Re: WSJ article on software liability

From: DHOLLINGSWORTH2 (DHOLLINGSWORTH2_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:50:51 -0600

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8bbc1c69cf9c2989e93@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <1meUd.18614$yr.17325@okepread05>, DHOLLINGSWORTH2@cox.net
> says...
>
>> The Amiga computer originating in europe was by far a better Proccessor
>> than
>> anything Intel put out at the time. It possessed several SubProccessors
>> that did multitask Completely, efficiently and not Psuedo Sequentially.
>> The Reason Intel took off was becuase of "Open Architecture". This meant
>> anyone with a compiler could develope software, and anyone with an eprom
>> burner could develope hardware.
>
> Motorola is a US company, if you are comparing the 680x0 processor used
> on the Amiga (and original Macs) with the Intel processors used on PCs.
>
> You're probably thinking of the Amiga hardware design, which did rely
> much more than the PC on dedicated processors for different tasks.
> Also, there was pre-emptive multi-tasking which may have been made
> easier by the 680x0 but was obviously not dependent on it.
>
> Anyone with a compiler could develop software for the Amiga, just the
> same as for the PC. Commodore - like Apple - reserved the right to make
> hardware, and this was certainly a factor in the spread and dominance of
> cheap PCs.
>
> I think two things doomed the Amiga in the early 90s. One of them was
> actually called DOOM. The Amiga hardware was much better for doing
> arcade games (Mario or Sonic types, to name those with which people will
> be familiar). But the PC architecture was infinitely better for 3D
> games. One could be fixed by throwing processor cycles at it, the other
> couldn't. Intel responded by boosting the speed of its chips, and
> Motorola couldn't keep up.
>
> The other thing that doomed the Amiga was Windows. First, Windows 3.1
> took off, and the Amiga lost any chance of gaining a foothold in
> ordinary offices, though it had some niches. In truth it would not have
> been a success anyway, for many reasons, including a total absence of
> memory protection that made Windows 3.1 seem stable by comparison.
>
> Then Windows 95 brought out pre-emptive multi-tasking, of a sort anyway.
> The rapid speed increases of Intel processors got over the hump of
> losing touch with RAM speed, and the Amiga was dead. The only hope was
> to repackage it as a computer-console hybrid, the CD32. It failed.
> Amiga RIP.
>
> - Gerry Quinn
>
>

Acually I was refering to the Amigas Parallel proccesors. The didn't do
much. For instance you could program the individual connectors at the back
of the thing. They had there own clock, memspace etc. It's not unlike what
the Intel architecture grew into.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WSJ article on software liability
    ... on the Amiga with the Intel processors used on PCs. ... You're probably thinking of the Amiga hardware design, ... The other thing that doomed the Amiga was Windows. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: WSJ article on software liability
    ... >> The Amiga computer originating in europe was by far a better Proccessor than ... > on the Amiga with the Intel processors used on PCs. ... The Amiga hardware was much better for doing ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: new to acorn
    ... understood a thing about amiga, I only remember it used to do great ... x86 based and then you can be seduced to the dark side by Mr Gates. ... once Mac OS can run on any Intel. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: Amiga Update - in desperate need thereof.
    ... there is a web site called amiga hardware ... witch should show you all the hardware you can get for your amiga ... > This causes me serious problems because whenever I have a question relating ... > What is the minimum spec of a 1200, needed to run OS3.*? ...
    (comp.sys.amiga.hardware)