27-Apr-2024 02:09 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 44 items in your selection
[Forum] KMOS owns AmigaInc?ANN.lu
Posted on 17-Aug-2004 21:06 GMT by Anon44 comments
View flat
View list
So I wisit website www.amiga.com and I see nothing of KMOS ownership AmigaInc? Why this be?
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 1 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by HD on 17-Aug-2004 19:10 GMT
Because they haven't updated the website? No conspiracy here. Even KMOS's website isn't up.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 2 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Darth_X on 17-Aug-2004 19:26 GMT
@anon

I think the best thing to do with KMOS and AmigaInc is to "give up", it is better not to wait for them to do something they have no interest in doing. Though if they bring back AmigaDE and push it on some cellphone there might be some $$$ money in that. If you can develop some kind of "pay per use service". I just got an idea! With the parent company KMOS saying "no" to hardware that means that 3rd party efforts like the A1 will never be sucessful, unless you think selling under 2000 A1's is sucess! ;)
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 3 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Darth_X on 17-Aug-2004 19:29 GMT
note: I wouldn't consider the Pegasos, at around 2000 units sold, a sucess yet either. But at least there are more things going on there than there are elsewhere.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 4 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Darth_X on 17-Aug-2004 19:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Darth_X):
@Darth_X


Troll!!!!


There! I just saved some anonymous a post. ;)
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 5 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Lando on 17-Aug-2004 19:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Darth_X):
Darth, where did you get the 2000 figure from?
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 6 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by anonymous on 17-Aug-2004 20:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Darth_X):
Ignorant, moreso than I troll. IMHO.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 7 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 17-Aug-2004 20:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Lando):
IMHO exact number is not important.. What's important is that whatever the number is at them moment, it's *way* too small to support any commercial OS and application development.

Let's face it. Even E-mac is better than A-one on comparable prices. It has (allmost) ready OS, a lot of up to date applications. And according rumours nice G5 based I-macs to be released within couple weeks.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 8 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 17-Aug-2004 23:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (HD):
I'm not sure why KMOS's purchase of the Amiga IP or of Amiga, Inc. itself was ever seen as a good thing, particularly, by AmigaOS fans. Garry Hare revealed early on that he was fairly clueless about what AmigaOS was. Have his more recent responses really been all that reassuring for Amiga desktop users?

I think Darth is on the right track: don't expect much from KMOS, and you won't be disappointed. On the other hand you might get a nice surprise if they do actually do something. On the positive side, Hyperion is beavering away on the AOS release, so hopefully many of the pre-release problems reported at the Amiga forums will be squashed.

So I don't look too biased, I'll say that things are kind of quiet on the Pegasos side, too, in this market. But at least Genesi is producing boards, is selling to actual corporate customers, and has boards available for individuals. From what I read, there are no AmigaOne boards available, maybe not until October. And Genesi is continuously working in other markets, as with the Avalanche Technology Cooperative. This is more long-term, but may be a good foundation for industry recognition and future sales. Like Joanna said, Pegasos sales aren't sufficient to support OS development, in the normal world. But at least Pegasos boards and systems are moving and it seems MOS is still progressing, probably to some extent as a labor of love; rumor is that v1.5 will be a significant advance.

In all sides, I'd say judge by results, not by announcements. This has been a hard lesson for both sides to learn, but a good one for all of us. Maybe to its credit KMOS is living by this principle but, on the other hand, after 16 months of almost complete silence you get the feeling there may be other reasons they have nothing to show. Just my opinion.

-- gary_c
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 9 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 18-Aug-2004 00:00 GMT
Does anyone know if those owed money by AInc have had any success to
collect from KMOS? Like Bolton Peck, the landlord, etc?

I think there are two scenarios:
a) KMOS are serious. Then they must have some money. Then it's a good
time to collect ASAP.

b) KMOS are *not* serious. Then, if they have any money, it seems like
a good idea to collect it before it's gone. After all, it seems quite
stupid to do such a move if they don't even have *some* money.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 10 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Aug-2004 05:08 GMT
And where are them bloody t-shirts? :D
I'll see it when it happens, untill then Ainc is a non entity for me
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 11 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Darth_X on 18-Aug-2004 05:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Amon_Re):
I'm certain that people are more likely to get t-shirts than anything else from KMOS.

Despite the trolling, wouldn't it be good to see KMOS and Mai supporting their own A1 platform?
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 12 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Aug-2004 06:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Darth_X):
I agree with you, but untill it happens i don't even consider Ainc to exist anymore
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 13 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 18-Aug-2004 07:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (gary_c):
Gary_C: So true...

I didn't want to mention Pegasos/Mos on this thread (usually ends in flames) but to be as unbiased as possible it is fair to extend my previous statement for those systems too. So what i said about sales and userbase also hold true for Pegasos+Mosphos, it is currently too small for Commercial development. And yes, it's userbase has not expanded on rate I was expecting.

IMHO you are also right on pointing the different future prospects of Aone and Pegasos. And my comment about E-mac attractivity ain't as valid when compared to Pegasos, since one can make decent Pegasos+Mos system with price and performance similar on those macs.

Amon_re: Agree.. What can I say.

Darth_X: I think we can't expect KMOS to spend money they don't have to Aone support. Nor have I seen any indication about them being willing to do so even if they had the money.

And for a Mai. I tend to belive Mai has their hads full with all those chips they have not been able to make yet. (and I don't want to start yet another discussion about existing Articia-S revision) Their newer Articia models (Sa and P) are over 2 years behind the original announced schedule, and they don't even have engineering samples ready.

My best bet is that Mai has decided to put all their eggs on one basket and are trying to build (G5) IBM 970 compatible chip at the moment and hoping to reach first market with product they can sell. Their earlier releases have become obsolete and they are way behind on this big technology hurdles. So, for their future, a lot depends on what they are able to release RSN.

As a wild speculation. Would be neat surprice *IF* Mai got their G5 bridge on production sometime soon and the next get Aone had that one.. With Double bank DDR rams and other usefull items. With decent performance and a price bellow Macs.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 14 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 18-Aug-2004 07:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Darth_X):
Mai supporting their own A1 platform

Just look at the linux kernel MAI releases. Oh god, no rdb support, A1 is not Amiga ;-)
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 15 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 18-Aug-2004 08:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Johan Rönnblom):
"Does anyone know if those owed money by AInc have had any success to
collect from KMOS? Like Bolton Peck, the landlord, etc?"

I thought the landlord took the contents of the office in lieu of rent.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 16 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 18-Aug-2004 08:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Darth_X):
"Despite the trolling, wouldn't it be good to see KMOS and Mai supporting their own A1 platform?"

MAI are fabless chip designers. They would rather other people made boards and bought their chips. I don't see any sign that they plan to become motherboard manufacturers, except for development boards. They want to sell IP, not hardware.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 17 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 18-Aug-2004 08:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (brotheris):
"Just look at the linux kernel MAI releases. Oh god, no rdb support, A1 is not Amiga ;-)"

Is there such a thing as a Linux kernel developer who knows what an Amiga is?
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 18 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Jupp3 on 18-Aug-2004 08:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Don Cox):
>Is there such a thing as a Linux kernel developer who knows what an Amiga is?

Perhaps Linus Torvalds himself? :-)

1996/10/17 he wrote, that (translated from Finnish to English):
Amiga has "pseudo-pre-emptitive" multitasking, that Amiga-people call pre-emptitive, but it certainly is not. In this sense WinNT is lightyears ahead.

REAL pre-emptitive multitasking means, that the operating system can stop any task from using the CPU and give it to some other task. Amiga doesn't have such multitasking, partly due to lack of memory protection. Any program can take over the computer fully, and thus prevent multitasking.

Therefore Amigas multitasking is co-operative becouse it requires that running programs accept multitasking and help it (That's what "co-operative" means)

It must be said that creating such a program on amiga requires some skills (not much though) or a bit of misfortune (Again, not much) but to create such a program on Windows 3.1 is even easier.

But on _real_ operating systems (which include WinNT, I guess) that can't be done without "operator permission" or something like that.

Linus

Link to the original Finnish posting: http://www.google.fi/groups?q=amiga%2Bauthor:linus%2Btorvalds&start=10&hl=fi&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=545idd%243fj%40linux.cs.Helsinki.FI&rnum=16
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 19 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 18-Aug-2004 08:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Don Cox):
IIRC Amigainc's equipment sold at auction was not enough to cover the money Ainc owned to Landlord.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 20 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 18-Aug-2004 08:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Don Cox):
Sure there is! :-)
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 21 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 18-Aug-2004 08:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Don Cox):
Is there such a thing as a Linux kernel developer who knows what an Amiga is?

Sure.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 22 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 18-Aug-2004 10:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Jupp3):
I would say in Linus regard, that if smells like a duck and behaves like a duck... I don't find AmigaOS close to Win3.1 as being cooperative, and neither to WinNT as being pre-emptitive..

If these are the OSes which defines this gadgets names, well AmigaOS belongs to none, now I'm in doubt of actually AmigaOS could be named... Master Piece!? ;)
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 23 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous Red Troll on 18-Aug-2004 11:16 GMT
KMOS does NOT own Amiga Inc.! Ask the KMOS lawyers, they didn't have a clue that Garry Hare said so at AmiWest.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 24 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 18-Aug-2004 11:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (JoannaK):
My understanding is that the landlord accepted that was all he would get.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 25 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by SLayeRDK on 18-Aug-2004 12:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Anonymous Red Troll):
What lawyers ?
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 26 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 18-Aug-2004 13:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Don Cox):
I can't believe the landlord would have been that idiot. He took what was available, as a pre-payment. I'm sure he wouldn't mind getting paid what is owed to him.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 27 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 18-Aug-2004 14:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Don Cox):
MAI are fabless chip designers. They would rather other people made boards and bought their chips. I don't see any sign that they plan to become motherboard manufacturers, except for development boards. They want to sell IP, not hardware.

Hmm, while it's obvious Mai would probably love the most money for the 'least' work (which you can get away with in system chipsets, because there are usually a number of other people around skilled and interested enough to fabricate boards), does one necessarily lead to the other? I seem to recall fabless graphics vendors 'giving up' and telling people to use certified reference layouts, and if Mai could actually turn a profit on 'implementation support,' they probably wouldn't mind being in that business, either.

The current mess certainly gave them an excuse to have been laying low, of course, and one rather doubts if A1s are paying their bills... but here's hoping they come out of hibernation with a nice patchset for 2.6.

...

As to this thread-widening Linus post, it seems he was trying to justify a 'modern' protected design more than anything else. As we've since seen, it's easy enough to stop multitasking on NT-derived kernels (just make them bluescreen ;)), but he had a point -- for a *UNIX-alike,* which was 'doomed' to spend the next few years running text consoles or vaguely-accellerated XFree86 anyway, the hack value of a 'fast' design with no seatbelts wouldn't have been a good tradeoff for keeping it a 'toy' and out of the datacenter.

As far as the success of his project is concerned, he seems to have made the right call... while as to his opinion of the Amiga, he seems to have tried to give it *some* credit (for using the 'preemptive' word at all), while straining to express his concerns from the *security* perspective, something all of us not running AROS seem to care about now. ;)
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 28 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 18-Aug-2004 17:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Joe "Floid" Kanowitz):
"The current mess certainly gave them an excuse to have been laying low, of course, and one rather doubts if A1s are paying their bills... "

Aren't MAI a subsidiary of a large Taiwan company?
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 29 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Megol on 18-Aug-2004 17:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Jupp3):
And some people still look upon Mr. Torvalds as some kind of computer guru... ;)
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 30 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2004 17:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Don Cox):
Yes they are. MAI is a very small company that is backed by a very large one and they are in a position where their existence does not rely on sales. If they did, they would have gone bankrupt years ago since they haven't had a single sellable product, ever.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 31 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 18-Aug-2004 17:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (hooligan/dcs):
"I can't believe the landlord would have been that idiot. He took what was available, as a pre-payment. I'm sure he wouldn't mind getting paid what is owed to him."

I think he is a realist. It must be obvious that there is no chance of getting that rent out of Amiga Inc. It would be different if they had moved to other offices, but when a company reduces to a handful of guys working from home, the sensible person cuts his losses.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 32 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 18-Aug-2004 19:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (pixie):
Well, he did have a point. It is pre-emptive multitasking, but an application can easily turn it into cooperative (but if you wanted it to be pre-emptive you wouldn't run such an application, because those are in 100% of the cases games or demos, nothing else would do that).

It makes it easy to both write applications for real time control AND fucking up real time control totally. At the same time :-P
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 33 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Aug-2004 19:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Amon_Re):
The speech saying the t shirts were going to the printer was made on july 24.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 34 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 18-Aug-2004 21:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Don Cox):
"The current mess certainly gave them an excuse to have been laying low, of course, and one rather doubts if A1s are paying their bills... "

Aren't MAI a subsidiary of a large Taiwan company?

Hmm, does anyone know for sure? I've lost track, but the most I remember is that at one point they were supposed to have a *manufacturing* deal with FIC (along with at least one other less-known name, that being whoever 'leaked' the Micro-A1 design)... Of course, you'd figure they must have investors like anyone else, but A doesn't lead to B any more than Microsoft owns "Amiga Inc." [PocketPC joke, and a lame one at that.]
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 35 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 18-Aug-2004 23:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Olegil):
We all now how Workbench hangs when copying files and such, but we all know that it can be done right, you have SCALOS, Directory Opus showing us it's not EXEC fault... There were always programs who blocked Multitasking (altough as I remember, I was able to switch to WB trough Amiga - A combination), but as you well said, 'in 100% of the cases games or demos' which have a diferent porpose, besides having the explicit need of exploiting the resources of the machinr to it's fullness.

Having a system who can do either Cooperative and Pre Emptive Multitasking as AmigaOS reveals a clever solution for the needs of the time, but at the same time it showed that through the same 'formula' you could have both 'theories' in unity, like physicians try to atain trough the unifying theory. For me it's beauty trough simplicity...
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 36 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 19-Aug-2004 05:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Anonymous):
Ah, the T-shirts went gold a month ago, that means it will take some additional 1-3 months for users to have them, depending where they live!
:-P
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 37 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 19-Aug-2004 05:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (pixie):
The problem is that if you make one application that relies on pre-emptiveness and one that will take over the system both will not be happy applications ;-)

So a way to disable the cooperativeness and enforce pre-emptiveness would be good.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 38 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 19-Aug-2004 12:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Olegil):
"It is pre-emptive multitasking, but an application can easily turn it into cooperative (but if you wanted it to be pre-emptive you wouldn't run such an application, because those are in 100% of the cases games or demos, nothing else would do that)."

Yeah. AmigaOS is (was) still better than many other "multitasking" systems. Using classic Mac (<= 9.x) is horror...
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 39 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Tigger on 19-Aug-2004 20:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Don Cox):
Don,

Your understanding is wrong, there is a judgement against them, post sale to include the additional funds owed to the landlord.
-Tig
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 40 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 19-Aug-2004 22:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Olegil):
The problem is that if you make one application that relies on pre-emptiveness and one that will take over the system both will not be happy applications ;-)

So a way to disable the cooperativeness and enforce pre-emptiveness would be good.

Well, doesn't "disabling preemptiveness," in Amiga terms, come down to a combination of 'security' hacks (killing/replacing exec, nontrivial but 'allowed' by the permissively unprotected system) and features that weren't implemented 'properly?' (Hmm, this is where I wish I had a system around... I can't remember exactly how 'synchronous' plain Workbench is in practice, let alone the history/rationale around that.)

Full protection and entirely full preemption would've been a bit 'expensive' in the Amiga heydey. The former is still 'expensive' today, when you consider the problem of legacy software... and the latter also, when taken to extremes. (Note DragonFly vs. FreeBSD when it comes to exactly how fine-grained kernel... uh, atomicity?... should be.*)

Meanwhile, @Itix:
Yeah. AmigaOS is (was) still better than many other "multitasking" systems. Using classic Mac (<= 9.x) is horror...

...Well, there's a reason you'll rarely see MacOS or TOS or any of that ever come up on the LKML. ;) It's a 'tribute' that Amiga was good enough to be compared/contrasted to at all!

---

*Um, if that sentence makes sense. I'm talking about the difference in approach to kernel threading, where FBSD tends to want things 'cleaned' to the point of preempting across CPUs -- bit of a mess for things like device drivers, as far as I can gather -- and the DragonFly camp seem to have counted cycles and decided it's a better idea to keep a bit more locality for sanity's sake, while pushing as much computational intensity as possible out to asynchronous.. uh, logic?.. at what might be theoretically higher but still quite reasonable granularity. How all this applies back to Amiga... whew, heck if I know, but as far as I can tell, it's the same old macro/micro/exokernel question of 'exactly how much of the system should be allowed to effect scheduling policy?'
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 41 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 23-Aug-2004 02:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Joe "Floid" Kanowitz):
>As to this thread-widening Linus post, it seems he was trying to justify >a 'modern' protected design more than anything else. As we've since seen, >it's easy enough to stop multitasking on NT-derived kernels (just make them >bluescreen ;)),
Linus was referring to user applications not driver level code. Note that Windows NT/2K/XP drivers are not memory protected.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 42 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 23-Aug-2004 02:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Joe "Floid" Kanowitz):
>As to this thread-widening Linus post, it seems he was trying to justify
>a 'modern' protected design more than anything else. As we've since seen, >it's easy enough to stop multitasking on NT-derived kernels (just make them >bluescreen
With Ring 3 level applications, BSOD wouldn’t be possible. NT drivers usually operates in Ring 1 or 2 level, while NT kernel operates in Ring 0 level.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 43 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 23-Aug-2004 02:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (hammer):
Addendum
HW faults aside e.g. faulty ram modules.
KMOS owns AmigaInc? : Comment 44 of 44ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 25-Aug-2004 07:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (takemehomegrandma):
We are all toddlers at heart.

T shirt finally arrives to a chorus of "don`t want it now"

:)
Anonymous, there are 44 items in your selection
Back to Top