Forum unknown
· Forum Business
#MS-Dos Evasion
17 messages in this thread
Someone who claims that MS-Dos' heirarchical directory structure is 'pretty
fast' is failing to compare moving a large file from one subdirectory to
another on the same volume. Under AmigaDOS, this is a simple rename.
MS-Dos forces one to copy the file, then delete the original.
I consider such a person dishonest.
Just in case anyone should doubt you…I just did a move of a file under
AmigaDOS from one subdirectory to another subdirectory (and off different
branches of the root) and it took all of 1 second on my HD to do the move
no matter what the file size is…like you said, a simple rename is all
that occured. I did it both by CSH205's mv command and by the AmigaDOS
ReName command and it works just fine both ways.
Just in case anyone should doubt you…I just did a move of a file under
AmigaDOS from one subdirectory to another subdirectory (and off different
branches of the root) and it took all of 1 second on my HD to do the move
no matter what the file size is…like you said, a simple rename is all
that occured. I did it both by CSH205's mv command and by the AmigaDOS
ReName command and it works just fine both ways.
Um, are you sure about that? I used a MessyDOS system at work for about
six months, and it seems to me we moved files about by renaming them, just
as one does on the Amiga (or VAX). Can't swear to it, as I'm not a PC
guru, but?
Um, are you sure about that? I used a MessyDOS system at work for about
six months, and it seems to me we moved files about by renaming them, just
as one does on the Amiga (or VAX). Can't swear to it, as I'm not a PC
guru, but?
I have an MS-DOS (pd) utility that does the same thing. It doesn't take
very long, and is not significantly dependant on file size. It certainly
doesn't 'copy'. This isn't really a relevant test of "my computer is
better than yours", is it?
This is a relevant test of Freeman's theory that AmigaDOS is Bad, MS-DOS is
Good.
If you allow the definition of "AmigaDOS" and "MS-DOS" to include any
extensions available (public domain, shareware, or commercial), then there
is very little to discuss. Freeman likes to bang on how awful Metacomco
are and what chumps Commodore was to hire them and how much more
performance he'll get out of a largely-pirated Taiwan PClone. Thus, it's
really only fair to discuss the functionality provided by Metacomco vs.
Microsoft.
In that vein, AmigaDOS doesn't restrict one's memory map to 640K, so it
must be much much better than MS-DOS and IBM was really a chump to hire
Microsoft.
This is a relevant test of Freeman's theory that AmigaDOS is Bad, MS-DOS is
Good.
If you allow the definition of "AmigaDOS" and "MS-DOS" to include any
extensions available (public domain, shareware, or commercial), then there
is very little to discuss. Freeman likes to bang on how awful Metacomco
are and what chumps Commodore was to hire them and how much more
performance he'll get out of a largely-pirated Taiwan PClone. Thus, it's
really only fair to discuss the functionality provided by Metacomco vs.
Microsoft.
In that vein, AmigaDOS doesn't restrict one's memory map to 640K, so it
must be much much better than MS-DOS and IBM was really a chump to hire
Microsoft.
Also, there are sound reasons for disallowing 3rd-party extensions when
playing 'My OS is better than Your OS.' If I provide you with an
application that has to be able to move hundreds of tiny files between
directories, I cannot count upon your having anything other than the
operating system as delivered. The need to include a bunch of operating
system extensions along with one's application is a indicator of weakness
in the operating system.
I must confess as well to a certain amount of skepticism as to the exact
ature of your pd file mover that you claim 'certainly does not copy.' I
run a number of applications from MS-DOS programmers that I think are
pretty top-notch, and none of them have provided a speedy bulk-move
routine. If there were a robust pd utility to do this in wide circulation,
I'm surprised it isn't part of SEAdog or OPUS. I'd like to know its name
so I can pass it on.
Also, there are sound reasons for disallowing 3rd-party extensions when
playing 'My OS is better than Your OS.' If I provide you with an
application that has to be able to move hundreds of tiny files between
directories, I cannot count upon your having anything other than the
operating system as delivered. The need to include a bunch of operating
system extensions along with one's application is a indicator of weakness
in the operating system.
I must confess as well to a certain amount of skepticism as to the exact
ature of your pd file mover that you claim 'certainly does not copy.' I
run a number of applications from MS-DOS programmers that I think are
pretty top-notch, and none of them have provided a speedy bulk-move
routine. If there were a robust pd utility to do this in wide circulation,
I'm surprised it isn't part of SEAdog or OPUS. I'd like to know its name
so I can pass it on.
I have an MS-DOS (pd) utility that does the same thing. It doesn't take
very long, and is not significantly dependant on file size. It certainly
doesn't 'copy'. This isn't really a relevant test of "my computer is
better than yours", is it?
You must truly be grasping at straws if that's all you can come up with.
Actually, there are utility programs available which can do this; I think
even some version of the Norton Utilities can do across-directory rename.
As far as "extensions" to MSDOS go, every single utility, even down to
trivial things like the (slow) directory and list (and copy) functions, in
Amigados, are programs. Individual, separate programs. A large amount of
MSDOS is resident, including these basic tools. You have to mickey mouse
around, and chew up a fair amount of RAM, to get these utilities resident
with Amigados, so you aren't effectively wasting one disk drive. Every
"utility" of Amigados is a separate program, so the comparison of
"extensions" in MSDOS as "evidence of failure" is meaningless. At least the
most common functions are built into MSDOS.
Actually, I am not a fan of Microsoft, or the 8088, per se. My major
criticism of the Amiga has to do with Commodore, and Amigados; including
the too high prices Commodore is charging. When the machines actually
become available, which isn't yet, after months of delay. I am a great fan
of the 68000, Amiga graphics, and AMiga sound. As a programmer and
developer, it burns me up to see good hardware wasted by poor system
software and bad management and marketing. It took skill on Metacomco's
part to make a DOS that run's on a 7+ mhz 68000, a 32 bit processor, that
runs slower in general than MSDOS on an essentially 8/16 bit 8088 running
at 4.77 mhz. There is no good reason why an Amiga, with the right system
software, with the 68000 alone, much less a 68020, can't beat an AT in all
regards. It is an indication of the many poor factors plaguing the system
that it currently cannot. And those who want to whitewash the truth may pat
yourselves on the back, when the rest of the undedicated market looks for
more economical alternatives.
While I agree that AmigaDOS isn't perfect…certainly you can't
take task to separate programs for each command. If you did that…you'd
have to take on UNIX also, and I think that the majority of knowledgeable
persons will agree that UNIX is certainly a "better" OS than MS-DOS.
There are defficiencies in every OS, that's why there are so many
different OSs available…no one OS is perfect in all ways. When you
compare MS-DOS to AmigaDOS, you are comparing apples to oranges. Both
apples and oranges are round and edible and grow on trees. Beyond that,
not much alike.
MS-DOS and AmigaDOS both are user to machine interfaces, and not
much else. You want AmigaDOS to run rings around MS-DOS on an AT, fine
have the AT multi-task under MS-DOS….since it can't do it, then
"obviously AmigaDOS is superior".
You want resident commands…take the equivalent AmigaDOS that
match the equivalent MS-DOS command.com "programs" and put them in RAM: and
assign C: there. Use one of the various shell programs that have
intrinsic commands, or any other option you prefer…but don't come down on
the machine simply because it doesn't have fully resident commands.
Look at things like the printer.device. All AmigaDOS programs that
use the printer need only ONE set of commands to control the printer.
Under MS-DOS, you need a different printer config file for each program
(unless you happen to have an Epson…which most MS-DOS programs default
to). That's not effiencet. There are lots of other examples of
differences between the two systems…some in favor of AmigaDOS and some in
favor of MS-DOS. They are not the same…and never were intended to be.
While I agree that AmigaDOS isn't perfect…certainly you can't
take task to separate programs for each command. If you did that…you'd
have to take on UNIX also, and I think that the majority of knowledgeable
persons will agree that UNIX is certainly a "better" OS than MS-DOS.
There are defficiencies in every OS, that's why there are so many
different OSs available…no one OS is perfect in all ways. When you
compare MS-DOS to AmigaDOS, you are comparing apples to oranges. Both
apples and oranges are round and edible and grow on trees. Beyond that,
not much alike.
MS-DOS and AmigaDOS both are user to machine interfaces, and not
much else. You want AmigaDOS to run rings around MS-DOS on an AT, fine
have the AT multi-task under MS-DOS….since it can't do it, then
"obviously AmigaDOS is superior".
You want resident commands…take the equivalent AmigaDOS that
match the equivalent MS-DOS command.com "programs" and put them in RAM: and
assign C: there. Use one of the various shell programs that have
intrinsic commands, or any other option you prefer…but don't come down on
the machine simply because it doesn't have fully resident commands.
Look at things like the printer.device. All AmigaDOS programs that
use the printer need only ONE set of commands to control the printer.
Under MS-DOS, you need a different printer config file for each program
(unless you happen to have an Epson…which most MS-DOS programs default
to). That's not effiencet. There are lots of other examples of
differences between the two systems…some in favor of AmigaDOS and some in
favor of MS-DOS. They are not the same…and never were intended to be.
Norton Utilities version 3.0 include _nothing_ to permit the renaming of
files across directories. It's sitting here in my lap right now.
Do you own a later version? (If so, did you pay for it? You could have
gotten a Taiwanese clone much cheaper, you know.) Or have you run out of
straws to grasp, and have started to fantasize?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I call to your attention the subtitle
of The Norton Utilities, which is "Programs to Supplement DOS." That means
that, under playground rules, they are Out Of Bounds for the game of
'Commodore Bad/Good, Taiwanese copy shop Good/Bad.' A "supplement" is
something that must be separately purchased (or in the case of someone as
budget minded as your arguments make you appear to be, stolen). IBM
charges roughly ninety dollars for PC-DOS 3.3, Norton roughly sixty
dollars, totaling one hundred fifty dollars for OS as supplemented.
Commodore charges nothing for AmigaDOS 1.2. (on the 500 and 2000, it is
included in the purchase; 1000 owners paid fifteen dollars).
If you want to play by cutthroat rules, which permits supplements, then
allow me to introduce you to Metacomco Shell, which will allow you to make
as much of AmigaDOS resident as you wish with the supplied command
Resident.
If you want to play by fantasy rules, which permit wild baseless claims,
allow me to point out that if you insert The Norton Utilities Version 3.1
diskette into the 5.25" Amiga drive _upside down,_ you will discover it
contains FastAmiDr, a disk driver capable of megabit data rates.
Norton Utilities version 3.0 include _nothing_ to permit the renaming of
files across directories. It's sitting here in my lap right now.
Do you own a later version? (If so, did you pay for it? You could have
gotten a Taiwanese clone much cheaper, you know.) Or have you run out of
straws to grasp, and have started to fantasize?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I call to your attention the subtitle
of The Norton Utilities, which is "Programs to Supplement DOS." That means
that, under playground rules, they are Out Of Bounds for the game of
'Commodore Bad/Good, Taiwanese copy shop Good/Bad.' A "supplement" is
something that must be separately purchased (or in the case of someone as
budget minded as your arguments make you appear to be, stolen). IBM
charges roughly ninety dollars for PC-DOS 3.3, Norton roughly sixty
dollars, totaling one hundred fifty dollars for OS as supplemented.
Commodore charges nothing for AmigaDOS 1.2. (on the 500 and 2000, it is
included in the purchase; 1000 owners paid fifteen dollars).
If you want to play by cutthroat rules, which permits supplements, then
allow me to introduce you to Metacomco Shell, which will allow you to make
as much of AmigaDOS resident as you wish with the supplied command
Resident.
If you want to play by fantasy rules, which permit wild baseless claims,
allow me to point out that if you insert The Norton Utilities Version 3.1
diskette into the 5.25" Amiga drive _upside down,_ you will discover it
contains FastAmiDr, a disk driver capable of megabit data rates.
You must truly be grasping at straws if that's all you can come up with.
Actually, there are utility programs available which can do this; I think
even some version of the Norton Utilities can do across-directory rename.
As far as "extensions" to MSDOS go, every single utility, even down to
trivial things like the (slow) directory and list (and copy) functions, in
Amigados, are programs. Individual, separate programs. A large amount of
MSDOS is resident, including these basic tools. You have to mickey mouse
around, and chew up a fair amount of RAM, to get these utilities resident
with Amigados, so you aren't effectively wasting one disk drive. Every
"utility" of Amigados is a separate program, so the comparison of
"extensions" in MSDOS as "evidence of failure" is meaningless. At least the
most common functions are built into MSDOS.
Actually, I am not a fan of Microsoft, or the 8088, per se. My major
criticism of the Amiga has to do with Commodore, and Amigados; including
the too high prices Commodore is charging. When the machines actually
become available, which isn't yet, after months of delay. I am a great fan
of the 68000, Amiga graphics, and AMiga sound. As a programmer and
developer, it burns me up to see good hardware wasted by poor system
software and bad management and marketing. It took skill on Metacomco's
part to make a DOS that run's on a 7+ mhz 68000, a 32 bit processor, that
runs slower in general than MSDOS on an essentially 8/16 bit 8088 running
at 4.77 mhz. There is no good reason why an Amiga, with the right system
software, with the 68000 alone, much less a 68020, can't beat an AT in all
regards. It is an indication of the many poor factors plaguing the system
that it currently cannot. And those who want to whitewash the truth may pat
yourselves on the back, when the rest of the undedicated market looks for
more economical alternatives.