>fully featured graphical desktop environments have 99% of the useful features of a modern one, yet use 1% of the system resources
How did they do it?
>>53430290
They look like shit
>>53430341
/thread
>>53430341
But looking like shit can't account for all of the extra resource usage.
They don't have indexer.
They don't have live notifications.
They don't have multi prossesing.
Their file managers lack a lot of things, like recent files, favorite folders, etc.
No cloud service to sync your files.
About non useful features:
Lack of 32-bit color.
Lack of HD icons.
Lack of animations.
Lack of bitmap wallpaper.
>>53430290
Bloat-code
The Amiga had a 3D suite with raytracing and real time editor what was under 1MB, now-a-days software what does the same is over 15GB. Just an example, it was same with Atari and Macintosh back then, software was written exactly as needed, not like now, we use vbasic, etc, most of the code is useless.
>>53430411
Actually Workbench has 3th party support for most of those, but still runs on original hardware.
>>53430411
>never used an amiga
It has all of those things.
>>53430472
>3th
>>53430341
So as winblows and loonix...
software development is not as good as it used to be. people needed to cram an os on 1MB of ram so they needed to cut out all the nonsence they could. nowadays they just expect you to put in more ram or a better processor instead of making their software better.
>>53430472
3th/10
>>53430449
>Bloat-code
Yeah, because proper memory management is bloat. Amiga was unstable as hell since everything ran in kernel-space.
>>53430290
Because it was designed from scratch, the OS to match the custom Amiga hardware, at a atime when memory was expensive (and HDD too, hence the RAM: disk). Some of the OS was in ROM.
Unix on PDP-11 was probably nice and tight too, long before all the bloat was added, and before X. Seems like the various Unix commands back then didn't even have much in the way of arguments/options, very much the opposite of GNU versions.
What's the closest thing today, maybe TempleOS? I mean as something that was designed explicitely around amd64, for mamximum efficiency.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vakWMNA1oWc
>>53430952
I kind of wish, in this time of fast memory and access times having the OS in "ROM" would come back. RISC OS loads off the Pi's SD card in about 3 seconds.
In fact I just want more experimentation in general.
>>53430939
Unstable as hell? Have you even used it? It was a single user OS, yes everything ran is kernel-space and there was no memory sandboxing. But if your programs where written properly it ran amazingly. Every system like that did.
>>53430952
>if you lean over on a motorcycle you will crash
Um. Bullshit much?
>>53430939
>Bloat-code
>Memory management
So memory management came to be so dev's can be lazy assholes with their apps?
>>53430359
Wow.
>>53431052
This is whats wrong today
>>53431026
>Have you even used it?
Yes, for many years as my primary computer. You obviously haven't for an extended period of time, otherwise you would know how unstable it was.
>if your programs where written properly
A lot of programs were NOT written properly. It's a well known fact in the Amiga community.
I always hoped that things would plateau eventually, the way that processors did. Sort of the decision that you can't just keep getting bigger and hotter, you need to be more efficient, and work towards that.
The tragedy is that there's no mini-computer like the Pi that's being designed, and shipped also, as a desktop replacement.
I know you can put on Openbox, XFE, Midora, AbiWord, GNUmeric, etc, and get by very well, but I was hoping for something more...Out there. More experimental...
>>53430359
Are you serious?
>>53430939
>>53431026
Amiga had zero memory protection, it was probably worse than Windows 95. Everything could fuck everything up, you were at mercy of the programmers not being sloppy. But back then, everybod relied on lowlevel hacks for performance, so no, shit was flaky as hell. That was the other side of the "great optimised performance", no checks, no security, no protections.
>>53431113
What this anon says.
There is a reason "Guru meditation" is famous.
>>53430359
Upscaling your resolution 5 times shouldn't result in 500 times more resource usage.
>>53430449
> write little simple Perl script
> use a library, because i'm lazy
> it has depenencies, those have dependencies...
> oh well CPAN will install those for me, go make some tea
> mfw come back 15 minutes later and it's compiling the latest version of perl
This shit has happened to me too many times. And it's the same thing when I want to install program in OS package manager. Come back to find 50 new things that I have no clue how they got here.
>>53431915
> mfw
Amiga fanboys, convince me to buy an A1200.
I want to do it anyway, but I'm wavering and I want some peer pressure from random people I'll never meet to tip me over the edge.
>>53431052
>apps
vacate the premises.
>2016
>twm is still the best wm
How
>>53431939
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTDHiBePyM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbteWszZa4Q
>>53431775
>>53430411
AROS (modern amiga os for x86)
and amiga os 3.5+ support almost any resolution you could wish for and look fantastic, they even have 'animated' icons.
They run far, far better than any other OS I have ever used.
They have virtually zero bloat and do not spend processor time fucking around with shit in the background. Amiga OS has always been fantastic at basic computer tasks, it maintains something windows and a lot of linux flavors gave up on, trying to be efficient, as well as trying to be transparent about what your computer is doing at any time.
>>53430449
Nobody has ever backed the Amiga either, mirite guise?
You're dumb.
>>53430952
You know that Amiga OS still exists and still has the same philosophy ? Temple OS is a joke.
>>53432232
>Amiga OS still exists
Not reaaaaaaaaaaaally.
It has derivatives, and one of those got to keep the name, but the actual Amiga OS died with Commodore or maybe Escom.
>this is how far /g/ will go in their delusions
>>53432186
Don't these OSes still lack memory protection?
Also I've heard MorphOS is better than both
>>53431113
So we are talking about the programs that any sperg could make now and not the operating system itself? Amiga OS 3.9 was the most stable OS I have ever used, yeah it could crash when you load some random software from aminet, but the OS itself was rock solid.
My friend had an Amiga 600 running nonstop for 12 years, ended only by a power outage. During this time it played through a huge playlist of .mod/.xm files, played various demoscene releases and operated the lights to the room through AREXX too.
Linux is now the default 'hobby OS' primarily because it generally shares the same values as amiga OS did.
>>53432434
Also it runs on easily available hardware.
The Amiga platform's loyalty to PPC is retarded.
>>53431939
I hope you got a lot of money.
It might be better to buy a 'modern' PPC based Amiga mobo, then you don't have to spend anything on shit like a pci mediator and rare ppc cards. Amiga OS 4+ has been very good generally and has less issues with third party software as the only people making software for it REALLY know what they are doing.
>>53430472
>3th
>>53430290
/thread
>>53430290
because they are extremely simple operating systems designed specifically for certain (also very simple) hardware.
I'm not saying Windows isn't bloated, but it's dealing with a million fucktons more stuff in the background than an Amiga ever did.
>>53430359
retard
OP you are a fucking hipster i bet you use a mechanical typewriter too.
>>53431939
Because its AESTHIC, I just blew 300 pounds on a 50mhz accelerator, FPU and 128mb RAM expansion.
Nobody wants to optimize or omit things because computers are too slow anymore
Just look at OS X
You do not enable or disable shit. It's all running, all the time, use it or not. Even iCloud-related daemons, account or no account, just because "you need to enable the service" is a phrase apple thinks its users wouldn't be able to comprehend.
As a result, if you want to do any computing on a mac, you're kind of fucked because a quarter of your RAM is always in use and there's not that much CPU time available either. And also because OS X will automatically fill the ques with garbage if it determines the processor is getting too hot (kernel_task problem).
It boils down to this:
People do not need the powerful computers we can manufacture for roughly the same cost as less powerful ones
But they do WANT the bloated, shiny UIs and convenience of everything always cached or running
They don't care about CPU benchmarks
But they do care if a bloated as fuck web 3.0 javascriptsite loads and operates faster - even though it would be an instant deal if it didn't import 30mb of scripts to put images in tabbed views and slap multiple tooltips on each one "because its neat lol".
>>53431467
>The tragedy is that there's no mini-computer like the Pi that's being designed, and shipped also, as a desktop replacement.
Stay tuned for the next ~10 years. I'm working on something and using a modified TempleOS as my base.
>>53430411
UNIX had all of these things :^)
locate
sh job control/write/wall
part of the kernel
'fav=/path/to/favorite/folder; export fav' in .profile
syncing files over the network has been done using a wide variety of software and is nothing new
>>53430290
>How did they do it?
ONLY
AMIGA
MAKES
IT
POSSIBLE
>>53432345
It lacks SMP too, making it a bad joke on modern x86.
Windows in general has copied the AMIGA / AMIGA os and failed badly.. and yes linux is way better then Windos.. Mac is a pc period ,, now with closed source linux period. you want better get amiga classic.You guys had your chance with true 32bit ..true 64bit.. ,but blew Amiga off .Then the Itanium which by the way in 2003 is true 256bit in each core ,and 64 cores..Yet, you love the PARIsc ,but hate the ITANIUM ..dah thats what it is.. The you guys blew off the PS3..guess what thats an AMIGA clone.. you know its sad sad, you wouldnt be in this bs world of problems , and liars if you would be using amigas. Oh yeah the new vr and halo lens is again done by AMIGA in 1986. AMIGA invented in 1979. Inc in 1982.. Apple copied amiga. mac=pc=xboxone=ps4=8bit
>>53431519
Security is the big one. Having multiple network processes running at once requires an OS with much more advanced scheduling, memory handling, and privilege separation unless you want random port scanners to trivially get root/admin.
>>53434041
Itanium came out at the height of the Wintel monopoly and couldn't run x86 binaries. It also required weird userspace libraries on Linux like libunwind to do useful things.
>implying AmigaOS isn't the greatest os ever made
>>53434129
It had some great ideas. The OSes it inspired like BeOS, AROS, Haiku, and DragonFly BSD (lots of Amiga type stuff in the kernel) are more relevant these days.
(._. ) the world would be a better place if amiga survived
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vsryzdh9qo&app=desktop
>>53432724
>1200
>128mb of ram
>>53434041
>ITANIUM
>>53434278
I've got a TCP stack, web browser, IRC client and octamed running and I'm not even dipping below 110mb of free RAM.
>>53434339
how much of a pain in the ass is getting an amiga online anyway?
i'd love to do it but i'm too lazy beyond any real configuration for it. i just want to plug it in and make it go.
(i have no real use for it, it'd just be comfy to look at how certain sites render, could do it with an emulator but that's not THE REAL THING)
>>53434649
Not much at all, Install a device driver for your wifi/ethernet card, install miami, configure it and let it rip.
The classic browsers for the m68k are all stuck in 1995 with no CSS support, better stuff is available if you have a PPC accelerator, netsurf specifically.
>>53432973
Unix*
>>53434129
it's a shame how little became of a talent like Eric.
>>53432608
BeOS got me into Windows alternatives 20 years ago but even Debian at the time was more user friendly.
RIP as Haiku BeOS.
>>53435926
He and the Amiga were made for one another.
guys
>>53435991
what was not-user friendly about BeOS? I've used it for a bit over a year and, even being the stupid clueless teenage idiot I was, didn't run into any problems
>>53431939
What do you want to do exactly? Those machines are ok for various old games, but don't expect to do anything like web browsing, unless you think stuff like Lynx or Dillo is good enough.
If it wasn't for Web 2.0 nightmare, a lot of older machines from 90's coujld still be used as main system, but now they're more a hobby machine. I'm pretty sure even most people that go to sites like eab.abime.net don't use 90's Amiga for posting, because those sites use all kinds of javascript. Heck, even archive.org looks and runs like total shit in plain old HTML browser. And if anyone should care about old systems, it's them.
>>53432345
For TempleoS, it's by design. Terry basically says everyone is fighting the last war, and they're still trying to build 1970's mainframe.
>>53436995
>If it wasn't for Web 2.0 nightmare, a lot of older machines from 90's coujld still be used as main system
It's a shame that when it came to the mobile web, they just made phones more powerful instead of simplifying sites so that this was still the case.
>>53432724
This looks so comfy
>>53436995
Yeah devs go way overboard with the web 2.0. CSS transparency, animation, shadows, all slow down the page. It's rarely taken into consideration because usually the devs are only running on their already-fast-enough machine
>>53432232
>Temple OS
Fuck off
What other OS will keep you safe from the CIA niggers and has NO networking support?
>>53430290
>a shitty kludge grafted on top of an ancient shitty kludge developed for a 20 year old hardware kludge
>multitasking is an afterthought
>stability is an afterthought
>multiprocessing is an afterthought
>responsiveness is an afterthought
>customization is an afterthought
>networking is an afterthought
>efficiency is an afterthought
>high resolution/high-color display support is an afterthought
>security is an utter afterthought
>single-user oriented typically with minimal multi-user support
>no bundled applications forcing you to rely on shitty/expensive third-party solutions for basic functionality you take for granted on the shitbox you're posting this garbage from
I love the fuck out of my old gear but there's no reason to jump through nostalgiatard hoops like this.
>>53436995
I wouldn't even run a text-mode browser on an 'EC020 with 2-8MB like that, you'd be better off telnetting/SSHing into a remote system and running w3m or Lynx from there.
My Quadra 700 with a full 68040 and 20 MB of RAM is just barely passable for Web 1.0 holdouts and reading PDFs.
>>53435926
>>53436131
His art and animation has a special place in my heart for old technology, even though its furshit. But its good furshit
>>53430411
>live notifications
>gnome
>>53430290
>all these shills defending modern bloat
Throughout the 1990's I saw a very clear connection between improvements and increasing software size. Not just as a user, but as a programmer.
That connection is pretty damn fuzzy or non-existent to me now.
The other night I compared PowerPC MS Office on a Power Mac G5 and modern Office on an i7 Mac. The old PPC office was considerably faster. It launched instantly from a HDD where modern Office took several seconds from a SSD!
Compare the performance of the two chips, the available memory, the memory bus speed, HDD vs SSD...there is no excuse for modern Office losing.
Another point of comparison: specific Photoshop commands are faster on the modern Mac. Save kills it on the SSD, any filters and the i7 BTFO the old G5. But Photoshop as an application...launching, the UI, etc...is not.
Honestly, I think a lot of code is being written by coders who never had to count every byte and worry about processor cycles. Things really are bloated as fuck.
>>53430939
>Yeah, because proper memory management is bloat.
You can't blame memory management for this shit. Sorry.
>>53438695
>efficiency is an afterthought
what
the whole purpose of every other thing being an afterthought is efficiency
It is programmed in raw assembly
It is not POSIX standards.
It doesn't use any shitty external unoptimized-hell libraries like glibc.
It does not rely on a server.
It does not rely on an additional WM for a window manager.
>>53439296
It's sad honestly.
I honestly can't tell what are the improvements in functionality between Windows XP SP3 (which used like 200MB of RAM cold boot) and Windows 10 (which uses helluvalot more can't quote the exact numbers).
Years and millions of dollars that went into performance improvement of consumer computing are wasted on making up for lazy programming.
Prepare to cum
>>53439374
The hardware performance brick wall is coming soon. Software optimization and specialized processors to take advantage of them will be the only way forward until some breakthrough happens.
Also I can get XP down to ~100 MB on boot, Windows 10 ~450 MB after optimizations.
>>53438819
That's surprising, because Lynx ran very well on my first PC. It was a 33 MHz 486 with only 4 MB RAM, that I installed Slackware on instead of upgrading DOS->Win95. Later on added another 4 MB RAM, to make X usable.
I even had a DOS version of Lynx that I used sometimes (dual booting for games mostly) and that was even before adding extra memory.
I'm sure the PDF reading is a major hog, but plain text browser should be able to run on almost anything. Maybe it's due to many sites now using SSL, which adds lots of overhead.
>>53439118
T-thanks, anon!
>>53439610
Keep in mind Windows 10 has RAM compression so that 450 is more like 225. And most modern PCs will be running on a SSD or eMMC, which means hitting the page file isn't like running headfirst into a brick wall like older PCs.
>>53439617
You're probably right, seeing as I run Netscape 3 on my system. But it seems that even given that, network performance seems slower than I'd expect.
>tfw /g/ too young to remember amiga
>>53439311
Maybe on some platforms, especially low-end systems like the C64, but Windows, for example, was hobbled by compatibility concerns rather than efficiency. 9x especially was a horrifying frankensteined kludge of a system, and old graphical operating systems in general feel quite sluggish in comparison to their modern descendants even when running on high-end hardware.
>>53440004
>tfw too young to have owned an Amiga but jealous of how dedicated Amiga fans are (while realizing it's essentially impossible to have the same level of admiration for it because a good part of it is rooted in how impressive the Amiga was historically, which is similar to but distinct from 'oh wow, that was cool for it's day')
it's an abstract kind of feel
But anon that is ugly
>>53440118
I'd say the real competitor for Amiga 500 was Atari ST. They both had pros and cons, and were about same price range.
>>53440262
It was pretty nice looking for 1991, and I still like it more visually than recent stuff. However, it's not as configurable as the various X WM's.
Also the various programs could get pretty creative with their designs (pic).
>>53440512
>I'd say the real competitor for Amiga 500 was Atari ST. They both had pros and cons, and were about same price range.
yeah i didn't make the graphic, it's quite interesting how overlooked the ST is in comparison to the Amiga.
>>53440118
Also, it's funny that Commodore actually sold PCs back then. I mean, if you had that kind of money, you could instead get an Amiga 2000 and a PC bridgeboard card (it's basically PC on a card that lets you run DOS programs inside a window).
>>53440118
>>53440512
I never really saw anything super mind-blowing about Amigas, they were never at the top of the microcomputer food chain, while they surely had better price/performance over PCs which were never made to fill the Amiga's niche anyway, they were business systems that emphasized compatibility, modularity and expandability.
The comparison graphic is kind of shitty, too. At the same time the A500 came out, a low-end MCGA equipped PS/2 Model 20/30 could shit out 256 colors at the same resolution the A500 could only handle 32, PCs in general were shipping with more standard enhanced keyboards with dedicated cursor keys, graphical interfaces were available with software like Windows 2.x and DeskMate, if you weren't much for cooperative multitasking, you could run an operating system like Concurrent DOS or Xenix, and if you had some money to throw at it you didn't have to deal with the brain-dead memory access clusterfuck of the 286, since the 386 had finally come of age.
>>53440814
>At the same time the A500 came out, a low-end MCGA equipped PS/2 Model 20/30 could shit out 256 colors at the same resolution the A500 could only handle 32
But could it make a pretty 3D ball bounce up and down, playing sounds when it hit the ground, while also letting you perform other tasks?
Oh god, I miss the Amiga...
>>53431004
>In fact I just want more experimentation in general.
The problem is that the industry is not dominated by scientists and engineers any longer. It's dominated by dipshit executive project managers, and hula-hoop eyed dipshit kids who's dipshit parents told 'em to "go into computers" for a living. Everyone involved nearly are dipshits. You want experimentation? Then look no further than quantum computing. For now it's inaccessible to the general masses.
>>53440814
Well the 680x0 was nicer to program (also used on Atari ST and various old workstations like NeXT).
Amiga 3000UX was an option too, for people who wanted a real UNIX(tm) box, at a fraction of the price.
Basically you could buy an Amige 2000 or 3000 and add stuff to it, and come out with a much better deal than PC, Mac, or Sun...
The A500 was really meant to be a home computer and/or games machine, and did pretty well at that job. Comparing 80's games for Amiga vs. DOS shows the Amiga port often looks and sounds nicer. Pic is SSI's Roadwar 2000. The DOS port is only CGA and incredibly ugly (better to play the C64 game intead of DOS...)
>>53441396
DOS port, for comparison.
Also, the old Mac's used 680x0 chips. I think maybe some old Sun workstations too.
>>53441396
>>53441463
The Amiga undoubtedly had much nicer games, and for sure, pretty much any workstation worth a shit in the '80s barring some oddball HP systems were 68k-based. The PC platform was nowhere near high-end until the Pentium Pro brought them into the entry level of the cost-no-object sector.
Interesting about the 3000UX though, apparently Sun offered to produce them under license as a low-end alternative to their own workstation offerings, but the deal was ultimately declined. Maybe one of these days I'll add one to my collection, if I ever find one.
>>53432232
TempleOS isn't as big of a joke as you might think. There's some ingenuity buried in the insanity, which is often the case with ingenuity. I'm not saying that you should go delete every other OS you may use, and use that instead, but anyone who is at all interested in OS development, it would serve them well to explore it. It's like Plan 9 in one sense at least. It's not an OS that will ever be widely known or used, but it is one with some really good ideas that other OSes would do well to borrow, and build upon.
Terry may be fucked out of his skull, but he's not a moron. There was a time, before his schizophrenia took him over the edge, that he was an extremely brilliant programmer, with a promising future.
>>53430290
Is that CDE? I'm having such a hard time getting that installed on Arch. If anyone has a good resource to point me to, that would be cool.
>>53441739
>Is that CDE
kill yourself
>>53441739
Looks more like amiwm desu.
http://xwinman.org/amiwm.php
>>53440067
>old graphical operating systems in general feel quite sluggish in comparison to their modern descendants even when running on high-end hardware.
Recently restored a Macintosh Performa 6300CD. 100 MHz 603e, 64 MB of RAM. (Back in the day it shipped with 16 MB), 1.2 GB HD still works.
System 7.5 is snappy even compared to modern systems.
Would love to have an '040 NeXT cube to compare original NeXTSTEP to modern OS X. If the OS runs even close to the same speed then that would be a damning comparison. System 7.5 didn't have all the features of OS X, but NeXTSTEP was pretty darn close.
>>53431467
I've always thought that an ultra-low-power ARM laptop running something akin to a mildly modernized System 7.5 would make for a nice little device. No, you wouldn't be able to browse sites ridden with watermelon-sized Javascript tumors, but it'd make for a damned fine writing/blogging/productivity/SSH machine, and if it were equipped with a modern laptop-capacity lithium-ion battery it'd last for days on a single charge.
I wish I had the EE and low level software chops to make this idea a reality...
>>53442091
Yeah, it would be ideal for people who want a computer just for their kid's homework, and can be sure they wont be fucking around online.
You could approximate something like that by installing low-resource programs like that poster mentioned, but having something actually made from the ground up, or even something appropriated from elsewhere that's dedicated to that would be great.
We'd actually have that if the Raspberry Pi group put more of a push behind RISC OS than Raspbian.
if i could have a windows gui that takes 1 percent resource and still have complete functionality i would cum without touching myself. fuck aesthetics.
>>53442161
>You could approximate something like that by installing low-resource programs like that poster mentioned, but having something actually made from the ground up, or even something appropriated from elsewhere that's dedicated to that would be great.
Yeah, that's the real problem with Linux-based (and to a slightly lesser extent, *BSD-based) solutions: they get the job done, but in a spectacularly mediocre fashion. Anything designed specifically for the task at hand with most assuredly perform leagues better.
But Linux performs "good enough", so nobody bothers to make something better, and we get stuck with mediocrity.
>>53442229
Also those OSs don't play well with the hardware limitations of these low powered ARM devices. I don't mean that in terms of the processor and RAM (which are more than enough for productivity tasks), but that the SD card is burnt through by how these HDD-centric OSs work.
>>53442360
You can pretty much run OpenBSD at least with the entire disk read-only. Only /tmp and some /var stuff needs to be writable (those can be mounted on tmpfs). That's basically how I got by when I was using an old Thinkpad without battery and the local electric utility was iffy. I had some basic shell script to quickly toggle /home between read-only/read-write so I could save things. I had a wrapper script to edit files in /tmp and then copy them to $HOME. I had a wraper script that exported HOME=/tmp before running firefox, so it didn't complain (also nice side benefit was tracking stuff like cookies always got regularly deleted).
>>53432868
k keep me posted senpai
>>53442054
I don't know, I've been pretty much daily driving this 25 year old Quadra (and a PowerBook 170) for the last couple weeks, running a reasonably period-correct software configuration, and while it's definitely snappy, it's still not quite as responsive as newer hardware, especially in a similar price bracket. There's a small but noticeable delay when opening applications, accessing menus and the like that you just don't feel on modern systems. It's nothing huge and I don't really mind it at all, but it's there.
>Would love to have an '040 NeXT cube to compare original NeXTSTEP to modern OS X. If the OS runs even close to the same speed then that would be a damning comparison.
That would be an interesting comparison. You can always try running x86 NeXTSTEP on a Pentium-class system or giving the Previous emulator a go to feel it out, though I'm not sure how well it would compare to the real 68k deal.
I'm thinking of getting myself and '040 cube, the price is kind of steep versus the $5-10 here and there I'm used to but honestly I think I'd be able to get my money's worth out of it.
>>53442446
I know that there's ways around it (I just went the quick and easy option and stuck the whole OS (besides /boot) on an old external HDD I had laying around). But I'd just like for a system to be designed around this.
I imagine it would be something like one of those all-in-keyboard computers, with the SD card being the OS, and all user files connected to a hard drive.
I guess I can't talk too much since I'm not programming this myself, but I really do have a love of seeing what can be done on "obsolete" hardware. I just can't believe that Pis, Beaglebones, etc., are apparently too underpowered to use for anything but the terminal, but are also more powerful that what a lot of people used as a desktop not even 10 years ago.
>>53442795
I use a T60 as a daily, and have for a year, with just 2GB of RAM and using Xubuntu and this flies far better than it should. I'd even say that it's just as fast in general usage as a new PC.
>>53442891
My DD is a Core2 system as well, the sluggishness I'm talking about is something that addles 15-20+ year old software and hardware in my experience, I'd consider anything Prescott/K8 and later to be "modern," maybe even further back to the early 2000s. Many of my P4 boxes are snappy in every sense of the word as long as you don't make them bite off more than they can chew.
>>53442797
>I just can't believe that Pis, Beaglebones, etc., are apparently too underpowered to use for anything but the terminal, but are also more powerful that what a lot of people used as a desktop not even 10 years ago.
I'm fairly confident a combination of lazy engineering + kitchen sink syndrome is to blame. Modern hardware is so embarrassingly powerful that the vast majority of operations in desktop applications should near instantaneous, but instead even if you've got a 2GB/s read SSD with ridiculously high IOPS in a top of the line workstation, there's still noticeable instances stutter and general un-silkiness.
>>53442795
>I don't know, I've been pretty much daily driving this 25 year old Quadra (and a PowerBook 170) for the last couple weeks, running a reasonably period-correct software configuration, and while it's definitely snappy, it's still not quite as responsive as newer hardware, especially in a similar price bracket.
In all fairness a 100 MHz 603e is a lot faster then either of those two machines.
But think about what you're saying: your Quadra with period software is "not quite as responsive" as newer hardware. Even if you have the 40 MHz 840AV we're talking about...
* 40 MHz vs. >2 GHz with >3 GHz bursts
* RAM bandwidth of maybe 160 MB/s vs. 30-50 GB/s
* SCSI drives (probably no more then 4 MB/s on the Quadra) vs. SATA III SSDs (400-500 MB/s) or PCIe (up to 800 MB/s)
* Virtually no graphics acceleration vs. today's massively parallel GPUs
Performance shouldn't even be in the same ballpark. And on tightly optimized functions like a Photoshop filter it's clearly not. But general performance like launching applications or starting up? I honestly don't understand why booting a modern computer takes more then 1s. That Performa I restored boots in under 1m which clobbers Windows 7/8/10 on a HDD.
Comparing period Office on the Power Mac G5 to Office on my MacBook Pro is just embarrassing for Microsoft. What the hell are they doing?
It would be really interesting to dissect two applications, one classic and one modern, and try to pinpoint all the things that drag on efficiency and bloat the code.
I had a DEC Alpha 21164 at 533 MHz that chewed through Quake like hot butter!
I was pwning fools on quakeworld, their T1's couldn't handle my eliteness!
It was so easy, no challenge. I was eating burritos and smoking doobies while rocket jumping!
All those things gone now, like faps in the rain.
I always liked classic MacOS
>>53432434
>Amiga OS 3.9 was the most stable OS I have ever used, yeah it could crash when you load some random software from aminet, but the OS itself was rock solid.
No OS crashes on its own, anon. It'S exactly the point that a lame program can shoot it down that we are talking about when we say it is unstable. The cause here is its nature, due to having no memory protection etc. Sure, nice software can be built on the top and many of the programmers must ahve done great job, but in the end the foundations are too brittle.
grew up with a 2GB windows xp machine
now everything bloat. you need 8GB
>>53439118
It was from a more simple and innocent time, when furfags weren't the cancer they are today.
>>53432292
I wouldn't consider Amiga OS 4 a derivative. It's developed from the original 68k source ported to PPC.
>>53443238
>I honestly don't understand why booting a modern computer takes more then 1s
Because making the power button put it to sleep instead of turning it off (most users won't notice, kek!) was easier than making the OS more efficient.
Heck even without touching the power button most people I know just close the screen of their laptops without turning them off, so their uptime would be insane if not for automatic updates.
How hard would it be to learn to program a GPU?
Some cards are documented, like the chip in the Raspberry Pi.
http://www.broadcom.com/docs/support/videocore/VideoCoreIV-AG100-R.pdf
>>53430290
Low res and low colour displays are pretty simple to do as they only require a tiny amount of memory. Also there is no acceleration and everything is just blitted into the video memory.
>even if we did get simple, cut down, fast computers for general purpose use today they'd be more like chromebooks than vintage systems
i hate the planet and everyone on it
>>53430411
>No cloud service to sync your files.
OH THE HUMANITY!
>>53447761
Or "minimalist" in the modern sense. Like those "minimalist" text editors people use for writing that don't do shit but save and open.
>want to change [system setting]? get a proper computer lol
>>53440814
IBM's PC modularity was IBM's biggest business mistake.
>>53443238
For sure, the hardware definitely plays a part in it, and I'm in no way defending modern bloat, it's pretty unreal at times. My old high end gear blows out even my SSDs any day when it comes to boot times and can just about match them on application loading times.
>>53450293
The PC was easy to clone because everything was off the shelf, not necessarily because it was modular. You couldn't really market a business system without some degree of modularity or expandability, not to mention it opened up your platform to more markets,and thus more customers.
>>53432608
How do I get this?
>>53430290
only Amiga makes it possible
>>53440512
holyshit an xmas edition of xcopy. kewl. anyone had UADial?
>>53440526
ST was a great midi goto, for sequencing. amiga not so much.
>>53436548
Yeah I was able to pick up how to do things in the command line much easier on beos than I was on linux.
I figured out how to install programs by dragging and dropping the file onto a terminal window and I remember thinking how much easier that was compared to linux. Actually used it for a long time, nothing else was faster than beos, the same machine that struggled to play MP3 files on windows 95 would play them without issue on beos. the full duplex capabilities on beos were amazing, being able to play two videos at the same time or two sound files at the same time was a totally new thing.
>>53430290
screen resolution 640x400
16 colors
very basic API
mine was running on 2 MB ! (or was it one?)
hard disk had 20 MB
>>53451909
the requirements for windows don't change very much if you run it at 640x480 in 16 colors
>you will never work for commodore in their dying days
>you will never experience the tragicomic situation of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again
>you will never feel so dedicated as to stick with a clearly dying company to the bitter end because it shouldn't have been this way
>>53451909
A1200 had 2 MB stock.
The A500 usually had 1 MB, if you got that cheap trapdoor expansion thing with 512 KB and clock battery. I'm pretty sure most people in the 90's bought one with that already. Some of the very early models from the 80's probably didn't have it though (had to upgrade with it later).
The very first A1000 models only had 256 KB memory. I guess the typical programs were a lot smaller then too. After all that was 1985, at a time when most people were running variious 8-bit systems with around 64 KB, maybe 128 KB at most (like some ZX Spectrum and Amstrad CPC models).
>>53445216
>grew up with a 2GB windows xp machine
>underage
>>53430572
*winblows and osx
My raspberry pi is just fine with Tmux. It's also blazing fast.
>>53453892
Amigas were off the radar for most home micro users in the UK. I boughts a ZX Spectrum +2 in 1986. Didn't get an A500 until '88.
>>53453777
>you will never work for NeXT building the computer of the 90's
>you will never be the first to blend UNIX, a great GUI, DPS, and an OOP framework
>you will never feel the pride of watching Jobs introduce the cube
>you will never feel the low of the company struggling because no one can afford it
>you will never feel adrift after the hardware side closes and NeXTSTEP becomes a mere developer tool / cross platform framework
>you will never feel the relief and joy of being drafted into Apple to make NeXTSTEP into the next Mac OS
>you will never wake up in [current year] and realize your hard work from the late 80's powers all the iPhones and iPads in the world
>>53454799
>you will never set one of those magnesium filled cases on fire
>>53439512
why the fuck did DOS even catch on if it couldn't do multitasking
>>53454953
IBM is probably the #1 reason. Nobody really questioned them, and just bought their products. There's even an old saying: "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". They were kinda like juggernaut Microsoft became later on.
Aside from that, DOS was heavily inspired by CP/M (on 8080 and Z-80 based machines), which was already in wide use in the business world. And it was a very simple, single-tasking OS. Heck, its filesystem didn't even have directory structures, so every file lived in the root directory (they added a USER command kludge to work around that, for the rare and priviledged people who actually owned hard disks).
But also, people were simply used to single-tasking computers. Multi-tasking was what mainframes did, and those costed a ton of money.
>>53454799
Never used Next(step). I wonder if the relation to OSX is obvious in using.
>>53455070
I honestly think that if Commodore licensed their hardware out to other companies, we would all be using Amiga clones instead of PC clones.
>>53455121
UI was heavily overhauled, but there are still hints. The dock being one prominent throwback to NeXT.
It's under the hood where it's obvious. If you've coded Cocoa for OS X, you could simply start coding on a later NeXT system with OPENSTEP. And could get under way with just a bit of learning/adjustment on NeXTSTEP 1.0.
(LOL I always hated their caps. I want to type NextStep and OpenStep.)
>>53430472
>3th
>>53441739
>CDE
>pointless anime shitposting
i want /desktopthread/ to leave
>>53455151
>licensed
Nah, probably not. Apple tried that and all it did was make things worse.
When you go through it, I have to wonder if technology as an industry even (directly) responds to innovation, because it seems getting in early and 'sticking' is more important than actually being the 'best' product.
(For example: Why was DOS popular? CP/M and IBM > Clones of IBM machines for the home market. Why were newer DOS-intel clones popular? Compatibility with the old ones. Why was Windows 3 popular? Compatibility with aforementioned hardware and software. Windows 95...XP...7... you get the idea. Amiga does multimedia 10 years early? Who cares? Mac is easier to use and DOS-compatibility methods exist for work? Who cares? It's a little glib sounding, but it really does appear to come down to "Most people are using Windows 7-10 because 30 years ago most businesses bought IBM")
The dominance of Wintel in the home market is only starting to wane because of indirect competition from tablets/phones for content consumption, not because of direct competition from OSX or GNU/Linux.
Similar things can be said of Google and Facebook, they stick, and even if they start doing sucky things it doesn't matter because they've got that stickiness to them. Compatibility is less of a concern for search engines, but still.
Now of course 'compatibility' is a feature in itself, so you could still say as a market this is functioning fine - but in terms of forwards innovation instead of backwards compatibility, or leaving options open if one company starts doing undesirable things, this doesn't seem to work.
>>53455269
If poke and prod with the UI elements in your OS X application enough, you can still see glimpses of that old NeXT widget style. One of the more notable examples is NSImageView, which still features three NeXT-era drawing modes (pictured). Nobody uses them but they're there.
I'm sure other widgets can have their past selves coaxed out as well with proper incantations.
>>53430290
no switchable input methods
no switchable language
no gradients
1bit depth images
single user
no user interface tweaking
>>53456549
>no switchable input methods
>no switchable language
Granted but 90% of consumers don't need (and didn't need) this
>no user interface tweaking
false
>>53456574
i like my ui in english but i'm not a native speaker, other users in the household must use portuguese
i need switchable input methods to type japanese and russian. i admit the later could be solved by just switching to colemak but i'm 2lazy4dat
>>53456549
>no switchable input methods
Yep
>no switchable language
Wrong
>no gradients
Wrong
>1bit depth images
Wrong
>single user
Yep
>no user interface tweaking
Hilariously fucking wrong.
It pains me to see my 16GB Athlon 860k rig choke on what should be simple web pages. Then again, I haven't had this problem so much ever since I switched from Win7 to Manjaro...
>>53457009
As a web developer, I'm so sorry.
The state of the modern web is appalling and my co-workers don't understand the damage that Javascript is doing.
>>53431113
My childhood: the image
>>53457277
I honestly don't understand why everything must be dynamic javascript bullshit these days.
It's like they're intentionally trying to create shit jobs.
What the hell was wrong with just HTML and CSS?
>>53456549
The switchable input part is a huge bitch, I wish I could find some utilities to add it.
>no gradients
>1bit depth images
Maybe if you were running something like a Compact Mac or a PERQ, but there was more to early graphical systems than those, you know.
The single-user and tweaking complaints vary from system to system, there were plenty of "simple" graphical UNIX systems out there, and customization was easy enough through third parties. Kaleidoscope on Mac OS was a fantastic piece of software.
>>53457405
It's the shitty animations, ads and videos that contribute nothing to the user experience.
It kind of boggles my mind how much computing power they need to suck up for that shit.
>>53457405
CSS can also shit stuff if up if used improperly. Shadows, animations, anything that re-calculates on page scroll. It really sucks when a simple-looking site chugs because nobody ever takes a look at on-page performance.
>>53457405
>What the hell was wrong with just HTML and CSS?
Not 'Dynamic' and 'Responsive' enough
Look, now instead of scrolling like a normal document it scrolls through several full screen 'pages'! Sure, it limits readability, and sure, even someone with ADHD could handle the old way, but who cares? I mean it only uses
TWO 2.1GHZ CORES AND 4 GB OF RAM!?
[THE [s]BLUNDER[/s] BIGGEST SUCCESS OF THE CENTURY]
>>53457572
Chrome's profiling tools make this all really easy to fix too, but nobody bothers.
>>53457572
Yeah but I think you had to actually TRY to fuck shit up with CSS.
It's really sad that my computer, which is 6 years old now, is starting to struggle with the web.
>>53441546
>There was a time, before his schizophrenia took him over the edge, that he was an extremely brilliant programmer, with a promising future.
He's still a brilliant programmer
>>53457590
It used to be a rare feature so maybe nobody knows about it. A couple years ago only Opera had CSS performance profiling
>>53451290
You need to install Haiku
>>53434041
>Mac is a pc period ,, now with closed source linux period
OS X is *BSD you 'tard
>>53434041
>closed source linux
>true 64bit.. ,but blew Amiga off .
>Then the Itanium which by the way in 2003 is true 256bit in each core ,and 64 cores..
Holy shit, this is one hell of a pasta.
>>53458037
>>53430290
Let's ask the average consumer:
>>53430341
>>53430411
Yes, that's right, the reason developers prioritise flashing bells and whistles over functionality is the same reason that, while before 2010 website designers had a '2mb MAXIMUM' rule, the average website has now exceeded 2mb, with over one megabyte of that being NOTHING BUT ADS!!!!
The reason? People are fucking stupid and most of them shouldn't be allowed to touch technology and should be put in forced labour camps.
>>53458355
Blame the half-assed developers that conditioned them to see things that way.
>>53457277
I know. Pre-2009, much of the web was still usable on things like the Wii or an old Pentium II. Post 2009, you pretty much need a Pentium 4 minimum for things to function, let done work well. Shame really, because I loved being able to surf the web and watch YouTube videos casually on my Wii. I'll admit that I probably use more browser addons than I really need nowadays, but even still, the modern web shouldn't be as stupidly demanding as it is.
If I were a normie running chrome then I probably wouldn't be complaining, but chrome has shit addon support and is basically spyware. Chromium drops the spyware but keeps the horrible plugin engine, as well as choking on anything less than a modern system.
>>53454953
Because it wasn't really needed, DOS and CP/M were designed for single-user systems that would often be focused on one task at a time. If for some ungodly reason you needed to truly mutltiask or run multiple users on a PC, you could just install Concurrent DOS, MP/M or Xenix.
Either way, for a small to mid-sized business, a PC was a pretty thorough improvement over a piece of shit 8-bit like an Apple II or a Trash-80.
>>53458037
>closed source linux
It actually was though
>>53458161
>filename
>>53460326
>4.3BSD, a direct descendant of version 6 UNIX
>"closed source linux"
>>53460457
Oh damn you got me there
>>53457767
He now just uses holyc... What a shame
>>53454953
Tramiel was an asshole, and most dealers didn't want to deal with his company. It didn't matter that he left Commodore by that time, the damage was done.
Same reason the Atari ST only caught on in Europe.
>>53457405
>go to a news page
>have noscript
>nothing
>allow the main domain scripts
>get just the header
>100 other scripts now wanting to run
A news site is literally just text with maybe some images. Why does it need so much shit just to load text. Text!
>>53460753
Also just some really good luck for Gates and crew. Like how Kidall was a huge bitch who would rather go out with his wife than SIGN HIS OPERATING SYSTEM TO IBM AND MAKE BILLIONS.
>>53445336
>being perpetually stuck in 2007
protip: no one gives a shit about them anymore.
rather take a look at those pastel colored miniature horse enthusiasts. or better, tell them you don't like the show.
>>53459630
I just can't believe how much of my system's resources are taken up with the web. I'm currently using 650mb/2gb of my memory, and Firefox is using 440mb of that. And all I have open is 10 4chan tabs (which are pretty much just text and a few small images).
I was just about to comment on how little memory everything else uses, but then noticed that the Xubuntu update manager is sat there doing nothing and using 75mb! Seventy-five! And apparently Mousepad is using 28?
What the fuck is going on with computing?
>>53442797
>I just can't believe that Pis, Beaglebones, etc., are apparently too underpowered to use for anything but the terminal, but are also more powerful that what a lot of people used as a desktop not even 10 years ago.
Most of the problem is X. It was clunky compared to proper windowing systems from day one, but it was the best we had on *nix until Wayland. There is (or at least was, not sure how maintained it is anymore) a VideoCore specific Wayland backend that used the sprite engine to get amazing performance out of the Pi rather than just shoving everything through OpenGL.
>>53461491
440mb doesn't seem that bad. I have 370 with 10 tabs. Tons of addons don't help. Like 4chan X which grinds through the entire DOM every page load, LastPass hunting for forms, ABP using tons of CSS (if you haven't switched to uBlock Origin masterrace).
Other programs using lots of memory? Yeah there's probably doing some BS like using holding huge lists of inappropriate high-mem data types, or using libraries that are sloppy with memory. I'm a bit guilty of this, I use an ORM in my Android apps for handling databases because it's a bitch doing it manually. It results in unoptimized DB calls.
>>53431113
1.3 crashed a lot but 2.0 + was pretty stable
>>53454953
In 1980 nothing affordable could do multitasking you millennial shit.
>>53462032
yes but when did dos start gaining ground in homes?
the 90's
>>53461806
>440mb doesn't seem that bad.
>wew lad
To draw some text and images on a screen? It's absolutely fucking terrible.
People used to design full color layouts for magazines and books on Mac IIci's. That's a 25 MHz 68030 with probably 4MB or 8MB typical for the period.
>>53462156
are you retarded? the days of straight DOS had come and gone by the '90s, anyone who could was running Windows over it
the home market never gave a shit about multitasking anyway, while single-user PCs were taking off they were lucky to have a single floppy drive and something other than a ROM BASIC interpreter on their bargain bin 8-bits
>>53462156
>DOS
>90's
MS-DOS was an 80's thing. Windows started to really take off with Windows 3.1 in the early 90's.
I remember being a kid and having a Mac Plus (1MB w/20MB external SCSI HD) at home and laughing at the DOS PC's at school (640K with dual floppies; one had a 10MB HD).
>>53462264
I decided to run a quick experiment.
>Firefox with 9 4chan tabs: 335mb
>Midori with the same tabs: 148mb
>Dillo with the same tabs: 53mb
And Midori is probably using a bit more since that's not blocking ads. Also, funnily enough Dillo doesn't draw the boarders around posts on 4chan, but does on 2channel.
>>53462515
And just to be silly:
"Lightweight" gmusicbrowser playing 5.4mb mp3: ~130mb
mocp playing that same file (in X, in a terminal emulator): 30mb
I'm willing to cut media players a bit of slack though as they're doing something. A web browser at rest is just showing text and pictures.
This animation blew minds in 1985
>>53462740
I wonder how early 3D development was like
>>53462762
on home computers, it demanded infinite patience.
The juggler was created using a home-made raytracer which eventually became Sculpt3D. The story is quite interesting if you google it.
>>53461491
Around the time SP1 came out for Windows XP there were some people on MSFN forums complaining about the simple fact that a fresh install of XP took "so much" space in HD and used so many resources compared to even Windows 2000. Those people were dismissed and labeled as cheap because "RAM and storage are so cheap now".
Fast forward to now and flagship phones are still sold with 16GB of storage and that isn't enough because the fucking OS takes so much of the space away when its brand new, not to mention future updates.
>>53462515
That Midori RAM usage is pretty good, can't deny that. And it has addons as well so it sounds pretty sweet.
Dillo is a extremely minimal browser, it doesn't even support Javascript. That's not usable with many websites.
A good watch is "History of the Amiga" (45 mins) on youtube.
I still play with these old os'es via WinUAE dot net. Works well as an emulator and is still being developed. All Amigas are emulated on many platforms.
You can get roms/software from archive dot org or various other sites. Pretty much all Amiga software is available for download.
As for me, I sold my fully loaded Amiga 2000 in 1992/3 and got a 486DX-33 with 4bm ram so I could play Doom. Stuck with PC seeing Amiga went bankrupted. Always stayed a fan. Still have a 1000, 500 and 600. The 1000 has the signatures of the designers under the top cover. Never use them as I prefer the emulators.
>>53456845
What is "input methods" anyway?
In any case, even WB 1.3 let you choose keyboard map. Here's what got installed from a english-speaking WB 1.3 floppy disk:> ls devs/keymaps/
gb* usa1*
It's not much, but the infrastrure was there at least, and it wasn't all just hardcoded.
In WB 2.0, they added a lot more stuff, IIRC you could even select your language from a list during install, and system messages would even be displayed in that. Or maybe it was WB 3.0, I can't remember.
>>53457572
At least you can switch off the CSS in your browser (pic), or just use a simpler plain HTML browser, or even a text mode browser like Lynx.
With javascript, you're just screwed, there usually is no such option (the page will just end up fubar and non-navigable).
And it's getting worse! Now there's obfuscated javascript, even "don't be evil" google uses that.
https://github.com/neuroradiology/InsideReCaptcha
>>53463740
oh god I disabled CSS and everything looks like shit. Absolutely every website I use depends on it for layouts.
>>53454953
because people didn't think they needed it
there wasn't enough things the average person could use a computer for, so there wasn't really a problem with just running things as you need it
want to play a game? run the game
want to edit a document/spreadsheet? run something to do that
want to get on a bbs? run something for that
for most people that was just fine, it was already an advantage that the one machine could do all of those things
>>53434112
>Itanium couldn't run x86 binaries
lolwut? Itanic had x86 emulation. It sucked balls but it was there.
>>53463841
>for most people that was just fine, it was already an advantage that the one machine could do all of those things
hell for most people its still fine, most of our media devices smartphones and tablets are used in that manner.
>>53461175
>rather take a look at those pastel colored miniature horse enthusiasts.
>being perpetually stuck in 2011
protip: no one gives a shit about them anymore (not out of acceptance, but bcause they've been superseded by political bickering)
>>53462762
Found this on aminet. Would love to find the finished animation...
Short: Voyage to Atlantis, Imagine2.9 pic
Type: pix/trace
Uploader: [email protected]
Author: [email protected]
This is a single frame from a long animation I have been working on.
It uses several new features from Imagine 2.9. The entire animation
is over 200 Megabytes in HAM Interlace Overscan. It looks pretty good
genlocked onto videotape. The sub comes from out of the distance,
makes a turn in front of the camera, and goes on to find the domed
underwater city of Atlantis. The undersea plants
were made with the new twist, bend, and taper tools in the Detail
Editor. The ocean floor is a plane with the new Wave texture. The
sunken galleon is from the Imagine 2.0 included objects. The seashells
were made with Shelley, which I got off aminet (thanks!). The
submarine is my concept of the proposed Centurion class. Yes, I
know submarines don't travel underwater with their mast and
and periscope up but I thought it looked cooler. Some things I
am working on are a better hull texture, cavitation bubbles as the
prop turns (maybe with particles), and adding more detail to the hull.
Since then, I have made models of the Seawolf, Typhoon, and am working
on the Akula plus a zillion other projects.
Ted Stethem
23 March 1994
> you'll never own A600 laptop
Here's more recent version of AmigaOS (3.9). Pic is from here:
http://hota.sourceforge.net/
The original game (Another World) was in fact developed on an Amiga 500.
http://www.anotherworld.fr/anotherworld_uk/page_realisation.htm
>>53465081
holy fuck that is ugly.
>>53465081
It should be beige
>>53466131
It's not real, they never made laptops.
If they did, it would probably have been more like old IBM Thinkpad, and other things of that time. Not this modern crap...
![suzanne[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bKgyMZ9.jpg "suzanne[1].jpg")
>>53466210
http://www.amigahistory.plus.com/suzanne.html
This was about as close as it got.
>windows is bloated
>uhh yea gnome is OK but its pretty bloated
>xfce could do better without the bloat
Just
>>53442091
>blogging
4chan is not your blog
All this talk of JavaScript. How about NoScript?
>>53466237
Pretty damn bulky even by 1997 standards, but at least it's got a decent keyboard. Right there it's already superior to all modern shits. I'd gladly carry this every day.
>>53466259
Just install a different WM?
>>53430472
>3th
>>53466329
You can even run Xorg without WM, just an xterm (or equivalent) is enough. Then some basic utilities like this:
http://www.semicomplete.com/projects/xdotool/
>>53466313
Even with noscript you still have to allow/temporarily allow a ton of sites to actually make things function (inevitably still fucking things up)
>>53430472
Thith party support you say?
Here's another WB 2, same version as the OP.
Those icons in top-right were considered pretty snazzy in 1995. They were even converted to X11 format and used with fvwm and other stuff at the time that had icon/toolbar/dock type things. That's back when 8-bit depth (256 color) X server was standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagicWB
(well shit, I can't find the X11 version anymore...)
After all these years I still prefer the original WB look though. Colors can be changed of course, but I don't mind the defaults. It was surprisingly usable on a 19-inch TV screen connected with only RF modulator (when using 60-column low-res mode anyway, the letters got blurry in 80-column mode).
http://toastytech.com/guis/amiga1.html
The old, simple X11 stuff was really nice too. I like this a lot more than newer stuff.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/linuxjournal/articles/010/1074/1074f1.jpg
>>53442797
>I just can't believe that Pis, Beaglebones, etc., are apparently too underpowered to use for anything but the terminal, but are also more powerful that what a lot of people used as a desktop not even 10 years ago.
The raspberry pi 2 is fast enough to use as a desktop replacement except for the web browser. Everything else is snappy and great but browsing most websites are clunky as shit. It's probably fine if you are using noscript. Youtube works as long as you open it in vlc. I hate how bloated the internet is in general.
>>53466295
Why the fuck do people complain so much about blogposts anyway? I enjoy reading them.
>>53439512
>America once had a future
>>53463077
>not to mention future updates.
I wish future updates were a thing.
what's an amiga joystick that doesn't suck and won't snap within 10 minutes of use?
>>53467655
distracts from all the sick memes
They were low level and bare bones at the core. They used bitmap drawing techniques rather than DPS or other rasterized methods. A lot of them were kernel level, in the case of Windows. Others were actually embedded in the ROM itself, such as in Macintosh.
>>53457524
It's actually shit like the embedded google spreadsheets that do nothing a series of still images with labels wouldn't
>but letters and walls of info look too scary
>we need HOVER LABELS and TABBED GRAPHS!
>It's BETTER! LUDDIIIIIITES!
>>53457583
"Responsive" originally meant "site works and looks nice in any window size" (like 4chan), not "has a lot of fucking animations and javascript that redirects you to the special mobile version"
>>53466104
Why do modern Amiga OS iterations look so horrifying?
I can give >>53466925 a pass for the sheer novelty of it but AROS and Amiga OS just take the skeumorphism and shitty gradients to the to the tasteless extreme.
>>53469222
A lot of modern OSs look really bad. Or not as good as they should.
I do think there's something to be said for plain window borders and bars.
Always thought this look was real comfy.
>>53469789
Windows shouldn't have borders, its a waste of space.
>>53455269
>>53456465
It's kinda funny that all the default cocoa components are prefixed with NS.
>>53469964
me too! was it call "blue curve" or something like that?
>>53469964
It still retains that UNIX-y "so ugly it's good" functional look as well as a consistent icon set, rather than the half-assed "stick it to Micro$hit, fellow XP users!" garbage that passes now.
>>53467121
This is why I wish they gave the Pi3 at least 2GB of RAM instead of 1. Preferably though, I'd give it 2GB of main RAM and 1GB of dedicated video RAM. Then I'd be able to run a full DE with Firefox and most of my addons.
Honestly, if everything is so god damn bloated nowadays, I don't see why they're still shipping devices with 2GB of RAM or less, especially devices that are supposed to run Windoze. I'd say 4GB should be the minimum for Windows devices. It wouldn't have to be if modern programs and websites weren't such a fucking inefficient mess.
>>53471841
You don't sound like you've ever optimized your desktop for proper, fast usage.
>>53472118
What does that have to do with purely aesthetic choices like the icon set or window/taskbar decorations?
>>53431052
this is /g/. if it was up to them, everyone would type through terminals and use emacs all day while watching pedophile japanese cartoons
>>53472389
Fuckhuge icons are an aesthetic choice too and are in general a shitty idea
>>53472440
Did you not notice that was an 800x600 screenshot?
Or that you could resize them?
>>53461583
Its incredible how shitty Xorg is, in my 4gb ram machine running firefox with a ton of tabs sleeping and like 10 open memory usage idles around 55%.
Then I run a VM'd Debian with Xorg and memory usage immediatly jumps to 80%.
Compared to running a drawterm from plan9 memory jumps like 1%.
Modern software is so bloated it makes one want to just throw it all away and start from scratch.
>>53472460
I didn't anon, I'm almost off to bed.
>>53472418
>this is /g/
maybe in like 2007
the majority of /g/ now is twats like yourself who shit on anything that doesn't load 500 MB of trendy javascript to attach a facebook like button to everything and make a menu option brighten a little when you hover over it
