See "colorForth": http://www.colorforth.com/cf.html

"Some [Amiga capabilities], such as displaying multiple windows at different color depths and resolutions on the same physical screen, have yet to be duplicated at all."

Why could the Amiga do this and current computers can't? Is it any screen that can display multiple resolutions simultaneously? If so, why don't current OSes support this?

I believe that statement (the first half, anyway) is simply not true. X11 is capable of displaying different windows at different color depths. Look at the "int depth" parameter to XCreateWindow, or run xwininfo(1) and check out the "Depth:" line.

Today I suspect it's not used much, if at all. When you've got a 256MB video card, what's a few extra bytes? Modern graphics cards might not even support this.

But I believe that 15 or 20 years ago, this feature actually did get used. You'd have a depth=24 root window, and a depth=4 (say) hardware overlay for things like the mouse cursor and popup menus, because they didn't really need a lot of colors, and you don't want to redraw your expensive graphics every time you moved the mouse.

Of course, everybody thought that dealing with hardware overlays and custom colormaps everywhere was a royal pain for application developers (and it was), so we came up with higher-level toolkits like GTK+ which make it really easy to splat up a window without caring about this, and it'll just use depth=24 (or whatever you've got) everywhere, and we've got tons of video memory so nobody cares anyway.

I'm not saying X11 was particularly good at this, but it did support this particular feature.

It is a very cool feature, but can you think of a sensible use for it on a machine that can run the entire screen in high resolution and full colour?

Not anymore, but if there were no 64 bit machines...

Video ram mapping reduces available memory space. Clawing back a few tens of megs of system ram could potentially have been worthwile(1).

Supporting a 32 bit colour depth screen at 32,768x32,768 resolution would require 4gb of video ram, leaving 0 bits in the address pool for the rest of the system :)

(1)For very, very low values of worthwhile.

# Text editors: Notepad, Nano, Leafpad, joe, vi, diakonos, Nedit, ne, ed

How is notepad considered minimalist compared to vi?

How is vi considered minimalist compared to Notepad?

Because it's vi, not vim.

Maybe it isn't comparing the list to itself, but to each item in the list to something it is a minimalist version of. Notepad is extremely minimalist when you compare it to Word.

Because it uses a smaller sequence of characters for new lines

I am not sure how Nedit qualifies either.

= elegance (math)

True even without the "(math)". I've always liked the idea of elegance applied to writing -- the best writing, like the best code, uses simple language to unusually strong effect.

MacOS X is cited as an example of minimalist software design? It may be many things, but I'm not buying minimalist.

perhaps they mean in terms of UI design, not software design?

I saw in one of Ian Piumarta's talks that OSX has considerably more lines of code than vista. Kinda surprises me, kinda doesn't.

That describes what every developer aspires to until sales and marketing gets involved and messes everything up.

All that selling. All that marketing. Disgusting.

Yea, good thing we never have to sell software to people who don't care how elegant the code is...