| [News] MorphOS document released. | ANN.lu |
| Posted on 15-Nov-2002 17:32 GMT by nicholas Blachford | 78 comments
View flat
View list | |
Thendic-France have just posted a new document about MorphOS. If you've ever wanted to know how to tell your A-Box from your Q-Box or where MorphOS came from (or is going) read on...
The doc can be found here:
html version
PDF version
|
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 1 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 15-Nov-2002 17:46 GMT | | Excellent document Nicholas. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 2 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by smithy on 15-Nov-2002 18:00 GMT | Very interesting! It sounds like the Q-Box will create a completely new OS. I wonder why they didn't write the Q-Box first, then provide an optional-to-use AmigaOS-compatible interface to the new OS. I suppose the Q-Box is going to be an advanced thing that would require a lot more time to develop, and it means AmigaOS compatible stuff is in its own 'box'.
Anyway - that was a good read :) |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 3 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 15-Nov-2002 18:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 2 (smithy):
That is just the way the project evolved:
It started as "bring AOS to PPC" back in the Phase5/Escom-days, went over "speed up the current
OS by running it on a PPC" in 0.1 and "replace old OS to speed up Amiga-apps" in 0.4/0.8 (the
version shown in Cologne) to "Completly new OS with AOS-backward-compability".
Atleast noone can say "but MOS has no roadmap" anymore ;-) |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 4 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Leif on 15-Nov-2002 18:24 GMT | What can I say.. I want it.. bad :)
One point though, I wonder about how
the messagepassing (instead of librarycalls ??)
will affect responsiveness. QNX uses messagepassing
for graphics operations for example, and it isnt as
responsive as AmigaOS, even on a lot faster CPU.
But I wouldnt be surprised if this issue some how
hae been fixed though. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 5 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by AlK on 15-Nov-2002 19:00 GMT | Phh, how hard was that to happen.. ;-)
This is what I always wanted to know: Where is MorphOS going other than being
a method of running <=AmigaOS3.x applications. That could not be all.
I knew about the Q-Box and that it would be distinct from the A-Box and
completely built from scratch, but this doc simply was what lacked.
MorphOs followers did critisize me for (to put it mildly, no more flamewars
please) but this was just it. I need to know the future path of an OS to
judge it correctly. Same goes for AmigaOS5 fe. (We do know about that for
19 months now (Technical Update, April 12, 2001). Granted, not as eloquently
written, but.. ;-)
As I see it now, yes, MorphOS has a future apart from being an 'Amiga clone'.
Good to know, I may try it when it runs on top of PPCBoot on the AmigaOne
(SCNR, but I'm not going to reflash PPCBoot with OpenFirmware, no way ;-)
I've even not ruled out to get a Pegasos(II) once.
Seems it needed just a new man (Nicolas) to put it like that, really nice as
one of the first works for your new company.. Thanks. ;-)
Shall we all see what is going to happen on either side now.
Ciao, Alex |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 6 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 15-Nov-2002 20:07 GMT | (damn the browser just ate my long post)
In short:
WOW! Great! I wonder why it was so difficult to put that information visible.
Some superb features from known RTOSs seem to be included in the Quark for Q-Box.
Quark really looks like the ideal kernel for AmigaOS5.
(It makes one angry to think how far we would be if MOS would have been developed to be the AOS5 kernel, while Hyperion's AmigaOS4 would have been the A-Box/sandbox... STUPID POLITICS!)
small questions:
- when is the full featurelist (of the first end user release of MOS) going to be released?
- And how about putting some schedule / timeframes for Q-Box stuff?
(That's really the information that I want to know, thats's the OS I would be interested at.)
- what's the story behind FFS2, is it the same as in AOS4?
- why is the clean-room implementation of OS3.1 API not 100% native?
(why has 68k code been written for PPC OS)
- how will the communication be handled between the boxes, does AREXX work?
"Given the above, one might wonder why Q can be based on a microkernel (strictly speaking it's only "microkernel like") and still expected to perform well. The answer to this lies in the fact that MorphOS runs on PowerPC and not x86 CPUs. It is a problem with the x86 architecture that causes context switches to be computationally expensive. Context switching on the PowerPC is in the region of 10 times faster, similar in speed to a subroutine call. This means PowerPC Operating Systems can use a microkernel architecture with all it's advantages yet without the cost of slow context switches. There are no plans for an x86 version of MorphOS, if this changes there will no doubt be internal changes to accommodate the different processor architecture."
That sounds like the reason of not letting Amiga Inc lay their hands on the kernell.
I hope that also finally silences some MOS/AmigaOS to x86 crap talk. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 7 of 78 | ANN.lu |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 8 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Christophe Decanini on 15-Nov-2002 20:48 GMT | Thanks Nicholas ton enlight us.
I hope to see some other documents like this one. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 9 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 15-Nov-2002 21:03 GMT | In reply to Comment 7 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
"This has been written and compiled on the PowerPC so it is nearly 100% native."
So I still wonder, what is not native and why. (not that it matters much, I'm just curious) |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 10 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 15-Nov-2002 21:11 GMT | In reply to Comment 9 (priest):
Well, EVERYTHING is ppc native, I don't know why they did put that "nearly"
thing. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 11 of 78 | ANN.lu |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 12 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by strobe on 15-Nov-2002 22:36 GMT | In reply to Comment 5 (AlK):
Why use PPCBoot when you can have Open Firmware + PC BIOS simulation + VESA OF driver?
On paper (since I haven't used it with my own two hands yet) I would prefer the latter. I would be able to use both OF and PC cards, plus I find OF to be a very flexible solution Writing a boot volume selector in OF is trivial, but doing the same in PPCBoot may require building another version and reflashing. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 13 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by strobe on 15-Nov-2002 22:40 GMT | I don't know why people are clamoring for a feature list. I didn't get a feature list when I used Mac OS X |-\
What's wrong with trying it, finding out if it does what you want first hand, then buying it?
I think people who want a feature list really just want to start a feature list war between bPlan and Hyperion. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 14 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Nov-2002 22:44 GMT | As far as I know, if there's anything non-native, it's because they
decided to license some existing 68k stuff instead of writing
something new. This should be extremely rare. I'm quite sure nothing
new has been written for 68k.
About why A-box came before Q-box: Well, what would be the use for the
Q-box? It wouldn't have any applications.. the A-box might not be "the
way forward", but any way forward must start in a "present". The A-box
provides that, a foundation to start from. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 15 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by anonymous@anonymous on 15-Nov-2002 23:11 GMT | | I still cant believe that no one has said "Who cares" ? Why not just have Christian set up a MNN.LU? Most of us couldnt care less. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 16 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by strobe on 15-Nov-2002 23:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 15 (anonymous@anonymous):
Because we do care.
Fool. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 17 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by strobe on 15-Nov-2002 23:47 GMT | In reply to Comment 14 (Johan Rönnblom):
>About why A-box came before Q-box: Well, what would be the use for the
Q-box? It wouldn't have any applications
Well originally I was under the impression that applications in Q-Box would be able to use either the same 3.x compatible libraries, or its own version of them much like in Mac OS X you can call toolbox functions in Classic or by using the Carbon library.
Obviously 3.x applications have to run in A-Box, but I didn't think the 3.x API had the same restrictions.
Anyway we'll see what happens. I'm sure something along those lines will be the next step, or at least a reformed API specific to Q-Box. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 18 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JoannaK on 16-Nov-2002 00:00 GMT | In reply to Comment 15 (anonymous@anonymous):
I do care, actually. It's quite possible my next computer uses MOS... In fact, with all that ***** coming from AmigaInc I really don't think I can trust my computing future to their hands.
I'm not saying that Ainc does not have visions, unfortunately they seem to be able to damage real development of OS4 and AOne each time they open their mouths or release new update/interview. They have become jokes, and IMHO that's not a good sign of company. More AmigaInc messes with OS4/AOne development less I trust those companies and less likely I'm going to spend my $$$ to purchase those. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 19 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by anonymous@anonymous on 16-Nov-2002 00:12 GMT | In reply to Comment 16 (strobe):
No sir, YOU (and your self interest group) care. Not many others though.
Fool, indeed. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 20 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by MIKE on 16-Nov-2002 00:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 15 (anonymous@anonymous):
I care, it's nice to see companies/developers trying to continue on the amiga spirit, in more then just name, but feel too, not that I'm predicting success for it or anything, but I'm glad to hear about *real* progress on moving the system forward. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 21 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by anonymous@anonymous on 16-Nov-2002 00:16 GMT | In reply to Comment 18 (JoannaK):
See #19. You clearly qualify under the foregoing. Enjoy MNN.LU |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 22 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by screw your "camps" on 16-Nov-2002 01:28 GMT | In reply to Comment 20 (MIKE):
An anonymous poster proves he's yet another Forcefed Fucktard by whining over news about an OS that runs Amiga software, is made by old Amiga pioneers and runs on Amigas as well as new hardware made by Amiga people. Why, because the latest in the row of trademark owners didn't bless it with A Trademark Licence?
Crap, I just remembered I bought a PageStream upgrade. That wasn't marketed, licensed or distributed by a company called Amiga Inc, does that mean I'll have to send it back and abstain from discussing PageStream on Amiga forums? I'm sure Deron Kazmaier hasn't signed an SDA with A. Inc for PageStream! Shock, horror, it'll probably run just as well on both of the "Classic Amiga" compatible new OS's, just like it already does on those EVIL emulators! PageStream can't possibly be of any interest to any of the True Amigans(TM)(©2002 Amiga Inc).
The moron casts his trolling bait and people willingly bite. Zealotry for a piece of software is idiotic, zealotry for a corporation managing an old trademark that has lost all meaning is subhuman.
To get back on topic, thanks for the document, much appreciated and it contained much useful info and (almost...) no marketing bullshit, lies and half-truths. I'm *very* interested in AmigaOS4 as well and I hope I'll be allowed to actually buy it one day without any attached monopolized mobo. But in comparison to documents like this the "feature" lists that emanate from those people are disheartening. Listing stuff like "PDF reader" and adding a "PPC native" prefix just to make the list look impressive isn't very... impressive. I just hope to see a release of them both soon and try them out. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 23 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by TBone on 16-Nov-2002 03:00 GMT | In reply to Comment 15 (anonymous@anonymous):
> I still cant believe that no one has said "Who cares" ?
> Why not just have Christian set up a MNN.LU? Most of us couldnt care less.
I care. I'm even toying with purchasing one. Looks like a cool system.
Maybe we need a ZNN.lu for Zealots. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 24 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by MIKE on 16-Nov-2002 03:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 22 (screw your "camps"):
Well, I was referring to MorphOS as moving the platform forward, if you misunderstood. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 25 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by anonymous@anonymous on 16-Nov-2002 04:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 24 (MIKE):
no mike, i got it crystal clear. i hope that i didnt bollock up the full assault. pls apologize to the crowd of MOSsy. i certainly wouldnt wish to derange their party. you have all done plenty well already |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 26 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by burn the camps on 16-Nov-2002 05:39 GMT | In reply to Comment 24 (MIKE):
And I was referring to people replying to the troll, I just picked your reply out of the heap of replies. Sorry for any misunderstanding, and I agree with your original post. ;-) |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 27 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by amorel on 16-Nov-2002 07:13 GMT | Quote: "In the future the drivers shall be moved into the Quark kernel"
Isn`t that what a macro kernel does, like Linux? A micro kernel like
QNX has drivers outside of the kernel. This does move the quark kernel away
from being a micro kernel. Not that I care much about this aspect. I mean
I like linux and I like QNX and ofcourse AmigaOS, to name a few.
I just wonder. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 28 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by amorel on 16-Nov-2002 07:55 GMT | In reply to Comment 27 (amorel):
Let me rephrase that a bit. I do care about an elegant microkernel design like
QNX. Where the kernel, Neutrino, has only a little amount built in. And drivers
being something outside of the kernel and which can be started and stopped like
a normal process.
But it`s good that it`s stated that Quark is not a true micro kernel :-)
To quote: "(strictly speaking it's only "microkernel like")" |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 29 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Don Cox on 16-Nov-2002 08:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 15 (anonymous@anonymous):
"I still cant believe that no one has said "Who cares" ? Why not just have Christian set up a MNN.LU? Most
of us couldnt care less."
Anyone with an ounce of curiosity or the slightest interest in Amigas
would be interested, even if they don't intend to buy a Pegasos. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 30 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Mark Olsen on 16-Nov-2002 10:38 GMT | In reply to Comment 27 (amorel):
You misunderstood it.
The drivers will be moved into Q-box space, not into the kernel
itself. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 31 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by amorel on 16-Nov-2002 10:47 GMT | In reply to Comment 30 (Mark Olsen):
"You misunderstood it. The drivers will be moved into Q-box space, not into the kernel
itself."
I don`t wanna go nitpicking but it`s not that I didn`t understand it, I did quote
what was written and it says "In the future the drivers shall be moved into the Quark kernel where they will be independent of the A-Box and indeed of any
other boxes" That seems pretty clear to me. Maybe it`s typo, but I doubt it. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 32 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Frodon on 16-Nov-2002 11:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 31 (amorel):
Hello amorel,
I think this was a mistake in the formulation. Believe me the drivers
will be in the Q-Box space not in the kernel itself.
Regards |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 33 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by amorel on 16-Nov-2002 11:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 30 (Mark Olsen):
Ok, I AM nitpikcing(spelled?), but I`m confused, either the doc has some errors,
I miss some point, or it`s true, or a combination thereof :-D
Now I don`t really care a lot one way or the other and I have no
in depth knowledge of OS design but a kernel with drivers isn`t even "micro kernel
like" afaics.
Quote:
"Q shall consist of an enhanced Quark kernel, a set of servers to provide functionality and the Q-Box in which applications run. The Quark
Kernel itself is very small providing a hardware abstraction layer, drivers, memory management and message passing" |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 34 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Daniel Miller on 16-Nov-2002 11:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 13 (strobe):
strobe typed:
> I don't know why people are clamoring for a feature list. I didn't get
> a feature list when I used Mac OS X |-\ What's wrong with trying it,
> finding out if it does what you want first hand, then buying it? I
> think people who want a feature list really just want to start a
> feature list war between bPlan and Hyperion.
IIRC the response to this in the past has been that the MorphOS team is
still working on deals to include a range of third party software in the
consumer release of MorphOS, so the "feature list" is going to depend on
that and they won't count their chickens before they are hatched.
The point was also made that a feature list projected into the future is
nothing but a "to do" list.
This "battle of the feature lists" that some people are calling for is a
battle that favors the side that makes the boldest promises that never
come true. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 35 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by amorel on 16-Nov-2002 11:08 GMT | In reply to Comment 32 (Frodon):
"I think this was a mistake in the formulation. Believe me the drivers
will be in the Q-Box space not in the kernel itself."
Ok :-) |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 36 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Daniel Miller on 16-Nov-2002 11:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 5 (AlK):
> This is what I always wanted to know: Where is MorphOS going other
> than being a method of running <=AmigaOS3.x applications. That could
> not be all. I knew about the Q-Box and that it would be distinct from
> the A-Box and completely built from scratch, but this doc simply was
> what lacked.
<stuff clipped>
> Ciao, Alex
Thendic-France was already addressing the "the vision thing" but I am
happy they are putting a more public face on it. I also think the four
differently flavored Pegasos suites previously announced are a good
strategy. Those were the VideoMicrowave media workstation, the Pegashush
silent home server, the Developer Suite, and the Games Bundle. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 37 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by catohagen on 16-Nov-2002 13:02 GMT | finally some info :) still miss the featurelist, but I guess its not far away
something i'm wondering about, is Ambient written exlusive for usage with
the A-box ?
When work with Q-box starts, is Ambient still usable ? i ask since
all the screenshots i see, all names and tools are nearly exactly same name
as AmigaOS...
just a tip, WBStartup ....shouldt it be Ambientstartup or Ambstartup ?
unless WB stands for something else than Workbench.
At the end, i still have problems seeing a future for Morphos, they must
have same problem as amiga computers to get new apps, a decent browser,
some tools to make the machine have an advantage over the alternatives...
like the 'killer' feature
Is there any guaranties that thendic or B-plan is alive in 2 or 5 years ?
over the months here on Ann, i see more amigans than mos'ers, so how does
that reflect to sales of Pegasos machines...does 1000 machines sold give
enough profit to continue development of Morphos a year and head for
v2 ?
How big is the mos comunity ? how many active users is needed for Thendic
to continue the platform ? what if there is sold 3-4000 pegasos machines
and thendic/b-plan estimated atleast 10.000 active users....what can those
3-4000 users do ?
Does Morphos have same situation as OS4 if its company dies ? if Amiga Inc
dies Hyperion can keep developing it, how is this handled if a company
goes down ? |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 38 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by AlK on 16-Nov-2002 14:22 GMT | In reply to Comment 36 (Daniel Miller):
> Thendic-France was already addressing the "the vision thing" but I am
> happy they are putting a more public face on it.
So am I. The first thing I thought about their vision was "Hey, they're doing
the same as AmigaInc., one OS on all devices, just more hardware centric".. ;-)
Really, I (and the market at large) just don't need two flavors of the same,
'AmigaOS revisited' so to say, but different approaches to the future (even
if the basic idea is a kind of digital convergence and persistance at both
camps).
This document alone does not change my preference for AmigaOS4/AmigaOne as my
next desktop system, but I never ruled out MorphOS/Pegasos anyway. But now it
will be even more intersting for me to watch the progess of bPlan/Thendic.
> I also think the four differently flavored Pegasos suites previously announced
> are a good strategy. Those were the VideoMicrowave media workstation, the
> Pegashush silent home server, the Developer Suite, and the Games Bundle.
Forgot about the Eclipsis? ;-) What I said, more hardware centric than the other
side, but not bad either. Or more technical user oriented on Thendic/bPlans
side, more general consumer centered on Amiga's side. Either way, both make
sense.
So is it now ok to say:
"MorphOS is not AmigaOS"? ;-)
Ciao, Alex
ps: Sorry Nicholas, misspelled your name before, won't happen again ;-) |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 39 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 16-Nov-2002 14:31 GMT | In reply to Comment 34 (Daniel Miller):
> This "battle of the feature lists" that some people are calling for is a
> battle that favors the side that makes the boldest promises that never
> come true.
and then there's the customers who can't try it out, that looks at the laid down features (ie, this IS in the OS, it's not something that might or will come) and judges to some extent on that. If I'm looking for a particular feature in a amplifier, I look at a number of amps and their specs. I don't do it cause I want to start a war :)
I do it cause I want to see if this seems interesting or not. A feature list is also a way of ruling out certain products from the "potentially interesting" product list. Now, here we happen to have only two competing competing products. I have questions, and a feature/specification list will clarify many of those questions up.
I am one of those that has tried almost all the operating systems that one could get ones hands on, and I know what I'm looking for in an OS. It might not be something that I truly need, but I look for it cause it makes the experience a little more fun for me. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 40 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Nicholas Blachford on 16-Nov-2002 15:46 GMT | Document Update:
There've been a few small changes to the doc, firstly I've removed the term "Amiga Compatibility" as we don't claim that. We are compatible with Amiga applications.
Secondly there is some confusion over drivers in the kernel, I don't think they will actually go into the kernel itself as I mentioned.
Features list:
This is being worked on, I don't know when it will be ready though.
More Detailed Roadmap:
Writing an OS like Q is a very large undertaking and is likely to take several years to complete. No detailed roadmap has been worked out at this point and would likely change as time passes anyway. Hopefully we can get something out sooner but quite how is open to question right now.
>Is there any guaranties that thendic or B-plan is alive in 2 or 5 years ?
The people funding this company have been involved with the Amiga for a long time and see this as a long term investment. They are spending a lot of money on this and it would be foolish to give up after a short period. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 41 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Don Cox on 16-Nov-2002 16:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 34 (Daniel Miller):
You may not have wanted a feature list for Mac OS X, but th
information is there, in quantity.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/
Actually, everyone ought to study this page to see what the Amiga is
competing against. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 42 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 16-Nov-2002 16:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 38 (AlK):
OS5 will never happen.
Fleecy said something like that:
"We split in two not to confuse our partners, and a big partner would not be
happy at all if we made a desktop OS" |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 43 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Senex (Martin Heine) on 16-Nov-2002 17:11 GMT | In reply to Comment 37 (catohagen):
You can call the WBstartup-drawer any name you want to, since you tell Ambient in it's settings which drawer contains the startup-programmes. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 44 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by anonymous on 16-Nov-2002 18:58 GMT | In reply to Comment 6 (priest):
@priest
"I hope that also finally silences some MOS/AmigaOS to x86 crap talk."
Huh? Do you honestly think that limitations in context switching and performance are problematic enough to dismiss an architecture that has been used for 600 million PCs? The x86 migration issue has never been about technical superiority, it's about economy of scale and the dangers inherent in tightly coupling the OS with any one particular processor.
Who really gives a rodent's posterior about context switching if a CPU architecture is abandoned or hits the end of its lifecycle? Do consumers really care about latency when technically inelegant but cheaper and faster solutions are available elsewhere?
Obviously you can't put a PPC chip in everything, but with a HAL you can quickly adapt to other enviroments. Moore's Law has allowed us to compensate for design inadequacies with more horsepower. Murphy's Law tells us that what people buy is the best available solution for the best price. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 45 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by anonymous on 16-Nov-2002 19:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 42 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
@alkis
'OS5 will never happen. Fleecy said something like that: "We split in two not to confuse our partners, and a big partner would not be happy at all if we made a desktop OS"
That's emphasis for investor perception not actual R&D. Did you listen to the speech or just quote what you hoped you heard?
It's interesting. Even dyed-in-the-wool Amiga crackpots will occasionally have a kind word to say about Thendic, bPlan and MorphOS (see above). But somehow a few of you have nothing good to say about anything else -- particularly if it involves Amiga. Did it ever occur to you that if your competitors help create a thriving market it will only help you out as well?
I'm not particularly interested in MorphOS for my own purposes, but I'm glad to see that they're giving Amiga and Hyperion a run for their money. Who wins? All of us. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 46 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by takemehomegrandma on 16-Nov-2002 20:34 GMT | In reply to Comment 40 (Nicholas Blachford):
> More Detailed Roadmap:
> Writing an OS like Q is a very large undertaking and is likely to take
> several years to complete. No detailed roadmap has been worked out at this
> point and would likely change as time passes anyway. Hopefully we can get
> something out sooner but quite how is open to question right now.
Why not licensing parts of QNX? The "Q" sure has some great similarities with QNX, both in philosophy and design. Their licinsing terms are very reasonable, and I'm sure that some flexibility can be shown from the QNX side for a project like this. They once did this with another "Amiga INC", so I don't think that they will be impossible on this. After a little "Amigafication" it could turn out very interesting. And that could bring a lot of apps to the platform for free too, like java, flash, the Opera browser, etc. Which would make perfect sence with respect to their roadmap (the eclipsis and so on). |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 47 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by takemehomegrandma on 16-Nov-2002 21:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 45 (anonymous):
> It's interesting. Even dyed-in-the-wool Amiga crackpots will occasionally
> have a kind word to say about Thendic, bPlan and MorphOS (see above). But
> somehow a few of you have nothing good to say about anything else --
> particularly if it involves Amiga.
Please separate "Amiga" from "Amiga INC"! I have allways liked "Amiga", that is why I am still here. But "Amiga INC" has screwed up in every thinkable aspect. They only thing they have achieved in those years is a lot of damage, and I have NOTHING good to say about them. But then, that is "Amiga INC", not "Amiga".
> Did it ever occur to you that if your competitors help create a thriving
> market it will only help you out as well?
I think that it's a good thing that the Amiga platform now has *two* OS distributions (soon AROS as a third(?)) to choose between. One of them will only be distributed as OEM bundled to specific new hardware though, but the other will be available for all available hardware, possibly even MAC hardware somewhere in the future.
Competition is allways good; it makes the competitors strive for perfection. And they seem to have different ways of doing this, which is interesting.
It will also be interesting to see how much the brand "Amiga" means in practice thesedays. Especially since "Amiga INC" has screwed it up so badly. The whole purpose with a brand is to communicate certain values and meanings to the consumers, values that are *constant* and spans across time and thus gives the consumer a feeling of contineuty and safety. From being a crystal clear communicator of certain values, the "Amiga" brand now has a very vague and diffuse meaning to the consumer, IMHO. |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 48 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 16-Nov-2002 21:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 40 (Nicholas Blachford):
THANKS for the information.
"Writing an OS like Q is a very large undertaking and is likely to take several years to complete."
Sounds a lot better than "OS5 will be ready 12 month after OS4 release" kind of thing, mentioned, somewhere.... :D |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 49 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 16-Nov-2002 22:03 GMT | I think pegasos is back on my shopping list, with the AmigaOne.
(not going to put all the eggs in the same basket) |
|
| MorphOS document released. : Comment 50 of 78 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 16-Nov-2002 22:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 45 (anonymous):
I have no problem at all with Hyperion and Eyetech, and will buy OS4 to use
on my BPPC when it gets released, but I'm SICK AND TIRED of Amiga Inc... |
|
| Anonymous, there are 78 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 78] |
|
- 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.
|
