Subject: Re: Gateway 2000 to acquire Amiga...
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Ty Sarna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/09/1997 10:32:20
Rob Healey wrote:
> True, but NetBSD running on my anciant A3000UX, approx. like a
> 25Mhz 386, does just fine under NetBSD although X is a tad slow
> with the native graphics on an A2024 (1024x800 greyscale kludge
It's not a matter of CPU power so much as space. I'm guessing your
3000UX has more than 16M of combined primary secondary storage; few if
any haldhelds have even that much. AmigaOS is still usable on a
floppy-only system. You can build floppy-only fixit-disk-type NetBSD
systems, but there's no room left for even a tiny GUI system, let alone X.
> monitor). My guess is they saw that the CD32 type design boosted
> with an '040 or '060 would rock the house big time for dirt fork()ing
> cheep set top box. Add a few more connectors to the basic CD32 box
> and you'd have a pretty rocking home computer that could either run
> ADOS or NetBSD/Linux and would probably cost < $200.00 in volume;
> maybe a cheepo NC box?
For a NC, NetBSD would be workable. DEC is doing it, obviously. And you
can give an NC a lot more RAM and HD (much less restrictive power and
physical space situation). And the Amiga custom chips would be great for
that, since they're TV-ready. The two situations are completely
opposite, I think: a handheld wants a Amiga-like OS on different
hardware, while a NC wants a Amiga-like hardware, maybe without AmigaOS.
Though AmigaOS would be much more up to the task of a NC than NetBSD
would be up to the task of a handheld. Easy to grow up, hard to grow
> I see you like living on the edge by invoking the wrath of the MUI
> monsters!! B^).
Yes. I prefer ClassAct... much more AmigaOS-like size and speed wise,
and nearly all the same functionality.
But this has strayed from NetBSD a lot already...