29-Mar-2024 09:27 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 181 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 381]
[News] MorphOS 1.4ANN.lu
Posted on 27-Jul-2003 15:28 GMT by takemehomegrandma381 comments
View flat
View list
BBRV talked very briefly about MorphOS 1.4 on #MorphOS today ...

"yesterday we played a movie, then we open FIVE "Zoom" windows (new 1.4 feature) at differnt zoom levels and then we moved the curser around...alll this while the second desktop was running ImageFX...then we launched the CPU meter [also a new 1.4 feature] and it read between 70 and 95% -- flashing for a second sometimes at 100%...that was all done on a G3"

I asked: "Did TCP and JIT make it into the 1.4 release?"

"JIT yes, TCP/IP no, but license is signed and integration is being done" ... "we might release it without the GUI...we will think about it"

Apparently, there will be a demonstration of MorphOS 1.4 around 11:30 local time. Now, where were those streaming servers again ... ;-)

MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 201 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 29-Jul-2003 10:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 200 (samface):
I think, although hes being a bit obtuse about the way he is getting the point across, that he is saying that to him, although its not "branded" an Amiga ( and therefore is not one ) it is everything Amiga-a-like that he gives a toss about.

Fine. No one is arguing that. It's still not an Amiga. Its a Pegasos running MorphOS running A/Box. He can call it his "Amiga" but it would not be technically or legally valid. I can call my shoes "Waloogers" if I want, does not make me correct. I can even call a can of "Pepsi" a can of "Coca-cola" but if I were to release a new brand of cola and called it "Pepsi" or "Coca-cola" in literature or in adverts then Id be in deep legal shit.

AFAICS, takemehomegrandma is trying to create a generic term for an "Amiga". He clearly needs to read a few more law case studies and besides I think hes just doing it to annoy you.

However we are all part of the same community and have a lot in common.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 202 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 10:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 173 (samface):
Not everyone subscribes to your objective view of what an 'Amiga' is. Some people look at it more subjectively.

Some people when they sneeze ask for some 'Kleenex' they don't mean go run out and get me that brand of tissue they mean I want a tissue.

Unfortunately, I think the current state of the 'Amiga' has split what an 'Amiga' truly is to a person. I think quite a few have taken to calling it an 'Amiga' when/if it runs software that was compiled for the Amiga. MorphOS runs software built for the Amiga and to some they call it an 'Amiga'. However, they don't mean 'Amiga' branded hardware/software solution they mean it in a way similar to their use of the term 'Kleenex'.

Also, I see a problem in your definition...
A3000 user using A/UX
A3000 user using Linux
A3000 user using AOS3.9
Your definition appears to call all 3 of these people Amiga Users since they are using Amiga branded components. However, I think most people would consider the first two, A/UX and Linux, as Unix users. While they're Amiga Hardware Users the common usage I've been exposed to is that the operating system dictates the user type more so then the hardware. Linux users are typically Linux users no matter if they use Linux68K, LinuxPC, LinuxPPC, or Sun Linux. Unix users are Unix users if they use a varient of Unix such as NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, SCO, Irix, AIX, A/UX, MacOSX, etc.

Thinking of the example above 'Unix' is the term the variety of Unix types. Perhaps 'Amiga' is in transition becoming the term for a variety of Amiga types.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 203 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 10:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 201 (DaveP):
>However we are all part of the same community and have a lot in common.

Well, I would say used to, but I don't have the time for this anymore.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 204 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 29-Jul-2003 10:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 203 (samface):
Come on, you just spend what must add up to an hour of your time explaining and re-iterating your point of view on the subject. :-)

You might not have a lot in common on a personal level, but what you are using on a technical level at least keeps you on the same forum.

Think of two people, one using Linux and one using AIX and both using POSIX implementations to port some software - they have a lot in common right? Enough to share in the same - or an umbrella community?

The fact that some people on here are pretty obnoxious and unsubtle cheap wind up merchants is a side issue. ;-)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 205 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 10:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 203 (samface):
Well, I would say used to, but I don't have the time for this anymore.
---

YEAH!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 206 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 10:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 202 (Anonymous):
Now, now, don't complicate things more than necessary. Why would there be a problem with beeing a Linux and Amiga user at the same time? Sure, it's odd. But so is an A3000 with Linux.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 207 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 10:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 182 (samface):
>Furthermore, the Amiga never has been and never will be an open standard like
>the PC. Both the hardware and the software standards used by the Amiga is and
>always has been an intellectual property.

The PC didn't start out as an open standard. Neither did the UNIX.

Both were cloned.

So was Amiga.

Deal with it.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 208 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 10:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 193 (samface):
>Buying a Lindows machine would not be supporting Microsoft, the Windows
>market, nor the Windows user community.

Of course it would support the market if you buy Windows software for Lindows.

This is one of the benefits of MorphOS for the current Amiga market.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 209 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 10:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 204 (DaveP):
Well, the only problem is, the old AmigaOS3.x API's will be obselete as soon as applications start to make use of AmigaOS4.x (or above) or MorphOS specific features. You can't compare the AmigaOS3.x API's with POSIX since the AmigaOS3.x API's are only a matter of backwards compatibility rather than an industry standard.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 210 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 208 (Janne):
>Of course it would support the market if you buy Windows software for Lindows.

As long as we are talking about applications that doesn't make use of certain Windows features that Lindows does not support; sure. But will you continue doing so even if a native Linux alternative becomes available? Didn't think so. That means you are only buying because you have to rather than because you want to support the Windows market. While you do support the Windows market in the short run, you are only making use the Windows market's range and accessability of applications in the long run. Do you really think Windows application developers appreciates this? You don't think Windows application developers would prefer if you stayed with using Windows?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 211 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 209 (samface):
>Well, the only problem is, the old AmigaOS3.x API's will be obselete as soon
>as applications start to make use of AmigaOS4.x (or above) or MorphOS specific
>features. You can't compare the AmigaOS3.x API's with POSIX since the
>AmigaOS3.x API's are only a matter of backwards compatibility rather than an
>industry standard.

But then, POSIX didn't come into being until it was needed either, was it? First there was just UNIX. Then came BSD. Then came GNU/Linux. And so on. Now, somewhere along the way (before Linux) people using these architectures thought that they needed a common standard to help them steer from getting too far apart. POSIX was born. We don't know where the "Amiga" community will go yet, but something like this is certainly one of the many opportunities. Another possibility is of course that in five years we are too far apart to be really compatible anymore. And then there is a lot of middle-ground...

Why not see what happens with an open mind!

You keep talking about future compatibility, yet one can hardly be compatible with the future before getting there. Right? You keep discussing as if PC started out as an open standard. It didn't. Nor did UNIX. When BSD was born as a completely rewritten UNIX variant or clone, there was no POSIX. Only when the need for POSIX arose, was it created. We are already seeing discussions of OpenAmiga to keep AmigaOS, AROS and MorphOS close of each other... who knows, maybe these efforts bear some fruit, maybe they won't.

But you really don't know the future.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 212 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 29-Jul-2003 11:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 198 (samface):
> The cola analogy doesn't work

It works very fine from a "experience" Point of View. To some, the "Amiga Experience" is the only thing that matters, not the brand or the logo.

> we're talking about systems that functions completely differently

Not at all. Amiga and Windows XP functions completely differently. Amiga and MorphOS is very similar, at least from a user *and* software developers POV (which is the only important thing to everyone here, except for the core OS developers). The core OS behind the API is different, yes, but since the API is the same (which is the only important thing), that is something that noone (not users, not application developers) needs to care about.

Again, I don't say that the Pegasos + MorphOS *IS* Amiga! A1+OS4 (and Amiga DE (!!) which says a lot of the mixed-up and blurry identity of that brand these days) is Amiga. After all the things that Amiga Inc has brought down to that brand, I'm not even sure that I *want it* to have an Amiga(TM)-sticker on it.

But again, my A1200 is in the closet, I use my Pegasos with MorphOS as my ONLY Amiga today, and I use it pretty much the same way as I once used my A1200. I'm afraid that's very possible samface, face it! It is a FACT!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 213 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 211 (Janne):
Well, you do know that you are talking about the open source market now, right? It's not like Amiga Inc. and Genesi will ever sit down and work out a common standard for these two platforms, you know. I'm sorry but this analogy is simply to far away from our situation in order to make a viable argument.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 214 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 210 (samface):
>As long as we are talking about applications that doesn't make use of certain
>Windows features that Lindows does not support; sure. But will you continue
>doing so even if a native Linux alternative becomes available?
>Do you really think Windows application developers appreciates this? You
>don't think Windows application developers would prefer if you stayed with
>using Windows?

Well, you know. You are simply generalising so much, who can answer that? I might well buy a lot of Windows software for Lindows, that compatibility would probably be important if I chose Lindows over plain Linux. Obviously there would be competition from Linux software as well as other Windows vendors, but compared to me just getting Linux and not getting any Windows software, Lindows would be preferable to the Windows developer as well. What you are basically suggesting is lack of choice, monopoly, single solution for all. You probably don't mean to, but your loyalty to the Amiga platform is a bit too strong for my taste. How can you be open to new ideas and true innovation that way?

So yes, Lindows user can well benefit the Windows market. I believe Pegasos users are benfiting the Amiga market, just like Linux users are benefiting the UNIX software market. With MorphOS and AmigaOS there is the added bonus that APIs are so close, which makes cross-platform ports easier too than in the case of Linux and Windows (and the APIs are close, forget about Q/Box, it is not really there yet in significant capacity for applications and we don't know where it will lead - currently native MorphOS application use the A/Box API - for all we know, Q/Box might use the same API too with some variations).

Again, with diversity and competition comes risks, but also opportunities.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 215 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 213 (samface):
>Well, you do know that you are talking about the open source market now,
>right? It's not like Amiga Inc. and Genesi will ever sit down and work out a
>common standard for these two platforms, you know. I'm sorry but this analogy
>is simply to far away from our situation in order to make a viable argument.

You do know that the POSIX is a very expensive standard to purchase? It is far from free or open.

And that many UNIX and POSIX compliant systems are very much commercial and extremely expensive?

However, since POSIX is so expensive, lately there have been open efforts to clone it. Irony of ironies, I guess. :-)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 216 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 215 (Janne):
Oh, and POSIX didn't come from the UNIX vendors, it came from IEEE (to cut a long story short). It might well be possible that a community process or some organisation might come up with a open "Amiga" standard, perhaps with some reference implementation based on AROS, that other Amiga-like OS vendors would look at and choose to support when people started using it.

Hey, might be utopian, but then POSIX got here too. The PC is very open these days. Heck, even Windows has been "cloned". The examples from the past, both succesful and unsuccesful, are there. The future is unknown.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 217 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 212 (takemehomegrandma):
Even if I would agree to your reasoning, it only makes it more important to seperate the two alternatives since they are not compatible. I can't buy a Pegasos and expect the AmigaOS nor AmigaOS applications to function with it. Sure, I probably can run most legacy Amiga software with it, but not anything *requiring* the official AmigaOS nor Amiga hardware. The same thing goes if I buy an AmigaOne.

I can drink a cola with anything I want, but I can't combine Amiga nor Genesi products with other products in any way I want. As a consumer you must know the brand in order to get the product you are looking for. Again, the cola analogy doesn't work.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 218 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 216 (Janne):
But then, such standard would have to embrace another name than Amiga and I doubt such standard would be restricted to the feature set of the AmigaOS3.x API. This is rather hypothetical and irrelevant to the issue at hand, don't you agree?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 219 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 217 (samface):
>Again, the cola analogy doesn't work.

All analogies break if you take them too far! Look at them in the given context. Don't dwelve in the details, because many of the people claiming they use MorphOS as their "Amiga" don't either. For *all intents and purposes* it does what they expect it to do. Sure, like in Linux and UNIX, there are differences and future compatibility is a unknown quantity, but at the moment the cola analogy holds in my books very well.

Perhaps they should've named MorphOS Moprhiga or something so we could discuss *iga's or something. ;-)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 220 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 214 (Janne):
Seriously, are you suggesting that you will keep buying 68k Amiga software even if there are PPC native MorphOS alternatives?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 221 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 219 (Janne):
Well, everything is relative, I know. However, didn't you see that I was actually trying to make a point? Please read it again and atleast try to disregard Einsteins theory for a moment.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 222 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 218 (samface):
>But then, such standard would have to embrace another name than Amiga and I
>doubt such standard would be restricted to the feature set of the AmigaOS3.x
>API. This is rather hypothetical and irrelevant to the issue at hand, don't
>you agree?

Well, POSIX isn't called UNIX either, and yet it is one of the big reasons why we can still call systems like BSD and Linux UNIX without being too mistaken.

This new standard, if there ever comes one (or more!), yes, could indeed include more functionality than just the 3.1 API and this way improve the entire family of platforms. Perhaps we could envision some kind of community process where businesses and developer notables could steer the direction of the platform, and still do business in their own individual areas. Best implementations of the reference design, best added value, etc. New ways to compete.

But then, this is all very much speculation and pretty utopian. Genesi is marching their path and Amiga Inc. is not much of a player until they get their finances in order. And there is too much bickering in the community. We need to get the currently developed products out, some new blood in, and a lot of fresh air and enthusiasm that only new products can bring... Then lets see what we can do. I won't be holding my breath, but I remain positive and open to any such possibilities. I would very much hope that you'd do that too.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 223 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 11:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 206 (samface):
Now, now, don't complicate things more than necessary. Why would there be a problem with beeing a Linux and Amiga user at the same time? Sure, it's odd. But so is an A3000 with Linux.

---
The complications aren't mine but the subject. There's various components that make up a computer system. Commonly defined components are hardware, operating system, and application software.

I'm not quite sure why you believe that someone using an Amiga 3000 with Linux is an Amiga user where if someone running applications developed for the Amiga system isn't an Amiga user in the same right. DON'T explain.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 224 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 220 (samface):
>Seriously, are you suggesting that you will keep buying 68k Amiga software
>even if there are PPC native MorphOS alternatives?

Depends on the feature set. If all is equal and speed is the only difference, of course I wouldn't buy 68k. But where will those native alternatives come? The API is so close, probably from the same developer as the 68k version!

Today already some developers can gain a bit of extra cash by porting their 68k stuff easily to PPC on MorphOS (instead of hard work on PowerUp/WarpUp kludges) and gain a whole new market - sometimes without many significant changes to the source code. I re-assert my opinion that MorphOS has also bought OS4 some time since developers have had another PPC platform to play with and keep on developing... Many of those fruits will be brought to the OS4 table as well, I'm sure!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 225 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 29-Jul-2003 11:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 221 (samface):
Samface, why dont just give up.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 226 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 11:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 210 (samface):
Do you really think Windows application developers appreciates this?

---
I think so they still make their $$ and perhaps even a greater marketshare.

Example: Let's say the user market is 90 users for your application. However, someone figures out a way to run the application on 6 more user's computers. The application is priced based upon the 90 user's and the % of marketshare you'd get. So let's assume you think a 50% penetration at a $100 price point. You make $5K for your application. Now you're going to be pissed you end up making $5300 instead? I doubt it. Of course, you don't support the 3 extra customers so your profit is even greater, whereas you support the 50.

Will developers be upset? I see no reason why they should be.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 227 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 226 (Anonymous):
Again, why would any MorphOS user choose a 68k Amiga application over the PPC native MorphOS version if available?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 228 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 221 (samface):
>Well, everything is relative, I know. However, didn't you see that I was
>actually trying to make a point? Please read it again and atleast try to
>disregard Einsteins theory for a moment.

Okay, I read it again. Your point being that consumers must know a brand when it comes to computers, so that they can be sure of compatibility? That, of course, being a major issue for many technology vendors - sometimes justified, at other times mostly business reasons only. Brands are created so that consumers would stay loyal to them.

Technology is a bit more complex issue, for sure, but the cola analogy wasn't used in that respect. It was about the user experience and that is where it fits well. When it comes to compatibility, obviously you need to know what technology mingles with what, and what doesn't. But then, that is for the technology suppliers and software vendors to solve - on the PC there used to be long lists of compatibility requirements on the side of the box, even different DOS versions. Remember MS-DOS and PC-DOS and DR-DOS? DOS had its clones too... Platform providers can also help with compatibility lists and so on.

Technology is never as simple as a brand, even within one brand. Not all A500 software works on A1200. Things sure get more complicated when looking at issues like clone operating systems, but I don't think the nature of the beast is really all that different. Technology being technology it is not that simple and no matter of brand loaylty or recognition is going to change that - the change has to come from the technology side.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 229 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 11:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 220 (samface):
Seriously, are you suggesting that you will keep buying 68k Amiga software even if there are PPC native MorphOS alternatives?

-----
I wasn't the one who wrote it but I'll comment. I buy software to do a task for me. If the Amiga 68K software keeps up in feature/fuctionality with the MorphOS alternative then yes I'd keep using and buying the Amiga software.

Here's an example there are somethings I do that I use ImageFX, GIMP, and Photoshop. They each have different features and functionality that make them useful for what I'm doing. I wouldn't consider any a full replacement for any other one.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 230 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 222 (Janne):
What you are talking about is not something you are entitled to do unless you purchase the rights for Amiga Inc.'s IP. I'm sorry but the Amiga market is the wrong place to look if you want an open standard platform. Perhaps you would be better off with Linux?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 231 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 11:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 227 (samface):
>Again, why would any MorphOS user choose a 68k Amiga application over the PPC
>native MorphOS version if available?

First of all, there might not be an alternative. Hence a MorphOS users are a lot more potential market for Amiga developers than Windows users are.

Second, if there is an alternative, the user will still decide based on the full experience - how well does it answer his/her needs, features, usability, price, etc. A better 68k would surely be often chosen over a poorer native application.

Thirdly, the APIs are so close that the 68k developer has a real option to compete within the MorphOS market as well.

The suggestion that MorphOS users don't benefit the AmigaOS market at all is simply wrong. And you did make that suggestion earlier on. And this is only one way they can be of benefit... another one being e.g. user group activies and other such shared activities (DaveP's examples on API and PowerPC expertise) that happen outside of the technological bounds. We CAN help each other.

We should.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 232 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 11:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 227 (samface):
Again, why would any MorphOS user choose a 68k Amiga application over the PPC native MorphOS version if available?

----

Choosing MorphOS wasn't an option in the last statement. Don't know how you got there. The question was 'Do you really think Windows application developers appreciates this? ' --- If a developer makes more money then predicted off a product and doesn't have to provide support why wouldn't they appreciate it? They did their mark up and took care of expenses and sold more then predicted used less expenses and in turn can buy a bigger boat.


-----
Now to your question.
why would any MorphOS user choose a 68k Amiga application over the PPC native MorphOS version if available
The first reason I can think of is I already own the 68K Amiga Application. I own ImageFX if I can install it on MorphOS and use it then great why would I want to buy a PPC version. Sure it may be faster but it's newer and has a different set of bugs.

The second reason I can think of is differences in versions. Developers for different programs typically have to use different compilers and make different consessions depending upon the OS. If the MorphOS version breaks on X and I do X alot and the 68K Amiga version doesn't break at X then I'd buy the Amiga version and install it on MorphOS.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 233 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 11:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 224 (Janne):
Why do you guys always seem to forget that probably nothing but "simple" Aminet apps will stay with the AmigaOS3.x API? "Power" applications will require either AmigaOS4.x or MorphOS specific features and therefore NOT even be compatible at source level.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 234 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 12:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 230 (samface):
>What you are talking about is not something you are entitled to do unless you
>purchase the rights for Amiga Inc.'s IP. I'm sorry but the Amiga market is the
>wrong place to look if you want an open standard platform.

Oh, that is certainly something a business would want you to believe. Perhaps I would too if it were my business. :-)

But interoperability, even reverse engineering in some instances (within EU), is perfectly legal. Even if a standard if proprietary and closed, there is nothing stopping you from making your own standard that is open and compatible - and improving on it. Sure, there are copyrights, patents, trademarks and other business instruments and legal and moral rights in existence that must be taken into consideration, but as a general concept it is very much feasible and has been tested and tried (in court) in the past.

Examples being the PC standard, UNIX, more recently even Lindows. Although I'm not sure if even Microsoft tried to attack the Lindows technology base since they didn't have a case, I think they only went after the name and lost?

But your reverence in the face of the Amiga Inc. IP is admirable. I guess. :-)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 235 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 12:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 233 (samface):
Why do you guys always seem to forget that probably nothing but "simple" Aminet apps will stay with the AmigaOS3.x API? "Power" applications will require either AmigaOS4.x or MorphOS specific features and therefore NOT even be compatible at source level.

-----

Not all developers may want to go to AmigaOS4 or MorphOS. If a developer was to stick to AmigaOS3.x API they may lose some specific features of the new OS. However, if they did stick to AmigaOS3.x API they could sell their application to users of Classic Amiga, AmigaOne, MorphOS, UAE, Amiga Forever, and Amithlon and have a broader user base.

It appears that Amiga Inc isn't trying to change a lot on AmigaOS4 but make it PPC compatible. However, it's to have a JIT engine for AmigaOS3 applications and with the proper hooks between JIT and 4 it may be that your 3 apps have the same skins, look, and feel as 4 apps. However, they're not compiled on the 4 PPC.


I think there are plenty of "Power" applications for AmigaOS3 currently that wouldn't necessarily need to be migrated to MorphOS or AmigaOS4.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 236 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 231 (Janne):
You're grasping at straws here, I'm afraid. You're reasoning would only be true if we were talking about rather simple "Aminet Apps". Such applications are not even a consideration for joe avarage when choosing platform, you know.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 237 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 232 (Anonymous):
But then, why would keep using something old rather than buying something new support any developer?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 238 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 12:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 233 (samface):
>Why do you guys always seem to forget that probably nothing but "simple"
>Aminet apps will stay with the AmigaOS3.x API? "Power" applications will
>require either AmigaOS4.x or MorphOS specific features and therefore NOT even
>be compatible at source level.

I'm not forgetting that an all. All I'm saying is that through open standards and co-operation that might not be such an issue after all. Or it might, who knows. I never claimed to know the future. Did BSD users know about the future POSIX when they first adopted BSD? Probably not...

You seem awfully closed-minded for an alternative computer user. But then, you probably would be happy if Amiga were the monopoly Microsoft is today. :-)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 239 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 12:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 236 (samface):
You're grasping at straws here, I'm afraid. You're reasoning would only be true if we were talking about rather simple "Aminet Apps". Such applications are not even a consideration for joe avarage when choosing platform, you know.

----

I'll have to disagree with you there. I don't think he was grasping at straws.

Also, I think Joe Average Amiga User does consider things such as Aminet Apps. Have you used Aminet Apps? Calling them simple is doing a big diservice. Yes, there are some simple apps there. There are also some complex, highly functional, and full featured apps there.

I'm going to say Joe Average != Joe Average Amiga User. I think most of us Amigan's are above the typical household user. The typical household user uses M$ products and typically likes to be spoonfed more then the Amiga user. I'd characterize the lot of Amiga/MorphOS users as hobbists and/or highly techincal. To these people Aminet has value and is way more then 'simple'.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 240 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 234 (Janne):
Want me to believe? If I would have wanted an open platform, I would have gone *NIX a long time ago. I *want* a commercial OS and hardware because I *want* to pay for a quality product rather than sit around working out dependencies between applications making use of different "standards" all day long.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 241 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 235 (Anonymous):
>However, if they did stick to AmigaOS3.x API they could sell their application
>to users of Classic Amiga, AmigaOne, MorphOS, UAE, Amiga Forever, and Amithlon
>and have a broader user base.

This is an argument against using the AmigaOS3.x API's as some form of a standard, you know. I want the platform to advance rather than beeing restricted to the AmigaOS3.x API for another decade.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 242 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 12:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 237 (samface):
But then, why would keep using something old rather than buying something new support any developer?

---
If a newer development came out with a project that was better suited to my needs then an existing project or something I owned I'd change. However, if something is working to the user's liking there's no need to upgrade.

I want AmigaOS4. I prefer it over MorphOS for my reasons. I don't hate MorphOS they can exist. However, just because AmigaOS4 comes out and AmigaOS4 specific Apps doesn't mean I'm going to purchase the latest version 4 application. It needs to provide a function for me.

Example: I had Office 2K installed on 3 Windows OSes as I migrated from OS to OS. I've no need for Office XP so why buy it?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 243 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 12:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 241 (samface):
This is an argument against using the AmigaOS3.x API's as some form of a standard, you know. I want the platform to advance rather than beeing restricted to the AmigaOS3.x API for another decade.
----

I agree I want the platform to advance. However, this happens in a variety of ways. One way is developer support. If there's a few people using OS4 then a developer isn't going to make their $$ for that platform and may stop developing for it all together. Sometimes interim steps are needed such as OS3 versions for a couple more years until enough demand for OS4 comes out. When OS4 comes out there'll be what 1,000 people using it day 1? At best? Then it'll grow. At some point hopefully Amiga Inc will develop enough interest that OS4 apps are the only one's developed. However, that well may take a few years.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 244 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 12:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 240 (samface):
>I *want* a commercial OS and hardware because I *want* to pay for a quality
>product rather than sit around working out dependencies between applications
>making use of different "standards" all day long.

Me too, that's why I prefer Windows. Its good. Far better than anything "Amiga".

But guess what, that has nothing to do with open standards and possibilities they bring with themselves. Commercial does not have to equal proprietary. Open does not mean lack of quality. Java, for instance, is a very much open, very high quality commercial (but at the same time free for most users) product.

You know, whether or not AmigaOS or MorphOS or any OS, I too want the done deal, I don't want Linux. But neither am I discarding the possibilities that these open efforts (like AROS) can bring to the table for the commercial players to stabilize and integrate.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 245 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 239 (Anonymous):
Technical or not, Amiga users wants power applications and the kind I'm talking about would be found on Aminet as a demo or a preview at the most.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 246 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 242 (Anonymous):
You didn't answer my question; why would this reasoning be supporting any developer at all to begin with?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 247 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 244 (Janne):
The Amiga computer and all of the AmigaOS API's and technology is proprietary, how do you expect to "open" it?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 248 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 29-Jul-2003 12:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 198 (samface):
Ah, so the ability to run the only Amiga software currently available is not
called compatability... I got it... Samface... PLEASE STOP!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 249 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 29-Jul-2003 12:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 200 (samface):
MorphOS = Quark + A/Box + the not currently ready Q/Box.
You see, smell, use, eat, touch, urinate in the A/Box.
You FEEL the A/Box, NOT a different OS. The A/Box feels like
an AmigaOS.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 250 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 248 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
It doesn't run it natively nor does it run Amiga software that requires the original chipset. Rather flawed "compatibility" if you ask me. Is my PC an Amiga compatible computer if I have WinUAE installed on it?
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 181 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 381]
Back to Top