Author: The Paranoid (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE)
Date: 01-23-2002 10:19
> Am I right, or am I right?
Sorry, but i think you're completely and utterly wrong.
> Lets be honest here, but Atari Software is
> pathetically slow, and most of the
> time its down to the O/S and its
> routines...
And that is exactly why i think you're wrong.
Atari software is, by modern standards, lightning fast and the OS hardly interferes, stealing the applications CPU time.
Now if you run software that needs 100% CPU time (an archiver) and then start another application that needs 100% CPU (a raytracer) it's not the fault of the OS that both go down to half speed.
In comparison to modern standards every Atari OS i have tried (not all of them though) go with very low CPU usage for themselves.
And the problem you have with patches: A patch for an Atari computer usually comes in form of a program you put into the Auto-folder. Then it is loaded into the RAM, bends a few vectors and then it's there.
A new, disk-based OS including this patch would be loaded into the RAM, set up its set of vectors and then it's there.
You'll have to agree, there's hardly any difference.
I think there's more than enough choice for an Atari user when it comes to operating systems. You can run SingleTOS, MiNT + several AESses like N.AES, XaAES (Hi Jo Even :-), oAESis or MagiC, Geneva, Geneva + MiNT,
NetBSD and Linux.
And especially MiNT is so flexible you can set it up almost every way you like.
So frankly, i don't see the need for ANOTHER operating system and i do not understand your reasons.
The Paranoid
|
