general meaning. Still have no clue why do you want to narrow it down to something specific. Except if you have some intentions with that.

[DaveP]

(dictionary.com/programming) The effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction
with which users can achieve tasks in a particular environment
of a product. High usability means a system is: easy to learn
and remember; efficient, visually pleasing and fun to use; and
quick to recover from errors.

Ive defined the term that I use for usability, and where I get it from ( our Software Engineering process at work - ODC classifications etc ).

I want to tie you down to something specific because I want to understand how you came to the conclusion you did. Is it so hard to understand that I want to understand you?

PS: (edit) I suspect you mean "availability" which is literally whether or not a product/function is available for end use. Usability is a trigger that can only be employed once "availability" has been succeeded.

[Warface]

Sigh. It's getting tiring.

High usability means a system is: easy to learn
and remember; efficient, visually pleasing and fun to use; and
quick to recover from errors.

Then MorphOS has high usability. What do you want to achieve with all this?

Are you missing OS3.5/3.9 features? That makes MOS inferior in your eyes?

MOS offers you to resize/move windows by borders, select screens/windows from lists, even with small pictures, use all existing icons and widely spread RGBA png icons in additions, stunning ways of navigation in window contents, either by holding down the middle button or pressing it twice, when a special navigational image appears, and a whole lot - which OS3.5/3.9 does not have and cannot provide. Despite that I haven't said OS3.5/3.9 is inferior.

The interface is NOT inferior/superior but DIFFERENT, and to say: pretty modern. And new features are added continuously.

Not to mention, we're discussing OS4, MOS and AROS - 3.5/3.9 is pretty off topic.

[Housey]

AmiGR wrote:
The problem is that most ex-Amiga owners, will either
say "The Amiga is dead, bury it" or "Amiga? AHAHAHA, Commodore, then Escom, then HAHAHA,
Gateway, LoL!"

That's partly why i'm selective who I tell about my crush on 'Amiga'  ;-)

[dammy]

by DaveP on 2003/6/1 7:22:36

Id also like to know if you have used OS4 and if so, which build?

MOS is inferior in its usability to AOS3.5/9 in at the least the Ambient stakes ( based on an over the shoulder waggle or twenty with the mouse ) and from my experience of OS4 *very* inferior to that.

But maybe you mean something else?

Then again, OS4 is inferior to AROS because OS4 is *vaporware*.    Until iOS4 released to the public, it's going to remain inferior to any OS, even Windows.

Dammy