3 ms·
They are more common in Europe, since they sold better there. (Except the Amiga 1000.) There are also several reimplementations, either with FPGA or "real" 680
by actionfromafar 2y ago
They are more common in Europe, since they sold better there. (Except the Amiga 1000.)
There are also several reimplementations, either with FPGA or "real" 680x0 CPUs.
This Serena operating system fascinates me in several ways. I have said it before, but I think one very cool thing about the Amigas is how they are the missing link between "too simple" 8-bit and 16-bit DOS computers and our modern computers.
They are advanced enough to run modern(-ish) software and simple enough to be reimplemented faithfully several times over by various projects.
- galangalalgol 2y agoI have the a1000 I learned on as a kid. And the c64 from before that, but I keep saying here that the 32bit microcontrollers are fairly close approximations that use less power and have more processing. You can't get bloat though because they still have ram constraints tied to the mmu that can only do page protection, just like the amiga... Could even use the DACs to spit out s-video maybe?
- icedchai 2y agoThe Amiga was my first exposure to a computer with a "real" OS: tasks/processes, memory management, IPC, shared libraries, etc. I first learned C on an Amiga. It also taught me to be careful: a bug in your program with no memory protection would often mean a crash/reboot ("Guru Meditation" error.)
- blueflow 2y agoWhere does that come from that a fraction of computing history is dismissed as "not a real OS" ? Did "real" OS's exist for the IBM PC?
- icedchai 2y agoI put real in quotes. I probably should've said "OS of sufficient level of complexity."
- blueflow 2y agoOr name the features directly: "my first OS with multitasking and memory management"
- icedchai 2y agoI did name the features directly.
- exe34 2y ago[flagged]
- blueflow 2y agoYes. Negative. Being an expert in a field and thus being sensitive to semantics and autism are orthogonal.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- exe34 2y agosome level of socialising often blunts the petulant need for the security of exact nomenclature outside of a technical publication, hence the question. it's interesting that you did get tested though. it suggests this isn't the first time.
- hub_ 2y agoOS/2 comes to mind. Version 1.x was already much more sophisticated than MS-DOS.
- pjmlp 2y agoAnd Xenix.
- blueflow 2y agoFor you two: The IBM PC was the first PC and had a 8088 CPU. OS/2 and Xenix were for the 286 and up. If you make virtual memory a necessary attribute to qualify as OS, there were no OS for the original IBM PC as the 8088 had no support for virtual memory. That's why my (tricky) question.