|In reply to Comment 203 (Menthos):|
"Not relevant as there has only been one "sort" of Amigacomputer. Every software was written especially for it (not expecting it to run on other computersystems). Also, there was the same company that "produced" the OS and the hardware (H&P not included, but they where working for Amiga with OS3.5-OS3.9). "
"Don't you expect AmigaOS to run on an Amiga? "
"But does AmigaOS run on xxx-motherboard is another question, don't you think?"
(Ann needs threads, and quoting :)
That kind of ties in to the benefits of developing for a platform, as the standards are already there to ensure compatibility, you in essence, get compatibility for free, as the platform itself polices the standards.
Like you said, when the standards are the same (like the classic Amiga's), support becomes somewhat irrelevant as the platform itself is compatible.
This in the long run (or shite even the short term) guarantees standards compliance. Right now, Amiga has no set of published standards other than the Zico spec which doesn't tell you squat about how to manufacture for an Amiga. If they'd say "Our hardware standard is POP" they'd get the compatibility and standards for free, without having to sort out guidelines and specs for developers other than the OS API's. All you as a consumer would have to worry about is, is it POP compatible? All the manufacturer would have to worry about is, is it POP compatible?
This way, we get to stand on the shoulders of a platform who's specs are already established, and even rise with the tide of dawning hardware as it's becoming available.