# Quadra 660AV what's with the "PowerPC" label?

Sean Conner spc at conman.org
Thu Jun 16 14:35:24 CDT 2016

It was thus said that the Great Liam Proven once stated:
> On 14 June 2016 at 01:56, Sean Conner <spc at conman.org> wrote:

> >   What do you feel is still missing from OS-X today?  About the only thing I
> > can think of is the unique file system, where each file had a data and a
> > resource fork.
>
> * The clean, totally CLI-less nature of it. Atari ST GEM imitated this,
> but it had the DOS-like legacy baggage of drive letters etc.

So did the Amiga and it didn't have the baggage of drive letters.

A:\path\to\file

DF0:path/to/file

But you also had logical drive names.  Give the drive the name "Fred" and
you could reference a file as:

Fred:path/to/file

A nice side effect is that if there was no disk with the name of "Fred"
installed, AmigaOS would pop up a dialog box asking for the user to insert
the disk named "Fred".  It wouldn't matter what physical drive you popped
the disk into, AmigaOS would find it.  And, if you copied the files off the
disk Fred to the harddrive, say:

DH1:applications/local/fred

you could do

assign Fred=DH1:applications/local/fred

and there you go.  I find that nicer than environment variables in that it's
invisible to applications---the OS handles it for you.  And while on Unix,
the shell will expand environment variables, individual applications (say,
an editor) vary on support for such expansions.

Personally, I like CLIs, but I'm used to them from the start.  And for
some work flows, I find its faster and easier than a graphical system.

> >> I wish the Star Trek project had come to some kind of fruition.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project
> >
> >   Reading that, it sounds like it would have been much like early
> > Windows---an application that would run on top of MS-DOS (or in this case,
> > DR-DOS).
>
> My impression is that DR-DOS would have been a bootloader, little more.

Then why even bother with DR-DOS then?

-spc