[Sunspark]

I am sure someone else can explain it better, but basically in the 80s you mostly only had a choice of 8-bit computers (like Apple, C64, etc.), DOS, Macs, Atari ST and Amiga. The 8-bit machines weren't really networking compatible or powerful enough to do more than 1 thing at a time (128k of ram, 1.02 MHz CPU, etc. though I suppose the 16-bit Apple //gs could have been a contender). Macs would have been way too expensive for this purpose. I don't think boards bought Ataris. A DOS PC could have run a multi-threaded program, but if an issue happened then I guess the whole system would go down. So that leaves the Amiga..

The Amiga was the most performant system, its components (i.e. audio, video, etc.) were all able to work independently of the CPU. It also came with 3 networking APIs built-in (one of which was TCP/IP) which probably helped a lot with the coding.

It was also the only machine with a true multi-tasking OS. Everything else was either co-operative or non.

If an issue happened with one piece, it wouldn't have brought down the whole system because everything was able to run independently.

As for security patches, I was expressing a bit of frustration there because I have seen over and over a Windows "security patch" introduce bugs or break functionality. You didn't have that problem back then with the Amiga. It just worked.

I agree the Amiga was a good choice for the time to administer multiple machines.. and it came with decades of support from the original programmer!

[Lio]

> A DOS PC could have run a multi-threaded program, but if an issue happened then I guess the whole system would go down. So that leaves the Amiga.

> It was also the only machine with a true multi-tasking OS. Everything else was either co-operative or non.

> If an issue happened with one piece, it wouldn't have brought down the whole system because everything was able to run independently.

The Amiga was an amazing systems and the best choice they had available to them at the time but...

it's easy to forget it lacked memory protection. That's one of the design decisions that made it run so well on the limited hardware of the time.

It also meant that if one of your multitasking programs went down there was a very high likelihood it would bring the rest of the system down too.

[anyfoo]

> but basically in the 80s you mostly only had a choice of 8-bit computers

Ah, that was my confusion. I thought we would compare with systems nowadays, to replace the Amiga.

> A DOS PC could have run a multi-threaded program, but if an issue happened then I guess the whole system would go down

Eh, not really. DOS was for almost all intents and purposes as single threaded as the other systems. Segmentation allowed for some sense of relocation, and this was used for TSRs as "background programs", but that's not much of a departure from any of the other systems you mentioned.

> As for security patches, I was expressing a bit of frustration there because I have seen over and over a Windows "security patch" introduce bugs or break functionality. You didn't have that problem back then with the Amiga. It just worked.

Yeah, but that was only because there simply was no untrusted networking. All the other systems fared the same in that regard. And had the Amiga survived, it would need exactly as much security patching as the other systems.