21-Jun-2024 17:54 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] Explanations from Fleecy, part 2ANN.lu
Posted on 01-Apr-2001 10:41 GMT by Christian Kemp49 comments
View flat
View list
Fleecy writes: AmigaOS4 will only run on hardware that conforms to the zico specification - currently that is the Eyetech AmigaOne (which also offers full backwards compatibility with AA chipset access applications) and the bPlan AmigaOne, which will run AmigaOS4 apps and older apps which use retargetable coding. We look forwards to other Amiga hardware companies developing zico based solutions and are actively talking to them.
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Anonymous31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 2Daniel Allsopp31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 3Bertrand PRESLES31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 4Keith Blakemore-Noble31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 5Roj31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 6Bertrand PRESLES31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 7Keith Blakemore-Noble31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 8David Scheibler31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Explanations from Fleecy, part 2 : Comment 9 of 49ANN.lu
Posted by Ralph on 31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Bertrand PRESLES):
The "problem" is that Amiga always bragged about how little resources are needed for
the DE - it will even work on PDAs! And as G3/G4 are not THAT different from the existing
603/604 CPUs it pretty much looks like a political decision (perhaps to force new hardware
sales to support the vendors and dealers). Gives a bad image IMHO. Cannot be so much work
to have it run properly on existing cards.
If people feel they are lacking CPU power they will upgrade by themselves - without a
"mother company" driving them into this direction. I even believe that 604e (at least)
are capable of doing quite a lot more than they do today. In existing Amigas they still
play a coprocessor role (so they suffer from those DualCPU design and from the fact of
not being fully integrated into the OS). Additionally the developers are very few in number
and have not yet experienced the real limits of the "old" CPUs very often, because the
learning curve is not very steep because of no "competition".
Looking at the MACs is a bad idea, as the OS there eats lots of CPU power (not as much as
Windows, but still a lot) and so the 604 can not show their real potential.
Heck - why do people always try to abandon everything that is older than a year? My car
was 13 years old and served me well all the time i used it (until i had to sell it because
of going to Japan for business reasons).
Noone says that the old 68k has to be supported by a new OS version, but intentionally
crippling it to push hardware sales (at least it looks that way to me) is not the
gentlemen's way... :-\
Jump...
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 10Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 11Martin Baute31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 12Bill Toner31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 13Ben Hermans/Hyperion31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 14Sinan Gurkan31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 15Steve31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 16ike31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 17David Scheibler31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 18Amifan31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 19Tony Gore31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 20Keith Blakemore-Noble31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 21Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 22Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 23Steve31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 24Tony Gore31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 25Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 26Kay Are Ulvestad31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 27Anonymous31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 28Donovan Reeve31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 29Ian Shurmer31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 30Amifan31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 31Darrin31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 32DAVIE DAVO31-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 33Graham01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 34Graham01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 35Mee01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 36Remco Komduur01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 37Anonymous01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 38Kresimir Rogic01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 39Christophe Decanini01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 40Andy01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 41Francisco01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 42Ian Otter01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 43Graham01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 44Ian Shurmer01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 45Odin01-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 46Donovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 47Donpovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 48Donovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 49Donovan Reeve02-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Back to Top