why are you glad you got DSL? 768k/128k service for the same cost as 1.5/256k
Are you saying all DSL is 768/128? If you think that, you are horribly mistaken. Not everyone has such shitty DSL in their area.
My DSL provider gives me 1.5/256, for $49 per month. I also get a static IP, DNS services, several e-mail boxes, and almost never do I get downtime. Not only that, I don't even have to use PPPOE.
DirectTV DSL truely IS a very good provider. When I first started out with them over a year ago they had a few minor issues but it's all blue skies now.
In fact, the ONLY people in my area who WILL touch cable are those who for whatever reason can't get DSL. The cable provider in our area (Charter) blows goat cheese. Frequent downtimes, lag for no good reason, crappy agreements, no static IP, not allowed to run any servers, etc. etc.
I think the reasons for using DSL are pretty obvious. There is no argument here.
One slice of roast beef fits in my hand, as does 50.
hah hah. I said the same thing, but I was actually being serious when I said the palm of your hand.
A slice of roast beef, if balled up, might just fit in your hand perfectly if you clasp your fingers around it. Maybe two slices. It's going to be different slightly for everybody, and it's hardly scientific to use "the palm of your hand" as a way to gauge how much you should eat.
The reason I've been told the palm of your hand is a good rule of thumb, though is because a "handful" of meat, the size of "your hand" is a close aproximation of about how much meat someone your size should probably be eating.
I know it sounds silly, but believe me, if I were to say you shouldn't have any more than 2 ounces of meat a day, someone could turn around and say "But I'm 6'5" and 270 lbs of hulking mass." If that's the case, that person's palm is probably also about 6 inches wide, and he very easily might need more than a couple of ounces.
Of course, I'm not a nutritionist myself, I just have the rather unpleasant curse of knowing a few, so I can't lay out a proper diet plan for you. But I can tell you it seems to be pretty much agreed upon by those who should know that you really, truely, honestly, do not need to be eating very much meat.
This is of course not the same as saying "Don't eat meat." Do not confuse the two statements. Apparently, protein is NOT the only important thing you get from meat.
Bacteria is everywhere. It's always growing, reproducing, and constantly mutating. So, if you take a sample of any given group of bacteria, it is easy to assume they won't all be of the same breed, and even those of the same breed won't all be of the same genetic line. The fact is, being simpler lifeforms they evolve and mutate faster.
Now, let's say you manufacture a chemical that will kill bacteria "X". You take a dish full of bacteria and since they're very obviously not all the same it is highly possible that a few of those millions will be immune to your neat little chemical. You pour it in and you take a count and let's say only a few dozen live. Well guess what? When they reproduce you're left with a colony of bacterium that is immune to your neat little drug. Next time it gets a good growth pattern going, your antibiotic may not be as effective.
Fortunately, our bodies fight infections on their own, so antibiotics aren't a "kill all" type of attack, but more like a "kill most and let the body take care of the rest". For this reason it is a good idea to ALWAYS take all of your prescribed antibiotics, assuming of course you actually needed them in the first place. You are basically helping your body help it's self.
Nearly all nutritionists will tell you that not eating meat at all is doing as much harm to you as it is doing good.
The proper advice is to avoid eating TOO MUCH meat. Even if you don't think you are eating too much red meat, you probably still are. You should never eat more red-meat than you can hold in the palm of your hand. Really, that's all you need in a single meal. Fish is an excellent food source, and turkey (or chicken when cooked properly) is also an excellent alternative to red meat.
So you can get your meat without pumping yourself full of the nasty crap that comes from it.
I had a tape drive on my C64, and never once did I use it. In fact, I don't remember ever plugging it in. It might not have even worked for all I knew. I had a 1541 and the idea that a Commodore 64 could be useful is slightly alien to me.
Now, I did have a TRS-80 COCO 3 without a floppy drive, and running things from tape on that was pure hell.
Why? You don't think any software is worth a patent? That's foolish.
No, it's not, actually.
You see, the problem is that there is a really hard to define line between what is prior art and what is not. Most code is almost always in part using other pre-existing code, be it calls to OS functions or compiler supplied functions.
If I write a program that does something unique, using a whole mix of pre-existing function calls or even if doing nothing more than simply using a well established compiler, I'm still building my work off of other work.
If bar() is a function that returns an INT, and foo() is a function that takes and INT and returns a FLOAT, then is foo(bar()) something new because I put it together that way?
Let's say yes, for one moment. Let's say that I'm the first person ever to perform this combination to create a unique result. Then my patent obviously applies to the PROCESS of getting a FLOAT from an INT. This is a bad example because PRIOR ART already exists, but let's say it didn't.
Now, which do you patent, the whole idea of getting a FLOAT from an INT, or my exact way of doing it? If you patent my exact usage of the functions Foo and Bar then one could simply write another way of doing it. If you patent the ENTIRE process it's self, you might inadvertantly stumble upon prior art that you didn't know about, or someone later on might do the exact same thing for other reasons and then break your patent.
You are obviously then going to draw back on the argument that not all software is THAT simple. Some processes are NOT obvious and are VERY complex and should be allowed to be patented because they are more complex than either FOO or BAR or even FOOBAR. But then that changes this from a technical argument to a philisophical one. At which point does a method or process become so complex it warrents a patent? 10 steps? 30 steps? 50 lines of code? 100 words in the comments? 5000 dead chickens? 1 million dead lawyers?
Trying to define that becomes the whole problem with defining a clear cut answer to whether or not software patents should be legal. So in the end we're going to have to decide, is the entire computer world a mish-mash of interlocking patented ideas where everybody will always owe everyone else something, or is software an intangible expression of speech that can only best be protected through existing copyright laws, and patents simply can not apply here?
Now NES cartidges, on the other hand, are a different story altogether.
The whole "Blowing on the NES catridge" thing never made much of a difference to me -- really -- because I quickly learned that simply pulling it out and placing it back in did the trick 100% of the time.
I guess the whole "Blowing On It" thing was just part of the ritual that everybody did because everybody else did it and it seemed to work. Maybe it was similar to blowing on dice while playing craps? Heh.
Later the NES was released as a top-loaded system and the cartridge port was better designed such that the connection worked flawlessly without the cartridge every having to be removed and reseated.
I'll refrain from commenting on the borderline trollish nature of your post, and concentrate on your choice in games.
I happen to like the XBox just fine, but I don't consider Jet Set Radio Future to be an excellent example of the great games out for the XBox.
In fact, I would dare say JSRF just plain sucks. Sure, the use of cell shading is cool, but the game lacks a certain something in terms of gameplay, the game physics seem way too fake and steril, and the in game objectives are idiotic. As if that weren't bad enough, the melody-free music is just a clamor of repeating beats and bass-lines that get on ones nerves after anything more than 30 seconds. And it would certainly NOT be a showcase title I would use to impress people.
Halo might be an overused example of a "must own" title for the XBox, but at least it truely IS a remarkable game. If someone were to cite Halo, I would trust their opinion a whole lot more than if they were to cite JSRF. Yes, it's true that some people don't like first person shooters. That's a given. But I think anyone who half-way likes first person shooters (and many people I know of who hate them) will agree it's one of the best there is.
The reality is, the XBox --IS-- severely lacking in really oustanding titles right now, and it's no fault of the machine as it truely is quite capable. It's just that the best is yet to come and a whole lot of the better would-be hits have been delayed. It's no fault of Microsoft's, but it is unfortunate.
As for the standard XBox controller, it's not the size that makes it horrendous. The buttons are laid out for idiots, by idiots. The S-Controller on the other hand has the buttons laid out more logically, with a better shape and tactile feel about them. The S-Controller completely fixes the number one real complaint anyone could have about the XBox (other than the low number of remarkable games). Someone who can admit to actually REALLY liking the button layout on the original controller is just proving that they don't play enough games to realize how poorly laid out the buttons actually are. It will just work with a good number of games, and it might even work really well with a few games, but it truely isn't even close to adequate for most games.
Technically the X-Box is a great machine. The S-Controller is a good controller. The system even has a few really great games out for it. But if someone were to bash it for being huge (which it is), ugly (subjective), lacking in a high number of great games (an understandable view), overpriced (subjective), and the least popular of the big three (at the moment) then I would have to say I agree with them.
If they were going to tell me the XBox sucked, though, I would have to tell them to stop smoking crack.
If you locate the pointer in your view, take it and move it all the way to the top. Now, using your pointer, grab the title bar (using the left mouse button) and drag reality down.
Assuming there is another reality running at the moment, it should be plainly visible.
You can flip through them using the two gadgets located in the upper right hand corner.
Granted M$ prefers you do it this way, but since when did anyone do something because someone else thought it was a good idea.
It's funny, every GOOD suggestion Microsoft makes gets ignored by developers (such as not replacing existing DLLs with your own, use locals copies within your own application's directory if you must have modified DLLs, blah blah blah) then they complain that Microsoft is just trying to LIMIT them, so instead they break the rules and screw up the entire system.
Then, Microsoft makes a really BAD suggestion (store your custom data in the registery when an INI file will do much better) and they're all too willing to comply.
You know, Linux distributions DO make things worse, but Unix by it's own design has a very steep learning curve.
The file hirarchy of Unix is also one of it's worst things, if you ask me. I was simply pointing out that in this respect the Amiga OS was (in my opinion) far superior to Unix.
Of course, the Amiga OS wasn't a multiuser operating system, either.
Since not owning a board but having the Firmware would be piracy, I can't see someone buying the board just to get a copy of the Firmware, so most people will likely just pirate the ROM.
This is of course assuming Amiga Inc. doesn't think smart and sell the ROM images out-right for use with such software. There is certainly money to be made off of the honest people.
What would be really cool is if the MOL guys figure out how to install AmigaOS 4 on Apple PPCs using mol.
This might be difficult since the new Amigas have special Firmware, very closely related to the classic Amiga's "KICKSTART" roms.
Re:Seriously, who is going to use this?
on
PPC Amigas Go On Sale
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I really don't care if AmigaOS "makes a comeback", I want to continue using and developing AmigaOS, and as such I am dying to get my hands on an AmigaOne XE and OS4.
I agree that there are certain things about the AmigaOS that I absolutely loved.
the C: and DEVS:, and LIBS:. The way everything in the S: directory was there for a reason. I loved how STARTUP was handled, and I loved how you could modify the icon properties to change startup options of programs.
Some things about Amiga OS have not been matched since, not even by Linux or BeOS (Yes, Linux fans, AmigaOS did some things much nicer than your precious little unix wannabe.)
On the other hand, most other operating systems have completely evolved past the Amiga. Protected memory, built in virtual memory. REAL retargetable graphics instead of a nasty hack. REAL retargetable sound instead of a nasty hack.
There are checks and balances when comparing any of the many operating systems, and what it boils down to is that none of them are perfect.
Amiga OS suffers from severe obsolescense, lack of modern software support, and a GUI that is over 13 years old.
Linux still suffers from the "let's throw files in places that only a seasoned unix user will think to look for them" mentality that is standard with all Unix workalikes, and the commercial industry still touches on it with a bit of uncertainty and a whole lot of fear.
Windows sucks on too many levels to mention, but at least it has market dominance and a whole ton of games (for what that is worth anyway).
Mac OS X has a whole lot going for it, but unfortunately it draws in a whole bunch of moron users and thus using it might be hard for the tech-savvy user to admit. "Yes... I... uh... hmm.:( Use a MAC. I know... I know... but hey!"
BeOS is dead kind of like the Amiga, only it's not quite as rotten yet.
Of course, there are going to be tons of morons who will swear FreeBSD is dead, but blah. It's like all the other Unix operating systems. If you love Unix, you won't use anything but, if you don't already love Unix, it may take you years before you ever get comfortable enough to try it.
When comparing all of the operating systems, it's not easy to choose one that I would say is "On top", but it's pretty easy to pick out the ones that are certainly on the bottom, even if they don't necissarily deserve to be there.
This is just a stepping stone on the path to a better OS.
I never used to be the "Wait and see" type when it came to the Amiga. An Amiga 1200 and then an Amiga 4000, years of broken promises, and a whole slew of delays has changed that.
I still watch the Amiga with a passing interest, but I'm certainly not about to buy a new one anytime soon.
I'm only interested if they rename the PPC chip "Even Fatter Agnus".
Agnus was just a memory controller and blitter (Block Information Transfer Chip), with extra hardware to control the CopperLists (Coprocessor Instructions for such things as Colour Register manipulation and handling of sprites).
Agnus was replaced by the Fat Agnus which could allocate 1 meg of ChipRam (Video/Sound memory - memory that could be access by Denise and Paula).
Later, Agnus was replaced by Super Fat Agnus, which could allocate a full 2 megs of Chipram.
Finally Agnus was replaced with Alice, the AGA version, and Denise was placed with Lisa.
There would be no reason to call the processor by any name other than it's own. And since the new Amiga design does not have a truely Custom Chipset in old Amiga fashion, this new Amiga isn't truely an Amiga in anything other than name.
Very sad indeed that they're praying on the hopes of the few remaining Amiga fans. I would support this platform by both switching over to it and developing for it, but the hardware is only so-so at best and the OS is obsolete before even being completed.
If they want me back, they're going to have to do a whole lot better than this.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter who is in office. The same people give the president the orders anyway.
Duh.
why are you glad you got DSL? 768k/128k service for the same cost as 1.5/256k
Are you saying all DSL is 768/128? If you think that, you are horribly mistaken. Not everyone has such shitty DSL in their area.
My DSL provider gives me 1.5/256, for $49 per month. I also get a static IP, DNS services, several e-mail boxes, and almost never do I get downtime. Not only that, I don't even have to use PPPOE.
DirectTV DSL truely IS a very good provider. When I first started out with them over a year ago they had a few minor issues but it's all blue skies now.
In fact, the ONLY people in my area who WILL touch cable are those who for whatever reason can't get DSL. The cable provider in our area (Charter) blows goat cheese. Frequent downtimes, lag for no good reason, crappy agreements, no static IP, not allowed to run any servers, etc. etc.
I think the reasons for using DSL are pretty obvious. There is no argument here.
loads of games these days are basically movies with a broken pause button...
Or, when considering turned based fighting systems, it's better to say a broken UNPause button.
Turn based. *yawn*
One slice of roast beef fits in my hand, as does 50.
hah hah. I said the same thing, but I was actually being serious when I said the palm of your hand.
A slice of roast beef, if balled up, might just fit in your hand perfectly if you clasp your fingers around it. Maybe two slices. It's going to be different slightly for everybody, and it's hardly scientific to use "the palm of your hand" as a way to gauge how much you should eat.
The reason I've been told the palm of your hand is a good rule of thumb, though is because a "handful" of meat, the size of "your hand" is a close aproximation of about how much meat someone your size should probably be eating.
I know it sounds silly, but believe me, if I were to say you shouldn't have any more than 2 ounces of meat a day, someone could turn around and say "But I'm 6'5" and 270 lbs of hulking mass." If that's the case, that person's palm is probably also about 6 inches wide, and he very easily might need more than a couple of ounces.
Of course, I'm not a nutritionist myself, I just have the rather unpleasant curse of knowing a few, so I can't lay out a proper diet plan for you. But I can tell you it seems to be pretty much agreed upon by those who should know that you really, truely, honestly, do not need to be eating very much meat.
This is of course not the same as saying "Don't eat meat." Do not confuse the two statements. Apparently, protein is NOT the only important thing you get from meat.
Think about this: If I get shot in the arm
No, think about this...
Bacteria is everywhere. It's always growing, reproducing, and constantly mutating. So, if you take a sample of any given group of bacteria, it is easy to assume they won't all be of the same breed, and even those of the same breed won't all be of the same genetic line. The fact is, being simpler lifeforms they evolve and mutate faster.
Now, let's say you manufacture a chemical that will kill bacteria "X". You take a dish full of bacteria and since they're very obviously not all the same it is highly possible that a few of those millions will be immune to your neat little chemical. You pour it in and you take a count and let's say only a few dozen live. Well guess what? When they reproduce you're left with a colony of bacterium that is immune to your neat little drug. Next time it gets a good growth pattern going, your antibiotic may not be as effective.
Fortunately, our bodies fight infections on their own, so antibiotics aren't a "kill all" type of attack, but more like a "kill most and let the body take care of the rest". For this reason it is a good idea to ALWAYS take all of your prescribed antibiotics, assuming of course you actually needed them in the first place. You are basically helping your body help it's self.
This too is a gross over-simplifaction but...
and don't eat meat
Nearly all nutritionists will tell you that not eating meat at all is doing as much harm to you as it is doing good.
The proper advice is to avoid eating TOO MUCH meat. Even if you don't think you are eating too much red meat, you probably still are. You should never eat more red-meat than you can hold in the palm of your hand. Really, that's all you need in a single meal. Fish is an excellent food source, and turkey (or chicken when cooked properly) is also an excellent alternative to red meat.
So you can get your meat without pumping yourself full of the nasty crap that comes from it.
I myself don't even eat meat every day.
I had a 1541 and the idea that a Commodore 64 could be useful is slightly alien to me.
SORRY ABOUT THIS! I mean to say "The idea that a Commodore 64 WITHOUT A FLOPPY DRIVE could be useful is slightly alien to me.
Shesh, I got PLENTY of use out of the C64, just not that horrid tape drive.
the tape drive would usually crap out
What? No 1541?
I had a tape drive on my C64, and never once did I use it. In fact, I don't remember ever plugging it in. It might not have even worked for all I knew. I had a 1541 and the idea that a Commodore 64 could be useful is slightly alien to me.
Now, I did have a TRS-80 COCO 3 without a floppy drive, and running things from tape on that was pure hell.
When they melt, the same amount of mass takes up additional volume.
That would be true if water wasn't the rare exception to the rule. Water expands when it becomes ice.
I suppose a good use of this is it may support much more RAM than you can get on the motherboard.
Exactly. With your SWAP in the RAM drive, you are essentially running everything out of RAM.
Swapping to the drive causes a greater performance hit than other read/writes.
Why? You don't think any software is worth a patent? That's foolish.
No, it's not, actually.
You see, the problem is that there is a really hard to define line between what is prior art and what is not. Most code is almost always in part using other pre-existing code, be it calls to OS functions or compiler supplied functions.
If I write a program that does something unique, using a whole mix of pre-existing function calls or even if doing nothing more than simply using a well established compiler, I'm still building my work off of other work.
If bar() is a function that returns an INT, and foo() is a function that takes and INT and returns a FLOAT, then is foo(bar()) something new because I put it together that way?
Let's say yes, for one moment. Let's say that I'm the first person ever to perform this combination to create a unique result. Then my patent obviously applies to the PROCESS of getting a FLOAT from an INT. This is a bad example because PRIOR ART already exists, but let's say it didn't.
Now, which do you patent, the whole idea of getting a FLOAT from an INT, or my exact way of doing it? If you patent my exact usage of the functions Foo and Bar then one could simply write another way of doing it. If you patent the ENTIRE process it's self, you might inadvertantly stumble upon prior art that you didn't know about, or someone later on might do the exact same thing for other reasons and then break your patent.
You are obviously then going to draw back on the argument that not all software is THAT simple. Some processes are NOT obvious and are VERY complex and should be allowed to be patented because they are more complex than either FOO or BAR or even FOOBAR. But then that changes this from a technical argument to a philisophical one. At which point does a method or process become so complex it warrents a patent? 10 steps? 30 steps? 50 lines of code? 100 words in the comments? 5000 dead chickens? 1 million dead lawyers?
Trying to define that becomes the whole problem with defining a clear cut answer to whether or not software patents should be legal. So in the end we're going to have to decide, is the entire computer world a mish-mash of interlocking patented ideas where everybody will always owe everyone else something, or is software an intangible expression of speech that can only best be protected through existing copyright laws, and patents simply can not apply here?
Does this mean that with my strict diet of Twinkies and Sobe I'm going to live forever? Or am I just going to be perfectly preserved after I die?
Now NES cartidges, on the other hand, are a different story altogether.
The whole "Blowing on the NES catridge" thing never made much of a difference to me -- really -- because I quickly learned that simply pulling it out and placing it back in did the trick 100% of the time.
I guess the whole "Blowing On It" thing was just part of the ritual that everybody did because everybody else did it and it seemed to work. Maybe it was similar to blowing on dice while playing craps? Heh.
Later the NES was released as a top-loaded system and the cartridge port was better designed such that the connection worked flawlessly without the cartridge every having to be removed and reseated.
Anything more complicated than 733T H@x0rz and I get lost...
...
Obviously, since the correct spelling is 1337 h4x0rz
Oh wait...
I'll refrain from commenting on the borderline trollish nature of your post, and concentrate on your choice in games.
I happen to like the XBox just fine, but I don't consider Jet Set Radio Future to be an excellent example of the great games out for the XBox.
In fact, I would dare say JSRF just plain sucks. Sure, the use of cell shading is cool, but the game lacks a certain something in terms of gameplay, the game physics seem way too fake and steril, and the in game objectives are idiotic. As if that weren't bad enough, the melody-free music is just a clamor of repeating beats and bass-lines that get on ones nerves after anything more than 30 seconds. And it would certainly NOT be a showcase title I would use to impress people.
Halo might be an overused example of a "must own" title for the XBox, but at least it truely IS a remarkable game. If someone were to cite Halo, I would trust their opinion a whole lot more than if they were to cite JSRF. Yes, it's true that some people don't like first person shooters. That's a given. But I think anyone who half-way likes first person shooters (and many people I know of who hate them) will agree it's one of the best there is.
The reality is, the XBox --IS-- severely lacking in really oustanding titles right now, and it's no fault of the machine as it truely is quite capable. It's just that the best is yet to come and a whole lot of the better would-be hits have been delayed. It's no fault of Microsoft's, but it is unfortunate.
As for the standard XBox controller, it's not the size that makes it horrendous. The buttons are laid out for idiots, by idiots. The S-Controller on the other hand has the buttons laid out more logically, with a better shape and tactile feel about them. The S-Controller completely fixes the number one real complaint anyone could have about the XBox (other than the low number of remarkable games). Someone who can admit to actually REALLY liking the button layout on the original controller is just proving that they don't play enough games to realize how poorly laid out the buttons actually are. It will just work with a good number of games, and it might even work really well with a few games, but it truely isn't even close to adequate for most games.
Technically the X-Box is a great machine. The S-Controller is a good controller. The system even has a few really great games out for it. But if someone were to bash it for being huge (which it is), ugly (subjective), lacking in a high number of great games (an understandable view), overpriced (subjective), and the least popular of the big three (at the moment) then I would have to say I agree with them.
If they were going to tell me the XBox sucked, though, I would have to tell them to stop smoking crack.
No, actually, it's true and I can prove it.
If you locate the pointer in your view, take it and move it all the way to the top. Now, using your pointer, grab the title bar (using the left mouse button) and drag reality down.
Assuming there is another reality running at the moment, it should be plainly visible.
You can flip through them using the two gadgets located in the upper right hand corner.
Granted M$ prefers you do it this way, but since when did anyone do something because someone else thought it was a good idea.
It's funny, every GOOD suggestion Microsoft makes gets ignored by developers (such as not replacing existing DLLs with your own, use locals copies within your own application's directory if you must have modified DLLs, blah blah blah) then they complain that Microsoft is just trying to LIMIT them, so instead they break the rules and screw up the entire system.
Then, Microsoft makes a really BAD suggestion (store your custom data in the registery when an INI file will do much better) and they're all too willing to comply.
Developers really are fucking idiots.
I watched them last year. Yet it's happening again this year?
Does this mean that 33 years have pasted since last year, or am I missing something important about "Every 33 Years".
Er, no. Linux distributions
You know, Linux distributions DO make things worse, but Unix by it's own design has a very steep learning curve.
The file hirarchy of Unix is also one of it's worst things, if you ask me. I was simply pointing out that in this respect the Amiga OS was (in my opinion) far superior to Unix.
Of course, the Amiga OS wasn't a multiuser operating system, either.
Yes, it would be a matter of doing just that.
Since not owning a board but having the Firmware would be piracy, I can't see someone buying the board just to get a copy of the Firmware, so most people will likely just pirate the ROM.
This is of course assuming Amiga Inc. doesn't think smart and sell the ROM images out-right for use with such software. There is certainly money to be made off of the honest people.
Pirate are going to pirate regardless.
What would be really cool is if the MOL guys figure out how to install AmigaOS 4 on Apple PPCs using mol.
This might be difficult since the new Amigas have special Firmware, very closely related to the classic Amiga's "KICKSTART" roms.
I really don't care if AmigaOS "makes a comeback", I want to continue using and developing AmigaOS, and as such I am dying to get my hands on an AmigaOne XE and OS4.
:( Use a MAC. I know... I know... but hey!"
I agree that there are certain things about the AmigaOS that I absolutely loved.
the C: and DEVS:, and LIBS:. The way everything in the S: directory was there for a reason. I loved how STARTUP was handled, and I loved how you could modify the icon properties to change startup options of programs.
Some things about Amiga OS have not been matched since, not even by Linux or BeOS (Yes, Linux fans, AmigaOS did some things much nicer than your precious little unix wannabe.)
On the other hand, most other operating systems have completely evolved past the Amiga. Protected memory, built in virtual memory. REAL retargetable graphics instead of a nasty hack. REAL retargetable sound instead of a nasty hack.
There are checks and balances when comparing any of the many operating systems, and what it boils down to is that none of them are perfect.
Amiga OS suffers from severe obsolescense, lack of modern software support, and a GUI that is over 13 years old.
Linux still suffers from the "let's throw files in places that only a seasoned unix user will think to look for them" mentality that is standard with all Unix workalikes, and the commercial industry still touches on it with a bit of uncertainty and a whole lot of fear.
Windows sucks on too many levels to mention, but at least it has market dominance and a whole ton of games (for what that is worth anyway).
Mac OS X has a whole lot going for it, but unfortunately it draws in a whole bunch of moron users and thus using it might be hard for the tech-savvy user to admit. "Yes... I... uh... hmm.
BeOS is dead kind of like the Amiga, only it's not quite as rotten yet.
Of course, there are going to be tons of morons who will swear FreeBSD is dead, but blah. It's like all the other Unix operating systems. If you love Unix, you won't use anything but, if you don't already love Unix, it may take you years before you ever get comfortable enough to try it.
When comparing all of the operating systems, it's not easy to choose one that I would say is "On top", but it's pretty easy to pick out the ones that are certainly on the bottom, even if they don't necissarily deserve to be there.
This is just a stepping stone on the path to a better OS.
I never used to be the "Wait and see" type when it came to the Amiga. An Amiga 1200 and then an Amiga 4000, years of broken promises, and a whole slew of delays has changed that.
I still watch the Amiga with a passing interest, but I'm certainly not about to buy a new one anytime soon.
I'm only interested if they rename the PPC chip "Even Fatter Agnus".
Agnus was just a memory controller and blitter (Block Information Transfer Chip), with extra hardware to control the CopperLists (Coprocessor Instructions for such things as Colour Register manipulation and handling of sprites).
Agnus was replaced by the Fat Agnus which could allocate 1 meg of ChipRam (Video/Sound memory - memory that could be access by Denise and Paula).
Later, Agnus was replaced by Super Fat Agnus, which could allocate a full 2 megs of Chipram.
Finally Agnus was replaced with Alice, the AGA version, and Denise was placed with Lisa.
There would be no reason to call the processor by any name other than it's own. And since the new Amiga design does not have a truely Custom Chipset in old Amiga fashion, this new Amiga isn't truely an Amiga in anything other than name.
Very sad indeed that they're praying on the hopes of the few remaining Amiga fans. I would support this platform by both switching over to it and developing for it, but the hardware is only so-so at best and the OS is obsolete before even being completed.
If they want me back, they're going to have to do a whole lot better than this.
I'm pretty sure that making a 3 atom sandwich doesn't seem simple to me.
You aren't kidding. And the number it would take to satisfy my hunger would take several lifetimes just to count.