- Status
agnickolov
Distinguished
- Aug 10, 2006
- 520
- 0
- 18,980
Well, Windows was an application back then, not an OS. More specifically - a GUI shell. The first Windows OS was Windows NT 3.1 released in 1993. Windows 95 finally displaced DOS / Windows 3.x in 1995 as a complete OS. The two flavors of Windows coexisted for another 6 years until the release of Windows XP in 2001, which finally got rid of all the DOS-based legacy.
[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]It did have a better GUI but the original Macintosh (or 128K) was crippled (lack of memory as the GUI used about half of the memory) and the Macintosh 512K (with vastly more memory) was nearly $3,000 USD.In the first year (1984) the Macintosh didn't have any 3rd party software either so most people considered it an expensive toy. $3,000 USD was a LOT of money back then for a microcomputer.An Amiga would be a far better choice back then in 1985 as it had color,stereo sound and was a lot less expensive than any Mac.Window's really didn't catch on (and it's easy to see why after using early versions) until Windows 3.1 (although 3.0 was all right too).[/citation]
Your history lesson is sadly mistaken. The Amiga was a nightmare when it came out. It had a very buggy, feature-poor operating system, had no software or developer support, and was widely consider a pile of junk that had promise. The Mac was light years ahead of it in terms of software support (much of the toolbox was in ROM), company support, and stability. The Amiga had auxiliary chips in it that gave it greater potential, but was so flawed no one took it seriously in 1985. On top of that, Atari was coming out with its own 68K line, which was priced much lower.
More to the point, Windows started getting popular with Windows/386, and very, very popular with Windows 3.0, not 3.11. 3.11 was very popular too, but it was merely a continuation of a trend. The main reason Windows was popular in these versions was it allowed people to run several DOS apps at the same time because it used the virtual 86 mode of the 80386. This made it desirable mainly for that reason, and once the installed base built up, companies realized there was a market for native Windows applications.
IBM missed the boat by making OS/2 for the 286, instead of the 386, and by the time they move it to the 386, it was too late. Even today, OS/2 from 15 years ago has features much more advanced than Windows does. The interface is light years head, despite being 15 years older. And it's still the best at running DOS apps in the world. I don't know why Windows still has a powerless and primitive interface that is a joke by a 1994 standard that had everything as an object, and much greater versatility than the brain-damaged Windows interface, but it is.
It's kind of funny how the worst instruction set (x86), and the worst software development company became the standards. This is not to criticize Intel, just the instruction set they threw together in a few weeks, before they had any idea it would be of so much importance. That it plagues us to this day is just another example of how absurd life is.
I'm surprised Google or a similar company doesn't create an operating system for gamers, instead of the incredibly inefficient and bloated Windows. A small OS that allowed direct manipulation of hardware would add much more than a generation of hardware.
Your history lesson is sadly mistaken. The Amiga was a nightmare when it came out. It had a very buggy, feature-poor operating system, had no software or developer support, and was widely consider a pile of junk that had promise. The Mac was light years ahead of it in terms of software support (much of the toolbox was in ROM), company support, and stability. The Amiga had auxiliary chips in it that gave it greater potential, but was so flawed no one took it seriously in 1985. On top of that, Atari was coming out with its own 68K line, which was priced much lower.
More to the point, Windows started getting popular with Windows/386, and very, very popular with Windows 3.0, not 3.11. 3.11 was very popular too, but it was merely a continuation of a trend. The main reason Windows was popular in these versions was it allowed people to run several DOS apps at the same time because it used the virtual 86 mode of the 80386. This made it desirable mainly for that reason, and once the installed base built up, companies realized there was a market for native Windows applications.
IBM missed the boat by making OS/2 for the 286, instead of the 386, and by the time they move it to the 386, it was too late. Even today, OS/2 from 15 years ago has features much more advanced than Windows does. The interface is light years head, despite being 15 years older. And it's still the best at running DOS apps in the world. I don't know why Windows still has a powerless and primitive interface that is a joke by a 1994 standard that had everything as an object, and much greater versatility than the brain-damaged Windows interface, but it is.
It's kind of funny how the worst instruction set (x86), and the worst software development company became the standards. This is not to criticize Intel, just the instruction set they threw together in a few weeks, before they had any idea it would be of so much importance. That it plagues us to this day is just another example of how absurd life is.
I'm surprised Google or a similar company doesn't create an operating system for gamers, instead of the incredibly inefficient and bloated Windows. A small OS that allowed direct manipulation of hardware would add much more than a generation of hardware.
kronos_cornelius
Distinguished
- Nov 4, 2009
- 365
- 1
- 18,780
Intel tried to bring a better architecture with the Itanium. But has not been able to stir the market in a meaningful way. That mostly shows that not even Intel has a say in what the standard architecture for PC should be.
cmartin011
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2010
- 319
- 0
- 18,780
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Your history lesson is sadly mistaken. The Amiga was a nightmare when it came out. It had a very buggy, feature-poor operating system, had no software or developer support, and was widely consider a pile of junk that had promise. The Mac was light years ahead of it in terms of software support (much of the toolbox was in ROM), company support, and stability. The Amiga had auxiliary chips in it that gave it greater potential, but was so flawed no one took it seriously in 1985. On top of that, Atari was coming out with its own 68K line, which was priced much lower.[/citation]
What in the world are you smoking. Amiga was lacking software? The Mac was the one that basically didn't had any kind of software. There are software that appeared on the Amiga that exist till this day, like Lightware 4D and Alladin 3D. Also many people used the Amiga for creating images and music, something that at the time the mac was unable to do.
Bugs? The Mac OS was the one filled with conflicts, not the Amiga.
Of course the Amiga also had it's issues but it was way better than the Mac OS and Windows at that time.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]I'm surprised Google or a similar company doesn't create an operating system for gamers, instead of the incredibly inefficient and bloated Windows. A small OS that allowed direct manipulation of hardware would add much more than a generation of hardware.[/citation]
Funny that you mention gaming, because Windows is faster than the Mac OS X at gaming. Also a few benchmarks have showed that on many tests, windows 7 is faster than snow leopard.
What in the world are you smoking. Amiga was lacking software? The Mac was the one that basically didn't had any kind of software. There are software that appeared on the Amiga that exist till this day, like Lightware 4D and Alladin 3D. Also many people used the Amiga for creating images and music, something that at the time the mac was unable to do.
Bugs? The Mac OS was the one filled with conflicts, not the Amiga.
Of course the Amiga also had it's issues but it was way better than the Mac OS and Windows at that time.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]I'm surprised Google or a similar company doesn't create an operating system for gamers, instead of the incredibly inefficient and bloated Windows. A small OS that allowed direct manipulation of hardware would add much more than a generation of hardware.[/citation]
Funny that you mention gaming, because Windows is faster than the Mac OS X at gaming. Also a few benchmarks have showed that on many tests, windows 7 is faster than snow leopard.
[citation][nom]kronos_cornelius[/nom]Intel tried to bring a better architecture with the Itanium. But has not been able to stir the market in a meaningful way. That mostly shows that not even Intel has a say in what the standard architecture for PC should be.[/citation]
Intel had already tried to replace the x86 architecture by some "better" architecture with the iAPX 432 (which was an even worst failure than Itanium).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432
Intel had already tried to replace the x86 architecture by some "better" architecture with the iAPX 432 (which was an even worst failure than Itanium).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]What in the world are you smoking. Amiga was lacking software? The Mac was the one that basically didn't had any kind of software. There are software that appeared on the Amiga that exist till this day, like Lightware 4D and Alladin 3D. Also many people used the Amiga for creating images and music, something that at the time the mac was unable to do.Bugs? The Mac OS was the one filled with conflicts, not the Amiga.Of course the Amiga also had it's issues but it was way better than the Mac OS and Windows at that time.Funny that you mention gaming, because Windows is faster than the Mac OS X at gaming. Also a few benchmarks have showed that on many tests, windows 7 is faster than snow leopard.[/citation]
Sorry, but you're wrong. In 1985, the Amiga OS was so buggy most people considered it unusable. The Mac was not. It was much more mature, and had a much greater software base. Again, we are talking 1985. Not that the Amiga ever had as much software, or sold as well, as the Mac, but they did iron out the problems with the operating system. It didn't really matter though, the machine was doomed. They couldn't stop the PC's domination, and only Apple was able to. Until they started making PCs themselves.
Sorry, but you're wrong. In 1985, the Amiga OS was so buggy most people considered it unusable. The Mac was not. It was much more mature, and had a much greater software base. Again, we are talking 1985. Not that the Amiga ever had as much software, or sold as well, as the Mac, but they did iron out the problems with the operating system. It didn't really matter though, the machine was doomed. They couldn't stop the PC's domination, and only Apple was able to. Until they started making PCs themselves.
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]What in the world are you smoking. Amiga was lacking software? The Mac was the one that basically didn't had any kind of software. There are software that appeared on the Amiga that exist till this day, like Lightware 4D and Alladin 3D. Also many people used the Amiga for creating images and music, something that at the time the mac was unable to do.Bugs? The Mac OS was the one filled with conflicts, not the Amiga.Of course the Amiga also had it's issues but it was way better than the Mac OS and Windows at that time.Funny that you mention gaming, because Windows is faster than the Mac OS X at gaming. Also a few benchmarks have showed that on many tests, windows 7 is faster than snow leopard.[/citation]
Windows NT is a horrible gaming platform, as has been said many times by many gaming companies. It was never designed for it, and has a ton of overhead, and has too many layers of software. It's never been Microsoft's focus, nor should it be.
Only an imbecile would think Apple designs their computers for gaming.
An OS that were made just for that, without all the bloat of Windows, would be extremely fast and use tons less memory. A minimalist multi-processor DOS that would support threads and not have the ugly layers Windows has, and allow direct hardware manipulation of hardware and BIOS would be light years faster than anything running on a general purpose OS, that's notoriously slow and bloated.
Don't be surprised if Google goes this way. They seem to be surrounding Windows in preparation to destroying it. There's definitely a market for it too, even though the stupid consoles have cut into it.
Windows NT is a horrible gaming platform, as has been said many times by many gaming companies. It was never designed for it, and has a ton of overhead, and has too many layers of software. It's never been Microsoft's focus, nor should it be.
Only an imbecile would think Apple designs their computers for gaming.
An OS that were made just for that, without all the bloat of Windows, would be extremely fast and use tons less memory. A minimalist multi-processor DOS that would support threads and not have the ugly layers Windows has, and allow direct hardware manipulation of hardware and BIOS would be light years faster than anything running on a general purpose OS, that's notoriously slow and bloated.
Don't be surprised if Google goes this way. They seem to be surrounding Windows in preparation to destroying it. There's definitely a market for it too, even though the stupid consoles have cut into it.
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Windows NT is a horrible gaming platform, as has been said many times by many gaming companies. It was never designed for it, and has a ton of overhead, and has too many layers of software. It's never been Microsoft's focus, nor should it be.[/citation]
It's not a horrible gaming platform. It's not as good as a OS which only focus in gaming like the ones in consoles but still far from horrible. But if you heard it otherwise from a game developer house please post the source.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Only an imbecile would think Apple designs their computers for gaming.[/citation]
You're the one that mentioned gaming, not I. Both OS are not designed with just gaming in mind. They're designed to do just about any kind of job.
Still for example CineBench works faster on Windows 7 than on Snow Leopard. So it's not just games.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]An OS that were made just for that, without all the bloat of Windows, would be extremely fast and use tons less memory. A minimalist multi-processor DOS that would support threads and not have the ugly layers Windows has, and allow direct hardware manipulation of hardware and BIOS would be light years faster than anything running on a general purpose OS, that's notoriously slow and bloated. Don't be surprised if Google goes this way. They seem to be surrounding Windows in preparation to destroying it. There's definitely a market for it too, even though the stupid consoles have cut into it.[/citation]
This doesn't make any sense. Why would Microsoft or any other company develop a OS just for gaming? Unless they would use it to sell hardware like Microsoft does with the xbox.
Also this would mean people would have to pay for a license for a general use OS and another license for a gaming OS. Another inconvenient is that I would need to restart the computer just to play a game and then restart it again just to go to the web. I'm sorry but this simply isn't functional.
Gaming OS's belong in consoles.
It's not a horrible gaming platform. It's not as good as a OS which only focus in gaming like the ones in consoles but still far from horrible. But if you heard it otherwise from a game developer house please post the source.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Only an imbecile would think Apple designs their computers for gaming.[/citation]
You're the one that mentioned gaming, not I. Both OS are not designed with just gaming in mind. They're designed to do just about any kind of job.
Still for example CineBench works faster on Windows 7 than on Snow Leopard. So it's not just games.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]An OS that were made just for that, without all the bloat of Windows, would be extremely fast and use tons less memory. A minimalist multi-processor DOS that would support threads and not have the ugly layers Windows has, and allow direct hardware manipulation of hardware and BIOS would be light years faster than anything running on a general purpose OS, that's notoriously slow and bloated. Don't be surprised if Google goes this way. They seem to be surrounding Windows in preparation to destroying it. There's definitely a market for it too, even though the stupid consoles have cut into it.[/citation]
This doesn't make any sense. Why would Microsoft or any other company develop a OS just for gaming? Unless they would use it to sell hardware like Microsoft does with the xbox.
Also this would mean people would have to pay for a license for a general use OS and another license for a gaming OS. Another inconvenient is that I would need to restart the computer just to play a game and then restart it again just to go to the web. I'm sorry but this simply isn't functional.
Gaming OS's belong in consoles.
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Sorry, but you're wrong. In 1985, the Amiga OS was so buggy most people considered it unusable. The Mac was not. It was much more mature, and had a much greater software base. Again, we are talking 1985. Not that the Amiga ever had as much software, or sold as well, as the Mac, but they did iron out the problems with the operating system. It didn't really matter though, the machine was doomed. They couldn't stop the PC's domination, and only Apple was able to. Until they started making PCs themselves.[/citation]
Please list the available software on the Mac 128k.
Yes amiga sales were abysmal. The Mac 128k sold about 70000 units worldwide, yet only in Germany the Amiga 1000 managed almost 30000 units reaching 80000 units worldwide.
Please list the available software on the Mac 128k.
Yes amiga sales were abysmal. The Mac 128k sold about 70000 units worldwide, yet only in Germany the Amiga 1000 managed almost 30000 units reaching 80000 units worldwide.
- Jul 24, 2006
- 22,854
- 277
- 57,490
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 26
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
News Gaming industry insiders say cutting-edge graphics cost too much to make for AAA games- Started by Admin
- Replies: 65
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram