Talk:Amiga Unix

Rumor

I removed this text:

Rumors state that due an ironic fate, after the first acquisition of Commodore, workstations where the AMIX development took place were formatted by mistake, consequently leading the AMIX operating system to sure extinction.

because I have first-hand knowlege of the events that I believe led to this rumor. The actual incident was not as significant as this text implied and is not particularly interesting in the context of this article.

Finest Unix

Is there any basis at all for this being considered one of the "finest Unices" of its time? It looks like a straight System VR4 port with no (or few) add-ons or features to differentiate it from a dozen other generic ports of the early 90s. Is there any particular way it's notable as a UNIX? 76.186.254.44 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. What's more, the notion is introduced by using weasel words (who considered it such? Who says this?). This time I'm removing the claim, next time be bold and DIY.--88.149.233.215 13:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether it was the finest UNIX of its time depends on your definition of "fine". It did have a lot going for it, though, like having been recompiled with GCC (rather than with the standard AT&T compiler, which generated code that ran much slower), and a good complement of GNU software in its basic install, plus source code for (nearly) all the bits that Commodore added, like drivers for the Commodore devices and such. I know this because I owned a copy and ran it on a A3000T-UX. Maribert (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I owned several revisions of Amiga UNIX and need to comment about the use of gcc in later versions. They were all direct ports of the AT&T SVR4 source code with almost bare-minimum device driver support written specifically for the Amiga. It did not use any of the Amiga's special multimedia hardware. As for the use of GCC, the later versions, including the last, were compiled with GCC because at that time AT&T compiler was badly lagging behind GCC in performance on the MC68K architecture. The net gain of rebuilding with GCC actually resulted in a much faster system. I know this because I had developed software on the original Amiga 2500, the Amiga A2630 MC68030 accellerator, and various Amiga 3000 models including the 3000 T. --KJRehberg (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons to price and performance

There are a number of issues that I have with this article.

First of all, we should stick to comparisons of the operating systems themselves. I feel that the article goes too deep into comparing the underlying hardware. Furthermore, those comparisons need to be sourced from an external article. I feel that the author of those statements is making original research.

Second of all, without such an article to reference, you cannot make a comparative statement that Amix on a 3000UX was "not very attractive". Sure, Sun just released the SPARCstation 2 (Sparc/40) and had the Sun 3/470 (030/33) for two years by then, while SGI had the IRIS 4D/30 (R4000/30) and just release the Indigo (R3000A/33), but isn't that something to discuss over on the 3000UX page? How well did Amix work on a standard 3000UX verus IRIX and SunOS? Was it more processor and/or memory efficient than other Unixes at the time? Dinjiin (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I had one of these A3000UX systems with Amix running on it, so I know from first-hand experience that it was woefully underpowered. But this, indeed, had nothing to do with Amix, rather with the Amiga running it. Mine was a top-of-the-line model with 8 megabytes of main memory. Imagine running a full-blown UNIX on that kind of iron. Maribert (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amiga Unix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showhardware.cgi?HARDID=29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

AmigaOS software under A/UX?

Is there any proof for the claim that A/UX included a compatibility layer to run AmigaOS software? I highly doubt such a thing ever existed. If no-one can come up with a reputable source for this claim, I'll remove it in about a year or two. --77.183.62.115 (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

lol It obviously didn't say that, but I ....clarified it. — Smuckola(talk) 19:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It obviously said exactly that. 77.183.62.115 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)