17-Jul-2024 10:00 GMT.
[News] AmigaOne no on-board sound?ANN.lu
Posted on 06-Mar-2004 01:38 GMT by lawd135 comments
View flat
View list
Commenting a recent news item on amiga-news.de, Davy Wentzler of OS4 fame said the on-board sound of the AmigaOne does not work, furthermore explaining the chip is physically not present on AmigaOnes produced the last 9 months. Frank Gutschow said on 05-Mär-2004, 23:38: "Meines erachtens sollte definitiv wirklich ersteinmal der Onboard-Chip des AmigaOne unterstützt werden."

Davy Wentzler answered on 05-Mär-2004, 23:45: "I'm gonna say it once more: it doesn't work. There's even a big chance, the chip is not physically present anymore on boards manufactured in the past 9 months."

Will Eyetech exchange all defect and component missing AmigaOnes or will they refund users that received broken hardware?

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1hooligan/dcsRegistered user06-Mar-2004 00:41 GMT
Comment 2lawd06-Mar-2004 00:45 GMT
Comment 3hooligan/dcsRegistered user06-Mar-2004 00:48 GMT
Comment 4lawd06-Mar-2004 00:53 GMT
Comment 5hooligan/dcsRegistered user06-Mar-2004 00:58 GMT
Comment 6SLayeRDK06-Mar-2004 03:02 GMT
Comment 7Anonymous06-Mar-2004 03:17 GMT
Comment 8Abuse06-Mar-2004 03:49 GMT
Comment 9samface06-Mar-2004 06:11 GMT
Comment 10Abuse06-Mar-2004 07:18 GMT
Comment 11Anonymous06-Mar-2004 07:22 GMT
Comment 12Abuse06-Mar-2004 07:56 GMT
Comment 13Abuse06-Mar-2004 08:06 GMT
Comment 14Remco Komduur06-Mar-2004 08:10 GMT
Comment 15Abuse06-Mar-2004 08:36 GMT
Comment 16Amon_ReRegistered user06-Mar-2004 08:58 GMT
Comment 17Amon_ReRegistered user06-Mar-2004 09:01 GMT
Comment 18JKD06-Mar-2004 09:58 GMT
Comment 19JKD06-Mar-2004 09:59 GMT
Comment 20Davy Wentzler06-Mar-2004 10:06 GMT
Comment 21IanSRegistered user06-Mar-2004 10:30 GMT
Comment 22Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 10:31 GMT
Comment 23Anonymous06-Mar-2004 10:40 GMT
Comment 24Remco Komduur06-Mar-2004 10:46 GMT
Comment 25Don CoxRegistered user06-Mar-2004 11:00 GMT
Comment 26itix06-Mar-2004 11:40 GMT
Comment 27itix06-Mar-2004 11:55 GMT
Comment 28Anonymous06-Mar-2004 11:55 GMT
Comment 29itix06-Mar-2004 12:00 GMT
Comment 30itix06-Mar-2004 12:02 GMT
Comment 31Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 12:03 GMT
Comment 32Kronos06-Mar-2004 12:06 GMT
Comment 33Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 12:07 GMT
Comment 34itix06-Mar-2004 12:08 GMT
Comment 35Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user06-Mar-2004 12:27 GMT
Comment 36Don CoxRegistered user06-Mar-2004 12:41 GMT
Comment 37Don CoxRegistered user06-Mar-2004 12:44 GMT
Comment 38samface06-Mar-2004 13:01 GMT
Comment 39MarkTime06-Mar-2004 13:02 GMT
AmigaOne no on-board sound? : Comment 40 of 135ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Mar-2004 13:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Don Cox):
> "And how else would you code an Amiga-like OS? Java? :-D"

> I would use C for the lowest level components only. Parts such as the Prefs
> programs should be written in a high level language, IMO.

Although I agree that a decent operating system should provide enough high level building block to allow for writing entire applications by even using an interpreted language, that wouldn't solve any particular problem regarding the instability of the system: the OS would still have certain semantics that allow any apps, even written in the most secure language, to crash the entire OS.

> "Besides, the language used has very little to do with the instability of the
> system... The system is instable because apps do wrong things AND the system
> lacks memory protection."

> IMO "broken by design" is an over-dramatic way to say "it doesn't have memory
> protection."

No, it's not. There's a big difference between a system that has no memory protection and a system which _works on the assumption_ that there's no memory protection.

Take Windows, for instance: it was born on systems which lacked MMU, hence it was without memory protection. Nowadays, you can't certainly say windows lacks memory protection, yet old application run seamlessy and seamlessy integrated with the other applications, witnessing that the system's API was, in fact, not "broken" (stability-wise) (ok, perhaps not *entirely* broken, given some old apps DO cause problems) yet it did not have MP.

AmigaOS' API is, instead, really broken in that it _assumes_ that pointers can be passed around and lets common application access vital parts of the system, giving them the chance and ability to crash the whole system by simply writing wrong values at the right place.
#52 Richard Drummond
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 41Ole-Egil06-Mar-2004 13:47 GMT
Comment 42Jack Me06-Mar-2004 14:02 GMT
Comment 43Atheist206-Mar-2004 14:02 GMT
Comment 44MIKE06-Mar-2004 14:16 GMT
Comment 45MIKE06-Mar-2004 14:19 GMT
Comment 46MIKE06-Mar-2004 14:22 GMT
Comment 47itix06-Mar-2004 14:22 GMT
Comment 48Christophe DecaniniRegistered user06-Mar-2004 14:56 GMT
Comment 49Richard Drummond06-Mar-2004 15:08 GMT
Comment 50Remco Komduur06-Mar-2004 15:12 GMT
Comment 51Christophe DecaniniRegistered user06-Mar-2004 15:13 GMT
Comment 52Richard Drummond06-Mar-2004 15:14 GMT
Comment 53Tryo06-Mar-2004 15:16 GMT
Comment 54Christophe DecaniniRegistered user06-Mar-2004 15:26 GMT
Comment 55Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user06-Mar-2004 15:27 GMT
Comment 56vortexau06-Mar-2004 15:30 GMT
Comment 57Leif06-Mar-2004 15:40 GMT
Comment 58Richard Drummond06-Mar-2004 15:54 GMT
Comment 59Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user06-Mar-2004 16:00 GMT
Comment 60Leif06-Mar-2004 16:06 GMT
Comment 61Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user06-Mar-2004 16:11 GMT
Comment 62Don CoxRegistered user06-Mar-2004 16:18 GMT
Comment 63Anonymous06-Mar-2004 16:19 GMT
Comment 64Don CoxRegistered user06-Mar-2004 16:24 GMT
Comment 65Anonymous06-Mar-2004 16:32 GMT
Comment 66Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 16:38 GMT
Comment 67Anonymous06-Mar-2004 16:40 GMT
Comment 68Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 16:47 GMT
Comment 69itix06-Mar-2004 16:52 GMT
Comment 70Richard Drummond06-Mar-2004 16:52 GMT
Comment 71Christophe DecaniniRegistered user06-Mar-2004 16:58 GMT
Comment 72Christophe DecaniniRegistered user06-Mar-2004 17:01 GMT
Comment 73Richard Drummond06-Mar-2004 17:05 GMT
Comment 74Sigbjørn Skjæret06-Mar-2004 17:16 GMT
Comment 75Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user06-Mar-2004 17:17 GMT
Comment 76Sigbjørn Skjæret06-Mar-2004 17:18 GMT
Comment 77Anonymous06-Mar-2004 17:23 GMT
Comment 78SinanG06-Mar-2004 17:30 GMT
Comment 79Richard Drummond06-Mar-2004 17:43 GMT
Comment 80Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user06-Mar-2004 17:53 GMT
Comment 81Gareth Knight06-Mar-2004 17:53 GMT
Comment 82Richard Drummond06-Mar-2004 17:57 GMT
Comment 83Don CoxRegistered user06-Mar-2004 18:01 GMT
Comment 84Don CoxRegistered user06-Mar-2004 18:04 GMT
Comment 85Daniel Miller06-Mar-2004 19:06 GMT
Comment 86Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user06-Mar-2004 19:15 GMT
Comment 87Kronos06-Mar-2004 19:19 GMT
Comment 88Kronos06-Mar-2004 19:22 GMT
Comment 89Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 19:25 GMT
Comment 90Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 19:40 GMT
Comment 91Megol06-Mar-2004 19:45 GMT
Comment 92Martin Blom06-Mar-2004 20:06 GMT
Comment 93Daniel Miller06-Mar-2004 20:09 GMT
Comment 94Kronos06-Mar-2004 20:10 GMT
Comment 95Kelly Samel06-Mar-2004 20:12 GMT
Comment 96Martin Blom06-Mar-2004 20:14 GMT
Comment 97Daniel Miller06-Mar-2004 20:21 GMT
Comment 98Leif06-Mar-2004 20:33 GMT
Comment 99Martin Blom06-Mar-2004 20:38 GMT
Comment 100Leif06-Mar-2004 20:40 GMT
Comment 101hammer06-Mar-2004 20:57 GMT
Comment 102itix06-Mar-2004 21:00 GMT
Comment 103itix06-Mar-2004 21:01 GMT
Comment 104Leif06-Mar-2004 21:11 GMT
Comment 105Leif06-Mar-2004 21:14 GMT
Comment 106Martin Blom06-Mar-2004 21:16 GMT
Comment 107NorthWay06-Mar-2004 21:26 GMT
Comment 108Leif06-Mar-2004 21:42 GMT
Comment 109Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 21:42 GMT
Comment 110Sam Smith06-Mar-2004 22:08 GMT
Comment 111Frank Gutschow06-Mar-2004 23:36 GMT
Comment 112Anonymous07-Mar-2004 00:29 GMT
Comment 113Anonymous07-Mar-2004 00:31 GMT
Comment 114Anonymous07-Mar-2004 00:41 GMT
Comment 115Anonymous07-Mar-2004 00:43 GMT
Comment 116Anonymous07-Mar-2004 00:59 GMT
Comment 117Atheist207-Mar-2004 03:42 GMT
Comment 118hammer07-Mar-2004 07:14 GMT
Comment 119hammer07-Mar-2004 07:26 GMT
Comment 120Don CoxRegistered user07-Mar-2004 09:02 GMT
Comment 121Don CoxRegistered user07-Mar-2004 09:09 GMT
Comment 122Don CoxRegistered user07-Mar-2004 09:23 GMT
Comment 123Graham_nli07-Mar-2004 12:52 GMT
Comment 124Graham_nli07-Mar-2004 13:06 GMT
Comment 125Ole-Egil07-Mar-2004 14:03 GMT
Comment 126Ole-Egil07-Mar-2004 14:06 GMT
Comment 127Christophe DecaniniRegistered user07-Mar-2004 14:25 GMT
Comment 128Framiga07-Mar-2004 14:51 GMT
Comment 129Graham_nli07-Mar-2004 15:55 GMT
Comment 130Graham_nli07-Mar-2004 15:57 GMT
Comment 131Davy Wentzler07-Mar-2004 20:45 GMT
Comment 132hammer08-Mar-2004 05:52 GMT
Comment 133hammer08-Mar-2004 06:14 GMT
Comment 134Graham_nli08-Mar-2004 10:47 GMT
Comment 135Jupp308-Mar-2004 16:59 GMT
Back to Top