Before we proceed: Honestly, I probably should feel honored at the suggestion that I live in Europe, but mostly, I just find this amusing.
There are cities named "Athens" that aren't the
Athens. You will note the, "GA" following the city name - not "GR", as you might expect (or "HE", which is what it probably should have been had the original IANA not been packed with My Fellow 'Merkins who knew nothing about the world outside of this overgrow Disneyland of a country, but I don't speak modern Greek so I have no idea). I suppose I should add 'USA' after that...
You can - and should - slag me off for living (involuntarily, but still) in the benighted horror show that is the state of Georgia (Athens is something of an exception, as is Atlanta, but go ahead anyway), but me being on the wrong side of the continent from where I belong is a far cry from me being in a different hemisphere altogether.
And no, this Georgia has nothing to do with the country named Georgia, either. The names are pretty much coincidence (the state was named after the British king who established the original colony.)
So, let's get on with the show, shall we?
Schol-R-LEA: you are putting too much weight about internal aspects when you compare these systems. from inside, and when checking they capabilities, they are very different, becouse they are different software. but the purpose they are created is prety much the same. you should also copare the handling of them. basically if you handle msdos, and how you handle unix, is identical. both having very identical user interface. both controlled by keyboard. the commands you need to type is, is very identical, and very much the same feeling to handle these systems.
command interpreter worked, going back nearly a decade before Unix existed. The style goes all the way back to systems like CTSS, with some things appearing even earlier.
the commodore64 and other computers with BASIC-based operating systems are different from msdos/unix, becouse the command set, the user interface, and the principles are very unrelated, they basically giving you an interpreted programming environment, and not a command/execute/copy environment.
Despite the impression that the home computer revolution might have given (and I know that the former WP countries came late to the party on that, so you probably only knew the C64 at first), systems that used a BASIC interpreter for their main user interface were in the minority even in their heyday. The first such system was at Dartmouth in 1968, and Dartmouth Timeshared BASIC was the original BASIC implementation, which was designed as a way for ordinary students to use the computers, something no one else had managed to accomplish at that point.
This was something that few other system designers in the 1960s even considered a good idea at all; while Multics and TYMSHARE were intended for wider use, they were still focused on business and civil service use, so making things easy for the users wasn't even on the radar. Most other systems of the time assumed that no one who wasn't a trained system operator - not even a programmer, because most batch-processing systems didn't let programmers do anything other than enter code into a line editor, the assumption being that you wrote it out by hand first - would ever even see
the console (probably a teletype with a roll of paper, not even a glass terminal) that was running the command interpreter.
BASIC only caught on in the microcomputer world because Paul and Billy-Boy saw a ground-floor opportunity in a system
which shipped with 256 bytes of RAM (note the lack of any sort of prefix, and no that's not a joke - absurd, yes, but not a joke), had toggle switches as its sole interface, and had to be mocked up in the magazine article announcing it because the only working prototype was lost in the mail. They chose BASIC because they already knew how to write an interpreter for it, and Gates himself later admitted that it probably wasn't the best choice in retrospect (Ted Nelson claims he'd met Allen a year earlier, when he and Gates were trying to flog BASIC for the PDP-8 or some such before the whole Altair thing came around, and tried to talk him into backing Forth instead, which might have made for an interesting turn of events had it gone that way). Even then, one needed a 4 kilobyte add-on board to run the interpreter, and another add-on board to connect to a teletype, a terminal, or a television, in order to use it, and yet another add-on board to connect to the paper tape reader to read the interpreter in in the first place (in this video
, the TTY had the tape reader built into it, but that wasn't universal).
No matter what you think of Gates today, or even about his arrogance at the time (what with the infamous "Open Letter to Hobbyists
" debacle), the fact is they were the first ones to have even an assembler for the damn thing, and the fact that they then licensed their BASIC dialect to all and sundry afterwards meant that BASIC was on every microcomputer and small business computer for the next decade. Even the 'Open Letter' spread it, as it spurred the development of the various 'Tiny BASIC' interpreters (and launched Dr. Dobb's Journal
, which started as a means of publishing them), and led to companies like Apple, Tandy, and Commodore to bundle the interpreter in the ROMs of the '1.5'-th generation micros such as the Apple II and the Commodore PET.
as for mips, those old mips computers sometimes even arrived with an x86 emulator to be able to run the firmwares in graphics cards and network chips, becouse the computers built with them was so identical to they x86 counterparts that they even needed x86 emulators to start theyself up.
Seriously, why would they have that? The PC was not yet the leader it became later. I think you are severely confused as to the time frames involved.
The MIPS architecture
was developed before
the PC was marketed (they were both developed around the same time, actually).
The MIPS workstations during their heyday (1985-1995) wouldn't have had any hardware in common with the PC at all. They wouldn't have used standard PC hardware in the mid to late 1980s, because in the mid to late 1980s THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS STANDARD PC HARDWARE
. "Standard PC hardware" would have been whatever IBM sold that wasn't for a mainframe, at least up until the PS/2 disaster, at which point all the people who had kinda-sorta PC hardware like Compaq scrambled to set their own rules which didn't involve committing suicide-by-license-agreement.
I would be surprised if any
MIPS-based workstation had had so much as a single chip
in common with the PC or any PC clone of that time, and the same holds true even for the MIPS based workstations that SGI made into the early 1990s.
if you are interested in similarities, just look into the source code of a mips emulator, basically its 1:1 the same as the x86 counterparts in almost all aspects, the only spectacular difference is the cpu.
Those simulators generally only simulate the CPU instructions and a rump set of I/O subsystems, subsystems which don't reflect the hardware that MIPS was actually used with. It is a tiny TTY-oriented toolkit that is utterly generic to allow the simulators to be ported to anything more modern than an IBM 650A, and basing your assessment on that is utterly preposterous.
Just to put this in perspective: do you imagine that the Playstation and Playstation 2 (which would end up the major installed base for the MIPS) used PC hardware? Or that the Nintendo 64 used anything in common with either the PC or the Playstations? Seriously, no.