ECS, AGA, Workbench? No I don't hate them.

[Swos]

GOOD, I'll take that as an approval. While I have X86-64 systems, and they've finally grown to be prowerful useful machines they're still resource pigs that have required decades of constant upgrades to get to this point.

Now as to the processor in the original PC, the 8088. Yes it had 16 bit instructios, yes it ran at 4.77Mhz, BUT it was CRUDE. Remember, I've previously mentioned that I was an early Motorola supporter. So 6800, which gives indirect birth to the 6502, which takes away some of the attention that should have been given to the much better 6809. We don't even have to talk about that super computer level Unix/Xenix monster the 68000 here.
Lets just compare a 2Mhz 6809 in a SWTPC computer to a 4.77Mhz 8088 in a PC. In many operations, the 6809 is FASTER. The PC is limited to running a crude rip off of CPM called MS-DOS. As today, CPU speed is not the only determining factor when considering processing prower. The 6809 suppports position independant re-entrant addressing which allowed it to utilize a time-slicing priority based multi-tasking multi-user OS (Microware/Radisys OS9 - there eventual basis for the CD-i player).
Intel processors could not truly match this kind of capabilty until the '386 was introduced. Ever try to run Windows 3.1 on anything less than a '386? Trust me, I had evalution copies of Win3.0 supplied by IBM before release and I know what hardware they were recommending.
And again, if you think an MS-DOS based Windows system provided true priority based multi-tasking, you're buying into the hype Microsoft put out and your delusional.
In fact, until Microsoft implented the NT kernal, multitasking was an uncontrolled, you might lock it up nightmare.

So congradulation Amiga users! Anytime anyone tries to tell you that a PC had some edge over your system ANYTIME during the active production life of the Amiga, feel free to laugh in their faces.
Because the PC took almost TWO DECADES to catch up to what could be done on early Motorola processors, let alone you much better Amigas.

Should anyone ever question my stance on this, let me be clear, we did not lose this battle based on he technical merits of our systems. We lost due to poor business management, marketing, and the strength that comes with market dominance bringing a wealth of software (even if a lot of it is crap). The PC SUCKED when it was introduced. And each sucessive generation should have been marketed "Windowsx/iX86, this time it sucks less".

We could still do better, sometimes I think you guys are just to timid or you don't remember (or weren't there to witness) how things were at the beginning.

I have a feeling me and you would get on pretty well! Cracking post.

:drink:

[tone007]

In fact, until Microsoft implented the NT kernal, multitasking was an uncontrolled, you might lock it up nightmare.

Hey, that sounds just like Amiga (including OS4.1!)

Luckily the NT kernal has been in use since the 90s.

[orb85750]

Clearly, the problem here is that everyone has a different idea of what Amiga is or should be.  For some, it's a retro hobby not unlike the C64, but others want a fully modern machine at least as capable as a Wintel/Macintel.

[Iggy]

Hey, that sounds just like Amiga (including OS4.1!)

Luckily the NT kernal has been in use since the 90s.

Yep, but the first non-enterprise related use is in Windows 2000 (which I was rather impressed by) in 2000, and the first version aimmed at the general market was Window XP (can't even remember that date). Of course subsequent versions (Vista, Win 7) have really just be reworked versions of the same thing (but that is nothing new Win95 to WinME are essentially all very similar).

What we still don't have under AOS4, MorphOS, olr AROS is any support for SMP. Now that does place us at a disadvantage over Windows and OSX. Even some form of ASMP would help utilize cores that languish on many NG systems because of support for only one processor.

Oh, and one thing I'll note you do not see under any Amiga related OS' are those stupid DLL libraries. What sub-genius at Microsoft thought a flat, monstrous database of library files was a good idea? It's a great way to corrupt your OS. is any su

[commodorejohn]

Hey, that sounds just like Amiga (including OS4.1!)

Not quite, though. The Amiga had preemptive multitasking from the get-go, while Windows and Mac took upwards of a decade (ten and seventeen years, respectively) to get that far. Amiga crashes are more due to a lack of memory protection (which, again, neither competitor had for a good while, though they did achieve it sooner than preemptive multitasking.) That can be fixed with any Amiga accelerator that includes an MMU, whether on the board or on-chip in the CPU.

Also, the NT kernel has existed since the early '90s, but it didn't become commonplace outside the business world until Windows XP, in 2003.

[Iggy]

Not quite, though. The Amiga had preemptive multitasking from the get-go, while Windows and Mac took upwards of a decade (ten and seventeen years, respectively) to get that far. Amiga crashes are more due to a lack of memory protection (which, again, neither competitor had for a good while, though they did achieve it sooner than preemptive multitasking.) That can be fixed with any Amiga accelerator that includes an MMU, whether on the board or on-chip in the CPU.

Also, the NT kernel has existed since the early '90s, but it didn't become commonplace outside the business world until Windows XP, in 2003.

I'm glad you posted that John. I'd have to say its a point that everyone mentioning '386. '486, and Pentium processors keeps forgetting. Window3.0 to WindowsME are all DOS based. I remember selling these version all being marketed as priority based preemptive multitasking systems and thinking "Oh yeah where's the task scheduler and how is priority set?". But you now there's an old Republican trick that seems to work in computer marketing too. If you just keep repeat some BS line long enough, and significant number of the people who are too lazy to verify your claims will believe you.
All Windows variants prior to NT were more of a multitasking as long as some obscure process that is under no supervisory process decides to use up all the systems resources, going it an uncontrolled loop, etc.

The Amiga may have meditated, but Windows had the horrifying (and often system corrupting) blue screen of death. Anyone miss BSODs? I went back a reinstalled some variants like Win98 recently to see if there was any nostalgia value. It was just as unplesant as I remembered.

There are a few people playing with retro PC, but frankly I think they must be into pain.

I sold PCs along side our 68K computers and I have no fond memories of the painful growing period that belonged to the early PC. Amiga was cool out the door. Might have pooched the shoot later, but it was never that painful.

As I've said before, people only think kindly of the PC because it sucks a lot less than it used to.

[commodorejohn]

Oh, retro PCs are perfectly fun - just so long as you eschew Windows. Get it loaded up with FreeDOS, grab some old shareware titles, and you can kill hours on an old PC.

And I had way more BSODs than I've ever had Guru Meditation errors, and most of those were just due to faulty disks. Honestly, I think that's the biggest pain with the Amiga: the sheer number of games that insist on being played directly from aging floppies, often with some proprietary filesystem so you can't even kludge up your own hard drive install. It's no wonder WHDLoad had to be written.

[runequester]

I wouldn't mind owning something like a 5150, just for its historical significance.
 
But yes, early versions of windows were awful. Programs holding on to memory even after exiting them (this can happen with amiga too but it doesn't seem to be very frequent, at least in 3.1), an app crashing would bring the entire system down (win98 can sometimes recover, but it seemed to be exception rather than rule), system registry corrupting for no apparent reason, app's multitasking only with great pain (pretty good in 98, not good in 95, painful earlier), different types of memory making apps hard to run etc etc.
 
DOS is not very capable, but it DOES benefit from generally being pretty reliable. As long as you are only doing one thing at a time, and you can sort out the memory issues, you're probably better off, especially compared to win 3.1

[tone007]

As I've said before, people only think kindly of the PC because it sucks a lot less than it used to.

Maybe I was just lucky, but I went from DOS to Win3.1 to 95 to 98 (even a brief stint with ME) to 2000 to XP to Vista to 7, and I was always able to get what I needed to done without much trouble at all.

I like to think of it more as skill than luck, though.

[Iggy]

Maybe I was just lucky, but I went from DOS to Win3.1 to 95 to 98 (even a brief stint with ME) to 2000 to XP to Vista to 7, and I was always able to get what I needed to done without much trouble at all.

I like to think of it more as skill than luck, though.

You must be one of the luckiest PC users on the planet. Virtually no one I know hasn't faced an unretreivable crash under an early versions of Windows.

I remember the first time I tried to overclock an SATA RAID array equipped PC. Man! Who would think you could destroy the integrity of your hard drives contents when that part of the hardware isn't affected by the overclock?

I'm actually quite impressed with how bulletproof the last few versions have gotten. They can even rebuild some missing or damaged OS components. And no more BSOD (heck I don't get many crashes of any kind).

[commodorejohn]

I'm actually quite impressed with how bulletproof the last few versions have gotten. They can even rebuild some missing or damaged OS components. And no more BSOD (heck I don't get many crashes of any kind).

I'm no expert, but I'd chalk it up to a combination of Linux gaining popularity with the techies (once it became accessible for mere mortal nerds in the early 2000s) and Apple saying "Unix? Yeah, we'll take some of that," and going from a pretty, user-friendly OS buried under 17 years of cruft and kludge to a pretty, user-friendly OS completely re-tooled around a full-featured, time-tested architecture (after some, uh, initial issues, I'm told.) It takes a lot to make a behemoth like Microsoft rethink their game, but suddenly having two credible competitors, one for each end of the market, going up against a pile of feces like Windows ME and a company reputation for developing software as solid as a Soviet-bloc compact car will do it.

[Iggy]

I'm no expert, but I'd chalk it up to a combination of Linux gaining popularity with the techies (once it became accessible for mere mortal nerds in the early 2000s) and Apple saying "Unix? Yeah, we'll take some of that," and going from a pretty, user-friendly OS buried under 17 years of cruft and kludge to a pretty, user-friendly OS completely re-tooled around a full-featured, time-tested architecture (after some, uh, initial issues, I'm told.) It takes a lot to make a behemoth like Microsoft rethink their game, but suddenly having two credible competitors, one for each end of the market, going up against a pile of feces like Windows ME and a company reputation for developing software as solid as a Soviet-bloc compact car will do it.

Hey no fair! I kinda liked the Lada. Where else are you going to get a Fiat124 based sedan with a crank handle for when the starter fails? Don't go disparaging solid com-bloc hardware with your libelous comparisons!

[nicholas]

I'm no expert, but I'd chalk it up to a combination of Linux gaining popularity with the techies (once it became accessible for mere mortal nerds in the early 2000s) and Apple saying "Unix? Yeah, we'll take some of that," and going from a pretty, user-friendly OS buried under 17 years of cruft and kludge to a pretty, user-friendly OS completely re-tooled around a full-featured, time-tested architecture (after some, uh, initial issues, I'm told.) It takes a lot to make a behemoth like Microsoft rethink their game, but suddenly having two credible competitors, one for each end of the market, going up against a pile of feces like Windows ME and a company reputation for developing software as solid as a Soviet-bloc compact car will do it.

All versions of OSX prior to 10.5 were absolute dog faeces tbh.

[Iggy]

All versions of OSX prior to 10.5 were absolute dog faeces tbh.

Harsh Nicholas. I've got a copy of 10.4 (Tiger) and I don't think its that much worse than 10.5 (but then I don't really care for OSX either - which explain why the OSX hard drive lays near my MorphOS/Ubuntu based Powermac ready to be installed in case I need firmware updates).

And besides, its not <10.5 thats dog feces, its Steve Jobs soul (if he still has one).

[commodorejohn]

All versions of OSX prior to 10.5 were absolute dog faeces tbh.

I was out of the Mac game by then, so I'll leave judgement to those who've actually used it, but: as bad as Windows ME?

[Hattig]

I was out of the Mac game by then, so I'll leave judgement to those who've actually used it, but: as bad as Windows ME?

Mac OS X 10.0 had lots of issues (read the old Ars Technica articles on OS X) but the OS rapidly improved. They all had the solid Unix underpinnings however, and I'd rather use 10.1 than Windows ME. A lot of the issues reported were people moaning about differences from classic Mac OS too, rather than actual flaws like Windows had.

10.2 brought OpenGL accelerated desktop compositing amongst other things, 10.3 brought the very useful Expose, and 10.4 (the first version I used) was very solid.