The strategy of Amiga Inc
James Copeland
trying to achieve?
First they are software only company producing some sort of
revolutionary virtual machine environment that has nothing in common
with the classic AmigaOS except for the name. At the same time they
confusingly (and surely unprofitably) continue to sponsor half-hearted
upgrades of the Classic 3.x OS, to exhibit the stone-age A1200/4000 on
their webpages as part of their product range and to kick up a lot of
fuss over pirated Kickstart ROMS.
Then they announce the AmigaOne - as I understand it, a stand alone
PPC machine that runs this new DE virtual environment, but which will
include a 1200 motherboard for compatibility with classic Amiga
software. Why on earth do we still need these 10-15 year old chips?
Why not just recompile UAE for the DE? More importantly, to judge by
the extortionate prices of existing Amiga PPC accelerators, such a
system will undoubtedly cost more than a better specified
off-the-shelf PC, which will have its own port of the AmigaDE, and
which is already capable of near-flawless classic Amiga emulation
under Windows/Linux/MacOS, not to mention having a vast library of
“native” software. So what rational reason is there to
buy an AmigaOne?
Finally, rumours of AmigaOS 4.0. How does this fit into the greater
scheme of things? Will it run under DE, or does it stand-alone? What
is the point? If the aim is to run classic software, couldn’t
it incorporate hardware emulation and so subsume the functions of UAE?
Aram Iskenderian
wrote:
>First they are software only company producing some sort of
>revolutionary virtual machine environment that has nothing in common
>with the classic AmigaOS except for the name.
*Yawn*
Another "it is not an Amiga" thread.
Good night.
--
Aram Iskenderian.
The email address is not valid.
To reply by email, look in the headers.
slu...@earthlink.net
>
> On 19 Jun 2001 13:12:56 -0700, jam...@hotmail.com (James Copeland)
> wrote:
>
> >First they are software only company producing some sort of
> >revolutionary virtual machine environment that has nothing in common
> >with the classic AmigaOS except for the name.
>
> *Yawn*
> Another "it is not an Amiga" thread.
No, it's not.
Those are legitimate questions. I'm confused by where Amiga is
going myself. They've not been exactly crystal clear on what their
strategy is and they seem not to know in which direction to go. They
lack some focus.
To dismiss such concerns so out of hand will likely doom the Amiga
once and for all, especially if they want to become a viable
alternative platform in this day and age.
Daniel Miller
wrote:
>Could someone explain in simple terms what the hell Amiga Inc are
>trying to achieve?
I think until April of this year they had been attempting to redefine
Amiga as a Linux and Windows-based developer of software for handheld
devices. The idea was Inc. would deliver the creativity and energy of
the enthusiasm of the "Amiga Community" and profit from license fees
from handheld software sold under the Amiga banner.
>First they are software only company producing some sort of
>revolutionary virtual machine environment that has nothing in common
>with the classic AmigaOS except for the name. At the same time they
>confusingly (and surely unprofitably) continue to sponsor half-hearted
>upgrades of the Classic 3.x OS, to exhibit the stone-age A1200/4000 on
>their webpages as part of their product range and to kick up a lot of
>fuss over pirated Kickstart ROMS.
>
>Then they announce the AmigaOne - as I understand it, a stand alone
>PPC machine that runs this new DE virtual environment, but which will
>include a 1200 motherboard for compatibility with classic Amiga
>software. Why on earth do we still need these 10-15 year old chips?
They are making up the strategy as they go along, with little logic or
fidelity to anything they've said in the past. In the particular case
you refer to, Inc. attempts to promote the appearance of control over
whatever UK-based Eyetech happens to be doing anyway.
[stuff clipped]
>Finally, rumours of AmigaOS 4.0. How does this fit into the greater
>scheme of things? Will it run under DE, or does it stand-alone? What
>is the point? If the aim is to run classic software, couldn’t
>it incorporate hardware emulation and so subsume the functions of UAE?
They actually promised to deliver a PPC port "this summer" which was
just ridiculous because Amiga Inc. has zilch experience with Amiga OS.
The most we will see in my opinion is another, as you say,
half-hearted 3.x upgrade with focus on PPC support.
There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
MorphOS is deep into betatesting with countless Amiga programs already
confirmed (http://www.morphos.de/fileslinks.php3). The bPlan hardware
exists (http://www.bplan-gmbh.de/news/news02_e.html). I do believe
that MorphOS running Amiga programs on the bPlan PPC box is a more
modern and powerful solution than UAE or whatever Inc.'s
curiousity-of-the-month happens to be.
Mikey C
>
> There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
> common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
MorphOS is going to end up in a smaller niche market than the Amiga.
Besides, Anyone here who can't understand Amiga's vision and direction
as per their last announcement, hasn't bothered to read anything
properly or a fool.
I mean, how much simpler can it be?
Regads
Mikey C
Eelke Blok
"James Copeland" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f13d327.01061...@posting.google.com...
> Then they announce the AmigaOne - as I understand it, a stand alone
> PPC machine that runs this new DE virtual environment, but which will
> include a 1200 motherboard for compatibility with classic Amiga
> software. Why on earth do we still need these 10-15 year old chips?
Right, here we go again. I really shouldn't be complaining to
you, but to Amiga for making things as clear as mud. Basically,
there is the AmigaOne; the actual product by Eyetech (a rather
important detail, it isn't a product *by* Amiga) to which you
plug a Classic Amiga motherboard. And than there is the
AmigaOne; the specification listing everything an (notice the
generallity here) "AmigaOne" requires (and which doesn't include
a Classic Amiga motherboard). Actually, the EyeTech is often
referred to a AmigaOne A1200 and AmigaOne A4000 which I suppose
is to destinguish it from the AmigaOne spec. Suffice to say that
isn't enough :)
AmigaOne "The Product" is of no interest to you if all you want
to do is run the new Amiga environment and are not interested in
backwards compatibility. If so, just go down to a local high
street shop and get yourself a PC that fits in with the AmigaOne
spec. You can actually get them, apart from the "next generation
Matrox card".
[Amiga mobo for BW compatibility]
> Why not just recompile UAE for the DE?
IIRC, UAE isn't as fast as real Amiga hardware in especially the
custom-chip department.
> So what rational reason is there to
> buy an AmigaOne?
An EyeTech AmigaOne: none whatsoever, if you're not interested
in the backward compatibility or would be happy with the
performance of UAE. A machine measuring up to the AmigaOne spec,
well, not sure. I suppose the official word will be "to take
full advantage of the Amiga Digital Environment".
> Finally, rumours of AmigaOS 4.0. How does this fit into the greater
> scheme of things?
I still haven't figured this one out, really. I believe the
official postion is, it is the OS which the EyeTech AmigaOne is
going to run and which is responsible for the integration of the
PPC motherboard and the legacy Amiga motherboard. What bothers
me is that the Amiga DE was supposed to be able to run as a
stand-alone OS on an AmigaOne spec-machine - so what is the
AmigaOS 4 good for? I suppose getting AmigaDE to run as a stand-
alone OS was decided to be a step too far for the time being and
we'll only see hosted DE's for the time being.
Eelke
Mikey C
> I still haven't figured this one out, really. I believe the
> official postion is, it is the OS which the EyeTech AmigaOne is
> going to run and which is responsible for the integration of the
> PPC motherboard and the legacy Amiga motherboard. What bothers
> me is that the Amiga DE was supposed to be able to run as a
> stand-alone OS on an AmigaOne spec-machine - so what is the
> AmigaOS 4 good for? I suppose getting AmigaDE to run as a stand-
> alone OS was decided to be a step too far for the time being and
> we'll only see hosted DE's for the time being.
Arggh! Eelke! Not you too as well.
Okay here goes. This is as I understand it anyhow.
AmigaOne is a next generation Amiga, the motherboard of the A1 will
require PCI cards in order to make it work. It may or may not come with
a low spec G3 PPC CPU as standard. If not you slot your PPC CPU of
choice on the PCI slot. It will require a yet to be released, Matrox
Graphics card, Sound card, etc. etc. (All PCI). It will also be able to
run OS4.0 which will be partly migrated to PPC functions. Anything 68k
will be refered back to:...
An A1200
for backward compatibility, otherwise it will rely on programs that are
written for the OS and not requiring specific custom chips or addresses.
Warp up and Warp 3d will be an integral part of OS4.0 - allowing more
recent games such as Heretic II and SHOGO the ability to run as well as
programs like IFusion (when it works properly).
A similar version for the A4000 was planned but it is looking very
unlikely.
6 Months after OS4.0 release, OS4.2 will be available. This will negate
the need for any type of old Amiga classic motherboard. OS4.2 will move
all 68k functions to PPC and emulate the rest.
6 months further on, 0S4.5 will be released this will lay the final
foundation for the migration to the new OS 5. OS4.5 will include a
partial or full integration of the Amiga Digital Environment. (Amiga DE)
The Amiga Digital Environment is a stand alone product, apart from OS4.x
and can run on multiple platforms. What it does is it looks at the
environment it is installed onto and uses the base machine and OS
resources and configuration to run itself.
It is Alleged that on a PC running windows the Amiga Digital Environment
Amiga DE applications/games can run up to 20% faster than on Windows.
(and this is with windows running in the background remember). At worst
it suffers a reduction of speed upto 20%. So it is + or minus 20%
What CPU it uses doesn't really matter much. i.e. Intel, AMD, PPC, etc.
The great thing about the Amiga DE is that as long as it has been ported
to run on a cpu and it's OS, such as PC Windows/Linux, PDA, Handhelds
and Cellphones etc (but not Mac - yet), any application or game written
for the Amiga DE will run on any of those devices. Providing of course
that the machine you choose to run the application on has the available
resources. i.e. graphics capability, sound, enough ram etc.
If you are a software developer the Amiga DE is a gold mine. You just
write once and run everywhere (or nearly everywhere) without having to
do any ports.
For Amiga users it menas that from OS4.5 Amiga users will be able to run
any application, utility or game written for the AmigaDE (written for
any platform) on their AmigaOne. Perhaps at an even faster rate since
from OS5.0 both systems will be fully integrated.
Finally, The AmigaOne boards will be designed to run on PC cases (atx)
as well as different types such as the current Amiga towers. AmigaOne
boards are not to be confused with PC's. It is a different Mobo.
This is in a nutshell, how I understand it, I'm sure I have missed some
really important things, but I think the gist is there.
Phew!
Mikey C
Eelke Blok
"Mikey C" <michael....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B30CC...@ukonline.co.uk...
> Eelke Blok wrote:
>
> > I still haven't figured this one out, really. I believe the
> > official postion is, it is the OS which the EyeTech AmigaOne is
> > going to run and which is responsible for the integration of the
> > PPC motherboard and the legacy Amiga motherboard. What bothers
> > me is that the Amiga DE was supposed to be able to run as a
> > stand-alone OS on an AmigaOne spec-machine - so what is the
> > AmigaOS 4 good for? I suppose getting AmigaDE to run as a stand-
> > alone OS was decided to be a step too far for the time being and
> > we'll only see hosted DE's for the time being.
>
> Arggh! Eelke! Not you too as well.
I think we have a slight misunderstanding here. Most of what you
write I fully understand (and is basically what I wrote in the
paragraphs you snipped, apart from a few minor points I will
address below, AFAICS). All I'm saying is that all this talk of
new OS's seems to contradict the stories of stand-alone Amiga
DE's. As you might remember, we were to have hosted versions
that would run on top of existing OS's like Windows and Linux
*and* stand-alone versions that did not require a host OS (in
other words, are an OS themselves).
Now, of course, it is not unreasonable for a stand-alone DE not
to be realized overnight, given only an (unfinished) hosted
version. Taking two seperate products (the hosted DE and the OS)
and slowly let them grow towards one another doesn't seem like a
bad idea. From that point on, it should be possible to port the
whole shebang to other hardware platforms and call it a stand-
alone DE. Fair enough. However, this is what I'm "distilling"
from the currently available information. Just speculation. As
it is, the need for an AmigaOS 4.0,4.2,4.5,5.0 seems to
contradict the supposed "short-term" availability of stand-alone
DE's. Simple as that.
[...]
> The great thing about the Amiga DE is that as long as it has been ported
> to run on a cpu and it's OS, such as PC Windows/Linux, PDA, Handhelds
> and Cellphones etc (but not Mac - yet)
Yeah, yeah, spare me the marketing babble, I've all said it
myself :) All I'm interested in now is whether it will actually
deliver on the promises.
> Finally, The AmigaOne boards will be designed to run on PC cases (atx)
> as well as different types such as the current Amiga towers. AmigaOne
> boards are not to be confused with PC's. It is a different Mobo.
As far as I understood it, at least if you want it to run with
an Amiga mobo attached to it, you need a custom Amiga tower from
Eyetech. I don't really see the point in getting one if you
don't plan to hook it up to an Amiga mobo. A machine built up
around a standard x86 mobo anwers to the AmigaOne "Zico" spec
(http://www.amiga.com/products/one/specs.php) as well and it's
undoubtedly a lot cheaper. Sure an Eyetech AmigaOne board is
different from your average ABit/Asus/Whatever board as far as
the CPU that plugs into it is concerned, but we just agreed that
shouldn't matter to the DE (as long as it has been ported to the
platform and has all the resources listed in "Zico" available).
Cheers,
Eelke
Keith Blakemore-Noble
wrote something about "Re: The strategy of Amiga Inc"...
>
>
> Daniel Miller wrote:
>
> >
> > There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
> > common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
>
> MorphOS is going to end up in a smaller niche market than the Amiga.
Blimey, I wish I had your clairvoyant capabilities!
Making definitive statements comparing the market penetration of one
unreleased system against that of another unreleased system!
Got any tips for next week's National Lottery numbers, by any chance?
bl...@california.com
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:21:59 +0200,
"Eelke Blok" <e.b...@student.utwente.nl> wrote ...
> "Mikey C" <michael....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3B30CC...@ukonline.co.uk...
> > Eelke Blok wrote:
> >
> > > I still haven't figured this one out, really. I believe the
> > > official postion is, it is the OS which the EyeTech AmigaOne is
> > > going to run and which is responsible for the integration of the
> > > PPC motherboard and the legacy Amiga motherboard. What bothers
> > > me is that the Amiga DE was supposed to be able to run as a
> > > stand-alone OS on an AmigaOne spec-machine - so what is the
> > > AmigaOS 4 good for? I suppose getting AmigaDE to run as a stand-
> > > alone OS was decided to be a step too far for the time being and
> > > we'll only see hosted DE's for the time being.
> >
> > Arggh! Eelke! Not you too as well.
>
> I think we have a slight misunderstanding here. Most of what you
> write I fully understand (and is basically what I wrote in the
> paragraphs you snipped, apart from a few minor points I will
> address below, AFAICS). All I'm saying is that all this talk of
> new OS's seems to contradict the stories of stand-alone Amiga
> DE's. As you might remember, we were to have hosted versions
> that would run on top of existing OS's like Windows and Linux
> *and* stand-alone versions that did not require a host OS (in
> other words, are an OS themselves).
Amiga DE stand-alone will be along someday but on the Amiga OS 5.x
it will be fully integrated with OS 5 to provide a home server environment
which will have memory management and virtual memory. Adding MM and VM
to the DE will take a lot longer because of modules that will have to work
on the various processors. Differing processor families require differing
approaches to the MM & VM it would seem apparent.
> Now, of course, it is not unreasonable for a stand-alone DE not
> to be realized overnight, given only an (unfinished) hosted
> version. Taking two seperate products (the hosted DE and the OS)
> and slowly let them grow towards one another doesn't seem like a
> bad idea. From that point on, it should be possible to port the
> whole shebang to other hardware platforms and call it a stand-
> alone DE. Fair enough. However, this is what I'm "distilling"
> from the currently available information. Just speculation. As
> it is, the need for an AmigaOS 4.0,4.2,4.5,5.0 seems to
> contradict the supposed "short-term" availability of stand-alone
> DE's. Simple as that.
Stand-alone DE applications are one thing but a stand-alone DE
is much harder. Short term availability of applications including
games etc. is easy but the un-hosted DE is another matter.
> [...]
>
> > The great thing about the Amiga DE is that as long as it has been ported
> > to run on a cpu and it's OS, such as PC Windows/Linux, PDA, Handhelds
> > and Cellphones etc (but not Mac - yet)
>
> Yeah, yeah, spare me the marketing babble, I've all said it
> myself :) All I'm interested in now is whether it will actually
> deliver on the promises.
>
> > Finally, The AmigaOne boards will be designed to run on PC cases (atx)
> > as well as different types such as the current Amiga towers. AmigaOne
> > boards are not to be confused with PC's. It is a different Mobo.
>
> As far as I understood it, at least if you want it to run with
> an Amiga mobo attached to it, you need a custom Amiga tower from
> Eyetech. I don't really see the point in getting one if you
> don't plan to hook it up to an Amiga mobo. A machine built up
> around a standard x86 mobo anwers to the AmigaOne "Zico" spec
> (http://www.amiga.com/products/one/specs.php) as well and it's
> undoubtedly a lot cheaper. Sure an Eyetech AmigaOne board is
> different from your average ABit/Asus/Whatever board as far as
> the CPU that plugs into it is concerned, but we just agreed that
> shouldn't matter to the DE (as long as it has been ported to the
> platform and has all the resources listed in "Zico" available).
First the mainboards are processor specific even within a
particular family of processors the AMD K-6s can't be put on boards
for K-7s or the boards for Pentiums and the Pentiums have several
differing sockets to be used depending on the particular model of
Pentium. So your "standard x86 mobo" is a chimera. The same goes
for the chips that support the differing x86 family of processors.
On the contrary as of April it had been decided that for the
moment PPC was the way to go if you care to check out:
http://www.amiga.com/corporate/041201-techupdate-B.shtml
Remember Amiga OSes 4.x and 5.x represent a port of the Amiga OS
to PPC and the gradual addition of services to the OS to modernise it.
The porting will involve the generation of source code which could then
be used to further port the Amiga OS 5.x to other processors with the
modifications needed to suit the base code to detail of MMU and VM.
Apparently the decision to go on with the upgrades to the Amiga
OSes were made on the basis of representations by developers to AI
that they were unwilling to work with the SDK on anything other than
Amiga OSes.
5.0 is supposed to represent full integration of Amiga DE with OS 5.
So you will in theory have a stand alone Amiga OS/DE available for any
processor and since DE is a Tao based system you could still have
applications written in Virtual Code to work on any supported processor.
Remember though that the processor maker is responsible for the Tao
support.
I cannot say I am totally happy myself with the situation as it has
evolved but a stand-alone Amiga One will be along in a year or less. I
think the eventual arrival of such is much better than no Amiga as AI
struggles to get DE to work on a multitude of differing MMUs so that
the promised services will be there eventually to support whoever is
still left to worry about these matters.
later
bliss
--
Bobbie Sellers - (Back to Angband) *Team Amiga*
AWest (San Francisco's Amiga Users Group)
bliss at california dot com
"Bother," said Pooh, as Moonbase Alpha depressurised.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Hoggett
<michael....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>Arggh! Eelke! Not you too as well.
Understandable. There is still a lot of nebulous stuff in the Amiga
roadmap.
>Okay here goes. This is as I understand it anyhow.
>
>AmigaOne is a next generation Amiga, the motherboard of the A1 will
>require PCI cards in order to make it work. It may or may not come with
>a low spec G3 PPC CPU as standard. If not you slot your PPC CPU of
>choice on the PCI slot. It will require a yet to be released, Matrox
>Graphics card, Sound card, etc. etc. (All PCI). It will also be able to
>run OS4.0 which will be partly migrated to PPC functions. Anything 68k
>will be refered back to:...
>
>An A1200
>for backward compatibility, otherwise it will rely on programs that are
>written for the OS and not requiring specific custom chips or addresses.
>Warp up and Warp 3d will be an integral part of OS4.0 - allowing more
>recent games such as Heretic II and SHOGO the ability to run as well as
>programs like IFusion (when it works properly).
Hang on, this is quite different from anything I've read anywhere.
AmigaOne will not, AFAIK, fall back on the A1200 for any 68k functions
at all. These will be handled by 68k emulation (currently worked on
by H&P) on the PPC. Sadly, it looks like the chance to have JIT
emulation under the PPC, which would be much faster, has been
sacrificed in order to release on schedule. The A1200 fallback refers
to the custom chips, which means that whenever a program under AmigaOS
4.0 needs to access the custom chips, it will call on the A1200
hardware. Eventually, the custom chipset will also run under
emulation, allowing AmigaOne Zico specced Amigas to run independently
of any "Classic" hardware.
>A similar version for the A4000 was planned but it is looking very
>unlikely.
The next AmigaOS release is planned six months after 4.0, and this is
meant to support completely "Classic" independent hardware - which 4.0
will not. Thus it is expected that demand for A4000 AmigaOne kits
will be too low in comparison with demand for the Zico spec machines.
>6 Months after OS4.0 release, OS4.2 will be available. This will negate
>the need for any type of old Amiga classic motherboard. OS4.2 will move
>all 68k functions to PPC and emulate the rest.
4.0 will already do that. The 68k CPU on the A1200 will not be used
by AmigaOne. (Again, this is unless Eyetech have had a massive U turn
in the design of the AmigaOne recently)
--
Bill Hoggett
Bill Hoggett
<Ke...@Blakemore-Noble.net> wrote:
1 7 24 40 44 50
I can confidently predict that at least one of those numbers won't
come up. :)
Does that count?
--
Bill Hoggett
Luca Diana
>Blimey, I wish I had your clairvoyant capabilities!
>
>Making definitive statements comparing the market penetration of one
>unreleased system against that of another unreleased system!
Same stuff that the stock exchange is base on...
If I had to compare a product commercially supported and one done for
fun I'd bet on the first one. I don't see Linux' success being
repeated every year.
Luca
Kelli Halliburton
news:9f13d327.01061...@posting.google.com...
> Could someone explain in simple terms what the hell Amiga Inc are
> trying to achieve?
I'll try.
> First they are software only company producing some sort of
> revolutionary virtual machine environment that has nothing in common
> with the classic AmigaOS except for the name. At the same time they
> confusingly (and surely unprofitably) continue to sponsor half-hearted
> upgrades of the Classic 3.x OS, to exhibit the stone-age A1200/4000 on
> their webpages as part of their product range and to kick up a lot of
> fuss over pirated Kickstart ROMS.
They have a license from Gateway to use and develop extensions to the Amiga
technology, so it is in their best interest to maintain an environment in
which their investment in that license retains it value. Thus they are now
actively pursuing and prosecuting Amiga copyright and patent infringements.
And, if you'll remember, when they first announced this new direction for
the Amiga, while all the focus was on the new VP processor abstraction and
language, and the Elate multitasking kernel, and the intent Personal Java
engine, they also mentioned, almost as an afterthought, that they were
working on solutions for backward compatibility, not simply through
emulation, but "something even better."
> Then they announce the AmigaOne - as I understand it, a stand alone
> PPC machine that runs this new DE virtual environment, but which will
> include a 1200 motherboard for compatibility with classic Amiga
> software. Why on earth do we still need these 10-15 year old chips?
> Why not just recompile UAE for the DE? More importantly, to judge by
> the extortionate prices of existing Amiga PPC accelerators, such a
> system will undoubtedly cost more than a better specified
> off-the-shelf PC, which will have its own port of the AmigaDE, and
> which is already capable of near-flawless classic Amiga emulation
> under Windows/Linux/MacOS, not to mention having a vast library of
> "native" software. So what rational reason is there to
> buy an AmigaOne?
None -- if you want to be stuck with the compromises inherent in a hardware
platform that is based on 1970's technology. Yes, the IBM PC was introduced
in 1981, which makes it a product of the 1980's, but most of the pieces used
in its design were off-the-shelf components available for many years at that
point. So, yes, sure, you can use Linux or Windows, and run the hosted
version of AmigaDE, and if that's the best solution for you, then fine.
But the AmigaOne (at least the Eyetech board) is designed not only to run
the DE, but a new version of AmigaOS that is being ported to the PowerPC
family of microprocessors. It avoids many of the problems of the PC's
hardware architecture, while supporting modern standards such as PCI,
FireWire, DVD, and USB. For reasons why it needs to be connected to a 1200
or 4000 motherboard, please see my next point.
> Finally, rumours of AmigaOS 4.0. How does this fit into the greater
> scheme of things? Will it run under DE, or does it stand-alone? What
> is the point? If the aim is to run classic software, couldn't
> it incorporate hardware emulation and so subsume the functions of UAE?
AmigaOS 4.0 is the first version of AmigaOS to be ported to the PowerPC. At
that stage, it will be an incomplete port that needs the 1200 or 4000
motherboard to be connected in order to work around the "Classic" hardware
dependencies that still exist in the OS and in application programs.
The next version of the OS, 4.2, will eliminate many of the hardware
dependencies in the OS, but still will not have features to work around any
dependencies that may still exist in application software. For this reason,
version 4.2 will still require the 1200 or 4000 motherboard to be connected
to the AmigaOne when running those (usually older) programs. Version 4.2
will also be the first version of AmigaOS capable of hosting the DE, thus
now allowing DE applications to *FINALLY* actually be developed and tested
on "Amiga hardware." This is actually sort of a gesture toward many of the
more, um... 'rabid' fans of the Classic Amiga, as much as a part of a larger
overall strategy.
Version 4.5 will be the first version to have sufficient provisions in the
OS to allow hardware-dependent applications to run, as it will feature a
mapping layer to map AGA capabilities to the capabilities of the new
hardware, accelerated where possible. Current graphics card technology is
nearly sufficient to allow full-speed emulation of planar graphics in a
chunky-pixel environment, and the next generation should be more than
sufficient. This version will also feature an almost complete removal of all
68k-dependent code in AmigaOS. In addition, the DE will be more tightly
integrated with the OS.
Version 5.0 will feature the actual merging of the DE with the OS, and the
implementation of many new features designed to make the system both more
powerful and easier to use. This will be the point at which the DE can be
considered scalable from "cell phones to servers."
If you want a more detailed report of the changes proposed for AmigaOS,
please visit www.amiga.com and check out the Technical Updates. At any rate,
wouldn't you say that what Amiga is planning is significantly better than
just slapping UAE on top of the DE? "Not emulation, but something even
better." That's what they said, way back in April of 2000, and that seems to
be what they have in mind to deliver to us now.
I'm worn out now; I've been reading the Fifth and Sixth Reports and Orders
on "Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing
Television Broadcast Service," Mass Media Docket No. 87-268 (available at
www.fcc.gov/dtv, and now I've written this article on an entirely different
topic, and my brain hurts.
Kelli Halliburton
news:aa72jt4b18m2ln1au...@4ax.com...
> 1 7 24 40 44 50
>
> I can confidently predict that at least one of those numbers won't
> come up. :)
>
> Does that count?
I can guarantee that in many lottery systems, the number 50 won't come up
because they only go up to 48, so at least in those lottery systems, you're
right.
On a related note, though... what would your reaction be if those numbers
turned out to the the winning numbers in some lottery? :)
Eric Haines
> > as well as different types such as the current Amiga towers. AmigaOne
> > boards are not to be confused with PC's. It is a different Mobo.
>
> As far as I understood it, at least if you want it to run with
> an Amiga mobo attached to it, you need a custom Amiga tower from
> Eyetech. I don't really see the point in getting one if you
> don't plan to hook it up to an Amiga mobo.
The point would be to run system-legal "classic" Amiga software at
much faster speeds than is currently possible, on modern hardware.
--Eric
Luca Diana
> Those are legitimate questions. I'm confused by where Amiga is
>going myself. They've not been exactly crystal clear on what their
>strategy is and they seem not to know in which direction to go. They
>lack some focus.
Not really. The fact is that the direction they've taken is not what
some people here want. Amiga knows that there's no way to be a big
success in the desktop market, therefore they're going after other
markets and getting in the desktop market from the back door (the
AmigaOne is born with the intention of becoming a Home Server for
transparent connectivity with any other device running the Amiga
Digital Environment. You're not gonna see that for a while, though.
Luca
Luca Diana
>They actually promised to deliver a PPC port "this summer" which was
>just ridiculous because Amiga Inc. has zilch experience with Amiga OS.
>The most we will see in my opinion is another, as you say,
>half-hearted 3.x upgrade with focus on PPC support.
They must have promised that to you alone. AmigaOS will be written in
full native PPC code only in version 4.5
OS4.5 will see some implementation of PPC code, and OS4.2 will see
some more.
>There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
>common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
Yeah, QNX desktop and BeOS didn't go anywhere, I'm not holding my
breath for MorphOS. And who are the commercial developers that will
program on it?
Luca
Daniel Miller
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:13:59 GMT, Daniel Miller wrote:
>
>>They actually promised to deliver a PPC port "this summer" which was
>>just ridiculous because Amiga Inc. has zilch experience with Amiga OS.
>>The most we will see in my opinion is another, as you say,
>>half-hearted 3.x upgrade with focus on PPC support.
>
>They must have promised that to you alone. AmigaOS will be written in
>full native PPC code only in version 4.5
Oh my gosh, McEwen and whoever else definitely said it. "PPC port this
summer." The backtracking and "clarifications" started some time after
that. You actually believe this bogus time line Inc. feeds you, Luca?
I guess you can be devoted to Amiga Inc. but don't let it over-rule
your common sense.
Luca Diana
>Oh my gosh, McEwen and whoever else definitely said it. "PPC port this
>summer." The backtracking and "clarifications" started some time after
>that. You actually believe this bogus time line Inc. feeds you, Luca?
I was at St.Louis, I saw and heard the presentation with my own eyes
and ears. Since you weren't there you can read it here:
http://www.amiga.com/corporate/041201-techupdate-B.shtml
:AmigaOS4.5 represents the final stage in the creation of a native PPC
:OS. Its tasks include;
:- All remaining 68k OS code to be converted to PPC native
...
>I guess you can be devoted to Amiga Inc. but don't let it over-rule
>your common sense.
I guess you should check your sources better.
Luca
SG
Thats exactly right. But all is not lost. While Amiga Inc has been
flailing with their "new Amiga" (read: "not Amiga") H&P has been
steadily tracking real AOS towards the original p5 vision, which the
CS-PPC was released as a bridge to ultimately achieve. Many scoffed
at the p5 model at the time, especially for including both
physical processors on the way to multi-PPC pure architecture, but its
proved to be quite viable and ingenious... ...best of all... ...it
worked. (And it would have worked a heckuva lot quicker if Amiga Inc
wasn't constantly throwing up road blocks while trying to kill the
classic AOS line with words of its discontinuation, then recanting
when they realized its the only revenue source they have).
Through H&P's classic AOS continuation efforts (and with Amiga Inc
running interference directly at them the entire time), it
appears (<--key word) that we are on the verge of achieving something
similar to p5's original vision of a multi-PPC hardware independent
classic Amiga with the release of AOS4+.
As for Amiga Incs "new Amiga" (read: "not Amiga"), it appears they may
be trying to reach out to classic AOS (read: "only AOS") users by
allowing AOS4 to run their new OS hosted on top of H&P's AOS4, as if
classic AOS (read: "only AOS") users care about that.
--
Steve.
Eelke Blok
<bl...@california.com> wrote in message
news:3b311...@corp.newsgroups.com...
[...]
> Amiga DE stand-alone will be along someday but on the Amiga OS 5.x
> it will be fully integrated with OS 5 to provide a home server environment
> which will have memory management and virtual memory. Adding MM and VM
> to the DE will take a lot longer because of modules that will have to work
> on the various processors. Differing processor families require differing
> approaches to the MM & VM it would seem apparent.
A stand-alone Amiga DE would basically consist of a hosted DE
fully integrated in an underlying OS (which might or might
not include virtual memory, memory protection, etc.). Enter
AmigaOS 5. "Adding MM and VM to the DE" is the wrong way to look
at it. Building a stand-alone DE involves integrating it into an
OS, which is exactly what the OS4/5 plan does.
> > Now, of course, it is not unreasonable for a stand-alone DE not
> > to be realized overnight, given only an (unfinished) hosted
> > version. Taking two seperate products (the hosted DE and the OS)
> > and slowly let them grow towards one another doesn't seem like a
> > bad idea. From that point on, it should be possible to port the
> > whole shebang to other hardware platforms and call it a stand-
> > alone DE. Fair enough. However, this is what I'm "distilling"
> > from the currently available information. Just speculation. As
> > it is, the need for an AmigaOS 4.0,4.2,4.5,5.0 seems to
> > contradict the supposed "short-term" availability of stand-alone
> > DE's. Simple as that.
>
> Stand-alone DE applications are one thing but a stand-alone DE
> is much harder. Short term availability of applications including
> games etc. is easy but the un-hosted DE is another matter.
Uh, I don't quite follow you. Why bring applications into the
equation? The whole point of those is they won't *need* any
porting.
That a stand-alone DE is another matter is basically what I said
in the above paragraph; the OS4/5 plan (or roadmap, if you will)
is a clear indicator Amiga knows it too :) Maybe those last three
sentence are a bit confusing, but by that I'm really trying to
say Amiga hasn't flat-out said: "OK, this is the roadmap towards
a stand-alone DE", but instead present it as an upgrade path for
Classic Amiga users, practically saying with a big grin "see, we
didn't forget you, we really are presenting an evolution from the
old system, it really *is* an Amiga". But as it stands, current
Amiga users are basically being used as a beta-testing team for
the finished product that is OS5. Not that there is a huge scam
going on or that Amiga users are being taken for a ride. They
*do* get an upgrade path out of this roadmap. The difference in
emphasis just seems a bit unsettling.
> > I don't really see the point in getting one if you
> > don't plan to hook it up to an Amiga mobo. A machine built up
> > around a standard x86 mobo anwers to the AmigaOne "Zico" spec
> > (http://www.amiga.com/products/one/specs.php) as well and it's
> > undoubtedly a lot cheaper. Sure an Eyetech AmigaOne board is
> > different from your average ABit/Asus/Whatever board as far as
> > the CPU that plugs into it is concerned, but we just agreed that
> > shouldn't matter to the DE (as long as it has been ported to the
> > platform and has all the resources listed in "Zico" available).
>
> First the mainboards are processor specific even within a
> particular family of processors the AMD K-6s can't be put on boards
> for K-7s or the boards for Pentiums and the Pentiums have several
> differing sockets to be used depending on the particular model of
> Pentium. So your "standard x86 mobo" is a chimera. The same goes
> for the chips that support the differing x86 family of processors.
If by that you mean to say "writing a stand-alone DE for x86 is
not trivial", I fully agree. But please don't tell me different
x86 CPU's need different motherboards. If I didn't know that, I
would have had a horrible surprise when I tried to plug in my
Athlon Thunderbird into my Intel Pentium motherboard when I did
my last upgrade :)
I think I can give a pretty simple answer to my "worries" myself.
Facts:
1. A hosted Amiga DE is being worked on and well under way.
Versions for Windows and Linux, in the form of an SDK, already
are partially implemented.
2. There is no way it is possible to write an OS-layer underneith
the DE and have that ported over to a number of hardware
platforms overnight, so the stand-alone DE is a bit further along
the line.
3. Amiga have defined a roadmap which has a full integration of
the AmigaOS and the AmigaDE at the end (in a few years),
effectively realizing a stand-alone AmigaDE for the PPC AmigaOne.
So basically, the point in buying an Eyetech AmigaOne mobo is
that for some time, the PPC AmigaOne is going to be the only
hardware platform that will run its OS (AmigaOS) integrated with
the AmigaDE to some extent. Fair enough. That wasn't so hard.
It might seem like a bad idea to go for custom PPC-hardware
instead of cheap PC-hardware, but of course the move from the
current AmigaOS as they have it now to PPC has already been
started with WarpUp. Using the current AmigaOS (and thus the
current Amiga hardware) as a a starting point for their roadmap
doesn't seem unreasonable. The knife cuts both ways, because the
Amiga user gets an upgrade path out of it and Amiga get a beta-
testing team that rides along with their roadmap (it's basically
your classic win-win situation). It would have been quite
different if they had taken an Open Source OS as the foundation
for the stand-alone DE. That would have resulted in a beta-
testing environment on both "sides". And that's not to mention
the reactions Collas got when he presented his Linux plan.
Cheers,
Eelke
Patrick Ford
> Aram Iskenderian wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Jun 2001 13:12:56 -0700, jam...@hotmail.com (James Copeland)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >First they are software only company producing some sort of
> > >revolutionary virtual machine environment that has nothing in common
> > >with the classic AmigaOS except for the name.
> >
> > *Yawn*
> > Another "it is not an Amiga" thread.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> Those are legitimate questions. I'm confused by where Amiga is
> going myself. They've not been exactly crystal clear on what their
> strategy is and they seem not to know in which direction to go. They
> lack some focus.
You would be more likely to get information--if that is what you really
see, which I doubt--by reading what Amiga Inc have published, rather than
posting pages of blather here,
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Daniel Miller
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>I was at St.Louis, I saw and heard the presentation with my own eyes
>and ears. Since you weren't there you can read it here:
>http://www.amiga.com/corporate/041201-techupdate-B.shtml
I respect the fact that you attended that important Amiga convention.
I listened to the Internet radio feed and watched the live pictures
like a madman.
All the same the announcement you point people to was written several
days after the convention, and doesn't really match what was said at
the convention.
Dave W
>The point would be to run system-legal "classic" Amiga software at
>much faster speeds than is currently possible, on modern hardware.
This is the part that bothers me. I don't think speed is that much of a
problem for most applications, even with the slower Ami processors. Amiga's
obsoleteness comes not from its speed but from its Net compatibility. It
doesn't have a modern browser with current plugins (or any at all), you
can't use it to mail Word- compatible docs (or databases or spreadsheets or
graphics in many formats) easily or reliably, the character set is only
partly compatible with the rest of the world (there's not even a
wordprocessor that can use postscript/truetype fonts without hackwork), you
can't even use CD-RW or DVD with any ease or confidence, and on and on.
These are the kinds of things that make the "classic" Amiga obsolete.
Personally I could pretty much live with the speed if these other issues
were fixed, but I'm not at all confident that they will be. (For example,
if Real wasn't willing to allow a version for the classic, why will they do
so for OS 4x-5x?)
It's really frustrating to be using Windows, knowing that Ami could do all
this so much better, but not being able to have any confidence that it, or
any successor will ever get the chance.
Luca Diana
>I respect the fact that you attended that important Amiga convention.
>I listened to the Internet radio feed and watched the live pictures
>like a madman.
>
>All the same the announcement you point people to was written several
>days after the convention, and doesn't really match what was said at
>the convention.
Ok, then believe whatever you want to believe. I was at the convention
and the facts are not what you think!
Luca
Markus Rütter
[some confusion]
>Arggh! Eelke! Not you too as well.
>Okay here goes. This is as I understand it anyhow.
[ 8< ]
>A similar version for the A4000 was planned but it is looking very
>unlikely.
And to be honest, it is pretty unnecessary. Those of us who are dying to
have near 100% compatibility and cannot wait until 4.2 is out can still
shoot themselves an A1200 board at eBay. (Says me as an A4000 user)
>6 Months after OS4.0 release, OS4.2 will be available. This will negate
>the need for any type of old Amiga classic motherboard. OS4.2 will move
>all 68k functions to PPC and emulate the rest.
_All_ 68k code? In 4.2? The German AmigaPlus states that "more" 68k code
will be translated into PPC code, with the remaining 68k code being
eliminated in 4.5.
>6 months further on, 0S4.5 will be released this will lay the final
>foundation for the migration to the new OS 5. OS4.5 will include a
>partial or full integration of the Amiga Digital Environment. (Amiga DE)
And that is being reported for 4.2 already. [scratching head] Two sources,
two different statements. Again. [sigh]
[ 8< ]
>It is Alleged that on a PC running windows the Amiga Digital Environment
>Amiga DE applications/games can run up to 20% faster than on Windows.
>(and this is with windows running in the background remember). At worst
>it suffers a reduction of speed upto 20%. So it is + or minus 20%
I wonder how to measure this. :-/
>The great thing about the Amiga DE is that as long as it has been ported
>to run on a cpu and it's OS, such as PC Windows/Linux, PDA, Handhelds
>and Cellphones etc (but not Mac - yet), any application or game written
>for the Amiga DE will run on any of those devices. Providing of course
>that the machine you choose to run the application on has the available
>resources. i.e. graphics capability, sound, enough ram etc.
>If you are a software developer the Amiga DE is a gold mine. You just
>write once and run everywhere (or nearly everywhere) without having to
>do any ports.
Right so far. But to me the question remains what iron you are actually
coding for with DE in mind. A useful program suited for all the devices you
mention above? What would that be? Today's apps for handhelds are mostly
scaled down versions of desktop applications. Will this change in the
foreseeable future?
>For Amiga users it menas that from OS4.5 Amiga users will be able to run
>any application, utility or game written for the AmigaDE (written for
>any platform) on their AmigaOne. Perhaps at an even faster rate since
>from OS5.0 both systems will be fully integrated.
The next problem. A future AOS will have MP, VM and all the bells and
whistles that DE - being derived from Elate - will hardly have. How can you
merge the code base in an effective way?
>This is in a nutshell, how I understand it, I'm sure I have missed some
>really important things, but I think the gist is there.
It is. Well done, thanks, you saved me some time. Yet the usual oddities
remain. If someone (this means you, Gary... ;) ) can clear this up, feel
free to do so. BTW, if my comments appear like bitching, let me say they
are not meant to. It is just the well-known feeling that there may be light
at the end of the tunnel (to warm this one up again) and AInc. wants us to
look at it through generously provided sunglasses.
>Phew!
Uhm, yes. :)
--
.sig on vacation
Aram Iskenderian
>Aram Iskenderian wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2001 13:12:56 -0700, jam...@hotmail.com (James Copeland)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >First they are software only company producing some sort of
>> >revolutionary virtual machine environment that has nothing in common
>> >with the classic AmigaOS except for the name.
>>
>> *Yawn*
>> Another "it is not an Amiga" thread.
>
> No, it's not.
>
It is not?
Could you, explain to the rest of us the ignorant ones what does " that
has nothing in common>with the classic AmigaOS except for the name"
means in the above?
English is not my first language, but I am not stupid.
> Those are legitimate questions. I'm confused by where Amiga is
>going myself. They've not been exactly crystal clear on what their
>strategy is and they seem not to know in which direction to go. They
>lack some focus.
>
While they are not perfect, you can read their own website, subscribe to
couple of mailing lists that these questions were/are/will always be
answered.
> To dismiss such concerns so out of hand will likely doom the Amiga
>once and for all, especially if they want to become a viable
>alternative platform in this day and age.
What more do you want?
I can't understand some of you people.
First there was why they are choosing a different kernel, exec rocks,
and then why only set tops, why no updates to the classic 68K OS, why no
PPC OS.
Now Amiga did all that, and more.
They have their mistakes, and they have their flaws, but who/what
company(especially a startup company) has none?
Now I can understand that some of us still have hopes for our
investments in our old and antiquated hardware, and old but really nice
software, but this is how technology works, it goes forward, time to do
something about, you want to stay behind(when I say you, I am *not*
address you as a person, I'm talking to the nay sayers in plural), time
for the Amiga to get back where it left off, and join what it started.
Don't you really feel down when you look at that nice $50 impressive
scanner, $80 killer printer, $5 PCI Ethernet card and $21 256MB PC150
RAM?
Don't you want have more choices when you purchase your software and
hardware?
Now compare that to the premium prices that we are paying today just
because "it is a ream Amiga", and ask yourself why you no loger see
Amgia dealers that much around and why most of the current remaining
faithful and brave Amiga business are scaled down to couple of
enthusiasts working from their homes?
Do I need to continue wasting my time and everyone else's posting facts
that we all know but some of refuse to acknowledge?
Do you ever wonder why even the last major Amiga developer, Newtek, no
longer lists any Amiga related products on their websites?
Something needed to be done.
Now the options were for anyone who buys the Amiga is:
1. Dump the whole platform and use the name and reputation to close some
deals with hardware and software vendors and get some money out of
licensing, which was Gateway's latest business plan.
2. Continue the same work that led several owners before into
bankruptcy, c= and others.
Rely or proprietary outdated standards for hardware, and outdated OS.
Or think that selling 1200 left and right will bring the platform back
to the top.
3. Provide a path that may not be a "smooth ride" for the current user
base to migrate into a modern architecture.
If you were a business man and you have the above which one would you
rather do?
I'm sorry but I can't eplian it more than this.
--
Aram Iskenderian.
The email address is not valid.
To reply by email, look in the headers
Keith Blakemore-Noble
wrote something about "Re: The strategy of Amiga Inc"...
> >There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
> >>common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
>
> Yeah, QNX desktop and BeOS didn't go anywhere
From which you conclude that MorphOS will fail? Or from which you
conclude that AmigaOS/AmigaDE/AmigaPDA/AmigaDeJour will succeed?
So how come 2 other OSes not making much impact on the desktop means
MorphOS will fail but Amiga will succeed? You can't have it both ways
- either failure indicates failure, or failure indicates success.
Of cours,e the LOGICAL conclusion is "QNX (a highly successful OS, btw)
and BeOS didn't make much of an impact on teh desktop. However, we can
draw absolutely zero conclusions from those isolated facts when
considering any other OS".
Keith Blakemore-Noble
wrote something about "Re: The strategy of Amiga Inc"...
>
>
> >Blimey, I wish I had your clairvoyant capabilities!
> >
> >Making definitive statements comparing the market penetration of
>
> Same stuff that the stock exchange is base on...
Only difference being, the stock traders tend to have some previous
information upon which to base their analysis (excluding all the
dumbasses who invested billions in dot-com vapor and lost it all - no
less than they deserve for their total stupidity - see what happens
when you don't bother to research and include past performance and
trends in your predictions?) on past events as well as current data and
detailed future plans.
As it is, neither MorphOS nor AInc have any past history in terms of OS
development etc upon which to forward-project any predictions.
> If I had to compare a product commercially supported and one done for
> fun I'd bet on the first one.
Interesting.
Because one way to look at it is that MorphOS has commercial backing,
and Amiga Inc is, in the words of their owners, all about fun.
Draw your own conclusions from that.
(Note - I am not saying that AInc is not commercially backed, before
you start).
Keith Blakemore-Noble
wrote something about "Re: The strategy of Amiga Inc"...
> >Got any tips for next week's National Lottery numbers, by any
> >chance?
>
> 1 7 24 40 44 50
>
> I can confidently predict that at least one of those numbers won't
> come up. :)
LOL!!!
I should have known YOU'D come up with something like that, Mr Hoggett!
Aram Iskenderian
>There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
>common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
>MorphOS is deep into betatesting with countless Amiga programs already
>confirmed (http://www.morphos.de/fileslinks.php3). The bPlan hardware
>exists (http://www.bplan-gmbh.de/news/news02_e.html). I do believe
>that MorphOS running Amiga programs on the bPlan PPC box is a more
>modern and powerful solution than UAE or whatever Inc.'s
>curiousity-of-the-month happens to be.
While I wish Ralph all the best with his project, I don't think that
Morph OS will ever be main stream platform, I sincerely hope that it
would, but a little doze of reality tells us that it will need best of
luck.
Aram Iskenderian
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:18:20 -0400, Luca Diana
><windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:13:59 GMT, Daniel Miller wrote:
>>
>>>They actually promised to deliver a PPC port "this summer" which was
>>>just ridiculous because Amiga Inc. has zilch experience with Amiga OS.
>>>The most we will see in my opinion is another, as you say,
>>>half-hearted 3.x upgrade with focus on PPC support.
>>
>>They must have promised that to you alone. AmigaOS will be written in
>>full native PPC code only in version 4.5
>
>Oh my gosh, McEwen and whoever else definitely said it. "PPC port this
>summer." The backtracking and "clarifications" started some time after
>that. You actually believe this bogus time line Inc. feeds you, Luca?
No they're just playing there, have some investor money to throw away.
I guess you've never worked in the real world on a real project before.
You always plan something, and then when real world factors come in,
delays and changes are always a possibility.
Look around a bit, Windows 2000, Windows 98, Mac OS 8, Mac OS X client,
Linux Kernel 2.4.x ....etc.
Now these people had established markets with resources that make Amiga
look like some garage business, and they have delays, and they have
developer, and beta test teams that outnumber our user base, and they
still have delays, you want Amiga to port Amiga OS from 68K and add all
the modern features of an OS that you can use today, and nothing will
come up?
Give me a break.
>I guess you can be devoted to Amiga Inc. but don't let it over-rule
>your common sense.
Uhm, you mean the common sense that you used when claiming that Morph OS
has better chances?
Sure...
Aram Iskenderian
>All the same the announcement you point people to was written several
>days after the convention, and doesn't really match what was said at
>the convention.
What didn't match?
Go ahead a find a single mistake or mis-match, read me own show report
here.
http://www.myamiga.com/amiga/news/amiwest/amiwest.html
I challenge you to find anything different from what was said.
I even have a picture gallery to back my reports.
When you claim something like this, at least rely on facts or have
something to backup your claim.
Aram Iskenderian
>Thats exactly right. But all is not lost. While Amiga Inc has been
>flailing with their "new Amiga" (read: "not Amiga") H&P has been
>steadily tracking real AOS towards the original p5 vision, which the
>CS-PPC was released as a bridge to ultimately achieve. Many scoffed
>at the p5 model at the time, especially for including both
>physical processors on the way to multi-PPC pure architecture, but its
>proved to be quite viable and ingenious... ...best of all... ...it
>worked. (And it would have worked a heckuva lot quicker if Amiga Inc
>wasn't constantly throwing up road blocks while trying to kill the
>classic AOS line with words of its discontinuation, then recanting
>when they realized its the only revenue source they have).
>
>Through H&P's classic AOS continuation efforts (and with Amiga Inc
>running interference directly at them the entire time), it
>appears (<--key word) that we are on the verge of achieving something
>similar to p5's original vision of a multi-PPC hardware independent
>classic Amiga with the release of AOS4+.
>
>As for Amiga Incs "new Amiga" (read: "not Amiga"), it appears they may
>be trying to reach out to classic AOS (read: "only AOS") users by
>allowing AOS4 to run their new OS hosted on top of H&P's AOS4, as if
>classic AOS (read: "only AOS") users care about that.
Steve, has it occurred to you that Haage and Partner are contracted by
Amiga to port the OS?
How does that make one bad and the other good?
The decision is Amiga's if they didn't support the platform, they would
've not given Haage and Partner any access to the OS.
Please, let's stick to facts.
BTW, let's not forget the Phase 5 "vision" Phase 5 tried several time to
be Amiga's Microsoft, but their micro monopoly attempt failed, and the
result is what you see today.
Thousands of loyal users who spent their hard earned money on a hardware
that promised a lot and delivered very little.
They did what they did and the rest was history, let it go, look at the
future.
Daniel Miller
<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What didn't match?
>
>Go ahead a find a single mistake or mis-match, read me own show report
>here.
It is a stupid thing to argue about, and I don't really have time to
triple-cross-reference my clear recollection that "PPC port" was
promised for "this summer." Even if I did it wouldn't matter to the
diehard Inc. defenders.
Are we next going to argue about the ten engineers McEwen and Peake
claimed to have hard at work at their in-house development of 4.0? Are
you going to try to defend that or claim it never happened?
Daniel Miller
<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Uhm, you mean the common sense that you used when claiming that Morph OS
>has better chances?
Weren't you just the guy who flamed me for not having facts straight?
You or your twin brother.
I said "in my opinion the MorphOS/bPlan model is more powerful" or
something like that. I am not in the habit of prognosticating about
the chances of some company's success.
Aram Iskenderian
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:46:30 GMT, Aram Iskenderian
><ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>What didn't match?
>>
>>Go ahead a find a single mistake or mis-match, read me own show report
>>here.
>
>It is a stupid thing to argue about,
Well you started the argument, blame yourself.
> and I don't really have time to
Translation, you cannot back you your claims.
>triple-cross-reference my clear recollection that "PPC port" was
>promised for "this summer." Even if I did it wouldn't matter to the
>diehard Inc. defenders.
Why don't you simply get a clue instead of arguing about things that you
NEVER knew anything about?
In the above I was mentioning the SACRAMENTO Show, and there was NO PPC
Amiga OS mention at that time.
>Are we next going to argue about the ten engineers McEwen and Peake
>claimed to have hard at work at their in-house development of 4.0?
Please provide a CREDIBLE source for this claim, and be careful, provide
an exact quote.
> Are
>you going to try to defend that or claim it never happened?
>
1. I am not defending anyone, simply telling you facts.
2. YOU are the one who got defensive once things explained to him.
Instead of blinding yourself by some strange attitude against Amiga,
based on FUD and innuendo, how about checking your sources?
It's not we are asking you to mater rocket science. ;-)
Aram Iskenderian
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:45:51 GMT, Aram Iskenderian
><ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Uhm, you mean the common sense that you used when claiming that Morph OS
>>has better chances?
>
>Weren't you just the guy who flamed me for not having facts straight?
>You or your twin brother.
What you took as a flame, was simply telling you some facts, junior.
>I said "in my opinion the MorphOS/bPlan model is more powerful" or
>something like that. I am not in the habit of prognosticating about
>the chances of some company's success.
>
But you were happily slamming Amiga's chances couple of posts ago?
Instead of being busy making stuff up, read your own posts.
Luca Diana
>I said "in my opinion the MorphOS/bPlan model is more powerful" or
>something like that. I am not in the habit of prognosticating about
>the chances of some company's success.
So who is going to develop software for MorphOS? Hyperion? Macromedia?
Any commercial developer at all? I don't think so... MorphOS is a
hobbt, and IMO will never go anywhere further than that (BeOS docet)
Luca
Luca Diana
>Hi there Luca Diana, on or around Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:18:20 -0400 you
>wrote something about "Re: The strategy of Amiga Inc"...
>> Yeah, QNX desktop and BeOS didn't go anywhere
>
>From which you conclude that MorphOS will fail? Or from which you
>conclude that AmigaOS/AmigaDE/AmigaPDA/AmigaDeJour will succeed?
I claimed the first, not the second. And I said that AmigaOS/DE has
more chances to succeed than MorphOS. MorphOS is an amateurial thing.
It doesn't have the backing of a community like Linux, and frankly I
don't see it getting any, either
>Of cours,e the LOGICAL conclusion is "QNX (a highly successful OS, btw)
A highly successful OS in other fields, not in the desktop market.
Read my sentence again.
>and BeOS didn't make much of an impact on teh desktop. However, we can
>draw absolutely zero conclusions from those isolated facts when
>considering any other OS".
re-read my post
Luca
SG
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:56:51 GMT, "SG" <s...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Thats exactly right. But all is not lost. While Amiga Inc has been
> >flailing with their "new Amiga" (read: "not Amiga") H&P has been
> >steadily tracking real AOS towards the original p5 vision, which the
> >CS-PPC was released as a bridge to ultimately achieve. Many scoffed
> >at the p5 model at the time, especially for including both
> >physical processors on the way to multi-PPC pure architecture, but its
> >proved to be quite viable and ingenious... ...best of all... ...it
> >worked. (And it would have worked a heckuva lot quicker if Amiga Inc
> >wasn't constantly throwing up road blocks while trying to kill the
> >classic AOS line with words of its discontinuation, then recanting
> >when they realized its the only revenue source they have).
> >
> >Through H&P's classic AOS continuation efforts (and with Amiga Inc
> >running interference directly at them the entire time), it
> >appears (<--key word) that we are on the verge of achieving something
> >similar to p5's original vision of a multi-PPC hardware independent
> >classic Amiga with the release of AOS4+.
> >
> >As for Amiga Incs "new Amiga" (read: "not Amiga"), it appears they may
> >be trying to reach out to classic AOS (read: "only AOS") users by
> >allowing AOS4 to run their new OS hosted on top of H&P's AOS4, as if
> >classic AOS (read: "only AOS") users care about that.
>
>
> Steve, has it occurred to you that Haage and Partner are contracted by
> Amiga to port the OS?
They are now, now that Amiga Inc needs them. Yes. Lets not forget
that Amiga Inc originally announced that classic AOS was a thing of
the past (or at least heavily implied it, causeing many to just plain
give up the ghost).
H&P ventured out on their own to create WarpUp (well, along with
p5, and we all know how Amiga Incs words helped them) and the many
other little gems they are releasing now, Amiga Inc's original
announcements did nothing but hurt H&P. Now AInc needs their works,
so H&P has created the "new" "old" OS just like AInc planned all
along, right? Right.
> How does that make one bad and the other good?
> The decision is Amiga's if they didn't support the platform, they would
> 've not given Haage and Partner any access to the OS.
>
> Please, let's stick to facts.
>
> BTW, let's not forget the Phase 5 "vision" Phase 5 tried several time to
> be Amiga's Microsoft, but their micro monopoly attempt failed, and the
> result is what you see today.
> Thousands of loyal users who spent their hard earned money on a hardware
> that promised a lot and delivered very little.
>
> They did what they did and the rest was history, let it go, look at the
> future.
I think thats selling p5's memory (moment of silence, plz... ok) a bit
short. If it weren't for p5 forging ahead completely on their own
with the CS/BV-PPC line, we'd be using 68K OS3.1 today, with no PPC at
all, past, present, or future, no PPC software base, no WarpUP, no PPC
PCI modules on the horizon, no H&P AOS4, no nothing.
Don't you agree?
You can nitpick the details and downright slam their business
practices, but they did single-handedly produce both the long term
roadmap and the hardware for our current PPC environment + transition.
And its turned out to be pretty neat high performance stuff (much of
that through no fault of their own but rather H&P), and its leading to
even neater stuff, if I don't say so myself. So I personally credit
them with saving the "real" Amiga (at least so far).
--
Steve.
SG
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:13:59 GMT, DC...@USA.NET (Daniel Miller) wrote:
>
> >There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
> >common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
> >MorphOS is deep into betatesting with countless Amiga programs already
> >confirmed (http://www.morphos.de/fileslinks.php3). The bPlan hardware
> >exists (http://www.bplan-gmbh.de/news/news02_e.html). I do believe
> >that MorphOS running Amiga programs on the bPlan PPC box is a more
> >modern and powerful solution than UAE or whatever Inc.'s
> >curiousity-of-the-month happens to be.
>
> While I wish Ralph all the best with his project, I don't think that
> Morph OS will ever be main stream platform, I sincerely hope that it
> would, but a little doze of reality tells us that it will need best of
> luck.
Its seems that Amiga Inc is finally meandering close enough to the
real thing (thanks to H&P leading them there by the nose) that MorphOS
will likely stay a novelty, even if technically excellent.
--
Steve.
SG
> Something needed to be done.
>
> Now the options were for anyone who buys the Amiga is:
> 1. Dump the whole platform and use the name and reputation to close some
> deals with hardware and software vendors and get some money out of
> licensing, which was Gateway's latest business plan.
>
> 2. Continue the same work that led several owners before into
> bankruptcy, c= and others.
> Rely or proprietary outdated standards for hardware, and outdated OS.
>
> Or think that selling 1200 left and right will bring the platform back
> to the top.
>
> 3. Provide a path that may not be a "smooth ride" for the current user
> base to migrate into a modern architecture.
>
> If you were a business man and you have the above which one would you
> rather do?
>
> I'm sorry but I can't eplian it more than this.
Thats all very well put, but I 'm not so quick to forgive Amiga
Inc for running interference all this time, nor do I give them much
credit for what has transpired.
This appears to be a synergy of outstanding work by H&P on the OS
side, coupled with outstanding work by Eyetech on the hardware end.
The latter was really facilitated by the former, as Eyetech would've
released the non-stand alone Predator (upon which their stand alone A1
is heavily based/compatible(?)) anyway, to take advantage of the
hardware indepentent nature of WOS5 so as to implement a(nother) PCI
based PPC-pure solution.
What has AInc done but slowed all this down, or even outright tried to
kill the companies above, originally? Sure, I agree with you Aram,
at this juncture its great to have AInc on board, apparently, and
the official OS certainly can't be made whole without them doing
exactly what they're (finally) doing.
--
Steve.
Timothy Rue
>"James Copeland" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9f13d327.01061...@posting.google.com...
>Version 4.5 will be the first version to have sufficient provisions in the
>OS to allow hardware-dependent applications to run, as it will feature a
>mapping layer to map AGA capabilities to the capabilities of the new
>hardware, accelerated where possible. Current graphics card technology is
>nearly sufficient to allow full-speed emulation of planar graphics in a
>chunky-pixel environment, and the next generation should be more than
>sufficient. This version will also feature an almost complete removal of all
>68k-dependent code in AmigaOS. In addition, the DE will be more tightly
>integrated with the OS.
Hmmmmmm, I do certainly recall statements saying that moving the os to a
faster system couldn't be done for reasons beyond coding. I also recall my
saying how stupid such comments are. Now where did I here such things
from?
---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
Timothy Rue
>--
> Amiga DE stand-alone will be along someday but on the Amiga OS 5.x
>it will be fully integrated with OS 5 to provide a home server environment
>which will have memory management and virtual memory. Adding MM and VM
>to the DE will take a lot longer because of modules that will have to work
>on the various processors. Differing processor families require differing
>approaches to the MM & VM it would seem apparent.
Ignorance is Bliss, right?
Maybe if everyone chants such things as many times as they can, it will
magically be so somehow?
This thread certainly suggest such chanting.
SG
> "James Copeland" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f13d327.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > Finally, rumours of AmigaOS 4.0. How does this fit into the greater
> > scheme of things?
>
> I still haven't figured this one out, really. I believe the
> official postion is, it is the OS which the EyeTech AmigaOne is
> going to run and which is responsible for the integration of the
> PPC motherboard and the legacy Amiga motherboard. What bothers
> me is that the Amiga DE was supposed to be able to run as a
> stand-alone OS on an AmigaOne spec-machine - so what is the
> AmigaOS 4 good for? I suppose getting AmigaDE to run as a stand-
> alone OS was decided to be a step too far for the time being and
> we'll only see hosted DE's for the time being.
I share your confusion.
I'm geussing that AOS4 is simply a release of previously completeld
H&P V68K work now turned hardware independent. IOWs, H&P long ago
created a system that essentially emulates the 68K side of a CS-PPC
inside a single PPC card and was set to release it in
AmiJoe/Brainstormer-like products (which fell through).
These were hardware dependent "CS-PPC emulations" though. Now with
WarpOS5 indluding hardware independent drivers, H&Ps work has
progressed to a level were AOS can be released for various PPC pure
(and not so pure, i.e. CS-PPCs, or even CS-PPCs + PCI PPC modules)
architectures, by simply throwing a driver into the
"SYS:WarpOS/hwdrivers" drawer.
Thus, we have the Eyetech AmigaOne running AOS4, which is presumably
just a stand alone version of their already announced Predator+ based
PCI PPC-pure solution.
So...
This is basically a WOS based "CS-PPC black box" solution, running PPC
pure within any hw independent PPC PCI module using H&Ps V68K subbing
for the real 68K chip on the real CS-PPC. A great idea, thanks p5 for
your roadmap.
One has to wonder how difficult/far away H&P is from allowing multiple
PPC PCI processor modules (or multi chip single modules) in a single
system?
A hint from Elbox?
"On top of that, in new applications to be developed both
accelerators may enhance performance of each other just the same way
as it is done in advanced multi-processor systems. This is due to
the fact that processors in both accelerators (68k/PPC and SharkPPC)
work fully simultaneously, which is for the first time available for
Amiga users."
And the next step after that? Why run this on Amiga mbs at all? Why
not use any x86 mb with PCI, and just include a little x86 bootstrap
to launch AOS on a PCI-based multi-PPC processor farm?
--
Steve.
Eric Haines
A reasonable point, although for my own use, at least 50% of the time
on my Amiga I'm using stuff that would benefit more or less
significantly from a faster processor. The thing is, a lot of what
people want these days needs a reasonably fast processor (MP3, 3D,
etc.), and we'll never get any serious software development again if
the most we can offer is a 60MHz 68060 + ZorroIII.
Despite certain claims floating around here, while the Phase5 PPC
boards are "neat," they're also crippled, and I really don't
think the original intention was to have them still "top of the line"
4 years later. I bet a 233MHz pure PPC Amiga would generally keep up
with a 1GHz Windows machine. Fortunately you can get a 233MHz G3 for
the AmigaOne for $35, so I really don't see anything to object to at
this point (except, "Why wasn't this done years ago?"). That should
be enough for a lot of people, though of course you can get more speed
if you want to pay for it.
--Eric
Alfred Schwarz
>This is the part that bothers me. I don't think speed is that much of a
>problem for most applications, even with the slower Ami processors.
I don't think so...
>Amiga's obsoleteness comes not from its speed but from its Net
>compatibility. It doesn't have a modern browser with current plugins (or
Many of the current plugins wouldn't make much sense with the current
processor power. So that's not the biggest problem.
>any at all), you can't use it to mail Word- compatible docs (or
>databases or spreadsheets or graphics in many formats) easily or
I can mail whatever I want and I think YAM is the best mailing program I've
ever seen on any system.
>reliably, the character set is only partly compatible with the rest of
Isn't the character set not a standard one?
>the world (there's not even a wordprocessor that can use
>postscript/truetype fonts without hackwork),
Wrong, AmiWriter and WordWorth can and the TrueType and PostScript libs
that allow to use these fonts as any normal Amiga fonts are _no_ hacks!
>you can't even use CD-RW or
No problems for me, I use MakeCD with my CDR and have less problems than
with the PII at work.
>DVD with any ease or confidence, and on and on.
As I heard it's not really a problem to use DVD (you need Allegro to read
the filesystem) and you can use DVDR as big floppy disc.
If you are talking about watching DVD movies on Amiga this is more a
problem with existing processor power, the software seems to exist (AmiDog,
Frogger AFAIK).
Ciao, Alfred
Bill Hoggett
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:18:20 -0400, Luca Diana
><windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:13:59 GMT, Daniel Miller wrote:
>>
>>>They actually promised to deliver a PPC port "this summer" which was
>>>just ridiculous because Amiga Inc. has zilch experience with Amiga OS.
>>>The most we will see in my opinion is another, as you say,
>>>half-hearted 3.x upgrade with focus on PPC support.
>>
>>They must have promised that to you alone. AmigaOS will be written in
>>full native PPC code only in version 4.5
>
>Oh my gosh, McEwen and whoever else definitely said it. "PPC port this
>summer." The backtracking and "clarifications" started some time after
>that. You actually believe this bogus time line Inc. feeds you, Luca?
>
>I guess you can be devoted to Amiga Inc. but don't let it over-rule
>your common sense.
Ah, Daniel, you read too much in "PPC port this summer". It was NEVER
promised as a FULL port, just enough to allow the OS to run on the
PPC, as a combination of native PPC and emulated 68k parts. I do
admit that this isn't too satisfactory, specially as the 68k emulation
will not be as fast as it could be, but that is what was promised from
the start. Some of it looks like backtracking and clarifications
because Amiga Inc were truly woeful when it came to presenting their
roadmap in a coherent, complete and controlled manner. The guilty
parties know who they are.
RaYzor
>--- SNIP---<
> Despite certain claims floating around here, while the Phase5 PPC
> boards are "neat," they're also crippled, and I really don't
> think the original intention was to have them still "top of the line"
> 4 years later. I bet a 233MHz pure PPC Amiga would generally keep up
> with a 1GHz Windows machine. Fortunately you can get a 233MHz G3 for
> the AmigaOne for $35,
Umm, *I* bet you are wrong. I'm no engineer, but from what I've seen my
1ghz Athlon running Windows 2000 Pro _SMOKES_ any G3 equipped machines
(although to be honest all I have seen is Macintosh bloat boxes) .... as far
as RAW POWER goes, my benchmark SiSoft Sandra states that I turn out ~2800
MIPS and ~1375 MFLOPS .. sure its just a benchmark, but I am willing to bet
that your 233 mhz PPC could not come anywhere near it.
RAM speeds on my system are ~ 435 megabytes/sec thruput .. I'd like to know
what they are on a 233 mhz PPC. I seem to recall that on my Amiga 3000 w/
CSMKIII 060, it was around 60 megabytes/sec on a good day.
If its ever available, please show me a 233 mhz PPC with a GeForce2 Grafx
accel doing ~150 FPS in Quake 3, high detail, 1024 x 768.
And where is this $35 G3 ? I'd like to see it.
RaYzor
Daniel Miller
<bill_h...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Ah, Daniel, you read too much in "PPC port this summer". It was NEVER
>promised as a FULL port, just enough to allow the OS to run on the
>PPC, as a combination of native PPC and emulated 68k parts. I do
>admit that this isn't too satisfactory, specially as the 68k emulation
>will not be as fast as it could be, but that is what was promised from
>the start. Some of it looks like backtracking and clarifications
>because Amiga Inc were truly woeful when it came to presenting their
>roadmap in a coherent, complete and controlled manner. The guilty
>parties know who they are.
It sounds like they have successfully minimized 4.0 down to the vague
and modest goal of "increased PPC support." The problems at Inc. are
not just the woeful incoherence you refer to. In my opinion they make
the most horrendous vapor announcements, like is the classic OS
timelined through version 7.0 yet (dual transmeta processors,
holographic imaging?) It demonstrates a lack of respect for the
faithful, as does much of the claptrap on the website.
I don't fault people like Aram Iskenderian for the loyalty to Amiga
Inc, although I will not respond to his latest round of stupid flames,
because it is not productive to do so, and I won't sink to that level.
I am happy to respond to people like you who disagree with me though.
Bill Hoggett
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:05:51 +0100, Bill Hoggett
><bill_h...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>Ah, Daniel, you read too much in "PPC port this summer". It was NEVER
>>promised as a FULL port, just enough to allow the OS to run on the
>>PPC, as a combination of native PPC and emulated 68k parts. I do
>>admit that this isn't too satisfactory, specially as the 68k emulation
>>will not be as fast as it could be, but that is what was promised from
>>the start. Some of it looks like backtracking and clarifications
>>because Amiga Inc were truly woeful when it came to presenting their
>>roadmap in a coherent, complete and controlled manner. The guilty
>>parties know who they are.
>
>It sounds like they have successfully minimized 4.0 down to the vague
>and modest goal of "increased PPC support." The problems at Inc. are
>not just the woeful incoherence you refer to. In my opinion they make
>the most horrendous vapor announcements, like is the classic OS
>timelined through version 7.0 yet (dual transmeta processors,
>holographic imaging?) It demonstrates a lack of respect for the
>faithful, as does much of the claptrap on the website.
Sorry Daniel, you're just waving your hand about spreading FUD. I'm
no great supporter of the way Amiga Inc have handled things, and I
have reservations over their strategy (that's putting it mildly) but
you are waaaay off the beaten track.
Have't you read what I said? Your so called "Increased PPC support"
will mean everything running on the PPC. No dual processor switching
or anything like that. If you don't bother reading what is announced,
you are not qualified to complain about supposed incoherence.
>I don't fault people like Aram Iskenderian for the loyalty to Amiga
>Inc, although I will not respond to his latest round of stupid flames,
>because it is not productive to do so, and I won't sink to that level.
>I am happy to respond to people like you who disagree with me though.
I do disagree with you if your view is that the Amiga is dead because
Amiga Inc are incompetent. They are handling certain things very
badly, and I think they have made a horrendous mistake in their
strategy, but I don't doubt their commitment. The only way to have
had a full PPC OS would have been to wait another 12 months for it,
and hardware manufacturers need sales NOW, or they won't be around in
12 months.
It might help me to understand what you're getting at if I knew what
it is you expected of Amiga Inc.
--
Bill Hoggett
Luca Diana
>It sounds like they have successfully minimized 4.0 down to the vague
>and modest goal of "increased PPC support."
Which is exactly what has been said since the beginning, although you
prefer to believe some sources you're too tired to provide an URL of
And I guess the other choice would have been having a full PPC OS4.0,
while waiting another year and a half before seeing the actual product
(unless you believe OS's are programmed overnight); you know, some
people are waiting with this roadmap as they don't have to wait that
long to see something.
>The problems at Inc. are
>not just the woeful incoherence you refer to. In my opinion they make
>the most horrendous vapor announcements, like is the classic OS
>timelined through version 7.0 yet (dual transmeta processors,
>holographic imaging?)
More dreaming? You're too tired to provide an URL for this one too?
>I don't fault people like Aram Iskenderian for the loyalty to Amiga
>Inc, although I will not respond to his latest round of stupid flames,
Of course you won't, you prefer to provoke him in a different post and
maybe expect him not to say a word?
Go back under the bridge now...
Luca
Eric Haines
> >--- SNIP---<
> > Despite certain claims floating around here, while the Phase5 PPC
> > boards are "neat," they're also crippled, and I really don't
> > think the original intention was to have them still "top of the line"
> > 4 years later. I bet a 233MHz pure PPC Amiga would generally keep up
> > with a 1GHz Windows machine. Fortunately you can get a 233MHz G3 for
> > the AmigaOne for $35,
> >----- SNIP ----<
>
> Umm, *I* bet you are wrong. I'm no engineer, but from what I've seen my
> 1ghz Athlon running Windows 2000 Pro _SMOKES_ any G3 equipped machines
> (although to be honest all I have seen is Macintosh bloat boxes) ....
See? MacOS is no better than Windows when it comes to being slow and
bloated.
> as far
> as RAW POWER goes, my benchmark SiSoft Sandra states that I turn out ~2800
> MIPS and ~1375 MFLOPS .. sure its just a benchmark, but I am willing to bet
> that your 233 mhz PPC could not come anywhere near it.
As you said, it's just a benchmark. Notice I said "I bet a 233MHz
pure PPC Amiga would *generally* keep up with a 1GHz Windows machine."
"Generally" meaning "general tasks done in everyday computing," which
does not normally include running benchmarks.
> RAM speeds on my system are ~ 435 megabytes/sec thruput .. I'd like to know
> what they are on a 233 mhz PPC. I seem to recall that on my Amiga 3000 w/
> CSMKIII 060, it was around 60 megabytes/sec on a good day.
Ahem, I *said* "I bet a 233MHz *pure PPC Amiga* would generally keep
up with a 1GHz Windows machine." We're not talking CyberstormPPC
hacks in old A3000s.
> If its ever available, please show me a 233 mhz PPC with a GeForce2 Grafx
> accel doing ~150 FPS in Quake 3, high detail, 1024 x 768.
Considering the job Hyperion have been doing so far with getting
significantly better performance than Windows with their graphics
drivers, and considering a pure PPC system like the AmigaOne will get
significantly higher performance than current systems, you might be
able to get close to 100 FPS at a guess. Since that's still probably
exceeding the refresh rate of your monitor, there would be no
noticeable difference.
> And where is this $35 G3 ? I'd like to see it.
>
> RaYzor
Here's one place: www.macsales.com
OWC Mercury G3/233mhz ZIF w/512k 2:1 Backside Cache -LIMITED
AVAILABILITY - (Z233IBM) $35.00 In Stock
I thought this was common knowledge; certainly the "$35" figure for
the low-end has been tossed around ever since last year.
Anyway, I'm certainly not debating that this G3 will beat a 1.2GHz
Athlon in raw CPU power. That would be silly. I am debating that
this Athlon will be hampered by a bloatware OS, and the G3 will not,
which evens things out considerably in many areas. Imagine a pure x86
AmigaOS running on that Athlon, eh?
--Eric
David Scheibler
> So who is going to develop software for MorphOS? Hyperion? Macromedia?
> Any commercial developer at all? I don't think so... MorphOS is a
> hobbt, and IMO will never go anywhere further than that (BeOS docet)
e.p.i.c and Titan Computer announced some products for MorphOS a few
month ago (the adventure "The Feeble Files" - also an Mac version of
it - and a video editing software).
--
// Bye, David Scheibler // sche...@germanynet.de (private)
\X/ www.maxim-computer.de \X/ DSche...@maxim-computer.de (work)
Daniel Miller
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>I don't fault people like Aram Iskenderian for the loyalty to Amiga
>>Inc, although I will not respond to his latest round of stupid flames,
>
>Of course you won't, you prefer to provoke him in a different post and
>maybe expect him not to say a word?
That's not provocation. I am letting people know I am not giving up my
point of view, only am not willing to carry on an infantile sub-thread
of zingers and putdowns. You call that provoking him?
Daniel Miller
<bill_h...@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:00:26 GMT, DC...@USA.NET (Daniel Miller) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:05:51 +0100, Bill Hoggett
>><bill_h...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>because Amiga Inc were truly woeful when it came to presenting their
>>>roadmap in a coherent, complete and controlled manner. The guilty
>or anything like that. If you don't bother reading what is announced,
>you are not qualified to complain about supposed incoherence.
Bill, you were the one who said they were incoherent, not me!
>Amiga Inc are incompetent. They are handling certain things very
>badly, and I think they have made a horrendous mistake in their
>strategy, but I don't doubt their commitment. The only way to have
>had a full PPC OS would have been to wait another 12 months for it,
>and hardware manufacturers need sales NOW, or they won't be around in
>12 months.
>
>It might help me to understand what you're getting at if I knew what
>it is you expected of Amiga Inc.
I appreciate your interest in my expectations of Amiga Inc. I was just
commenting on what they have done. I am not trying to present them
with a new business model.
Luca Diana
>I appreciate your interest in my expectations of Amiga Inc. I was just
>commenting on what they have done.
Actually you've done more than that, you've warped the truth
Luca
Luca Diana
If I say that you wrote another round of stupid flames is not
provocation?
No? Oh well, then you did write yet another round of stupid flames.
Luca
Aram Iskenderian
>Aram Iskenderian<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Something needed to be done.
>>
>> Now the options were for anyone who buys the Amiga is:
>> 1. Dump the whole platform and use the name and reputation to close some
>> deals with hardware and software vendors and get some money out of
>> licensing, which was Gateway's latest business plan.
>>
>> 2. Continue the same work that led several owners before into
>> bankruptcy, c= and others.
>> Rely or proprietary outdated standards for hardware, and outdated OS.
>>
>> Or think that selling 1200 left and right will bring the platform back
>> to the top.
>>
>> 3. Provide a path that may not be a "smooth ride" for the current user
>> base to migrate into a modern architecture.
>>
>> If you were a business man and you have the above which one would you
>> rather do?
>>
>> I'm sorry but I can't eplian it more than this.
>
>Thats all very well put, but I 'm not so quick to forgive Amiga
>Inc for running interference all this time, nor do I give them much
>credit for what has transpired.
>
You're blaming Amiga under the rule of Gateway, that's a different
company.
>This appears to be a synergy of outstanding work by H&P on the OS
>side, coupled with outstanding work by Eyetech on the hardware end.
>The latter was really facilitated by the former, as Eyetech would've
>released the non-stand alone Predator (upon which their stand alone A1
>is heavily based/compatible(?)) anyway, to take advantage of the
>hardware indepentent nature of WOS5 so as to implement a(nother) PCI
>based PPC-pure solution.
>
>What has AInc done but slowed all this down, or even outright tried to
>kill the companies above, originally? Sure, I agree with you Aram,
>at this juncture its great to have AInc on board, apparently, and
>the official OS certainly can't be made whole without them doing
>exactly what they're (finally) doing.
You got it all wrong Steve, I'm sorry to say.
These companies can do nothing with something that they do not own,
Amiga had the plan and needed companies to contract and do the job for
them, all small companies do that, they are not microsoft to hire teams
of highly paid programmers working in departments for each project.
The current projects at Amiga were their projects not someone "leading
them" like you said.
Amiga, the current one did nothing but listen to the users, even
continued with the classic OS which not in their original plans.
Therefore I don't see any justification for all this anti Amiga posts.
Aram Iskenderian
>I don't fault people like Aram Iskenderian for the loyalty to Amiga
>Inc,
But you certainly try to quickly paint them as bad people.
>although I will not respond to his latest round of stupid flames,
>because it is not productive to do so, and I won't sink to that level.
Can you show me where and when exactly I flamed you?
If you are begging for a flame, I can certainly arrange that, but you
won't be happy with the results, and I don't have time to play with you
your game, whatever it is.
It was YOU who started flaming anyone who dares stating facts.
You flamed Luca repeatedly, so why not just drop it?
Playing the innocent victim doesn't impress us at all, I've seen your
type for years, and I can certainly tell a troll when I see one, Mr.
productive who trolls and then whines.
>I am happy to respond to people like you who disagree with me though.
Doesn't look like you are happy with any disagreements at all.
Aram Iskenderian
He will consider this as flame, instead of understand why many people
disagreed with him.
Aram Iskenderian
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:26:52 GMT, Daniel Miller wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:32:47 -0400, Luca Diana
>><windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>I don't fault people like Aram Iskenderian for the loyalty to Amiga
>>>>Inc, although I will not respond to his latest round of stupid flames,
>>>
>>>Of course you won't, you prefer to provoke him in a different post and
>>>maybe expect him not to say a word?
>>
>>That's not provocation. I am letting people know I am not giving up my
>>point of view, only am not willing to carry on an infantile sub-thread
>>of zingers and putdowns. You call that provoking him?
>
>If I say that you wrote another round of stupid flames is not
>provocation?
>
>No? Oh well, then you did write yet another round of stupid flames.
>
It's getting more funny watching him.
I think that we have another troll.
I won't be surprised if "Daniel" has just "moved" to NC from Oregon. ;-)
He certainly has the same writing style.
Aram Iskenderian
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>I don't fault people like Aram Iskenderian for the loyalty to Amiga
>>Inc, although I will not respond to his latest round of stupid flames,
>
>Of course you won't, you prefer to provoke him in a different post and
>maybe expect him not to say a word?
Funny thing that he is whining about some so called flames while he was
the one who wrote these:
>I guess you can be devoted to Amiga Inc. but don't let it over-rule
>your common sense.
>
>
>It is a stupid thing to argue about, and I don't really have time
>
>
>Weren't you just the guy who flamed me for not having facts straight?
>You or your twin brother.
And he has yet to answer any of the questions.
I think that he is listening to some rumors in #amiga or maybe #sex or
whatever. :-)
It was funny seeing the silence of the great market and technology
analyzer when asked to provide a single credible source for the
incredible amount of misinformation and lies that he posted attributing
them to Amiga.
>Go back under the bridge now...
That pretty much is where he belongs with all that nonsense he posted.
Some people really have too much time on their hands.
Aram Iskenderian
>That's not provocation.
Saying "you or your twin brother" is not a provocation?
Accusing people of flaming you when they just disagree with you is not
provoking?
Sheesh!
>I am letting people know I am not giving up my
>point of view,
Who asked to do so?
This is usenet, if you're new to this, then read some articles about
what is the nature of usenet, and then comeback.
If you can't stand people disagreeing with you, then you should consider
dropping usenet all together, go to some AOL chat rooms.
>only am not willing to carry on an infantile sub-thread
>of zingers and putdowns.
Which you started and thought that we will just bow to your highness.
>You call that provoking him?
If that is not provoking, and trolling, I wonder what is.
Daniel Miller
<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Can you show me where and when exactly I flamed you?
Umm, you like to ask me for quotes and cross-references, don't you?
Can you remember where you said "get a clue, junior" and "we are not
asking you to learn rocket science?" It is YOU who are the troll!
How about when you accuse me of saying "Amiga has no chance?" Where
did I say that, where is the quote?
When you ask me for references and URL's then make up baseless
nonsense you are just showing your true colors. You don't want to
discuss anything rationally, bye!
RaYzor
> --- SNIP --- <
> > as RAW POWER goes, my benchmark SiSoft Sandra states that I turn out
~2800
> > MIPS and ~1375 MFLOPS .. sure its just a benchmark, but I am willing to
bet
> > that your 233 mhz PPC could not come anywhere near it.
>
> As you said, it's just a benchmark. Notice I said "I bet a 233MHz
> pure PPC Amiga would *generally* keep up with a 1GHz Windows machine."
> "Generally" meaning "general tasks done in everyday computing," which
> does not normally include running benchmarks.
General computing, as you put it, then sure as long as disk and memory
access is fast enough. 3D raytracing, 3D gaming, stuff like that, I don't
think so. To me, that IS general computing, so to me, G3 is nowhere near
1ghz Athlon.
>
> > RAM speeds on my system are ~ 435 megabytes/sec thruput .. I'd like to
know
> > what they are on a 233 mhz PPC. I seem to recall that on my Amiga 3000
w/
> > CSMKIII 060, it was around 60 megabytes/sec on a good day.
>
> Ahem, I *said* "I bet a 233MHz *pure PPC Amiga* would generally keep
> up with a 1GHz Windows machine." We're not talking CyberstormPPC
> hacks in old A3000s.
>
OK. I should have read that a bit more closely.
> > If its ever available, please show me a 233 mhz PPC with a GeForce2
Grafx
> > accel doing ~150 FPS in Quake 3, high detail, 1024 x 768.
>
> Considering the job Hyperion have been doing so far with getting
> significantly better performance than Windows with their graphics
> drivers, and considering a pure PPC system like the AmigaOne will get
> significantly higher performance than current systems, you might be
> able to get close to 100 FPS at a guess. Since that's still probably
> exceeding the refresh rate of your monitor, there would be no
> noticeable difference.
As discussed several billion times by now, higher FPS = more smoothness. If
the game maintains at 60, I am happy. If it falls below that I start to
notice, it gets rougher so to speak. If it falls below 30, the game is
plain unplayable. As far as refresh rates go, I am not quite sure what you
mean so I will not comment, tho I will say my 'refresh rate' on my monitor
keeps up with the 100+ FPS games I play daily.
>
> > And where is this $35 G3 ? I'd like to see it.
> Here's one place: www.macsales.com
>
>-- SNIP ---<
I should have stated it "Where is this G3 Amiga card for $35" ... sorry
about that.
>
> Anyway, I'm certainly not debating that this G3 will beat a 1.2GHz
> Athlon in raw CPU power. That would be silly. I am debating that
> this Athlon will be hampered by a bloatware OS, and the G3 will not,
> which evens things out considerably in many areas. Imagine a pure x86
> AmigaOS running on that Athlon, eh?
* Drool * .....
RaYzor
Daniel Miller
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>If I say that you wrote another round of stupid flames is not
>provocation?
I understand that you may not be a native English speaker, but that is
not an intelligible question. Try again in Italian, okay?
Daniel Miller
If you are saying that I deliberately said something false, it is you
who are the liar.
I like the tag team action from you and Iskendarian. Can't win an
argument without shouting down the opposing view, can you?
Eric Haines
> > pure PPC Amiga would *generally* keep up with a 1GHz Windows machine."
> > "Generally" meaning "general tasks done in everyday computing," which
> > does not normally include running benchmarks.
>
> General computing, as you put it, then sure as long as disk and memory
> access is fast enough. 3D raytracing, 3D gaming, stuff like that, I don't
> think so. To me, that IS general computing, so to me, G3 is nowhere near
> 1ghz Athlon.
A 733MHz G4 is though. More expensive of course....
> > Considering the job Hyperion have been doing so far with getting
> > significantly better performance than Windows with their graphics
> > drivers, and considering a pure PPC system like the AmigaOne will get
> > significantly higher performance than current systems, you might be
> > able to get close to 100 FPS at a guess. Since that's still probably
> > exceeding the refresh rate of your monitor, there would be no
> > noticeable difference.
>
> As discussed several billion times by now, higher FPS = more smoothness. If
> the game maintains at 60, I am happy. If it falls below that I start to
> notice, it gets rougher so to speak. If it falls below 30, the game is
> plain unplayable. As far as refresh rates go, I am not quite sure what you
> mean so I will not comment,
If your monitor display is being refreshed, say, 80 times per second
(pretty typical), anything faster than 80fps is wasted.
> > > And where is this $35 G3 ? I'd like to see it.
>
> > Here's one place: www.macsales.com
> >
> >-- SNIP ---<
>
> I should have stated it "Where is this G3 Amiga card for $35" ... sorry
> about that.
That *is* the G3 Amiga card. Or it will be, when the AmigaOne is out.
--Eric
Newt Rowell
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:49:42 GMT, Aram Iskenderian
<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:09:44 GMT, DC...@USA.NET (Daniel Miller) wrote:
>>Are we next going to argue about the ten engineers McEwen and Peake
>>claimed to have hard at work at their in-house development of 4.0?
>Please provide a CREDIBLE source for this claim, and be careful, provide
>an exact quote.
On 19 Apr 2001 09:00:23 -0500, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>Daniel Miller<DC...@USA.NET> wrote:
>> I agree that Inc. has to use the work of others although McEwen was
>> quoted as saying "I've got 10 engineers working on the PPC port" which
>> sound a little far-fetched to me.
>More than ten actually.
>--
>Gary Peake
>Director - Developer Relations and Support
>Amiga Inc.
>http://www.amigadev.net
>http://www.amiga.com
--
Aram Iskenderian
Brilliant, now our newest troll is moving into racial remarks, bigotry
and language flames.
Very mature.
You were playing the innocent victim in another posts.
Must be boring under that bridge.
Aram Iskenderian
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:35:34 -0400, Luca Diana
><windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:35:02 GMT, Daniel Miller wrote:
>>
>>>I appreciate your interest in my expectations of Amiga Inc. I was just
>>>commenting on what they have done.
>>
>>Actually you've done more than that, you've warped the truth
>
>If you are saying that I deliberately said something false, it is you
>who are the liar.
>
You are a liar, because there were no "stupid flames" here except from
you.
You got decent replies compared to what we do to trolls like you.
>I like the tag team action from you and Iskendarian.
Is that what's eating you?
Unhappy to see couple of people agree with each other?
Loneliness is sad and makes you jealous of others and then you move into
slamming the other side regardless if what that makes you look like.
>Can't win an
>argument without shouting down the opposing view, can you?
>
You mean like you did so far?
Hypocrisy must be in your blood.
BTW, since you pick on Luca's English, you need to go to an elementary
school to learn the difference between "shout" and "shoot", because it
is obvious you don't.
Keith Blakemore-Noble
something about "Re: The A1 Plan. (was The strategy of Amiga Inc)"...
> > As discussed several billion times by now, higher FPS = more
> > smoothness. If the game maintains at 60, I am happy. If it falls
> > below that I start to notice, it gets rougher so to speak. If it
> > falls below 30, the game is plain unplayable. As far as refresh
> > rates go, I am not quite sure what you mean so I will not comment,
>
> If your monitor display is being refreshed, say, 80 times per second
> (pretty typical), anything faster than 80fps is wasted.
Sorry to butt in here, but you are slightly confused.
Suppose you have 2 computers, one renders the Quake3 demo at a peak
200fps, the other at a peak 80fps.
So far, so good.
HOWEVER, no start playing the game for REAL, with real baddies being
computer controilled, and realtime weapon fire, realtime texture
mapping, etc.
Very quickly your framerate drops as the workload increases.
It is common for the peak rate to drop to 25% or even less as scene
complexity rockets.
In this case, computer a drops to a still-very-useable 50fps. No
problem. Computer b, however, drops from its 80fps to an unuseable
20fps...
See where the problem comes in?
What you are forgetting is that the PEAK fps which demos generate is
just that - *PEAK*. NOT sustained-no-matter-how-complex-the-scene-is,
but PEAK.
And believe me, you do not want to be playing modern 3D games where, in
teh midst of a battle with a dozen characters onscreen, your system
drops to 20 or 10 fps, that's for certain!
--
You can't use the Internet from an Amiga...
...oh yes you can! http://www.BuiltWithAmiga.org
Keith Blakemore-Noble
you wrote something about "Re: The strategy of Amiga Inc"...
> >Can't win an
> >argument without shouting down the opposing view, can you?
> BTW, since you pick on Luca's English, you need to go to an
> elementary school to learn the difference between "shout" and
> "shoot", because it is obvious you don't.
Erm, not for one second taking sides in this, but "shouting down" is
indeed a valid term. Whether it is valid in this context is a
different matter, but nevertheless it is a valid phrase.
Aram Iskenderian
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:58:57 GMT, Aram Iskenderian
><ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Can you show me where and when exactly I flamed you?
>
>Umm, you like to ask me for quotes and cross-references, don't you?
Go ahead, make my day.
>Can you remember where you said "get a clue, junior"
You accused me of flaming you BEFORE that.
Here is that post.
_________________________________________________________________
Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Aram Iskenderian <ar...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: The strategy of Amiga Inc
Organization: http://www.myamiga.com
Reply-To: isken...@SPAM.socal.rr.com
Message-ID: <mic5jts6mmhohi3c9...@4ax.com>
References: <9f13d327.01061...@posting.google.com>
<3b2fde59...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>
<j5f2jt46bd7473tn7...@4ax.com>
<3b314c68...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>
<2c15jtc6103lntu8b...@4ax.com>
<3b329b67...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: ab...@easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:51:08 GMT
Xref: easynews comp.sys.amiga.misc:236696
X-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:51:08 MST (news.easynews.com)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:17:10 GMT, DC...@USA.NET (Daniel Miller) wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:45:51 GMT, Aram Iskenderian
><ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Uhm, you mean the common sense that you used when claiming that Morph OS
>>has better chances?
>
>Weren't you just the guy who flamed me for not having facts straight?
>You or your twin brother.
What you took as a flame, was simply telling you some facts, junior.
>I said "in my opinion the MorphOS/bPlan model is more powerful" or
>something like that. I am not in the habit of prognosticating about
>the chances of some company's success.
>
But you were happily slamming Amiga's chances couple of posts ago?
Instead of being busy making stuff up, read your own posts.
--
Aram Iskenderian.
The email address is not valid.
To reply by email, look in the headers
______________________________
Your memory is worse than your trolling tactics.
>and "we are not asking you to learn rocket science?"
Is this what you consider a flame?
You surely look pathetic when you make stuff up.
Assuming it is, check what it did respond to and when.
Instead of trolling learn how to read.
>It is YOU who are the troll!
Coming from a proven troll this is really funny.
>How about when you accuse me of saying "Amiga has no chance?" Where
>did I say that, where is the quote?
You simply can't read or doing this intentionally to stir crap.
I didn't EVER claim that you said such thing, learn to read.
I said:
Message-ID: <2c15jtc6103lntu8b...@4ax.com>
Uhm, you mean the common sense that you used when claiming that Morph OS
has better chances?
Sure...
Reminding you of your own drivel earlier.
Message-ID: <3b2fde59...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>
There is an alternative. A vision, not yet realized, based on on a
common sense model. This would be MorphOS on the bPlan PPC box.
MorphOS is deep into betatesting with countless Amiga programs already
confirmed (http://www.morphos.de/fileslinks.php3). The bPlan hardware
exists (http://www.bplan-gmbh.de/news/news02_e.html). I do believe
that MorphOS running Amiga programs on the bPlan PPC box is a more
modern and powerful solution than UAE or whatever Inc.'s
curiousity-of-the-month happens to be.
Do you disagree that these were your words quoted in verbatim format
from your post?
Now explain to us what was meant by " is a more
modern and powerful solution than UAE or whatever Inc.'s
curiousity-of-the-month happens to be.", if not saying that it has more
chance than Amiga.
Go ahead.
Let me save you the trouble, you cannot prove any of this wrong unless
you make something up, lie or troll more.
I'm not holding my breath for an apology either.
>When you ask me for references and URL's then make up baseless
>nonsense you are just showing your true colors.
True colors?
Sure whatever makes you happy.
Here are couple of free recommendations for you.
1. Read carefully, and take a course or 2 in communication skills
development.
2. If your memory fails you, save messages and references to a file, or
use a search engine.
3. Trolling only makes you look lame.
4. Rely on facts not on FUD and innuendo.
5. When you flame, expect something back, and I don't care who you are,
nor even give a flying crap, when you flame, you get flamed.
6. When you are new in this newsgroup, lurk a bit and then jump in to
throw flames and flame-baits around.
>You don't want to discuss anything rationally
*LOL*
Look who's talking about rational discussions, a troll.
>, bye!
Don't let the door hit you where you sit on.
Go back to living under the bridge and when you have better or new
tactics, come back to get more free lessons.
Aram Iskenderian
<Ke...@Blakemore-Noble.net> wrote:
True, it is, I was not referring the phrase itself but to the usage, but
in the context of what he wrote he clearly meant "shooting down", but I
think that he needs "Hooked on Phonics" before he posts more rants.
Aram Iskenderian
>Iskendarian, you are SO not worth this.
>
*yawn*
Ladies and Gentlemen we have another multi-personality troll.
Hi Daniel Miller.
Nice to see that you chose another news service that you think can hide
you.
Glad to see that you took the time and spent money with supernews.
Indeed I'm "so not worth it", so "not worth it" that you needed a change
in identity and news server, spent the money to post this useless troll?
I don't need to make fun of you anymore, you are doing a good job in
making an ass of yourself.
Save your money, this is an old tactic tried by other trolls years ago,
go back to living under the bridge.
Aram Iskenderian
>Iskendarian, you are SO not worth this.
>
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:49:42 GMT, Aram Iskenderian
><ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:09:44 GMT, DC...@USA.NET (Daniel Miller) wrote:
>
>>>Are we next going to argue about the ten engineers McEwen and Peake
>>>claimed to have hard at work at their in-house development of 4.0?
>
>>Please provide a CREDIBLE source for this claim, and be careful, provide
>>an exact quote.
>
>On 19 Apr 2001 09:00:23 -0500, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Daniel Miller<DC...@USA.NET> wrote:
>
>>> I agree that Inc. has to use the work of others although McEwen was
>>> quoted as saying "I've got 10 engineers working on the PPC port" which
>>> sound a little far-fetched to me.
>
>>More than ten actually.
Now our dear troll, where is the " in-house" in the above?
instead of posting crap, work on your reading skills.
I am very aware how many people around the world are working on the
project, but let me spell this out for the reading impaired like you
with your multiple personality disorder.
THEY ARE NOT IN HOUSE.
Haage and Partner are in Germany, Amiga is in the USA, parts of the
development team are in Belgium and Switzerland IIRC.
Get a clue, troll.
Go back to trolling in alt.foods whatever.
Bill Hoggett
<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Glad to see that you took the time and spent money with supernews.
You don't need to spend money to use supernews - I should know. I
agree with you on the other points though - too much of a coincidence.
<grin>
--
Bill Hoggett
RaYzor
>-- SNIP --<
> It is common for the peak rate to drop to 25% or even less as scene
> complexity rockets.
>
> In this case, computer a drops to a still-very-useable 50fps. No
> problem. Computer b, however, drops from its 80fps to an unuseable
> 20fps...
>
> See where the problem comes in?
I am well aware of this. I was just using it as a comparison. For
instance, my K6-3/400 + Voodoo 3 got, MAX, 40 FPS on a good day, in 1024 x
768. As I upgraded of course it has gotten better.
>
> What you are forgetting is that the PEAK fps which demos generate is
> just that - *PEAK*. NOT sustained-no-matter-how-complex-the-scene-is,
> but PEAK.
I will have to say then, with the FPS counter on in the top right corner in
both Quake 3 and Unreal Tourn, my system has *NEVER* dropped below 60 FPS,
even with 10 other people shooting rockets. So I'm set, for now :-)
RaYzor
Luca Diana
This has nothing to do with opposing view, this has to do with you
claiming that Amiga announced the OS4.0 written entirely in PPC code,
when it is obviously not true, then insisted that you were right
(little matter to you that I was at Amiwest with Aram and at S.Louis),
and then claiming that you were commenting on what they've done.
If this is not deliberate lying I don't know what it is.
Luca
PS: I leave all the original text above so you won't be able to warp
the truth once again.
Luca Diana
I can try several languages, can you?
And you would look much less stupid if you didn't pick on your own
sentences, I just quoted you, troll!
Luca
Luca Diana
>I think that he is listening to some rumors in #amiga or maybe #sex or
>whatever. :-)
You really think he knows how to setup an IRC program? ;-)
Sheesh, that stuff should be PG13.
Luca
SG
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:00:26 GMT, DC...@USA.NET (Daniel Miller) wrote:
> >It sounds like they have successfully minimized 4.0 down to the vague
> >and modest goal of "increased PPC support." The problems at Inc. are
> >not just the woeful incoherence you refer to. In my opinion they make
> >the most horrendous vapor announcements, like is the classic OS
> >timelined through version 7.0 yet (dual transmeta processors,
> >holographic imaging?) It demonstrates a lack of respect for the
> >faithful, as does much of the claptrap on the website.
>
> Sorry Daniel, you're just waving your hand about spreading FUD. I'm
> no great supporter of the way Amiga Inc have handled things, and I
> have reservations over their strategy (that's putting it mildly) but
> you are waaaay off the beaten track.
>
> Have't you read what I said? Your so called "Increased PPC support"
> will mean everything running on the PPC. No dual processor switching
> or anything like that. If you don't bother reading what is announced,
> you are not qualified to complain about supposed incoherence.
Well, he does have a certain point, but granted, it should have been
obvious to anyone following this saga that OS4 was just H&P's long ago
developed V68K running inside a PPC-pure solution.
I think his is a fair point though, running a "virtual dual processor"
system (the V68K side of WOS now being virtual) isn't really the same
thing as a traditional "PPC port". Its a big grey area, really, given
the unique dual processor arrangement of WOS, so yes, I can understand
AInc's also has a point in that whole OS now runs inside the PPC
alone.
There is however a difference IMO, however nebulous, between a hybrid
PPC/V68K system running within a single PPC chip, and a "PPC port" of
the OS where all the instructions are PPC native, and thus no speed is
lost to translation/emulation.
--
Steve.
SG
SG
> > RAM speeds on my system are ~ 435 megabytes/sec thruput .. I'd like to know
> > what they are on a 233 mhz PPC. I seem to recall that on my Amiga 3000 w/
> > CSMKIII 060, it was around 60 megabytes/sec on a good day.
>
> Ahem, I *said* "I bet a 233MHz *pure PPC Amiga* would generally keep
> up with a 1GHz Windows machine." We're not talking CyberstormPPC
> hacks in old A3000s.
The answer to the question above is about 160MB/s on the PPC side,
80MB/s on the 060 side, from SysSpeed.
But I agree with you entirely, that doesn't take into account that
Windows is hopelessly bloated and slow--I challenge anyone to guess
what processor/MHz is running beneath the hood of any Windows machine.
WindowsOS is just too slow and clumbsy and hopelessly bottlenecked to
even allow a reasonable guess.
--
Steve.
Daniel Miller
<sk...@notonyourlifespambreath.goes.com> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 2001, Daniel Miller posted this in comp.sys.amiga.misc, thus proving the truth in the saying "There is
>nothing so wretched as a man on ether":
>> the most horrendous vapor announcements, like is the classic OS
>> timelined through version 7.0 yet (dual transmeta processors,
>> holographic imaging?)
>Hey Danny, can you offer us proles some link or something that confirms the above statement?
I realize I didn't put a ";)" there, but you really can't tell that is
a joke?
I mean I guess the transmeta processors is not totally ridiculous, but
the holographic imaging didn't tip you off?
Daniel Miller
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>I can try several languages, can you?
I am not trying to turn this into a campo di furore, but I really
didn't understand what you meant.
I hope you don't believe that I am bigot, like Aram said. I find
bigotry repulsive.
SG
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 03:33:26 GMT, "SG" <s...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Aram Iskenderian<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Something needed to be done.
> >>
> >> Now the options were for anyone who buys the Amiga is:
> >> 1. Dump the whole platform and use the name and reputation to close some
> >> deals with hardware and software vendors and get some money out of
> >> licensing, which was Gateway's latest business plan.
> >>
> >> 2. Continue the same work that led several owners before into
> >> bankruptcy, c= and others.
> >> Rely or proprietary outdated standards for hardware, and outdated OS.
> >>
> >> Or think that selling 1200 left and right will bring the platform back
> >> to the top.
> >>
> >> 3. Provide a path that may not be a "smooth ride" for the current user
> >> base to migrate into a modern architecture.
> >>
> >> If you were a business man and you have the above which one would you
> >> rather do?
> >>
> >> I'm sorry but I can't eplian it more than this.
> >
> >Thats all very well put, but I 'm not so quick to forgive Amiga
> >Inc for running interference all this time, nor do I give them much
> >credit for what has transpired.
> >
>
> You're blaming Amiga under the rule of Gateway, that's a different
> company.
I'm really not "blaming" Amiga Inc, I'm just not giving them credit
for H&P's dogged work in the face of shall we say, a less than
favorable climate, put in place by Amiga Inc (you know, originally
saying/implying that the classic OS was DOA).
> >This appears to be a synergy of outstanding work by H&P on the OS
> >side, coupled with outstanding work by Eyetech on the hardware end.
> >The latter was really facilitated by the former, as Eyetech would've
> >released the non-stand alone Predator (upon which their stand alone A1
> >is heavily based/compatible(?)) anyway, to take advantage of the
> >hardware indepentent nature of WOS5 so as to implement a(nother) PCI
> >based PPC-pure solution.
> >
> >What has AInc done but slowed all this down, or even outright tried to
> >kill the companies above, originally? Sure, I agree with you Aram,
> >at this juncture its great to have AInc on board, apparently, and
> >the official OS certainly can't be made whole without them doing
> >exactly what they're (finally) doing.
>
> You got it all wrong Steve, I'm sorry to say.
>
> These companies can do nothing with something that they do not own,
> Amiga had the plan and needed companies to contract and do the job for
> them, all small companies do that, they are not microsoft to hire teams
> of highly paid programmers working in departments for each project.
>
> The current projects at Amiga were their projects not someone "leading
> them" like you said.
>
> Amiga, the current one did nothing but listen to the users, even
> continued with the classic OS which not in their original plans.
> Therefore I don't see any justification for all this anti Amiga posts.
I really don't think Amiga Inc had much, if anything, to do with
soliciting H&P to develop WOS and their V68K "processor." Both of
which are/(appear to be) central to what is now AOS4. Both H&P's WOS
and their V68K/PPC "multiprocessor" system was supposed to run in
AmiJoe, long before Amiga Inc adopted the idea (it appears) as the
basis for AOS4.
Thats all I'm saying.
--
Steve.
Daniel Miller
<ar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Brilliant, now our newest troll is moving into racial remarks, bigotry
>and language flames.
That really is it. You call me a bigot?
Pick a place. Let's put on the gloves and settle it.
Daniel Miller
<windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>This has nothing to do with opposing view, this has to do with you
>claiming that Amiga announced the OS4.0 written entirely in PPC code,
>when it is obviously not true, then insisted that you were right
>(little matter to you that I was at Amiwest with Aram and at S.Louis),
>and then claiming that you were commenting on what they've done.
I remember them saying PPC port this summer. Maybe they meant "partial
PPC port."
To me an OS port is like a pregnancy. One doesn't really have a
partial pregnancy. One is pregnant or not. People are still saying
different things about 4.0. Someone said it would not require a 68k
processor at all, just an emulated one. Is it going to run on the
Eyetech thing without the 68020? Why emulate a 68k if you have to have
the 1200 sticking out of the Eyetech board anyway?
It is all a shell game. Everytime you look the little ball is in a
different place. Please don't tell me read up at amiga.com to get the
real scoop, I have read enough there already. It is 90% gobbledygook
with "hallelujah Amiga is the future" sermons to announcements of
partnerships from Sony to Sharp that just don't seem like realistic
representations to me.
It is too bad if you don't like my opinion and my recollections. You
should go ahead and ignore me, but save the personal insults, okay?
Kelli Halliburton
> >argument without shouting down the opposing view, can you?
>
> school to learn the difference between "shout" and "shoot", because it
> is obvious you don't.
Nit-pick: both phrases are common English vernacular. To "shout someone
down" is to attempt to prevent someone from speaking by drowning them out
with loud noise.
Kelli Halliburton
> partial pregnancy. One is pregnant or not. People are still saying
> different things about 4.0. Someone said it would not require a 68k
> processor at all, just an emulated one. Is it going to run on the
> Eyetech thing without the 68020? Why emulate a 68k if you have to have
> the 1200 sticking out of the Eyetech board anyway?
Because an emulated 68k processor can run 68060 code at 68060 speed on a
fast enough PPC.
But then, it wouldn't fit with your preconceptions that Amiga might actually
be trying to do something that made sense, now would it?
Kelli Halliburton
Aram: Get it? New Troll, Newt Rowell? Can't say this one doesn't have a
sense of humor.
SG
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:30:40 -0400, Luca Diana
> <windtalke...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >This has nothing to do with opposing view, this has to do with you
> >claiming that Amiga announced the OS4.0 written entirely in PPC code,
> >when it is obviously not true, then insisted that you were right
> >(little matter to you that I was at Amiwest with Aram and at S.Louis),
> >and then claiming that you were commenting on what they've done.
>
> I remember them saying PPC port this summer. Maybe they meant "partial
> PPC port."
>
> To me an OS port is like a pregnancy. One doesn't really have a
> partial pregnancy. One is pregnant or not. People are still saying
> different things about 4.0. Someone said it would not require a 68k
> processor at all, just an emulated one.
Bottomline: AOS4 is a PPC-only solution likely running hybrid
native/emulate OS code. Whether or not you call that a "port" is a
matter of completely arbitrary, truly insufficient, non-Amiga savvy
existing definitions.
> Is it going to run on the
> Eyetech thing without the 68020? Why emulate a 68k if you have to have
> the 1200 sticking out of the Eyetech board anyway?
Probably for the custom chips.
--
Steve.
Aram Iskenderian
>On 22 Jun 2001, Daniel Miller posted this in comp.sys.amiga.misc, thus proving the truth in the saying "There is
>nothing so wretched as a man on ether":
>
>> It sounds like they have successfully minimized 4.0 down to the vague
>> and modest goal of "increased PPC support." The problems at Inc. are
>> not just the woeful incoherence you refer to. In my opinion they make
>> the most horrendous vapor announcements, like is the classic OS
>> timelined through version 7.0 yet (dual transmeta processors,
>> holographic imaging?) It demonstrates a lack of respect for the
>> faithful, as does much of the claptrap on the website.
>
>Hey Danny, can you offer us proles some link or something that confirms the above statement?
>
>Because, if not, that will confirm that the sound I hear is that of bricks being chewed...
*ROTFL*
Skal!
You made me sprinkle coffee on my monitor again. :-)
--
Aram Iskenderian.
The email address is not valid.
To reply by email, look in the headers.