26-Apr-2024 14:57 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 131 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 251 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 29-Jul-2003 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 247 (samface):
Wrong Sammy, APIs can be reverse engineered entirely legally.

I come back to your point earlier about binary compatability, I don't understand the point you are making really.

Lets take a few examples:

Linux on PPC is source level compatible ( give or take ) with Linux on Intel. However binaries are different but both are variants of Linux.

AmigaOS3.1 is source level compatible with AROS and MorphOS, and even to a certain extent binary compatible.

A lot of applications that have specific requirements will not work on AmigaOS4 you know, even if they followed C= guidelines. Will DE applications work on OS4.0? I mean OS4.0 came after it right?

So choosing a brand or even a commercial OS does not guarantee binary compatibility or complete freedom of pain for the user. Nor does open source tend towards the converse. Hell, I still use the same lexx and yacc binaries from RH6.x on Mandrake 9.1. :-)

The POSIX example, you have taken way out of context - the point there was sharing of common information but that seems to be lost on you. We already have a common API.

We are talking about reasons to co-operate, you are trying to invent reasons for us to resent each other in some way or try and nail it to a "brand" discussion for some reason.

This is irrelevant to anyone else but your own personal perspective. I hope that users of AmigaOS and MorphOS alike can see from this thread sufficient common ground not to be so antagonistic towards each other in future. If you have not come out with that thought Sammy then I can do no more than pity you.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 252 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 12:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 245 (samface):
I disagree with your characterization of the Aminet.

Don't think there's much else to say. You're not going to convince me it's all a bunch of low quality programs and you won't be convinced there's some great and highly useful software there.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 253 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 249 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
LOL! Well, you don't define computers by what they "feel" like, Alkis. My PC feels like a locomotive, does that make my PC a locomotive? Surely you can come up with better arguments than that, Alkis.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 254 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 12:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 250 (samface):
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?

----
You're smoking again.
Requires the Amiga Original Chipset? I enjoy many programs that won't run on OCS. They will run on AGA and some run on ECS. Also, I enjoy programs that use Picasso96/CybergraphiX for their video output such as ImageFX can do.
I highly doubt AmigaOS4.x will run on OCS, under your logic, AmigaOS4 is not an Amiga.


-------
Is a PC an Amiga compatible computer if you have WinUAE installed on it? YES. It runs AmigaOS3.x and it runs Amiga software. So it's compatible with Amiga Applications that's what compatiblity is.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 255 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 12:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 252 (Anonymous):
I generalized Aminet for consisting of mostly small and simple applications, does that make them bad? No. I think you are overreacting on my generalization.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 256 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 13:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 251 (DaveP):
Reverse engineering will never make an API an open and unified standard for the simple reason that the reverse engineered API will always be one step behind to the original and because the API's author will always be the one in control of future enhancements. Furthermore, do you really think Genesi will keep reverse engineer future AmigaOS versions or do you think these two operating systems will be going in completely different directions and become entirely incompatible with each other? C'mon, be realistic for a moment.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 257 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 13:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 254 (Anonymous):
I would call it "virtual" compatibility at the most. The hardware of the PC is not compatible in itself so I would still not call the PC an Amiga compatible computer.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 258 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 29-Jul-2003 13:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 253 (samface):
With your logic your PC is not a PC... The IBM PC standard was never open.
IBM released some books on how to expand an IBM PC and people reverse engineered
it, to make the PCs we have now. Reverse Engineered it Samface. REVERSE ENGINEERED IT SAMFACE! Read it again.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 259 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 29-Jul-2003 13:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 256 (samface):
"Reverse engineering will never make an API an open and unified standard for the simple reason that the reverse engineered API will always be one step behind to the original and because the API's author will always be the one in control of future enhancements. "

And can you point me to where I said it did?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 260 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 13:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 257 (samface):
I would call it "virtual" compatibility at the most. The hardware of the PC is not compatible in itself so I would still not call the PC an Amiga compatible computer.

----
Thus, you'd call all emulation 'virtual' compatiblity. Fine whatever use a subtype if you need to. It's compatible you can run AmigaOS software on the PC.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 261 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 13:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 258 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
The Pegasos is not compatible with the same software as Amiga hardware, and MorphOS is not compatible with the same hardware as AmigaOS. All Genesi ever reverse engineered is the old AmigaOS3.x API, not the entire Amiga platform. In other words, the Pegasos with MorphOS is not even a proper clone, it's an entirely new platform on it's own with merely a convinient way for converting from the classic Amiga platform to theirs. IBM-PC clones is 100% compatible with each other and even run the same OS, surely even you must see the difference?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 262 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 13:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 261 (samface):
IBM-PC clones is 100% compatible with each other and even run the same OS, surely even you must see the difference?

----
IBM-PC clones are not 100% compatible with each other. I can't take my Athlon XP processor and put it in an Intel i845 motherboard. I can't take my ISA cards and run them in the PCI slots. I can't use my PCI video card in my AGP slot.

The OSes are similar but not the same. Microsoft Windows XP has optimizations on an Intel processor and optimizations for the AMD processor. These aren't the same. I can't take a harddrive running on my Nforce2 motherboard and expect it to run on the Itnel motherboard. The OS had different extensions for motherboards.

While very compatible with each other they definitely are not 100% compatible.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 263 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 13:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 260 (Anonymous):
Wrong. You are not executing the Amiga software on the PC, the emulator is executed on the PC. The instructions sent off by the Amiga binaries is not executed by the PC's processor because the emulator reads and "translates" the instructions first. Once the instructions has been "translated", they are not Amiga 68k instructions anymore. That makes the emulator an Amiga compatible, not the PC.

I agree that using the AmigaOS makes you an Amiga user regardless if it's emulated or not. However, emulation still does not make any hardware more "compatible" since the processor still has it's limitations and will not execute binaries it wasn't meant for.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 264 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 13:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 262 (Anonymous):
Nitpicker.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 265 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 29-Jul-2003 13:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 261 (samface):
"The Pegasos is not compatible with the same software as Amiga hardware, and MorphOS is not compatible with the same hardware as AmigaOS."

Strange, I could have sworn MorphOS ran on Amiga and AmigaOne...

"All Genesi ever reverse engineered is the old AmigaOS3.x API, not the entire Amiga platform. In other words, the Pegasos with MorphOS is not even a proper clone, it's an entirely new platform on it's own with merely a convinient way for converting from the classic Amiga platform to theirs."

Oh, you mean exactly like OS4 and AmigaOne? Good thing we finally got that sorted, so indeed the only thing worthy of your existance is AmigaOS 3.x on good old *real* Amigas, I get it now...


- CISC
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 266 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by hairy on 29-Jul-2003 13:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 261 (samface):
After eating some acids, spamface wrote:
> In other words, the Pegasos with MorphOS is not even a proper clone, it's an > entirely new platform on it's own with merely a convinient way for
> converting from the classic Amiga platform to theirs.

Never heard of hardware abstraction, have you?
Not to mention autoconfig/automake... bah!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 267 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 13:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 265 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
>"The Pegasos is not compatible with the same software as Amiga hardware, and
>MorphOS is not compatible with the same hardware as AmigaOS."
>
>Strange, I could have sworn MorphOS ran on Amiga and AmigaOne...

Strange, you swear upon a rumour...?

>"All Genesi ever reverse engineered is the old AmigaOS3.x API, not the entire
>Amiga platform. In other words, the Pegasos with MorphOS is not even a proper
>clone, it's an entirely new platform on it's own with merely a convinient way
>for converting from the classic Amiga platform to theirs."
>
>Oh, you mean exactly like OS4 and AmigaOne? Good thing we finally got that
>sorted, so indeed the only thing worthy of your existance is AmigaOS 3.x on
>good old *real* Amigas, I get it now...

AmigaOS4 and the AmigaOne is NOT an alternative platform to the Amiga platform, they ARE the Amiga platform. I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you...
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 268 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 14:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 266 (hairy):
Yes, I've heard about hardware abstraction, autoconfig, etc. However, I just a this tiny little concern:

Huh?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 269 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 14:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 259 (DaveP):
In the comment I replied to, you said that APIs can be reverse engineered as a reply to my question about how you expect the proprietary Amiga standards to be "opened up".
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 270 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by hairy on 29-Jul-2003 14:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 268 (samface):
> Yes, I've heard about hardware abstraction, autoconfig, etc.
> However, I just a this tiny little concern:

Then you'll know that two CHRP-derived platforms are not best described by the term "different hardware".

One hint: OpenPCI - working on Pegasos, Morphos, and classic models with PCI expansion bus.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 271 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by hairy on 29-Jul-2003 14:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 270 (hairy):
Ooops... sorry for typo, I meant "Amithlon, Pegasos, and classic amigas"
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 272 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 14:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 270 (hairy):
Now you are REALLY grasping at straws. Ditch the technicalities, MorphOS does not run on the AmigaOne and AmigaOS4 will not run on the Pegasos. This is because they don't use the same firmware and nowadays they don't even use the same chipset (no MAI without April, remember?). I have yet to see a statement from Bill Buck or any Genesi representative that they will release an AmigaOne version of MorphOS and it's not very likely that the Pegasos will ever become AmigaOne certified, you know.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 273 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 29-Jul-2003 14:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 267 (samface):
No, but I'm sure you'd be the first one to curse at fact...

MorphOS runs on Amigas, fact .. MorphOS runs on AmigaOnes (granted, OF ones), fact .. was there anything else you wanted to know?

"AmigaOS4 and the AmigaOne is NOT an alternative platform to the Amiga platform, they ARE the Amiga platform. I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you..."

Ah, so why must it have a 68k emulator, just like MorphOS, a whole new kernel, just like MorphOS, and replacement libraries/devices written from scratch, just like MorphOS .. let me give you a hint: because it's a successor .. it builds on barely nothing of the original technology (zilch hardware-wise), all that remains is the higher level bits&pieces and the core idea of it all...

..and you see, here's where the real shocker is, it's still AmigaOS! Now, if you can agree with that, why can't you agree that something that runs on all the same hardware and has all the same ideas and merits is a clone? Is it because it would pose some kind of threat to you if you admitted this was true? I can't say I can come with any other reason, care to help me out here, seeing as these kinds of things get so complicated for me?


- CISC
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 274 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 14:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 263 (samface):
Wrong. You are not executing the Amiga software on the PC, the emulator is executed on the PC. The instructions sent off by the Amiga binaries is not executed by the PC's processor because the emulator reads and "translates" the instructions first.

----
Thus, you'd call all emulation 'virtual' compatiblity. Fine whatever use a subtype if you need to. Doesn't make me wrong. 'virtual' compatiblity is a subset of the concept of compatibility. I never said the hardware was Amiga compatible, ie can be taken and used in an Amiga. But software compatibility has been achieved -- Amiga Software will run on your PC.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 275 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by hairy on 29-Jul-2003 14:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 272 (samface):
> Now you are REALLY grasping at straws. Ditch the technicalities,
> MorphOS does not run on the AmigaOne and AmigaOS4 will not run
> on the Pegasos. This is because they don't use the same firmware
> and nowadays they don't even use the same chipset (no MAI without
> April, remember?).

Quite right.
But... from a developer point of view, nothing that can't be solved with a couple of "#ifdef"s :-)

OS4 API changes? well this can be handled too...
I have to go, let's continue the verbal fight next time.

Peace yo!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 276 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 17:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 273 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
MorphOS does not run on the classic 68k Amiga computers, it requires a third party expansion that replaces the Amiga chipset and processor as the operating hardware as soon as it has booted into MorphOS. That my friend, is a fact.

And, yes einstein, AmigaOS4 is a successor. What you seem to fail to grasp is that the AmigaOS4 is a true PPC version of the real AmigaOS based on the real AmigaOS sources while MorphOS is a completely different OS on it's own. The similarities are very few, even if both makes use of emulation for backwards compatibility. The biggest difference is due to the fact that only one of them is a true successor while the other offers nothing Amiga related besides legacy compatibility for making the convertion from the classic Amiga to their new OS and hardware easier.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 277 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 18:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 274 (Anonymous):
Again, not on the PC but on the emulation layer. The difference is like eating food directly from the kitchen table and from a plate. You see, the PC in itself will never be an Amiga compatible even if it has an emulator installed since it would be like saying that I would know french because my friend can translate it for me.

I'm sorry if my metaphors are confusing you, but I simply cannot figure out an easier way to say this.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 278 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 18:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 275 (hairy):
Now you're speculating, let's stick to our current situation and the facts rather than some hypothetical future events, ok?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 279 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 29-Jul-2003 18:24 GMT
The current fact is, that you will spend all harddrive space on ann.lu server if you keep going like this.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 280 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Sallin on 29-Jul-2003 18:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 276 (samface):
You just indirectly admited MorphOS was not based on AmigaOS source
code. You finally stoped your lie. Thank you.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 281 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 29-Jul-2003 18:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 276 (samface):
" MorphOS does not run on the classic 68k Amiga computers, it requires a third party expansion that replaces the Amiga chipset and processor as the operating hardware as soon as it has booted into MorphOS. That my friend, is a fact. "

Well, about as much true as certain companies sales speeches (= about nothing)... But for your credibility (what's left of it), please check your 'facts' before posting them to public forum.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 282 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Turrican on 29-Jul-2003 18:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 276 (samface):
Sameface wrote:
---------------
And, yes einstein, AmigaOS4 is a successor. What you seem to fail to grasp is that the AmigaOS4 is a true PPC version of the real AmigaOS based on the real AmigaOS sources while MorphOS is a completely different OS on it's own. The similarities are very few, even if both makes use of emulation for backwards compatibility. The biggest difference is due to the fact that only one of them is a true successor while the other offers nothing Amiga related besides legacy compatibility for making the convertion from the classic Amiga to their new OS and hardware easier.
---------------

Samface, I understand that your worst fear (nightmare?) is that thingie called QBOX. And this is so, because the official AmigaOS 4 will never be combatible with that QBOX thingie right?

So what?

QBOX is not the OS, it is just a bunch of APIs that applications can use to talk to the actual OS core (Quark that is as I understand). Guess from where those APIs are gonna derive from. Congratulations, you gussed right, ABOX! See, QBOX is not gonna be an "alien" thing from planet March but an improoved ABOX.

And IF it would be 100% different than the ABOX, still that would make no difference to you as it would still be just a way to communicate with the OS core (wich will remain the same, Quark).

Your Amiga experience / feel will be the same with either an app that uses the ABOX or the QBOX (ofcource this is pure speculation) but you really don't care for that don't you?

You only care about the "Amiga" name no matter if the "Amiga" product is like Amiga or not. I bet that if Amiga Inc. was still under G2k, you would be hapier with the MCC Amiga OE (Linux core) than with MorphOS, just because that would be the official thing.

Whatever it is your problem...
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 283 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 29-Jul-2003 18:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 276 (samface):
And the exact same goes for OS4 (except the "Amiga chipset" drivel which is pure nonsense). That your friendship, is a fact.

Ofcourse MorphOS is not the successor, since it's not based on AmigaOS sources and does not have the Amiga name, I thought we already established that, what are you on about? However, what MorphOS does is provide a backward binary compatible API (just like OS4), with extensions (just like OS4) and improvements (just like OS4), which effectively makes it a clone (with more bells and whistles). Would you consider OS4 a successor if this was missing?

Anyway, you completely failed to answer the question I'm obviously too dim to know the answer to...


- CISC
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 284 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 18:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 280 (Nicolas Sallin):
*I* never claimed that it would be based on actual Amiga source code and neither did I say anything that would deny or confirm anything. I don't know what you're on about but you're obviously way off track.

Since Genesi officially denies any rumour saying that MorphOS is not based on sources from the real AmigaOS, I assume that their claim is true for the sake of not starting yet another flame war about it (please note: I'm making a positive assumption about MorphOS). Please, leave that issue out of this issue, this thread has gone far enough from the topic already, don't you think?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 285 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 19:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 282 (Turrican):
I promise you that I would NOT buy MorphOS nor a Pegasos, even if these products had the official label on them. The difference between you and me is that I would not be refering to myself as an Amiga user anymore if I decided to go for an alternative platform.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 286 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Turrican on 29-Jul-2003 19:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 276 (samface):
I would like to add to my last message that you fear QBOX not because a QBOX app will look any different than a usual Amiga app BUT

*because QBOX will be defined from Genesi and not you master Amiga Inc.*

am I right?

Again so what?

If MorphOS is more succesiful than AmigaOS 4, QBOX will became the future standard and if Hyperion, Amiga Inc., or whoever, makes AmigaOS 5, they can always do what Genesi did in the first place. Reverce enginer QBOX!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 287 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 19:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 277 (samface):
We're arguing the same thing here.

Software compatibility (or 'virtual' compatibility as you call it) is a subset of the concept of compatibility.

I know what an emulation layer is and it's the 'virtual' compatibility agent as you call it. I simply take a broader view and call it compatibility and don't need to subset it exactly.

And to think you called me a nitpicker because I pointed out that PC's aren't 100% compatible with each other because of hardware differences and Windows provides the optimization and layering to handle the needs of the AMD vs Intel processor or Nvidia vs VIA motherboard. This is just as nit picky.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 288 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 19:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 285 (samface):
Fine don't call yourself an Amiga user.
However don't pull your definitions onto others. If MorphOS wants to be called an Amiga User fine by me. They use Amiga software and if I have an ImageFX question the MorphOS user will be able to help me as much as the AmigaOS user. Not everyone defines Amiga by the trademarked and pushed Amiga products any more because the world has brought alternatives such as UAE, Amithlon and now MorphOS.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 289 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Turrican on 29-Jul-2003 19:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 285 (samface):
>I promise you that I would NOT buy MorphOS nor a Pegasos, even if these products had the official label on them.

Ok I respect your opinions. I didn't mean to try make you buy a Pegasos or anything, anyway. And I really have not a problem with you or what you believe, plus I actually like very much the Genesi - Amiga Inc. competition!

But I am gonna buy a Pegasos eventually and I want to be free to think my self as a part of the Amiga community either I use official products or not. That is all.

As I said in my first message here, we are all happy Amiga ppl! We should try to have fun with it, not fight civil wars! :)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 290 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 19:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 283 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
Are you saying that MorphOS has the same chipset dependencies as the classic AmigaOS?

MorphOS extensions and improvements are NOT the same as the ones of AmigaOS4 nor are they compatible. That makes the backwards compatibility the only common denominator for these two operating systems.

Besides, what you said would be like claiming that WindowsXP is an Amiga clone since it has extensions and improvements from previous versions and supports Amiga applications through WinUAE. I'm sorry, but a clone must be compatible with the original in more ways than just the ability to run legacy applications through emulation in order to be refered to as a clone. I mean, an IBM-PC clone is compatible with the original to the point where it can run the same OS as well as applications, this is simply not true about the Pegasos compatibility with the AmigaOne nor the classic Amiga hardware.

The Pegasos with MorphOS is a platform on it's own, you know. The fact that MorphOS has the ability to run classic Amiga applications does not make it a clone nor an Amiga compatible computer. Draco is the only true Amiga clone that I know of.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 291 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 19:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 287 (Anonymous):
I agree with all you say, just not the thing about a PC beeing an Amiga compatible because it has the ability to emulate an Amiga. You may think of it as nitpicking, I'd say it makes a rather crucial difference to the issue at hand.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 292 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 19:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 288 (Anonymous):
I see even you have started to seperate MorphOS users from AmigaOS users rather than refering to us all as Amiga users. Changed your mind while typing, did you? :-P
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 293 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbjørn Skjæret on 29-Jul-2003 19:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 290 (samface):
Yes, MorphOS for CS/BPPC cards has the same chipset dependencies as the classic AmigaOS, does that surprise you? How else would you be able to use your keyboard, the floppydrive, the zorro slots, etc?

Now you're just rambling aimlessly again, WinXP does not offer any backwards compatability or extensions of AmigaOS .. to run AmigaOS programs on WinXP you need UAE plus kickstart roms and a complete AmigaOS installation, this has nada to do with WinXP itself...

MorphOS is not a computer, it's an OS, and yes, it is AmigaOS compatible. If you meant to say Pegasos however, no, it's not an Amiga compatible computer, but neither is the AmigaOne.

..and you're still dodging my question...


- CISC
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 294 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 19:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 289 (Turrican):
Personally, I think the Amiga Inc. vs Genesi competition is like a cock fight for no more than a few bread crumbs. Things would have probably turned out so much better if they would have decided to cooperate and start building up a market *before* competing with each other. The current anti-competitive strategies from both sides is not very stimulating for the Amiga market and might even become the fall of either one or maybe even both sides. I mean, legal action, threats of legal action, public mudslinging, parasitic marketing and even personal insults are just a few examples of the measures used (this is not in any way directed at only one company but all companies involved).
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 295 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 20:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 291 (samface):
I agree with all you say, just not the thing about a PC beeing an Amiga compatible because it has the ability to emulate an Amiga. You may think of it as nitpicking, I'd say it makes a rather crucial difference to the issue at hand.

----
PC doesn't always mean hardware alone. PC has become a general use word. When I say my PC is Amiga compatible it means I can run Amiga software on it. I can! You seem to desire to say I run ImageFX on AmigaOS3.x on Amiga Forever on WinXP on PC hardware. Who cares the end user gets the point, being I buy Amiga Software and run it at home with an Amiga compatible computer.

I think most people out there would say Amiga Forever gives your PC the ability to be Amiga compatible as it allows the PC to run Amiga Software. If you need to be more specific then so be it.

There's no need of crucial it's compatibility. Which yes you say no because you don't like general use term. Whatever didn't you quite a while ago say how sick you were of all this?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 296 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 20:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 292 (samface):
I see even you have started to seperate MorphOS users from AmigaOS users rather than refering to us all as Amiga users.

---
AmigaOS user is seperate from MorphOS user. Just as an Amiga user is seperate from a Mac user or Windows user or Linux user.

However, MorphOS users and AmigaOS users can fit into the same Amiga user camp as they both use applications developed for the Amiga. You'd be more specific and call them Amiga Application Users.. Then fine.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 297 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 20:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 293 (Sigbjørn Skjæret):
>Yes, MorphOS for CS/BPPC cards has the same chipset dependencies as the
>classic AmigaOS, does that surprise you? How else would you be able to use
>your keyboard, the floppydrive, the zorro slots, etc?

That's not the chipset dependencies that I was refering to. I was of course refering to the chipset dependencies that Hyperion has been working on to remove from the AmigaOS which AFAIK still runs with the classic Amiga hardware in combination with a CSPPC expansion board just like MorphOS does.

>Now you're just rambling aimlessly again, WinXP does not offer any backwards
>compatability or extensions of AmigaOS .. to run AmigaOS programs on WinXP you
>need UAE plus kickstart roms and a complete AmigaOS installation, this has
>nada to do with WinXP itself...

The fact that MorphOS has an integrated 68k emulator changes nothing. Furthermore, neither MorphOS offer extensions for AmigaOS nor Amiga applications. For that, you would have to make a specific MorphOS compilation that utilizes the MorphOS extensions. So, my simile that MorphOS is like WinXP with WinUAE stands.

>MorphOS is not a computer, it's an OS, and yes, it is AmigaOS compatible. If
>you meant to say Pegasos however, no, it's not an Amiga compatible computer,
>but neither is the AmigaOne.

The A/Box has the ability to launch Amiga applications through emulation and reverse engineered AmigaOS3.x APIs, that does not make MorphOS compatible with AmigaOS. MorphOS is not compatible with AmigaOS for several reasons, such as:

1. It's not compatible with the same hardware as the AmigaOS is compatible with. I can't run MorphOS on an Amiga1000 nor an AmigaOne. The only way of running MorphOS on any Amiga hardware at all is if I purchase a certain third party product that replaces the original processor as well as certain chipset functionalities.

2. It won't run any Amiga applications natively, only through emulation and only if there are no other hardware requirements besides a 68k processor. A true clone should be able to run everything that the original can just like a true IBM-PC clone can run everything a real IBM-PC can. The argument that AmigaOS4 has the same restrictions to it's backwards compatibility is irrelevant, AmigaOS4 is not what MorphOS claims compatibility with and neither is the AmigaOS4 a clone. AmigaOS4 doesn't even have to be compatible with anything to begin with since it is the original and a true successor. The level of compatibility with previous versions doesn't change this.

>..and you're still dodging my question...

Which one? That I would fear the QBox? No, I don't fear it, I'm merely concluding that it has nothing to do with the Amiga computer platform.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 298 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 20:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 290 (samface):
I mean, an IBM-PC clone is compatible with the original to the point where it can run the same OS as well as applications, this is simply not true about the Pegasos compatibility with the AmigaOne nor the classic Amiga hardware.

***
I'm confused I've been trying to install Windows 3.0 on my Amd Athlon 2100+ system and install keeps failing. Here, I'll try those Dos 4.0 disks. Damn I after install the system won't work.

Ah, I have a 286 over here in the corner I'll just put WinXP on it instead. Dammit it won't install at all.

Where's the clone? Seems OS and Application's don't install so these 2 computers can't be clones.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 299 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 20:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 295 (Anonymous):
I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was refering to the PC as a piece of hardware when I talked about the way an emulator translates the Amiga 68k code for the x86 processor. Anyway, atleast that should be rather clear now.

Am I detecting defience as an attempt of ridiculing me or is it just plain ignorance? In any way, let's give this a rest, shall we?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 300 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 20:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 298 (Anonymous):
That's a matter of different hardware requirements on the behalf of Windows rather than incompatibilities between the different IBM-PC clone generations.
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 131 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 381]
Back to Top