| [News] comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational | ANN.lu |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 51 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 14-Jan-2002 20:15 GMT | In reply to Comment 49 (Brecht [darklite]):
>Hyperion are going to reinvent stuff like the libraries system and remove
>critical parts like SetFunction().
Hmmm... Could you point out to me Hyperion's spec for the new exec library system? I remember reading it but can't remember where I read it. I do however remember that the new system, although more flexible then the current one is also backwards compatible with the old system. I'm not sure what the case with SetFunction is... Was it a removal or replacement? We all know there have been problems with SetFunction. Sure we know about them now and can get around them, but it could be better (ie. safer).
>MorphOS build on the existsing library system, which is perfectly fine - don't
>fix it if it ain't broken.
There were limitations to the Amiga exec libraries that needed to be addressed. Passing parameters via registers was just one of them. Worked fine on 68K but needed to be revised for PPC (and other future) chips which handle registers differently. I do remember thinking that Hyperion made a good call when changing the exec library system, but it's been a while since I'e read it and forgot the specifics.... :-( So I won't argue with you on this. I will say this however; if improving or enhancing the OS make it less "amiga like" then the only real "Amiga like" system would be AmigaOS1.0 on an A1000. That's just silly.
>How is the old source-code better than the AROS sources or the MOS own reverse
>engineered sources?
Maybe there's less guess work involved? Since Hyperion et al are porting (ie re-writing) AmigaOS for the PPC they are not simply re-compiling the source code... however, using the real source code as a reference is a real bonus as it takes away a lot of the guess work (no need to reverse engineer). And believe it or not, some of the AmigaOS source code actually works fine!
>The custom chips are nothing more than a dongle. It's time we finally drop
>support for them.
Of course, I agree with you here, but that is not what I was arguing. Allowing the user to run Amiga software that makes use of Amiga specific chips is in my opinion very "Amiga like". That is what I was arguing but it somehow got twisted into an AmigaOS vs MorphOS debate.
>And uae will allow you to multitask those old games too.
So how's that port of UAE comming along for MorphOS?
>Do you really think MorphOS is targetted at users outside the current
>community?
Not at all actually. Infact quite the opposite. I'm not sure what I said that made you think that. I was simply explaining how AmigaOS is very Amiga-ish and how I fail to see how MorphOS is so massivly more Amiga-ish.
And oh yeah, one more thing that makes AmigaOS 4 very "Amiga like"; it's trademarks and patents. The latter might mean more to you, but I think the former is more important in terms of marketing and name recognition. At any rate, Amiga has everything it needs to be "Amiga like" from a technical, legal and philosophical point of view. I don't see how anyone can call MorphOS more "Amiga like" then Amiga. Debating which is better is a different debate entirely.
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 52 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 14-Jan-2002 20:27 GMT | In reply to Comment 50 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
>Companies like bplan(and the morphos team) and Hyperion care about the
>Amiga...
Yes, but everyone seems to have their own definition of "Amiga".
>Amiga Inc. doesn't really give a f**k and that's why they let me down...
If Amiga Inc. doesn't care about the Amiga computer then they're idiots since their long term technical plans (including their DE technology) depends on the AmigaOS. One would hope they care for themselves and if that is true, that means they care for the Amiga. Why pay for the Amiga name and then allow it to die? Seems dumb to me. They saw value in it and they choose to hold on to it. Bringing back the Amiga (in any form) would be the best PR stunt they could ever achieve. No, I think they care about the Amiga. I think what you might dislike is that they care about the Amiga for different reasons then you (or I for that matter) do.
>If they do anything, fine. But I think that they ONLY care for their PDA stuff.
Like any company they care about money. To get money they need a product. They don't have a product yet, however, that doesn't mean they're sitting around at home eating pizza. If Hyperion didn't believe in the project I'm sure they'd rather spend their afternoons playing FreeSpace then wasting their time on AmigaOS4.0. If Hyperion believes in AmigaOS4.0, so do I.
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 53 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 14-Jan-2002 20:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 51 (Mike Veroukis):
>Maybe there's less guess work involved? Since Hyperion et al are porting (ie
>re-writing) AmigaOS for the PPC they are not simply re-compiling the source
>code... however, using the real source code as a reference is a real bonus as
>it takes away a lot of the guess work (no need to reverse engineer). And
>believe it or not, some of the AmigaOS source code actually works fine!
It needs more than the source code to rewrite and port the AmigaOS to PPC. There are only a few persons left on the Amiga market who actually understand the complete design of AmigaOS and the 'tricks' it does. Most of these things were documented for AmigaOS <= 3.1, so an *experienced* AmigaOS developer can rewrite the whole OS. One of these developers left is Olaf Barthel, anotherone is Ralph Schmidt.
I don't think laire does much 'guess work' he knows what he does. Of course if you are not inside the OS you have to do much guess work but that isn't true for laire or olsen IMHO.
Let's wait and compare the first AmigaOS PPC version to the first MorphOS beta and then decide what you like most. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 54 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 14-Jan-2002 21:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 53 (David Scheibler):
>Let's wait and compare the first AmigaOS PPC version to the first MorphOS beta
>and then decide what you like most.
I guess I've never made it clear that I believe that both teams (team MorphOS, team Amiga/Olaf/Hyperion/H&P and even team Aros) are all very capable technically. I have no worries as far as the technology is concerned from any side. I don't think I've ever entered a MorphOS vs AmigaOS debate on a technical level. I'd prefer if both teams worked together but it doesn't seem like it's gonna happen so I picked a side. Perhaps when both sides face imminent death they might re-consider, who knows?
At any rate I think marketing is the only thing that matters at this stage and Amiga Inc has the potential to pull far ahead. If they fail to do so then I believe all sides will lose. So yeah, the way I see it is Amiga Inc is the only viable choice, even if MorphOS is 100 times better technically (which I doubt it is).
Oh well, we're definetly off topic now. Hopefully we'll be able to put the two systems next to each other and compare them soon.
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 55 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amifan on 14-Jan-2002 21:16 GMT | In reply to Comment 53 (David Scheibler):
How much guess work is needed when it's highly likely that you have access to the original AmigaOS sources...Remember that the discs containing the AOS sourcecode disappeared after Phase5 went bust...Now where would they be? |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 56 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 14-Jan-2002 21:32 GMT | In reply to Comment 55 (Amifan):
So you know for sure that Phase5 actually *got* the sources or is this your own guess work now? I never heard the 'lost disc' story before. Please name the source of your statement. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 57 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 14-Jan-2002 21:34 GMT | In reply to Comment 55 (Amifan):
>Remember that the discs containing the AOS sourcecode disappeared after Phase5
>went bust...Now where would they be?
I assume you mean a disc containing a COPY of the AOS source went missing, since Amiga Inc still have a copy of the source (I would think). Anyway, I have no idea if that is even true (about the source being stolen) and if it were true I won't be pointing the finger at anyone. I'm officially out of the stolen source code debate. :-)
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 58 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 14-Jan-2002 21:49 GMT | In reply to Comment 54 (Mike Veroukis):
>At any rate I think marketing is the only thing that matters at this stage and
>Amiga Inc has the potential to pull far ahead. If they fail to do so then I
>believe all sides will lose. So yeah, the way I see it is Amiga Inc is the
>only viable choice, even if MorphOS is 100 times better technically (which I
>doubt it is).
Depends on what Amiga Inc actually can do then. Remeber the Amithlon story? They wanted to distribute it but in the end H&P did. H&P was doing another product at the same time (OS XL) as Amiga was planning to sell Amithlon. In the end H&P 'won'. Now Amiga Inc. is planning to sell AmigaOS...
Also Amiga's marketing doesn't seem to be very good. In most Sharp reviews Amiga is not even mentioned. Instead McEwen tells us in an Executive Update that we should spread the word. That's not a church that's real business. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 59 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 14-Jan-2002 22:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 58 (David Scheibler):
>Depends on what Amiga Inc actually can do then. Remeber the Amithlon story?
Yes and it does baffle me.... I've been told by someone on ANN that amithlon was distributed by H&P becase Hyperion did not want Amiga Inc to do so (why I'm not sure since it would be distributed by someone else anyway). Exactly what the story behind all that is I'm not sure. I always assumed that Amiga Inc did this so as to not compete on a major product release with one of their close partners. I was told that was not the real reason, but I'm not sure what is. Don't know what to believe anymore.
>In the end H&P 'won'. Now Amiga Inc. is planning to sell AmigaOS...
True, but what this says about Amiga's marketing I'm not sure. Marketing is not just ad campaigns. :-) It's doing whatever it takes to sell things and I think in this case it worked out pretty well for Amithlon. Why Amiga decided against marketing it themselves? I don't know, maybe they felt they were too busy or perhaps they thought supporting anything x86 might cause even more of a negative backlash against them... If that was the case, then they probably did the right thing. Now they're atleast neautral and don't have to worry about competing with H&P.
>Also Amiga's marketing doesn't seem to be very good. In most Sharp reviews
>Amiga is not even mentioned.
True, but as far as I can tell AmigaDE isn't even finished yet. I'm surprised that they even got a deal with Sharp. To me it seems that the sharp system is gonna be a developer only package for now. Basically a PDA you can test you stuff on. The nice thing about DE is that it can sneak under the rader quite nicely. It can run on any hardware and under any OS they feel like porting it too. So even if Sharp doesn't ship AmigaDE, you can always get the DE Player later if you wish.
I will say this though; if Amiga thinks their name alone is all the marketing they need then they will fail for sure. However, their name can be levereged if they pull the right strings and play their cards right. Remember, I said Amiga Inc has the potential to succeed in marketing, never did I say that they will. :-) I wish them the best of luck, but that's not all they need!
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 60 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by [JC] on 14-Jan-2002 22:48 GMT | Waa waa waa... same old rubbish.
I have listened to every company since Commodore who has owned the Amiga name. First Escom, thier promises, how they were going to bring amiga back into big production and (chuckle) the Walker. It's interesting that you all put the Walker down so quickly, because as I remember, the Amiga community raved over it when Escom announced it.
Then Gateway, and thier promises which I sat and listened to at WoA99... thier wonderful operating system they were going to have, how they were going to use QNX (and later Linux because they jumped on the Linux bandwagon) - it never happened.
... and now this rubbish. Not ONCE has any Amiga company after Commodore delivered anything they said they were going to. They either go bankrupt and get bought, or sell out to someone else.
I didn't think the AmigaONE actually relied on an A1200 board. Now I see that it does, it is doomed to failiure. Come on people, you need to make the break. The Amiga custom hardware was great back in 93, but now, it's shite compared to anything you can get these days. Time to cut the cord. For this reason, I see that the BPlan Pegasos board is a superior solution, simply because you can go out and buy standard PCI hardware, and, drivers permitting, plug it in and it'll work.
Now for all this AmigaOS vs MorphOS rubbish. From my point of view, MorphOS is not only technically superior, but has a great advantage over AmigaOS 4.0 - it exists already for people to use. So what, it might not be in a finished state, but it's there - and developers like me can already begin to use it.
Can we do that with AmigaOS4.0 ? No. Only Hyperion can do that. So for every other Amiga developer, it's going to be a culture shock, and it's going to take them a significant amount of time to get to grips with. If they already have with MorphOS, they may not even bother - especially as MorphOS will concievably run on anything PPC. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 61 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Daniel Miller on 14-Jan-2002 23:16 GMT | In reply to Comment 37 (Lennart Fridén):
Lennart Friden typed:
> And thus registered trademarks aren't valid anymore? So
> it's ok for me to claim that product X made by company
> Y and sold by vendor Z is in fact a W...
Who in the world is saying those things? Not me. Please quote someone who says that Lennart, otherwise I think you're just making stuff up.
> Even MorphOS advocates and fanatics (well maybe not the
> latter) should know better than restict MorphOS being
> something Amiga-only as there's more to it than meets the
> eye. It'd simply be doing MorphOS an injustice not to
> consider it an OS in it's own right and THUS put it under
> comp.sys.morphos.
There is a time and a place for everything, and I think there will be a time and place for comp.sys.morphos too. Right now was the time for comp.sys.amiga.morphos. Really I appreciate all these Amiga Inc. fanatics who show such concern for the name of the MorphOS newsgroup, where were you when we had the RFD? |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 62 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Iggy Drougge on 14-Jan-2002 23:55 GMT | In reply to Comment 12 (Kronos):
I want a PPC version of ArtEffect. At least on systems where that would prove worthwhile (MorphOS/OS4). =) |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 63 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 15-Jan-2002 00:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 60 ([JC]):
>... and now this rubbish. Not ONCE has any Amiga company after Commodore
>delivered anything they said they were going to. They either go bankrupt and
>get bought, or sell out to someone else.
Thanks for the history lesson. :-) Btw, history does NOT always repeat itself. I think everyone should be given their fair chance. Amiga Inc have not yet officially dropped the ball so why act like they did?
>I didn't think the AmigaONE actually relied on an A1200 board. Now I see that
>it does, it is doomed to failiure.
From what I understand the AmigaOne does not require an A1200 MB to operate, however, AmigaOS4.0 requires it. However, this requirement is slated to dissapear in later versions (OS4.2, etc). Exactly how that is going to work is not 100% clear so it's hard to say what the final product will look like. Don't be too quick to judge. If you're a developer then I'm sure you know that plans tend to change (usually at the worst possible time :-).
>Time to cut the cord. For this reason, I see that the BPlan Pegasos board is a
>superior solution, simply because you can go out and buy standard PCI
>hardware, and, drivers permitting, plug it in and it'll work.
Well, AmigaOS does allow for PCI (and possibly AGP, can't remember now) and just about any standard PC hardware that you can fit into it. So they're fairly even in that department.
>it exists already for people to use.
So you can buy it already? That's news to me. Well, enjoy it then, I'll wait for OS4.
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 64 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 15-Jan-2002 01:03 GMT | In reply to Comment 59 (Mike Veroukis):
>The nice thing about DE is that it can sneak under the rader quite nicely. It
>can run on any hardware and under any OS they feel like porting it too. So
>even if Sharp doesn't ship AmigaDE, you can always get the DE Player later if
>you wish.
Yeah, but who is going to *buy* (I can't believe they are trying to *sell* something as small as the DE player) this extra piece of software for their PDA? |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 65 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by [JC] on 15-Jan-2002 01:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 63 (Mike Veroukis):
Oh sure you cant buy it, but then you cant buy OS4 either. However, you CAN download the betas of MorphOS, sure they're time limited, but that for a developer is better than nothing. Plus i'm quite sure they'd provide a developer with an un-time-limited version... |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 66 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 15-Jan-2002 03:26 GMT | In reply to Comment 64 (Brecht [darklite]):
>Yeah, but who is going to *buy* (I can't believe they are trying to *sell*
>something as small as the DE player) this extra piece of software for their
>PDA?
Yeah well, I personally don't understand why people buy PDAs even, but they do. I obviously don't own one and have no plans too. But to be fair to Amiga Inc, I think the idea of DE is more then just PDAs. Cell phones are a much more interesting market me thinks (grammer intentional skewed ;-). Oh well, best of luck to them, I just hope the desktop AmigaOS makes a comeback. :-)
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 67 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Lennart Fridén on 15-Jan-2002 05:31 GMT | In reply to Comment 61 (Daniel Miller):
>Who in the world is saying those things? Not me. Please quote someone who says >that Lennart, otherwise I think you're just making stuff up.
Erhm...in a sense, you did. RE-quoting your post @ 35
"I am the same person I was when I purchased that A600 years ago, and I do not recall having to sign a non-disclosure or pay a licensing fee to use the word "Amiga." And I don't intend to start now."
@ 37 I wrote
>And thus registered trademarks aren't valid anymore? So it's ok for me to >claim that product X made by company Y and sold by vendor Z is in fact a W? So >it's ok to say that Volvos are in fact geuine Porsches? Get real
Substitute the variables X with Pegasos, Y with bplan, ignore Z for now (no retailers selling it ATM) and W with Amiga and you'll (hopefully) be able to see my point.
>> Even MorphOS advocates and fanatics (well maybe not the
>> latter) should know better than restict MorphOS being
>> something Amiga-only as there's more to it than meets the
>> eye. It'd simply be doing MorphOS an injustice not to
>> consider it an OS in it's own right and THUS put it under
>> comp.sys.morphos.
>Really I appreciate all these Amiga Inc. fanatics who
>show such concern for the name of the MorphOS newsgroup, where were you when
>we had the RFD?
My participation in this thread steames from the fact that certain individuals seem to think that binary compatability can be used to prove that X is in fact a Y. I beg to differ and the newsgroup is of secondary interest to me. At the time of the voting I felt that I really hadn't anything to do with it, now I use it as an example of the misconception of MorphOS being Amiga as per definition it cannot. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 68 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amifan on 15-Jan-2002 09:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 56 (David Scheibler):
I don't name my sources....And yes, of course it's a *copy* of the original source....duh...
Phase5 got them from Escom. But when Phase5 went down, the disc containing the source even went underground. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 69 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 15-Jan-2002 10:06 GMT | >Yes and it does baffle me.... I've been told by someone on ANN that amithlon
>was distributed by H&P becase Hyperion did not want Amiga Inc to do so (why
>I'm not sure since it would be distributed by someone else anyway). Exactly
>what the story behind all that is I'm not sure. I always assumed that Amiga
>Inc did this so as to not compete on a major product release with one of their
>close partners. I was told that was not the real reason, but I'm not sure what
>is. Don't know what to believe anymore.
Could be true I don't know. However I doubt that the final word about OS4 x86 is already spoken. At least thats the impression when I read Harald Frank's postings on amiga-news.de. I see lots of fights there (Hyperion against Bernie and Harald, because of a 68k Quake2 version) too. And Harald made some statements that you don't know what programs will be available for x86 Amithlon (native).
BTW: H&P always had other things in mind with OS4. They wanted to suppoort all PPC cards and 68k because they didn't see any chance that the AmigaOne will be finished soon, last year. That's why they developed AmigaXL. Also Bernie isn't really happy that H&P now distributes Amithlon. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 70 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 15-Jan-2002 10:36 GMT | In reply to Comment 63 (Mike Veroukis):
>From what I understand the AmigaOne does not require an A1200 MB to operate,
>however, AmigaOS4.0 requires it. However, this requirement is slated to
>dissapear in later versions (OS4.2, etc).
That depends on the programs you use. OS4.0 requires the Amiga1200 motherboard because it isn't hardware independant and the OS itself requires the custom chips. So they first have to port these parts.
From OS4.2/4.5 on you'll require the A1200 board if you want to use i.e. AGA software/software that access the hardware directly. If you want to use such software then you'll always have to plug-in the A1200 board or use UAE.
MorphOS on the other side doesn't support these programs at all (at least if you don't use UAE). However it has the advantage that it does support new hardware now and is hardware independant now. There are people who don't own an A1200 and want to use more modern hardware, the only solution for them is Pegasos. Because Pegasos will be supported only from OS4.5 on and most of these users don't want to wait 1 year or longer (that's the OS4 roadmap) the only solution for them is MorphOS.
I want modern hardware now, that's why I chose Pegasos/MorphOS. If you want to use your old PPC board together with OS4 in Feburary, fine, but *I* want newer hardware. If you chose the AmigaOne+A1200 and OS4 because you want to use old sofware, fine, but I don't use such software now and I don't think that I'll use it in the future, so I'll chose the motherbaord with better specs. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 71 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amifan on 15-Jan-2002 11:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 70 (David Scheibler):
Yeah and then upgrade to AmigaOS4.0 since MOS will fail anyway... |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 72 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Daniel Miller on 15-Jan-2002 12:39 GMT | In reply to Comment 56 (David Scheibler):
David Scheibler typed:
> So you know for sure that Phase5 actually *got*
> the sources or is this your own guess work now?
> I never heard the 'lost disc' story before.
> Please name the source of your statement.
I don't know who started it, but this is baseless innuendo and rumour recently perpetuated by Gary Peake. I think you can find GP's comments at... groups.yahoo.com. It's pretty terrible that some people circulate this innuendo. The story has a lot of holes, most notably why would this shadowy thief steal the actual disk rather than make a copy, but we're not talking Sir Arthur Conan Doyle here.
MorphOS is the result of the hard work of the MorphOS team. It is legal and respectable. The rumour-mongering is perpetuated by a sour grapes crowd. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 73 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 15-Jan-2002 12:44 GMT | In reply to Comment 71 (Amifan):
You mean OS4.5, right? The 18month I can wait with MorphOS. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 74 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Daniel Miller on 15-Jan-2002 12:47 GMT | In reply to Comment 67 (Lennart Fridén):
Lennart Friden typed:
> And thus registered trademarks aren't valid anymore?
> So it's ok for me to >claim that product X made by
> company Y and sold by vendor Z is in fact a W? So
> it's ok to say that Volvos are in fact geuine
> Porsches? Get real
Thanks for the algebra lesson, but that not what I said. Listen, if the worst MorphOS has to face is Amiga Inc. pawns chanting "you must not say the word amiga" and "MorphOS will fail" I think we're going to be alright. :) |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 75 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 15-Jan-2002 14:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 70 (David Scheibler):
In Reply to Comment 63:
>>From what I understand the AmigaOne does not require an A1200 MB to operate,
>>however, AmigaOS4.0 requires it. However, this requirement is slated to
>>dissapear in later versions (OS4.2, etc).
>
>That depends on the programs you use. OS4.0 requires the Amiga1200 motherboard >because it isn't hardware independant and the OS itself requires the custom >chips. So they first have to port these parts.
That's pretty much what I said, but without the detail. :-)
Anyways, I must admit hooking up an A1200 MB to the AmigaOne is kinda daft. I would like to see a move away from the old hardware. But even if the A1200MB was made last year I'd still want to move away from it simply because the custom chips are pretty much useless. If you rely on the AGA chipset for old games/demos (somthing i still enjoy from time to time) you'll need a monitor that handles the 15khz displays. My 1950 just died on me a couple weeks ago so I bought a new SVGA monitor. Although it's bigger and better I can no longer view AGA displays (except for some very un-popular screen modes like Euro72, etc....). So, using an AmigaOne with an A1200MB would require you to also buy a scan-doubler/flicker-fixer or a 1950/60 monitor. Not good in my opinion. So, I think they should have instead invested in building a good software emulator for the custom chips. Oh well. I just hope they change their mind and make OS4.0 run without the AGA chipset present (but use it if it is present). That way the user would have the choice.
>I want modern hardware now, that's why I chose Pegasos/MorphOS.
Yeah, I want modern hardware too, so I went out and bought an AthlonXP. :-) It turns out I also wanted modern software and neither MorphOS or AmigaOS offer that (yet).
>If you want to use your old PPC board together with OS4 in Feburary, fine, but
>*I* want newer hardware. If you chose the AmigaOne+A1200 and OS4 because you
>want to use old sofware, fine, but I don't use such software now and I don't
>think that I'll use it in the future, so I'll chose the motherbaord with
>better specs.
Sure specs are important, but regardless of how good the machine is, I want a system that has a future and that has software that I want/need. Although I believe AmigaOS has a better future, I'm gonna wait and see how things unfold. If they sell well and people start writing software for it I'll consider buying one. Otherwise forget it.
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 76 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Emmanuel Lesueur on 15-Jan-2002 17:13 GMT | In reply to Comment 65 ([JC]):
JC writes:
> However, you CAN download the betas of MorphOS, sure they're time
> limited, but that for a developer is better than nothing. Plus i'm
> quite sure they'd provide a developer with an un-time-limited
> version...
Yes, people who made significant contributions to MorphOS software,
or who intend to, did get keyfiles and access to more uptodate
versions of the system. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 77 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 15-Jan-2002 18:02 GMT | In reply to Comment 75 (Mike Veroukis):
>Yeah,I want modern hardware too, so I went out and bought an AthlonXP. :-) It
>turns out I also wanted modern software and neither MorphOS or AmigaOS offer
>that (yet).
Good reason to do an OS4 x86 port then...
>Sure specs are important, but regardless of how good the machine is, I want a
>system that has a future and that has software that I want/need. Although I
>believe AmigaOS has a better future, I'm gonna wait and see how things unfold.
>If they sell well and people start writing software for it I'll consider
>buying one. Otherwise forget it.
Absolutly right. I need an office package so I'll use MorphOS because Papyrus is in development and the statements from Titan computer regarding a version for OS4 didn't sound nice ("OS4? We don't know, no specs, no docs, we'll see"),
having a software in development is better than not even knowing if it will be available for OS4 later. Same goes to MotionStudio or other apps and games which will be available for MorphOS exclusively (like Simon3D or BurnIt Pro). Of course I'm sure there'll will be similar software for OS4 at sometime, but when? I don't want to use my webbrowser in 68k emulation when I can have it natively from the beginning. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 78 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 15-Jan-2002 18:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 77 (David Scheibler):
>Good reason to do an OS4 x86 port then...
Well, I've always argued strongly for an x86 AmigaOS. :-)
>Absolutly right. I need an office package so I'll use MorphOS because Papyrus
>is in development and the statements from Titan computer regarding a version
>for OS4 didn't sound nice ("OS4? We don't know, no specs, no docs, we'll
>see"),
I honestly don't know anything about Papyrus so I can't say anything about that. However, I would expect all the H&P and Hyperion software/games to be ported to AOS4.0. Although I'm not a big fan of H&P products, they are one of the bigger companies in the market. So I would say it's safe to assume AmigaOS4.0 will have commercial level software (whether you like it or not is beside the point).
But you do raise a good point; Market split. I've always said this could kill the market. I think we need to see a clear winner early on, otherwise some people will hold back and not choose either. But I think many have chosen to wait for OS4.0. So the potential for a real market split is there. It'll be interesting to see how the shareware market goes.
But regardless of the above, real success would be achieved with the expansion of the market. This is where I see MorphOS having the biggest problem. Simply keeping the current user base isn't good enough. I'm sure we can both agree here. :-) That's why I say marketing is very important and also why I think MorphOS needs to exploit the Amiga name as much as it can while Amiga must do whatever it can to stop them. :-)
- Mike |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 79 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by David Scheibler on 15-Jan-2002 19:40 GMT | In reply to Comment 78 (Mike Veroukis):
>I honestly don't know anything about Papyrus so I can't say anything about >that. However, I would expect all the H&P and Hyperion software/games to be >ported to AOS4.0
Right, however they have to program an OS... They don't have so many resources to do all the things paralell. Ben already announced in Cologne that Real3D is on low priority now and that's true for most of the other apps, too, I guess.
To Amiga marketing:
There was an article on a German website about Amiga2001. And the article also mentioned Pegasos in connection with Amiga. However it read like this:
"It[Pegasos] should be available next year. However Amiga users know, that next Q means next year; and that next year always means never". That's what people have in mind about Amiga now. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 80 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 15-Jan-2002 19:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 75 (Mike Veroukis):
>So, I think they should have instead invested in building a good software
>emulator for the custom chips. Oh well. I just hope they change their mind and
>make OS4.0 run without the AGA chipset present (but use it if it is present).
>That way the user would have the choice.
I for one won't be surprised when they ripp of the work done by the UAE and AROS teams, after having threatened to sue AROS and constant whining from users of how harmful UAE is. |
|
| comp.sys.amiga.morphos now operational : Comment 81 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mike Veroukis on 15-Jan-2002 20:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 79 (David Scheibler):
>To Amiga marketing:
>...
>"It[Pegasos] should be available next year. However Amiga users know, that
>next Q means next year; and that next year always means never". That's what
>people have in mind about Amiga now.
That's not really marketing is it? :-) Someone who writes an article can say anything they like, and by the sounds of his comment it almost suggests Amiga Inc has been around for years making unfulfilled promises. Fact is Amiga Inc has only been around for a short time and you can't blame them for all the previous let downs (like what this author is impling - I know what he REALLY means, you know what really he means, but what about joe public?).
If anything this comment atleast makes it clear what Amiga's marketing has to deal with. However, before judging Amiga's marketing efforts, I'll first wait for them to begin. :-)
- Mike |
|
| Anonymous, there are 81 items in your selection (but only 31 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 81] |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
