[retrochallenge] [drclu@swbell.net: Replying to retrochallnge]
- From: "Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" <byron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: retrochallenge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:55:49 -0500
----- Forwarded message from Greg Goodwin <drclu@xxxxxxxxxx> -----
Subject: Replying to retrochallnge
From: Greg Goodwin <drclu@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <byron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:18:39 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1331
Hey Byron, where do we reply to get a message to the retrochallenge list?
As for what has been said...
> You could use all Apple created updates to System 7.5, but
> couldn't use 7.6. Is that the basic idea here?
Exactly. After your comments with regard to System 7.5 I got to
thinking, some people would be "stuck" using something which is
generally acknowledged to be a buggy OS. While 7.5.5 doesn't fix
all of those bugs, it does go a good part of the way.
This left three options:
(1) Don't modify the rule. If somebody wants to use a less buggy
version of the OS, they would simply be forced to use an older
version (and there is nothing wrong with that!).
----> I was getting ready to use 7.5.2... Not liking it, but hey...
(2) Abolish the OS rule altogether, which you seem to be advocating
(ie. make it a hardware only challenge). This does have some
merit, but I'm still concerned that someone running NetBSD 2.0
(or another current OS) would waterdown the competition in the
minds of some people -- including my own!
----> Can see your point on it being watered down.
What is NetBSD again?
(3) Find another definition, one which would allow more recent
operating systems without allowing current operating systems.
------> a good compromise.
In effect, I selected option 3. I selected the given rule for
various reasons, but the big one is that it would best maintain
the status-quo.
Please note that I have very little interest in Mac OS 7.5.5 in
particular. System 7.1 is my favoured OS. :-)
Would anyone else like to comment on this? I understand that
removing the OS restriction would make life easier for everyone,
particularly for Amiga OS users where 3.5 and 3.9 come with a TCP/IP
stack, and I don't think 3.1 does.
Byron.
----> The great thing about the Amiga is that that in truth, Amiga 4
(which is out now) would be like OS X on the Mac relatively speaking. 68K
Amigas cannot run 4, much like 68K macs cannot run X. So how does it break
down from there? You could almost say that...
Amiga 3.1 = Mac OS 7.5
Since they are contemporaries.
Amiga 3.5 in 1997 So it could be in step with Mac OS 8
Amiga 3.9 in late 2000 Could be in steo with Mac OS 9
There is just one small difference between the Mac and Amiga worlds.
The Macs have upgraded in hardware, and the OS's have worked to follow that,
leaving some behind. Mac OS 9 will not run on my 68040 Duo for example.
BUT, 3.9 will run on excellerated Macs and non. And unlike the Atari ST
realm, PowerPC, and use of G3, G4 etc processors are faily common.
So my point here is, in the Amiga world, the number after the OS
number would be a complete jump almost compared to Mac OS's.
In the PC world we would have 3.1, Os/2, and NT.. 3?
What version of linux was out at that time across the systems?
And in the Mac world, 7.5.5 ... Not the greatest, but still a lot to
work with. I would be glad to use it myself.
So the overriding question, to have a OS restriction or not?
Consider the challenge for a moment. This all started by someone
saying how unproductive a retro computer can be. We are trying to show they
are productive. Let's face it, some platforms have been maintained better
than others.
I like the HARDWARE restriction. A Physical computer from before 1993.
Now the question is, where do we want to go from there?
You have people that will have to dig out computers from closets, and
some will not have to do anything at all. They will turn on their computer
like any other day and use their retro machine exclusively.
My opinion, have only one restriction... They must have a computer from
before March 1993. Period. Any computer used with or around that computer
must also be from before March 1993. Period.
Now... Do you have have a operating system that will do everything, and
was released in 2000 (like Amiga 3.9... Can't do everything, but it sure
does a lot.) Well, good. Does it have a G3 upgrade? Well, good! As long
as the computer itself was from before March 1993. What you have done to
it, you are demonstrating that your computer has the power, and the ability,
to operate in today.
And Amiga 3000 user with a G3 accelerator card will easily be able to
do things that my Mac Duo 230 will be able to do. Mac has not continued to
make systems for 68K machines. But all the same, I will take my Duo with
System 8.1 and have fun with this challenge. I will run my applications,
and use Magic Mac to run some ST applications, and have some fun.
Or maybe I will use my Atari 800 from 1979 and try living mainly on that,
with it's DSL connection and hard drive interface. The 800 is a mini-Amiga
in it's own right (being made from the same guy that made the Amiga).
This retro challenge is a chance to show the world that not only can
these 1993-ish computers can not only be a exclusive computer, but we could
do it and not even bat an eye.
And after the month is over, we might go into overtime. There might be
people that will sign on for another month, and another. And soon, we might
find that some current bloat standards are not needed at all. ;)
So my votes, I like the following....
One, take the closest OS to August 1995 time frame, and accept all patches.
This would leave us with...
Amiga 3.1
Atari ST/TT/Falcon ?
Mac 7.5.x
PC Win 3.1/NT 3?
OR, take a pre-March 1993 machine and WHATEVER you can make it do... Do it!
:D
And there are my two choices. :)
Greg Goodwin / Doc Clu
Remember, for many platforms entering this contest, it is mainly just to get
their computer represented. :D Think about it, Mac and Pc may be currently
developed, but for once, they would have to work with 1993 limitations, just
like the ST and Amiga world has had to. LOL!! Who wouldn't love this?
----- End forwarded message -----
Other related posts:
- » [retrochallenge] [drclu@swbell.net: Replying to retrochallnge]
