2 ms·

> Amiga architecture was apparently the one of the future rather than past. Too ahead. I wouldn't call an architecture this way if it proves very difficult to

• nickpsecurity 10y ago
  It's worth consideration although I don't think an architecture requires backward compatibility by definition: more a way to keep users or earnings reliably. You'd be saying that Mac OS 9 isn't an architecture since Mac OS X was different. Or PS2 -> PS3 mismatch meant they weren't architectural designs. Android API isn't backward compatible with GNOME or KDE on Linux. I'm just not seeing a lack of B.C. meaning there's no architecture or platform. If it was, though, we might potentially resolve the issue if there's a standard API for various things where the implementation can be ignored (and improved w/ SW or HW). Modern example of an Amiga-like architecture might be Microsoft's DirectX techs where there's API's for networking, I/O, audio, and video. Any of those might have been accelerated with dedicated coprocessors with apps looking the same. At least one or two were in practice. Likewise, the programming model might obviate the need for this consideration. One where they were tasks called as needed by a control code w/ optional acceleration might mean just the control code or OS interface needs to change per release or platform.