Slashdot Mirror


The Amiga, Circa 2010 — Dead and Loving It

Orion Blastar writes "While many Amiga users have moved on to Linux, Mac OS X, and even, gasp shock, Microsoft Windows, some of us don't want to give up so easily. There are two open source projects that are keeping the Amiga legacy alive even if Amiga Inc. seems to be deader than a doornail and not really doing much but selling old Classic Amiga games for new platforms. Like WINE, there was a project to run AmigaOS 3.1 software for Linux and other platforms, but it evolved instead into an open source operating system named Amiga Research OS, or AROS. AROS is best run inside an emulator, and while it is not a modern OS like Linux, it can be downloaded and run inside of Linux (and the downloads section has more). While it is not ready for prime time yet, it is a promising OS that is being ported to many platforms and uses the user friendly Amiga GUI we Amiga users grew up with." Read on for more. "OK — maybe AROS is not modern enough for you, and you like Linux instead. Then you might like Anubis OS, as it is a hybrid of AROS and Linux. Much like when Apple took NextStep (based on *BSD Unix and the MACH kernel) and the classic Mac OS to make Mac OS X, this project wants to take Linux and AROS and do the same thing.

For those who want the classic Amiga, there is UAE, the Universal Amiga Emulator, which needs kickstart ROMs and boot disk images to work. You can buy them from Amiga Forever; the emulator comes with all the files you need plus other goodies.

For the classic Amiga 68K series, it is recreated via the Minimig, which uses SD cards instead of floppy disks; a must for retro computer hobbyists. AmigaOS 4.1 exists for PowerPC based SAM 440EP systems like the SAM 440Ep systems and parts sold here. (I am not associated with Amiga Kit or Amiga Inc. or any Amiga company. I am just an Amiga user since 1985 and very much into retro computing.)"

50 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. 2010 by Master+Moose · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..Year of the Amiga Desktop

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
    1. Re:2010 by Zedrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1985-1995 were the years of the Amiga Desktop.
      (not that Win95 was better in any way, but it managed to finally kill the Amiga commercially, most active Amigausers I know gave up around 95-96.)

    2. Re:2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      not that Win95 was better in any way, but it managed to finally kill the Amiga commercially, most active Amigausers I know gave up around 95-96

      Not entirely convinced that Windows 95 was to blame. The Amiga- which was *the* machine to have in Europe in the late '80s to early '90s- had already been losing ground to the PC on one side and the Mega Drive and SNES on the other for some time before that.

      Commodore had sat on what was basically the same once-revolutionary core hardware and OS for 7 1/2 years with only minor improvements. The A1200 and A4000 offered some notable (but not revolutionary) improvements, but should have come out *at least* a year earlier- by the time they hit in late 1992, the ground had already shifted, and many people had already moved away.

      I'd say that '95-'96 sounds about right, regardless of Windows 95. After Commodore went bankrupt in mid-'94, the Amiga was in limbo, stagnating for more than a year. Eventually, in late '95, the new owners announced that they were going to start selling the same, unimproved, three-year-old A1200... for £100 *more* than it cost before the bankruptcy!

      They claimed that they had to do this to make their money back, but whether or not this was true (or just a cynical attempt to milk the diehard fans of a doomed format) it was clear- to me at least- that there was no way that this was going to be a success, and that the game was quite obviously up.

      Windows 95's launch probably just emphasised that the market had moved on, and that the Amiga had already missed its final chance to catch up.

    3. Re:2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ..Year of the Amiga Desktop

      It's Year of the Amiga Workbench, you fool!

    4. Re:2010 by RiffRafff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Win95 didn't kill the Amiga, the new owners did, coupled with the first viable alternative that was available at the time...Linux.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    5. Re:2010 by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I tend to agree here. The real die-hard Amiga users probably ended up going to Mac or Linux, and everyone else just went to PCs.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:2010 by RMS+Eats+Toejam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dead wrong. Your speculation is fueled by pure ignorance about Amiga users and biased toward Linux. My father and I were about as hardcore as you can get and neither of us had any interest in Linux or any other Unix clone. Five other Amiga users I know also didn't follow suit with Linux. Why? Several reasons. For one, software. At the time Linux didn't (and in many ways still doesn't) have a robust commercial software library. Most Amiga users longed for the day they could walk into any small to mid-size department store and purchase software for our computers. Next, there is the Unix philosophy and culture, which for many of us seemed like yet another group of people desperately holding onto the past. When the Amiga died, many of us wanted to move forward. Not find another underdog to cling to. For the record, I called it quits in 1997, so I hung on even longer than most others. My father even longer.

      This isn't the first time I've had to defend Amiga from Linux zealots like you. We do not like Linux and don't wish to ever be associated with it, period. To us, the Amiga wasn't what Linux is to you. You can't even compare the two. It was a different time and a different animal. We also liked and supported commercial software. We wanted more of it available for the Amiga because we knew that's the key to a successful machine. About the only thing we had in common was a juvenile dislike for anything Microsoft simply because it was the competition. Well, guess what. Some of us grew up. The ones who didn't? Well, I bet you can figure out what happened to them.

      --
      Turning to a Linux advocate for thoughts on Microsoft is like asking Hitler how he felt about the Jews.
    7. Re:2010 by toejam13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. Most Amiga users I knew ended up getting a PC with Windows because that's where all of the games ended up going. I knew a few who went to Macs. I'm not aware of a single one who went to Linux, and I was fairly big into the Amiga scene in my area at the time.

      I think /.'s wishful thinking crowd is getting ahead of themselves.

    8. Re:2010 by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, have we unleashed an Atari ST fan?

      Here in Europe, the Amiga was the dominant home computer, end of story. The home market back then was far smaller than business, so in raw sales it didn't sell as many computers, but in the home market, it was the market leader. I'm sure there were fewer Amigas sold than all sorts of business equipment, whether it was fax machines, photocopiers or PCs, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a success.

      Well then maybe you can explain why the Amiga didn't beat Windows to the punch with all of the apps.

      What's that supposed to mean? What apps are you referring to? And let's not forget that in the era being discussed, "Windows" wasn't an OS, it was a complete joke of a GUI bolted on to a substandard single tasking command line operating system.

    9. Re:2010 by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Pentium was released in 1993, barely a year before Commodore went bust. The Video Toaster was released in 1990. So you're saying that Windows is so great, it can do what the Amiga was doing three years earlier.

      Ever notice how the quality of CG in Babylon 5 dramatically increased after the first season? That's because they dumped their Amigas and Vidoe Toasters in favour of more powerful Pentium PCs.

      Wait - *gasp* - you're telling me that as time passes, computer technology gets better? Wow, amazing! If they'd used faster Amigas, it would've got better too. The only reason they couldn't is because Commodore were then bust - so you're saying, Windows is so great, it can compete against platforms that are no longer produced? Amazing!

      We had that on PC too, along with the 3D Studio, which is the product line that went on to be used for making films like Iron Man and Avatar.

      Only years later. And last time I looked, those films were released recently - so you're saying Windows is so great, it can do better than a platform from 20 years ago? Brilliant!

      The thing I love is DOS fanboys trying to use the success of the PC today to justify their purchase of a slow DOS based expensive 286 PC back in the 80s or early 90s. It's hiliarious. The irony is that the ways in which PCs are better today is only because they've added what we took for granted back then on the Amiga (e.g., GUIs, multitasking, coprocessors for graphics).

      On top of that, the PCs and Windows of today have nothing in common with the machines of the 80s and early 90s (other than legacy crap that's an embarrassment to keep around). Just as "Macs" today have nothing in common with original Macs. And if Commodore were still around, you can bet that any "Amigas" would be running a different OS on different hardware too. So it's particularly nonsensical to try to use later hardware to justify a purchase 20 years ago, just based on a shared trademark.

      Today, I use Windows because I consider it the best today. In the 1990s, I used the Amiga. Use the best tool for the job at the time - if you can only justify your purchasing decision based on what happens to the trademark 20 years down the line, you have a problem.

    10. Re:2010 by hazydave · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows 95 had nothing at all to do with the Amiga's death, commercially. It wasn't even out on the market during the commercial life of the Amiga.

      There were two big factors in the Amiga's death. The smaller of the two, but still very substantial, was piracy. While Amigas had a number of very cool niches, the big engine of Amiga sales was home computers, largely driven by gaming. Most of that was in Europe, and at the peak of the Amiga years, piracy was so bad some releases that sold tens of thousands in the USA and Canada (smaller markets, and also not immune to piracy) might have sold 50 copies in Germany or the UK, the two largest markets for Amiga games.

      The second was Commodore, on many levels. For one, while they were spending literally tens of millions on bloated salaries and perks for the top management ( the top few guys at C= were making more than the top few guys at IBM or Apple in the early 90s), but we had the lowest R&D budget in the industry. We could deal with some of that simply by hiring the very best engineers one could hire, and working crazy hours. But given how dependent Amiga evolution was on custom chip work -- which is not cheap -- there was just no way to keep up without more investments. So many leading edge designs were done, but they came in later than they should have (our 64-bit graphics project started in 1988, for example, also supporting true color, planar and chunky graphics, MPEG-like compression modes in hardware, and 8-channel 16-bit sound, but by 1993, it was still prototype chips, and engineering didn't have the budget to complete things).

      These pretty much worked together in a vicious circle. Curiously, sales of high end systems remained at least flat, well into the end days. Folks who needed to run Video Toasters or Supergens or whatever still needed new Amigas. Commodore had never done much to promote these uses.

      There was only a brief hope post-Commodore, despite all the Amiga fans wanting more. The first resurrection, at ESCOM, formed a separate Amiga Technologies division, put existing Amigas back into production, and started working on a new hardware and software platform that could have been reasonable for the middle-late 1990s. Unfortunately, ESCOM themselves blew it in the PC market... and that killed it all.

      Nothing after that, far as I know, involved anyone who had actually made personal computers -- there were a bunch of wannabes, that's about it. And the ideas just got progressively worse with each change of hands. And THEY all knew it better than we ex-C= did. A few of us were consulting for ESCOM/Amiga Technologies, they had their own ideas, but they were smart enough to listen.

      But they were confused enough for the short time Gateway2000 owned the Amiga assets (you could make a decent enough multimedia computer today using Linux, at least if you set Windows up as the metric, but that was not true when Gateway was involved). And pretty much everything the "new" Amiga, Inc. did was wrong, but you couldn't tell them anything. Not that they were going to do anything new in hardware, anyway, but backing PowerPC in those days was the stupidest move possible -- no good for desktops, no good for portables, not even much of a presence in set top boxes. I guess, if they were building a GUI for a network switch, maybe :-)

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    11. Re:2010 by hazydave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, the Amiga 3000 didn't have built-in graphics that matched the number of colors of the VGA or Macs of the day. On the other hand, none of the PCs or Macs had hard drive performance capable of real video... the Amiga 3000 did. So it's not exactly the situation as described. Most folks using Amiga 3000s were doing video, with Toasters or other video hardware, and the Amiga's lack of color wasn't a killer.

      Yes, of course we wanted more. The original project for a next-generation chipset was started in 1988, but underfunded, so only prototypes existed by 1993. The other upgrade, originally called Pandora, then AA, then AGA, was started a few years later. It was supposed to ship in machine in early 1992, but by then, Commodore had not just a management disease, but a fatal one.

      That's also where the A600 came from. The A600 was the A300 (eg, to be cheaper than the A500) with a PCMCIA slot put in and GRR's super-cheap genlock taken out (yeah, the A300 was supposed to ship with a built-in genlock, at least if George got it working by then).

      The C65 was a stupid idea, and I believe it happened mainly because no one else wanted to work with the engineer involved, so they just left him alone. It was strange times at Commodore near the end.

      It's also sad what got cancelled when the management disease really kicked in. The A3000 has every area of the system we could improve improved, without the new custom chips. Some of that got expensive, which is why it didn't immediately trickle down to cheaper systems. That was Spring of 1990. In 1992, we were planning to have the A3000+, which would have had a 68040 CPU and the AT&T DSP3210 for audio and modem processing (I actually built prototypes, more like the A3000 than we had planned). But we also had a 25MHz 68030 machine, dubbed the A1000+, planned for the same time frame, with the "AA" chipset, the usual expansions, but closer to the A500/A1200 price than the A3000. Both of these were cancelled when the management changed in 1991. The mid-range machine was killed entirely, and the A4000 that came out late in 1992 was missing everything but the "AA" chips... they even forced us to take out the DMA-driven SCSI bus, so our disk I/O got as crappy as that of a Mac or a PC.

      In short, these things don't happen overnight. And despite what you see when the hardware comes out, it's not always really an engineering problem.

      For more about what went wrong, see my film: http://www.frogpondmedia.com/dbv

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    12. Re:2010 by hazydave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The "real" 68030 was used because, well, we wanted to use a 68030, the "Embedded Controller" version hadn't been made yet (these used "real" 68030 chips with MMUs that failed the test, at least initially), and, well, you don't put an EC chip in your high-end machine. Also, the A3000 ran UNIX.. the A3000/UX wasn't terribly successful (largely due to Commodore management somewhere pulling their typical stupid moves), but it was the first available System V release 4 outside of AT&T and Sun.

      There was no technical problem booting from an '040 card, though yeah, the MMU code from the EPROM version of Kickstart would not run on the '040, they changed the MMU model. So you needed real ROMs, or modified EPROMs. Most users with a reasonable amount of RAM put KickStart in RAM anyway, because it was just faster (still is today).

      We actually had a prototype of the first '040 card, the big fat one with external L2 cache designed for UNIX, at the A3000 launch. We were going back and forth with Motorola over whether we could show it, since no one outside Motorola had yet shown off an '040 working in public. They ultimately couriered over a "golden" chip, said "yes", and ... then some fool manager decided we weren't going to show it anyway, at the launch.

      There was no official A3000/040 from Commodore, largely because, when the '040 came out, it was unexpectedly hot, and the case designers felt it wasn't viable. Or at least, that was their excuse. I used them for years without issues, and there were many 3rd party '040 cards as well.

      While the A3000 had what looks essentially like an '030 bus, it did allow some '040 functions. For example, a well designed '040 card could do burst writes to A3000 DRAM (so could the DMA controller)... the '030 didn't do burst writes. I designed the CPU card interfaces in the A2000 and A3000 -- they were essentially the same as having the CPU on the motherboard, not a compromise. The A4000 didn't even initially bother with a motherboard CPU (they later put one in, to enable a cheaper A4000 with EC030 in it... I was on to other things by then).

      --
      -Dave Haynie
  2. Amiga Pansys by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Atari TOS/GEM ( And later the open sourced MiNT ) was/is still better! So take that! Seriously tho, see where all that bickering got us? Compartmentalized and marginalized into oblivion as the world of mass produced, consumer oriented mediocrity won in the end.... But I suppose at least we are in the same boat now, going nowhere.. A shame really, as a 'PC' just has no soul.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  3. Move on by jdigriz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey man, I loved the Amiga as much as anybody. We had an A1000 in 1986 and got an A3000 thereafter. Fine computers, if they had had Apple's marketing acumen, they might have ruled the world. However, it really is time to let go now. Mac OS X is superior in just about every respect, and the hardware is lightyears beyond what CBM had. Emulators are great for nostalgia, we'll always have Nuclear War.

    1. Re:Move on by dosius · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's the joke that with Commodore's marketing "savvy", had they tried to do something like KFC they would have called it "Warm Dead Bird" ...

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re:Move on by RiffRafff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I heard it as marketing sushi as "cold, dead fish."

      Cheers from the (long-defunct) Amiga-centric Ack! Phffft! BBS! (circa 1992)

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    3. Re:Move on by butlerm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And Mac OS "classic" was not an OS, was a crash-prone, non-multitasking toy.

      Yes. Structurally speaking, Mac OS Classic was about as much an operating system as DOS was (aside from a a very nice GUI programming environment). One application running at a time, and special tricks required to switch to anything else. Programs were statically compiled to access critical system state variables at fixed addresses in low memory, there was no locking, no scheduler, etc. There was no real multitasking because of that, not even cooperative multitasking.

          By comparison Amiga OS was a modern multiprocess multitasking operating system in every way except originally there was no memory protection, and no virtual memory. More like a modern embedded system than a general purpose operating system, but *very* fast, and ridiculously easy to program for.

    4. Re:Move on by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm afraid it doesn't allow more than a single resolution on my screen at once, it just offers a resizable window. Besides which, we're talking about hardware here.

      From wikipedia:

      Uses of the copper

      * It can be used to change video hardware mid-frame. This allows the Amiga to change video configuration, including resolution, between scanlines. This allows the Amiga to display different horizontal resolutions, different colour depths, and entirely different frame buffers on the same screen. The AmigaOS graphical user interface allows two programs to operate at different resolutions in different buffers, while both are visible on the screen simultaneously.

      So is the Amiga more powerful than both VirtualBox and the Mac? Again, Amiga wins! :P

  4. Platform makes Mac look cheap.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, the Amiga system makes Mac systems look cheap by comparison, almost $600 for the motherboard alone that only gives you 512 MB of RAM and a 533 Mhz CPU! You can get twice that with a Mac mini. While I do realize that this is a niche product, its still -very- expensive.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Platform makes Mac look cheap.... by Macrat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but don't forget that AmigaOS doesn't fuck around.

      Yeah, it doesn't do anything. It's a corpse.

    2. Re:Platform makes Mac look cheap.... by toejam13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are a number of reasons why the Amiga could run so well using a 50MHz processor or slower.

      1) The OS used a flat memory model. The entire address space of the 680x0 looked the same to all processes. So there was no slowdown doing page table translations on a per process basis.
      2) Every process could read and write to every other process's memory. One process could pass a memory pointer to a second process, which would then have direct read-write access to every data structure the first one had. No having to pass huge amounts of data using semaphores or pipes.
      3) The GUI was very primitive. The BOOPSI widget subsystem was about as bare to the metal as you could get. Even extensions such as ClassAct/ReAction were very minimalistic. That made it very fast.

      Of course, that all comes with a price.

      1) The flat open memory model meant that any sort of malicious software could eavesdrop on any other memory location without bother. Stealing passwords or silently copying data from your word processor? No problem!
      2) That same memory model meant that any program could go outside of its bounds and trash any other program in memory, including the kernel. That's why Amigas tended to crash more often than even Windows 95 boxes.
      3) Memory fragmentation was horrible because the OS had no form of garbage collection. You couldn't move allocation blocks around in memory because there was no form of abstraction, either using Win32 style handles or virtual memory pages.
      4) No memory tracking / garbage collection. If a process closed without freeing memory, it was gone forever. After a while, you'd run out of memory and would have to reboot.
      5) Every modern widget toolkit around today, including Qt, GTK+ and Cocoa, generally make BOOPSI look absolutely prehistoric. Try doing any sort of raster or Unicode based apps under AmigaOS. You'd probably have to write your own BOOPSI extensions to get what you want.
      6) You would have hit the 4GB limit of the 68020/030/040 much faster had the platform remained around unaltered. That's because every process would share that space. With OSes like OS X, BSD and Windows, each process gets its own 4GB (~3GB after kernel reservations) to play around in.

      Yeah. Even your mobile phone has an OS with better memory management and UI functionality than your Amiga 4000.

    3. Re:Platform makes Mac look cheap.... by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of that is very true. The amiga's memory management was the biggest problem and they did tend to crash if you had badly programmed apps. In general use however it crashed far less than win95 and even less than 98. It wasn't until win2000 that I saw a microsoft operating system that I actually considered superior to the amiga. Unforunately the hardware couldn't keep up after the death of CBM.

  5. The Amiga, Circa 2010 — Dead and Loving It by omar.sahal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never owned or even used an Amiga, but I can't help but respect the longevity of its influence.
    Don't listen to the disparaging remarks on slashdot. I would never have known even the little I know about Amiga, had it not been for the articles here on /.
    Obviously reality matters (time and commitments etc) but if you guys can build a system in your own time that works keep doing it, it may even become a big deal to every one some day. enjoy

  6. Re:The Amiga, Circa 2010 — Dead and Loving I by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oddly enough, the link wasn't a rickroll. But a tribute video to the Amiga set to "still alive"

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  7. A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by An+dochasac · · Score: 3, Informative
    It's common knowledge (at least to Amigaphiles) that the 1985 Amiga was at least a decade ahead of the Microsoft game with hardware graphics, built in speech synthesis, preemptive multitasking... What surprises me is how many Amiga ideas died with the Amiga. Must the whole industry suffer from Microsoft's monopoly and Commodore's mismanagement? Here are some ideas I'm still waiting for:
    1. To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start->Shutdown...wait possibly forever...
    2. Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.
    3. Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST > speak:" to say a directory listing?
    4. Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)
    5. The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.
    6. Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?
    1. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?

      Um, what hardware monopolies are you talking about? Yeah, just about everything is x86 now, but I wouldn't call either AMD or Intel a monopoly in CPU terms. Same with graphics cards, its about 50% nVidia and 50% ATI though most everyone who isn't a gamer uses integrated graphics.

      And if you want things to work really well on -your- hardware then try running Gentoo and compiling everything with high levels of optimization.

      One of the main reasons why everything isn't hardware centric is because people upgrade at different points. For example, not everyone is running a Core i7 at the moment, someone might be reading /. on a low-end Intel Atom, A Pentium 4, an older Athlon, or any number of different CPUs. Its bad enough that a Pentium 4 is now considered sluggish for most modern games and OSes, but think of how worse upgrading would be if it would simply refuse to run on a Pentium 4 because it didn't support some of the features.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by CottonThePirate · · Score: 3, Interesting

      #3 is taken care of by the little known mac command line "say". I just tried and "ls | say" read out my directory from the terminal. #1 I totally agree with, I understand about modern disk caches and the like, but hitting the button and walking away would be nice.

    3. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start->Shutdown...wait possibly forever...

      Sorry, you can keep this feature. I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.

      Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.

      Fullscreen windows. Why slide them up and down when you can switch with Alt+Tab or Cmd+Tab. Also check out Virtual desktops, you might like them.

      Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST > speak:" to say a directory listing?

      On the Mac at least you can do this:
      ls | say

      Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)

      Filesystems have come a long way, check out something like btrfs

      The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.

      How about tucking the slim and very flat keyboard on top of the foot of an iMac. Or, use a wireless keyboard where you can move it out of the way anywhere you like.

      Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?

      I like to have modern abstractions, like a HAL, so my OS doesn't need to be written in hand-tuned assembly specifically for the hardware I'm running it on. Even in the relatively closed ecosystem that runs Mac OS X there's far more variety in hardware that the one OS image will run on than there was in Amiga land. What kinds of tasks could a 7MHz Amiga do that would cause your 2GHz PC to struggle? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Even back in the mid 90's when Amiga fans were extolling the virtues of the custom hardware in the Amiga, on the PC side of things we were able to achieve much of the same by brute force. Copper Bars - done by palette switching very quickly in the horizontal retrace interval. Sprites - once again, done using brute force on the CPU, or with graphics card hardware. Even compiling the sprite to assembly to speed up it's operations. Using the blitter to move/copy memory quickly. Done using, once again, brute force or DMA access and done as quickly.

      I'm all for nostalgia, but don't let it cloud your vision with just how far computers have done today.

    4. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be fair, the 1985 Amiga wasn't nearly as powerful, nor as capable, as the 1995 Windows PC.

      A 1985 Amiga could multitask better than any 1995 Windows PC. That leaves out OS/2, which was much more capable than Windows circa 1995, but hardly anyone ran OS/2, either. OS/2 met the same fate as the Amiga - epic mismanagement. If the Amiga had survived and continued to evolve, adding protected mode and VM, it still would have been far ahead of anything in 1995. Too bad CBM cheaped-out on evolving the hardware to keep up with the times. That's a lesson one would've thought they would've learned from Atari's behaviour during the 8-bit era. Oh well. It's interesting that the same guy is responsible for both great platforms - the Atari 800 series, and the Amiga. RIP Jay Miner!

      In an alternate universe, the computing world is dominated by machines powered by the 64-bit evolutionary descendant of the 6502, the 65864, all labeled Atari, CBM died with the 8-bit world because Miner stayed with Atari, few felt the need to go 'x86' because they were overpriced low-tech pieces of crap, and Woz left Apple to join Miner at Atari. Jobs started his own cult and poisoned himself and his followers in 1992 following a meteorite sighting, and Jerry Pournelle still writes for Byte.

      Most people who run Linux do so on Kaypro XII machines with Dvorak keyboards (and type in Esperanto).

    5. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      # To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start->Shutdown...wait possibly forever...

      Most drivers did a sync when you did a soft reboot, e.g. ctrl-amiga-amiga. This only applies if you had write-delayed caching, which was not the default for most early storage devices.

      Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.

      Yes, that was very cool for its day. But now we have Expo.

      # Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST > speak:" to say a directory listing?

      You can pipe text to an executable on windows or Unix today.

      The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.

      They make stands that do this that don't necessitate a retarded case with little expansion room like the A1000.

      Tight integration of hardware with O.S.

      We added layers of abstraction to allow the hardware to do new things, and to permit the use of arbitrary third-party hardware instead of being locked in. You can get a PowerPC Amiga-ish board today, it's six hundred bucks. Or for that you could build the system I'm using now, a Phenom II 720 (3-core, 2.8GHz) with 4GB RAM, 250 GB 7200RPM/16MB cache disk, and more I/O than you can shake a stick at... And the gaming performance is not astoundingly worse than scripted demo performance, which is to say that I scarcely care if I get 90% or 98% of the capabilities of this hardware.

      why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?

      Har de har de har. Even file management was pathetic comparing a 25MHz Amiga to this system running Ubuntu, which has a footprint bigger than the whole hard disk in my A2500. You're succumbing to the temptation to view the past through rose-colored glasses. It wasn't that rosy. The Amiga was an amazing platform for its day, and a $600 Amiga could beat the pants off a $2500 PC in most ways. But it's an enthusiast's platform today, and you can get much more out of a PC costing much less.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by AndrewStephens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had an Amiga and it was great, however the world has moved on since then. To answer your points:

      1. To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start->Shutdown...wait possibly forever...

      No, you waited for the disk light to stop flashing and then turned it off, hoping that all applications had flushed out all of their data. The Amiga got away with it (mostly) by not really having a lot of long lived service-type applications.

      2. Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.

      I do miss this - having each application on its own screen (with its own screen mode) was very useful. Now that we are all running high-res desktops with 24 bit colour, the different screen modes aren't so important, and software like "Spaces" on MacOSX fills much the same need.

      3. Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST > speak:" to say a directory listing?

      That was cool, but fairly niche. I am disappointed that computer generated speech as not come further, the MacOSX voices sound only marginally better than the old Amiga voice from 25 years ago.

      4. Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)

      This was very useful on unreliable floppies, but used precious space on the disk and made updating files slower. Now that removable storage is more reliable the trade-off doesn't seem worth it.

      5. The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.

      6. Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?

      What you are basically wishing for is MacOSX, where one company controls both the hardware and the software, and it does (suck it, haters) produce better computers. However, even MacOSX has abstraction layers and drivers because Amiga-style direct hardware intergration turned out to be a terrible long-term plan. The clever hardware tricks that made the Amiga1000/500 so cheap and fast back in the early 80s ended up holding back Amiga development 5 years later.

      To sum up, while the Amiga was (in a lot of ways) ahead of its time, modern computers (and I am including Windows in this as well) do more and operate in a different environment than in the 80s. Although the Amiga was fast and amazingly inexpensive for the time, for the equivalent money today you could buy a high-spec iMac that is better in every way. Those who pine after the lost Amiga are living in the past.

      --
      sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
    7. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      one could talk about an x86 monopoly, which is a weird instruction set, based on a weird CPU architecture. Though the architecture has by now been mostly microcoded away, it makes me sick every time I see x86 assembly code. Even Intel thinks they can do better now, but their RISC and later VLIW efforts failed in the face of x86-entrenchedness (trying to match x86 assembly ugliness with that word !)

      there's also a kind of directX graphics monopoly: though ATI and nVidia go about implementing it in different ways, basically all they do is target directX, which does simplify things for developpers but prevents really innovating designs. OpenGL is tacked on as an afterthought, but all openGL seems to do these days is play catch-up.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    8. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by StoatBringer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fullscreen windows. Why slide them up and down when you can switch with Alt+Tab or Cmd+Tab. Also check out Virtual desktops, you might like them.

      It's difficult to compare with modern operating systems, but the sliding windows were really clever. Each screen could be a completely different resolution with a different colour map and screen format. If you Alt-Tab between full-screen applications of different resolutions, you can still only see one at a time. With the Amiga, you could see all of them at once. For example, if you're playing a full-screen game today and alt-tab to the desktop, the game will typically switch back into a window and the screen will switch to the desktop resolution. The Amiga method would let you simply drag the full-screen game screen to reveal the higher-resolution desktop behind it, without forcing the game to swap back to a window. Even virtual desktops aren't as clever or flexible as that.

      --
      Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
    9. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by butlerm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, you can keep this feature. I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.

      In order to safely flip the power switch to power off an early Amiga, you had to wait until all pending disk writes were complete. This was pretty easy to do if you didn't have any disk writing background tasks running. Just wait for the drive lights to go out and then wait another couple of seconds for the superblock write to happen (which causes the drive light to flash a second time), and then you were good.

      Woe be to the person who didn't wait for the second flash, because he/she would generally have to repair the disk on reboot. That happened to me a couple of times before I learned my lesson.

      The real performance advantage of the early Amigas over many modern PCs is *no virtual memory*. It is amazingly fast to do just about anything if half of your applications haven't paged out to disk, as Linux is wont to do for inactive processes even when there are gigabytes of free memory in the system.

      The Amiga, of course, originally didn't have any memory protection, which made programmers very careful. If you want to develop something for a quasi-embedded system it is ten times easier to debug "kernel level" code on an Amiga than for practically any other system, because the debugger, editor, test tools, etc. are all running in the same address space as what is being tested.

      If you develop kernel mode code your kernel will crash and burn anyway, especially painful if you are on the same system, so it is awfully convenient to take advantage of the simplicity it allows. Even with memory protection turned on, Amiga OS is a single address space operating system. It is ridiculously simple to develop multitasking systems for a single address space OS compared to the hoops you have to jump through to do the same things in user mode in a more traditional Unix style operating system. Much higher performance too, of course.

    10. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, that makes no sense.

      It sounds like you are talking about auto-stretch scaling. That the monitor is at 800x600, the game is 320x240 and is automatically up-scaled to 800x600 by the OS. It isn't possible for a monitor to display "multiple resolutions" at once by definition of what a 'resolution' is. Auto-scale also presents aliasing problems without a decent anti-aliasing algorithm.

      Yeah, unless you saw it in action, it's hard to imagine. It is exactly like the parent post describes, and you can have two (and only two) different resolutions displayed at once. You could be playing a game at 320x240 and drag your desktop down over half the screen, at a higher resolution. It was a horizontal division between the two (you couldn't have, say, one smaller window of one resolution on a desktop of a larger resolution) and (remember, we're using CRT based monitors here, and hardware that has an intimate knowledge of how the scanlines are driven in the limited range of CRT displays the Amiga supported) and the top half of the screen would be drawn at a different resolution to the bottom half of the screen, or wherever the division was dragged down to. It was pretty magical stuff...

    11. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're both right. The scanning was the same for the whole screen. The copper just reconfigured the graphics chip at a certain raster position so that it would output pixels from a different memory location, in a different color mode and with different pixel sizes (durations really). It still all ended up looking the same to the monitor. Remember that the monitor was basically just a TV set without a tuner, so we're talking about the equivalent of a fixed-frequency monitor.

    12. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by butlerm · · Score: 4, Informative

      It sounds like you are talking about auto-stretch scaling. That the monitor is at 800x600, the game is 320x240 and is automatically up-scaled to 800x600 by the OS.

      There were only two basic horizontal resolutions on a standard Amiga - 320 and 640. There was hardware to switch resolutions (and palettes and bit depths) on a scan line by scan line basis. There were no aliasing problems because there was no real scaling done, the graphic chip just output pixels at one of two different rates (albeit with different palettes and bit depths), potentially on a line by line basis.

      So you could grab the menu bar at the top of the screen and pull it down (vertically) to reveal another screen behind it. Separate frame buffers - one program (games and paint programs especially) could write all over the frame buffer of a screen that was invisible or only partially visible on the screen. All this vertical screen motion didn't involve moving any bits around in memory, so it was instantaneous - no waiting for anything to redraw.

      The Amiga allowed you to dedicate back buffers (so called "smart refresh") to ordinary windows as well, to avoid redraws when a part of a window was exposed or brought to the front. Screen level double buffering, hardware line drawing, pixel blitting, bitmap movement, vertical palette changes, hardware sprites, all par for the course.

      With a hardware sprite, for example, you could have a mouse pointer that moved around without ever touching the underlying frame buffer. The application didn't care, didn't worry, the mouse pointer was just an operating system controlled sprite that was overlaid on the video output in hardware. None of this "hide the mouse pointer", then draw, then restore (or XOR) the mouse pointer stuff that was common in competing operating systems at the time.

      Similar hardware, by the way, was used to implement many of the early Atari game machines, inexpensive consoles that often implemented very nice games with only 4K of RAM (albeit typically 16 or more kilobytes of game cartridge ROM on top of that). On Atari game consoles there was usually no bitmap at all, just a bunch of hardware tiles and sprites. Can't fit much of a bitmap in 4K of RAM (or less in some cases).

      In any case, the Atari graphics hardware guy ended up at Amiga, and the remaining Atari folks designed an Amiga competitor (the Atari ST) with very conventional frame buffer support and none of the exotic graphics hardware goodness Atari had a considerable reputation for, let alone as implemented on steroids in the Amiga hardware design, at very low cost.

    13. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but their RISC and later VLIW efforts failed in the face of x86-entrenchedness

      No, they failed because Intel does not seem to employ a single person who can design a decent instruction set. The i860 and Itanium both managed to produce something even more hideous than x86. Both have some nice ideas, but producing a compiler that generates decent code for either is insanely difficult. Both had a huge theoretical throughput advantage over x86, but both failed to deliver. The i860 could perform twice as fast as an 486 with carefully optimised code on both, but was slower with code that a top of the line compiler for both would spit out. It was eventually relegated to performing graphics acceleration, which was one thing the architecture did quite well.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better is a strong term. It's not quite as bad. You have a few more registers and, more importantly, most of the instructions can now use any register as a target instead of just eax, but it's still pretty nasty. Compare it to something like ARM and it's hideous. The other nice thing about x86-64 is that they got rid of segments. Having a segments is nice in theory, because it lets you do things like object or array bounds checking in hardware. It's terrible in practice on x86 because you can only have 8192 of them per process (and another 8192 global ones), which isn't enough for very much. They also got rid of rings 1 and 2, which was incredibly bad timing because people had just started using them.

      The main improvement that x86-64 gives you is that it SSE is supported on all 64-bit x86 systems, so you can always use SSE (register to register) instructions for floating point instead of x87 (hybrid stack-based architecture that it's impossible to generate good code for) instructions.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. Re:News? by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

    It beats someone trying to recreate them later using Frogger DNA.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  9. From one generation to another by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 1960's: "I was at Woodstock!"
    The 1980's: "I had an Amiga!"

  10. what personal computing lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here are a few things that personal computing lost when the Amiga died.

    * Abstraction of data handlers from apps. Datatype handlers were stored in their own directory. You could drop new ones in, and more or less *every* app of that type (sound/video/images/text/etc) would suddenly be able to read the new format. No farting about with "this app only handles image formats X and Y, but not Z". Drop in a datatype for Z, and it now handles Z. Sound editor didn't support saving in mp3? Drop in a datatype. Now it (and every other sound app on your system) does. It wasn't perfect, and some apps didn't support it, but many did.

    * Single metadata format for everything. We now have 92340860159 different file formats, many replicating the same functionality as other ones. The Amiga had IFF (Interchange File Format). Ok, eventually all the stupid PC formats (then typically without any metadata to speak of and far less well designed) were supported, but originally IFF was just about it once you got above ASCII. Apps could be built to handle just a subset of the data from a file- e.g, just the sound from a video multimedia file, for example. You could parse the container without having to understand all the data in it. Granted, there are many other formats now which do that, but in the 80's it was groundbreaking, and with ONE container format instead of a million, you stood a much bigger chance of any given app supporting the scheme. To boot, it was open: most apps published their storage formats, and were typically good about using established standards for images, movies, sound, etc.

    * About 10 years of time loss while DOS and later Windows PCs caught up to what the Amiga started out with. Who knows where we'd be now if they hadn't been so far behind from the start.

  11. Re:Obligatory //gs whine by adarn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only time I have had 2 computers at the same time in my life was when I purchased an Amiga 500 as the IIgs days were waning.

    The amiga was vastly superior, even aside from how more games game out in the first week I owned my amiga than the entire time I owned the IIgs.

    And lets not forget the demo scene.

    God, i miss when computers were fun.

  12. MorphOS by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 2, Informative

    I find it odd that no one has mentioned MorphOS.

  13. Misplaced sentiment. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The whole Amiga OS story is utterly misplaced and foolish. Amiga, for those who were into PCs, really, was a story about hardware that was way ahead of its time for the price. You had a 32 bit processor in the 68k married up with 4 channel waveform audio and hardware accelerated bitmap graphics. It was amazing, it really was. But as someone who learned C on the Amiga, I never thought the Operating System was really all that great. Indeed, I had a really fun summer working on a game engine with a friend of mine and our biggest triumph was NOT to use the operating system to manage the Blitter because it was too damned slow. I mean, Intuition had its upsides, for sure, but overall, the whole Amiga story was about the hardware. People bought that Hardware Reference Manual because it was so well written, and, in those days, you had IBM PC's with CGA / EGA graphics and the best sound you got from them was a dopy Adlib or SoundBlaster with tinny crappy FM synthesis and Amiga had faux true-color displays with quadraphonic sound playing. It was a revolution.

    For me, to get that same kind of hardware buzz, since then, has really been in workstations. I loved my Dual Pentium II with first a FireGL and then a Voodoo2 and then an nVidia GeForce board, that was Amiga to me. I loved my Dual Opteron, that was Amiga to me. And right now, I have my dual Nehalem Xeon with a GeForce GTS, that is Amiga to me. Amiga's not a software story, never has been. It's about hardware that makes you imagine entirely new kinds of applications with just the sheer power available, power that makes you drool, or at least, is really fun to screw around with.

    --
    This is my sig.
  14. Re: X vs. Amiga by butlerm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    [begin rant] X is precisely everything the Amiga was not, an innovation that set open systems graphics back by at least a decade. Aside from an SGI app here or there I never saw an X interface that looked good until 1998 or so. Functional yes, attractive compared to the alternatives, not in the slightest.

    X was so poorly designed that network transparency, which should have been its greatest strength, was essentially unusable anywhere other than the local LAN, and still is to this day. RDP runs circles around what X can do, for example, across any real network. To get X to perform like RDP you have to have an intermediary layer like NX that uses all sorts of tricks to work around the design deficiencies of X in the first place. You have to use some sort of wrapping protocol just to get rudimentary security, so you can actually open a remote terminal session across the Internet, a wrapper for which there are no real standards, and which doesn't come configured or installed on a default basis practically anywhere. Let's run SSH, map a bunch of ports, and set a half dozen environment variables! No thank you.

    Regrettably, the history of X largely consists of undoing or making extensions to work around the severe limitations of the original design, limitations that (among other things) made X programming more difficult than practically any other graphics system on the planet, with the possible exception of (horror of horrors) Win32.
    [end rant]

  15. Speak for yourself by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rather than simply mod your post flamebait, I think I'll respond to it point-by-point.

    For one, software. At the time Linux didn't (and in many ways still doesn't) have a robust commercial software library.

    Pure 100% distilled fanboy bullcrap. Posix. Go read up on it. Java might be a nice follow up read - Linux runs that just fine too. I'll leave it up to you to determine their industry impact.

    Next, there is the Unix philosophy and culture, which for many of us seemed like yet another group of people desperately holding onto the past.

    Seemed is the big word in this sentence. The Internet is still primarily Un*x boxes. You know it, we know it. Get over it.

    This isn't the first time I've had to defend Amiga from Linux zealots like you. We do not like Linux and don't wish to ever be associated with it, period.

    All of us, huh? I loved my Amiga too. In fact I still own one. But that doesn't mean you get the right to speak for me.

    About the only thing we had in common was a juvenile dislike for anything Microsoft simply because it was the competition. Well, guess what. Some of us grew up. The ones who didn't? Well, I bet you can figure out what happened to them.

    I have no problem with Microsoft. Juvenile hate is juvenile hate - even yours.

    I was hired in to a firm to write Linux drivers in my post Amiga days. That same firm gave me a job that paid off my mortgage. That's what happened to one of them.

    And yes, I also do Microsoft work there too. I'm not a platform bigot of any kind. Some problems require a hammer, other problems a screwdriver. Use the appropriate tool for the job. Learn them all. Limiting your worldview simply makes you less useful. Learn MacOS, learn Linux, learn Windows. Know what each does best and use where appropriate.

    And cease with the fanboy whining.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  16. Re: X vs. Amiga by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the big problem with X with regards to network transparency is xlib, not the X11 protocol. The protocol is very well designed for remote use (although not as nice as NeWS or DPS), but xlib was designed to make X11 programming 'easy' and so wrapped an asynchronous protocol in a synchronous API. Run a typical xlib program over the network and you'll see that the network is not saturated and the CPU load on both machines is tiny. The reason for this is that the client is spending most of its time in blocking xlib calls. If you have a 100Mb/s network with 100ms latency, you can only make ten blocking xlib calls per second, which doesn't come close to using the network throughput.

    XCB does a lot to improve on this. It's very close to the protocol and designed for asynchronous use. If you write good XCB code, your app will be very responsive over the network (or all apps using your toolkit, if you are using the XCB to write a toolkit).

    Xlib is too low level to be nice for writing apps and too high level to be nice for writing toolkits.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. Here's what I still miss from AmigaOS by hazydave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Intelligent Window Manager.

    When you're running an application in AmigaOS, let's say it's so busy, it's not reading window messages (Windows would report this app as "not responding"). For most applications, you could still move the window around, shrink it, grow it back, etc. At worst, the contents of just that window don't refresh. You don't have the window "stuck" not responding, you don't have parts of other windows getting into each other, as you often see in other OSs. You can even resize the window (again, you MAY not see it refresh properly, or you may, depending on the nature of the window itself).

    Datatypes

    System level objects used everywhere. You don't care about the kind of graphic file or video you're opening, you just open an IMAGE or a VIDEO or a DOCUMENT or whatever in your program, and you can open any of these known to the system. BeOS implemented a similar idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. Sure, there are programs that do this for you, and different systems within the same OS to deal with SOME media types. But nothing as complete, not at least that I've seen.

    AREXX

    Every program of consequence had an AREXX port. Basically, any command the program could understand was available in AREXX (standard scripting language, originally invented at IBM). So you could build very interesting interactions between running programs. Linux users get a taste of this, between a million command lines and pipes, but this was so much more powerful. And very well supported, pretty much in every commercial application.

    ASYNCHRONOUS I/O

    Every I/O operation to every device driver could be done synchronously or asynchronously. So what becomes a pain in the butt in an OS like Linux was a couple of extra lines of code in AmigaOS. Of course, in those days, there was no point of asynchronous I/O for Windows or MacOS, since they didn't multitask and pretty much had to dedicate the CPU to loading or unloading your I/O, anyway. But it was a beautiful thing in AmigaOS, in the day.

    Probably some other stuff, but I gotta go. It's not that I plan on firing up my A3000 when I get home, rather than that home-integrated Q9550 PC with nVidia 8800GT graphics, 8GB RAM, twin 1920x1200 monitors in 24-bit, and 11TB of total attached storage. My old Amiga was weak at electronics CAD, and I'd still be waiting for that first AVC render for Blu-Ray creation to finish... not to mention the lack of support for huge drives and all. But it's a shame when you have to leave behind better ideas just to move forward a bit.

    And don't even get me started on word processing... all the power I had with Scribe at CMU in the 80s, to be stuck with things like Word or OpenOffice, it's crime. I do like the WYSIWYG editing, just wish they didn't have to remove 100 IQ points from the formatting engine to get that....

    --
    -Dave Haynie