Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: amigadave on April 07, 2006, 06:44:33 AM
-
It's official, Boot Camp from Apple allows XP on Mac computers with Intel inside. I'm going to buy a new MacBook as soon as the new Leopard OS10.5 is available with Boot Camp included.
I love my Amigas, but nothing can beat a Mac laptop for Internet browsing and Email safely, wirelessly, or otherwise.
I also need CAD and my program of choice (not AutoCAD, too much $$$) only runs on Windows. Also, my AmigaForever 2005 runs faster and easier on Windows than it ever will on top of Mac OSX.
So, this is great news for me. All operating systems on one machine with good, or maybe great design and performance. Makes me think of the old days running my Amiga with a bridgeboard 486sx and Shapeshifter, having all three OSes on one machine, but this is the latest, greatest versions of each (until Vista comes out and won't run on the Mac).
Mac OS 10.5 for all my Internet and Email needs safely.
Windows for a few programs that are not available on OS10.5.
Windows for AmigaForever and WinUAE/Amikit.
Linux on Intel just because I can.
Finish Leopard (10.5) and tell me how much for that MacBook in the window (pun intended).
-
HEATHEN!
Just kidding ;-)
Use what you need. Although it looks like you might not need it by the time Leopard hits, there are various efforts to bring Windows emulation to OSX, including an Intel version of Microsoft's own VirtualPC rumoured to be in the works.
-
Check this out...
"This report claims that around the time of OS X 10.5 Leopard's release, Apple will also make available a set of APIs to allow Windows to run Mac Universal Binary applications. This rumor was mentioned elsewhere several months ago, but wasn't linked so directly with the next version of OS X."
http://www.macosrumors.com/20060402A.php
-
MacOSRumours is well known for being, well, made up crap.
-
uncharted wrote:
HEATHEN!
Just kidding ;-)
Use what you need. Although it looks like you might not need it by the time Leopard hits, there are various efforts to bring Windows emulation to OSX, including an Intel version of Microsoft's own VirtualPC rumoured to be in the works.
Running Virtual PC (which I have on my G4 PowerBook) instead of natively running Windows would not make sense. The only advantage would be that you don't have to reboot, but I think the performance hit of running Virtual PC and the extra cost of buying both it and the Windows OS doesn't make sense to me.
Since I would be using the MacOS most of the time and only booting into Windows when I wanted to emulate the Amiga or do my drafting, the dual boot is not a problem for me.
-
Everyone should know it by now, that a company named Parallels has released a beta of a $49 program that does just that, using Intel's virtualization techniques built into the new Core chips.
The beta is free. Here:
http://www.parallels.com/
Here's a video that someone made using it.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9170/
uncharted wrote:
HEATHEN!
Just kidding ;-)
Use what you need. Although it looks like you might not need it by the time Leopard hits, there are various efforts to bring Windows emulation to OSX, including an Intel version of Microsoft's own VirtualPC rumoured to be in the works.[/quote]
-
I think a good WINE implementation would be much better. Rebooting into a second OS is always a pain (less so with a VMM though).
-
T_Bone wrote:
Check this out...
"This report claims that around the time of OS X 10.5 Leopard's release, Apple will also make available a set of APIs to allow Windows to run Mac Universal Binary applications. This rumor was mentioned elsewhere several months ago, but wasn't linked so directly with the next version of OS X."
http://www.macosrumors.com/20060402A.php
uncharted:
MacOSRumours is well known for being, well, made up crap.
Perhaps it´s not true but it´s only a matter of time that something like this appear.
I thinked and continues thinking that the apple switch to intel is a dead end.Yes maybe initially their sales will increase (it´s the the improvement of the death) but after this initial boosts it will be sunk
-
That's not even in the slightest bit right. I'm getting a lot of interest from people who have been interested in switching, over the years, who are ready to take the plunge.
These will be the only machines able to run all operating systems at full, or near to full, speed.
Now, if the moron's who are crapping their way through finishing some form, any form, of Amiga OS, would get off the pot, and move it to x86, it would run there, on the Mac, far better than on any piece of junk that MIGHT ever see the light of day as Amiga native hardware.
-
i have quite a few posts were i just say
[color=ff0000]AROS[/color][/b][/i]
there i did again
aros is a platform independamt rewrite of amiga os3.1 which currently has a port to native x86 and hosted port on linux
-
melgross wrote:
That's not even in the slightest bit right. I'm getting a lot of interest from people who have been interested in switching, over the years, who are ready to take the plunge.
These will be the only machines able to run all operating systems at full, or near to full, speed.
Now, if the moron's who are crapping their way through finishing some form, any form, of Amiga OS, would get off the pot, and move it to x86, it would run there, on the Mac, far better than on any piece of junk that MIGHT ever see the light of day as Amiga native hardware.
Apple a more big an active company has taken year of development of their OS for x86 in the background (or do you think that apple magically decided the stwitch an in a night made the port?) And even more OSX is based on BSD kernel that has an X86 port for much more years.An in these years a lot of apllications has been made for osx.
And do you want that amigaos will be ported to x86 in a night day from a small company with a small userbase and a small software library??? you are a crazy man, baby
-
KThunder wrote:
i have quite a few posts were i just say
[color=ff0000]AROS[/color][/b][/i]
there i did again
aros is a platform independamt rewrite of amiga os3.1 which currently has a port to native x86 and hosted port on linux
But what software runs on AROS? Is there a list somewhere that will show me what works and what does not? I always hear about which new programs are now available for MorphOS and AOS4.0, but never AROS.
Educate me please.
-
I have found, as of late, that I have had a need for a laptop on at least three seperate occassions. While it'd probably be much cheaper to simply purchase a PC laptop, I believe I'd rather buy a duo core mac laptop.
Why? Because I've "been there, done that to death" with Windows and while I'm extraordinarily comfortable with XP,I want to try something new.
I have always thought that would be AmigaOS4, but the simple fact is, even if it were available (and hardware weren't an issue), I'd have little if any interest in paying that extra money for a slower PPC solution versus the x86 dual core.
I do NOT say that intending to insult anyone. I know that TPTB tried to get the AmigaOne and OS4 out there to the best of their abilities, but things don't happen as planned very often..
In any event, the fact that the 10.5 will be able to dual boot Windows offers me the best of both worlds, and I'll be more than happy to pay for that option. Who knows, maybe I'll even triple-boot Linux on it. :)
Wayne
-
I have always thought that would be AmigaOS4, but the simple fact is, even if it were available (and hardware weren't an issue), I'd have little if any interest in paying that extra money for a slower PPC solution versus the x86 dual core.
This is just simple reality, unfortunately. The price / performance gap used to be a big problem. Now it is an unsurmountable problem. Nowadays the best effort by ANY PPC system has to be considered retro, including Pegasos II.
-
amigadave wrote:
KThunder wrote:
i have quite a few posts were i just say
[color=ff0000]AROS[/color][/b][/i]
there i did again
aros is a platform independamt rewrite of amiga os3.1 which currently has a port to native x86 and hosted port on linux
But what software runs on AROS? Is there a list somewhere that will show me what works and what does not? I always hear about which new programs are now available for MorphOS and AOS4.0, but never AROS.
Educate me please.
There is Hollywood (the first commercial app for AROS)
there is amIRCos an irc client
There is Mosaic a very primitive web browers
There is lunapain a deluxe paint clone
There are a lot of more
you can take a look at AROS archives (http://archives.aros-exec.org/)
-
Fransexy_ wrote:
I thinked and continues thinking that the apple switch to intel is a dead end.Yes maybe initially their sales will increase (it´s the the improvement of the death) but after this initial boosts it will be sunk
Why?
-
I'm willing to bet dollars for donuts that OS X is a vastly more complex and sophisticated OS than any Amiga version that is being worked on.
The numbers that came out were that Apple has 350+ programmers on the main thread of its development.
That compares to, how many for the Amiga?
The point is that it wouldn't take nearly as much work to do it.
And, I'm not talking about some sideways version, as was brought up, but the main development model.
The PPC is now officially a dead end street. The G4 models have been relegated, for several years, to Freescale's embedded line. Now that Apple is no longer going to be buying them, any features that were useful for desktops will be expunged form the future line as being unnecessary, and wasteful of silicon, and power.
It saddens me to think that, but it's true.
All major operating systems that can be considered as being desktop systems now run on x86. This will have to as well.
With Parallels virtualization software, and the virtualization now being built into Intels chips, Amiga OS can be run on a Mac Mini quite well. Better than on any proposed hardware that will likely never see the light of day anyway.
It would therefore not require anyone to buy hardware. If you have hardware, you're set to go.
Fransexy_ wrote:
melgross wrote:
That's not even in the slightest bit right. I'm getting a lot of interest from people who have been interested in switching, over the years, who are ready to take the plunge.
These will be the only machines able to run all operating systems at full, or near to full, speed.
Now, if the moron's who are crapping their way through finishing some form, any form, of Amiga OS, would get off the pot, and move it to x86, it would run there, on the Mac, far better than on any piece of junk that MIGHT ever see the light of day as Amiga native hardware.
Apple a more big an active company has taken year of development of their OS for x86 in the background (or do you think that apple magically decided the stwitch an in a night made the port?) And even more OSX is based on BSD kernel that has an X86 port for much more years.An in these years a lot of apllications has been made for osx.
And do you want that amigaos will be ported to x86 in a night day from a small company with a small userbase and a small software library??? you are a crazy man, baby
-
@melgross
Amigas have always run on embedded controller versions of the 680x0 series so why would embedded PowerPC models be any different? They don't have anything missing from the desktop models except that they are more frequently multicore and less frequently involve out-of-order execution.
With the Cell processor being used in game systems and a triple-core PPC in Microsoft's own XBox 360 and the Nintendo Revolution it would seem that all of the most computationally intensive applications (games) will be running on PowerPC.
It seems, then, that Intel is getting relegated to the desktop in a market where embedded systems and consoles are taking over. Which one's the dead end?
-
Ok. First of all, embedded cpu's are not usually multi-core chips. Embedded chips, for the most part, do not have a need for great performance. The greatest need is for low power consumption, and reliability.
If you go through the catalogs of the embedded lines of several manufacturers, you will notice that.
Apple, as part of the Power alliance, influenced the development of the various chip lines, including supplying microcode and engineering. In turn, the manufacturers developed features that were exclusively needed by Apple. Altivec was one of those developments.
While I'm not saying that Freescale (and IBM) will strip these chips of all of these features, anything that hasn't proven to be required by the other embedded applications wou't remain. It's survival of the fittest.
Despite what you may have read, the Cell is only marginally a PPC chip. While the Xenon is closer to the older G4 line, with improvements, and deletions, the Cell is vastly different. It requires a very different programming model.
Intel will sell 300 million chips to desktop, workstation, and minicomputer manufacturers this year. Those numbers increase about 10 to 15% a year, particularly with Apple now using them as well. They will also sell tens of millions of x86 cpu's optimised for embedded applications to auto manufacturers and others. And AMD will do the same on a smaller scale.
Both IBM and Freescale will sell PPC chips in the tens of millions to the same kinds of manufacturers.
Together, MS and Sony will use perhaps 8 million Xenon and Cell chips this year, and perhaps 25 to 30 million each year until new models come out. The Revolution will not be using the Xenon, it will be using a much simpler chip. These chips, unlike those designed for the computer industry, and even for the embedded one, where chip designs change more slowly, will not be enhanced for the life of those consoles. While both IBM and Sony will sell some to Toshiba for their large screen TV's (the other intended use for the Cell), any workstations that will be based on them will have, at best, a VERY limited market.
Which one's the dead end?
SamuraiCrow wrote:
@melgross
Amigas have always run on embedded controller versions of the 680x0 series so why would embedded PowerPC models be any different? They don't have anything missing from the desktop models except that they are more frequently multicore and less frequently involve out-of-order execution.
With the Cell processor being used in game systems and a triple-core PPC in Microsoft's own XBox 360 and the Nintendo Revolution it would seem that all of the most computationally intensive applications (games) will be running on PowerPC.
It seems, then, that Intel is getting relegated to the desktop in a market where embedded systems and consoles are taking over. Which one's the dead end?
-
Speaking of not changing, the Playstation 3 will probably not change for the life of the product for compatability reasons. The Commodore 64 also followed that same pattern. The C64 was the best selling single-model computer in history.
Just because the chips change less doesn't mean they'll be any less competitive in the console market than they are today. If anything, that gives IBM the incentive to be more creative as the Cell processor and the Kilocore (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/04/ibm_rapport_kilocore/) processor indicate. IBM is making great strides since Apple forced them out of their comfort zone.
-
melgross: The PPC is now officially a dead end street.
My take as well, as the problem isn't the CPU, it's the chipset and all the other logic that makes for a "real" computer.
SamuraiCrow: Amigas have always run on embedded controller versions of the 680x0 series so why would embedded PowerPC models be any different?
PowerPC isn't widely applauded for compatibility. By comparrison, the infamous 68000 didn't change very much over the years. Complex bus logic is also built into CPUs these days, and external logic must be matched accordingly. It's expensive, especially without good chipset support.
SamuraiCrow: It seems, then, that Intel is getting relegated to the desktop in a market where embedded systems and consoles are taking over. Which one's the dead end?
Coding practices are very different. Desktop-style programming demands heavy abstraction. Embedded systems and consoles encourage the use of special instructions and features that are not widely available, even on other devices using the same family of CPUs.
There are good reasons why the CPUs are developed the way that they are for each market, and the architectural directions they take are based on market demands. It's not easy or practical to swap processors between markets, especially if the development tools are designed for a particular purpose. Availability of tools is a major issue, since that's how you make things forwards compatible, not just backwards compatible. I seem to recall that forwards compatibility isn't a major issue in the console/embedded market. If it is, developers usually take the easy way out and use Java. *shudder*
melgross: Despite what you may have read, the Cell is only marginally a PPC chip. While the Xenon is closer to the older G4 line, with improvements, and deletions, the Cell is vastly different. It requires a very different programming model.
I've heard the PPE core in the Cell is more or less used as a preprocessor to keep the SPEs fed.
SamuraiCrow: Speaking of not changing, the Playstation 3 will probably not change for the life of the product for compatability reasons. The Commodore 64 also followed that same pattern. The C64 was the best selling single-model computer in history.
The C64 also didn't have a real OS, people had to give up on their software when moving to the Amiga (or whatever), and there were a lot more games available than apps. Even commercial programs required some POKEing every now and then. What a pain.
With all this open-sourcing going on, and the fact that the Amiga pretty much started the public domain and shareware scene, it shocks me that many Amigans still want to shackle themselves to closed hardware.
SamuraiCrow: If anything, that gives IBM the incentive to be more creative as the Cell processor and the Kilocore processor indicate. IBM is making great strides since Apple forced them out of their comfort zone.
They can afford to be more daring as backwards compatibility isn't a major priority, and if it is, IBM is being commisioned to do custom design for a specific platform that wouldn't be available to other companies without a hefty price tag. If you buy a Cell processor, you're paying Sony, not IBM, and you have to pay IBM indirectly for the work they did on the processor. More middlemen, plus, you still have to have a custom motherboard made. Specs look good on paper, but real-world practicality is lacking.
All of this to do... what? Web browsing? E-mail? Running 68K emulators?
Why bother with so much custom hardware if it will take forever to make OS tools to use it correctly? What about the budgets required to make those tools and port them every time the architecture changes? It doesn't make sense to hype a specific processor type unless you intend to hard-code it, and that is suicide for any real OS. The whole point of an OS is so programmers don't have to worry about the hardware. How abstract the OS needs to be depends on the usage, and desktop computers are really designed to do just about anything.
Release an OS first, get it in the hands of developers, get the basics out of the way, and then you can worry about cutting-edge hardware concepts.
-
Ok. First of all, embedded cpu's are not usually multi-core chips. Embedded chips, for the most part, do not have a need for great performance. The greatest need is for low power consumption, and reliability.
Sure? Well, this CHIP (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/04/ibm_rapport_kilocore/) is aimed at embedded market and has 1025 cores
-
They can afford to be more daring as backwards compatibility isn't a major priority, and if it is, IBM is being commisioned to do custom design for a specific platform that wouldn't be available to other companies without a hefty price tag. If you buy a Cell processor, you're paying Sony, not IBM, and you have to pay IBM indirectly for the work they did on the processor. More middlemen, plus, you still have to have a custom motherboard made. Specs look good on paper, but real-world practicality is lacking.
You are wrong.Sony not only wants that other OS´s run on their CELL based Playstation but to made the cell the next multimedia chip.Sony, toshiba and ibm wants that their cell be used in all types of devices from computers to wasihg machines.So it will be not difficult to abtain cell processors
-
It entirely means that they will be less competitive. The computer market is nothing at all like it was back when people bought the C64, and put them in the closet after a couple of months because there was nothing useful they could do with them. and please don't say that that wasn't done, because it was the big joke at the time. I remember it very well. The C64 was the best selling single model in history — at the time. today, almost any single model, from anyone, will outsell it.
People were told how easy balancing their checkbooks would be with a computer. When they found that it wasn't, and that there wasn't much else they could do with them, they either threw them away, or relegated them to the closet or attic.
Perhaps, using Amiga software, and hardware, you aren't aware of the modern computer scene, but chips change constantly. A one year old chip is already consigned to the trash.
The G4 is totally obsolete, useful for nothing. The G5 requires too much in ancillary support in the machine. The programming for the G5 is also different on several significant levels. Anything optimized for a G4 would have to be partly re-written to work properly on a G5. Sure, the older code will work, but as we found out on the Mac, portions will actually run slower, if the re-write isn't done.
And who will be using the G5's these days, other than some very small specialized manufacturers?
Your wish for the chips you mention is nothing more that that. It simply isn't relevent that the consoles will be competitive. Competitive with what? Each other? The hottest PC games already are superior to the ones coming out on the latest consoles. And so it will always be.
If the Amiga community lives with the expectations you have, then it will continue its rush to the grave.
The only chance it has, is to take advantage of the superior hardware out there, either Mac, or PC.
Any chips unique to the Amiga are totally irrelevant these days. CPU's and GPU's have made certain of that. No one will fund the development of new chips for what amounts to a few tens of thousands of users.
The Amiga OS teams have to get into the real world. The Amiga OS is today, no more than a hobby OS. As a program run under virtualization, it will sell to people who are interested in such things. But, if it is dependent on new hardware, then it has no hope.
Some understanding of this must be acknowledged. All of the infighting has done no one any good.
Most likely, there will never be any money to be made here, and the project should be relegated to Sourceforge. At least that way there will be some people working on it who really care. Unlike now.
SamuraiCrow wrote:
Speaking of not changing, the Playstation 3 will probably not change for the life of the product for compatability reasons. The Commodore 64 also followed that same pattern. The C64 was the best selling single-model computer in history.
Just because the chips change less doesn't mean they'll be any less competitive in the console market than they are today. If anything, that gives IBM the incentive to be more creative as the Cell processor and the Kilocore (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/04/ibm_rapport_kilocore/) processor indicate. IBM is making great strides since Apple forced them out of their comfort zone.
-
That's not aimed at the normal embedded market. I didn't say that no chips for that market were multi core. That's intended for super computers, and the like.
And are you telling me that you expect a future Amiga to run on that? Because if you do, then you have no credibility.
Fransexy_ wrote:
Ok. First of all, embedded cpu's are not usually multi-core chips. Embedded chips, for the most part, do not have a need for great performance. The greatest need is for low power consumption, and reliability.
Sure? Well, this CHIP (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/04/ibm_rapport_kilocore/) is aimed at embedded market and has 1025 cores
-
It doesn't matter much what Sony, or IBM wants. There are no tools available to work with these chips. And just what OS is going to be used with them, other than a Linux implementation, which, so far, hasn't succeeded in getting any of the SPE's to work? So, they have one in-order two thread enhanced (sotra) G4, with a truely wonky memory model that no one has ever used before, that can only handle 512MB of RAM without the SPE's.
Great!
So, you want the Amiga OS to be re-written for that, rather than for x86?
-
I agree with what you say.
The PPE actually does some work of its own. But without the SPE's, there really isn't much point to it.
Waccoon wrote:
er*
melgross: Despite what you may have read, the Cell is only marginally a PPC chip. While the Xenon is closer to the older G4 line, with improvements, and deletions, the Cell is vastly different. It requires a very different programming model.
I've heard the PPE core in the Cell is more or less used as a preprocessor to keep the SPEs fed.
-
melgross wrote:
It doesn't matter much what Sony, or IBM wants. There are no tools available to work with these chips. And just what OS is going to be used with them, other than a Linux implementation, which, so far, hasn't succeeded in getting any of the SPE's to work? So, they have one in-order two thread enhanced (sotra) G4, with a truely wonky memory model that no one has ever used before, that can only handle 512MB of RAM without the SPE's.
Great!
So, you want the Amiga OS to be re-written for that, rather than for x86?
The memory model has been used on the RAM expanders for C64s and 8086-based IBM PCs before and works. The reason it works so well is that interleaved memory is really fast when accessed sequentially and a DMA-based approach delivers that kind of sequential access.
As for being rewritten for the x86 I'd be cheering for the AMD64 if it weren't for that funky little-endian byte ordering.
-
Interleaved memory? Do you understand the memory model?
It's called a "ring memory" scheme. It comes from Rambus.
It has nothing to do with the C64, or the 8086.
SamuraiCrow wrote:
The memory model has been used on the RAM expanders for C64s and 8086-based IBM PCs before and works. The reason it works so well is that interleaved memory is really fast when accessed sequentially and a DMA-based approach delivers that kind of sequential access.
As for being rewritten for the x86 I'd be cheering for the AMD64 if it weren't for that funky little-endian byte ordering.
-
RAMBUS memory isn't the only memory that will work with the Cell processor as Mercury Semiconductor is trying to make DDR memory work with the Cell as well using a custom northbridge.
-
They can try as much as they want. It isn't worth the effort. The memory scheme is responsible for much of the chips performance. Once that's gone. Poof! As of now, their efforts haven't produced a working model.
They want to change, because the memory is expensive, and programming the Cell for anything other than games, is extermely difficult. They hope that by simplifing the memory model, it will take less work. It's a waste of time.
The Cell is good for what it does because of the entirety of its design. Alter one part, and you have to alter another.
As I said, a waste of time.
SamuraiCrow wrote:
RAMBUS memory isn't the only memory that will work with the Cell processor as Mercury Semiconductor is trying to make DDR memory work with the Cell as well using a custom northbridge.
-
What I'm trying to do, now that I've been a member for a while, and have read many threads, and posts, it to shake things up.
It must be realized that the community must get up off its collective arse, and make known its opinion. That opinion should be that all of these incompetent concerns that are supposedly working towards the day when the Amiga will again rise, are doing nothing more than squabbling like children.
Projects that will never get off the ground have to be abandoned, and the efforts put into those that have some chance of being completed.
But, the truth is that, in here, and in all the other places I've visited, other than the help groups, all I see is complaining and whining.
The people who run these groups have got to get together, pool their members and resources, and then, as a group, make it clear to those morons who have been screwing around for so many years, what it is that is expected.
And then, support for those who don't seem to understand, should be withdrawn.
The most realistic route has got to be taken. I've looked at this for a long time, and I truly can't find any better idea than to move to x86 at this point.
What does the community really want? Does it want an updated OS that they can actually run? Or do they want to keep their fingers crossed in the hope that maybe SOMEDAY, someone will finally release something useful?
As the OS really doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and the hardware is going to fewer places than the software, someone has to say; Enough!
The longer it takes, the fewer people who will wait around and care. It will get to the point that it will never be finished, because they see a smaller market each time they look. It's a downward spiral. Let it go on too long, and all will be left is the one or two sites that have almost no costs.
When I see boards that cost absurd amounts of money for what are basically obsolete products, I feel disgusted.
When a Mac Mini, or cheap Dell can run rings around these products, I see doom, and I don't mean the game!
-
I must agree, the whole Amiga world has shrinked so much that thinking of a proprietary hardware sounds insane. Dave Haynie once said the same thing, common hardware (x86) is the only way out.
-
The problem I had when it was announced that the Mac was heading onto Intel is that it's the obvious writing on the wall.
Do you know how much it costs and the time it takes to churn out your own specialized motherboard and chipset etc? It costs a lot. I was suprised when the AmigaOne made it to production even for the time it had.
The point people need to understand from the fact that they moved the Amiga from 68K to powerPC is that at this point the underlying hardware really doesn't matter as it's a superset of the original amiga's capability anyway. I am processor and instruction set agnostic anymore. Whatever works the fastest and cheaply is available. Mostly because anything out there now can emulate anything Past available with decent enough speed.
The community needs to stop and smell the roses and realize that the concepts of the Amiga are still with us long after the original platforms death and people like em enough to carry them over to x86 and PPC and even ARM..
So in this case the platform has been VERY successful and continues to be despite company after company's effort to market the technology unsuccessfully. It's the community it's the standards basis for the technology and it's ulitmately the people that are using it that are carrying it forward and that will continue into whatever hardware dominates the scene into the foreseeable future.
I actually prefer AROS on an Intel box to the other PowerPC based implementations that I have seen. All saying they "improved" on the base 3.1 system that commodore produced. Who would have thought when Commodore died that we'd still be talking about this today..
The point I am making about Aros is it's an outgrowth of the community that's community supported and that stands taller than any commercial firm could. It's the same kinda movement that made open source systems like Linux so interesting and available. It's time for the community to get behind this effort and stop worrying about motherboards that can't be custom made cheap enough..
-
Fransexy: You are wrong.Sony not only wants that other OS´s run on their CELL based Playstation but to made the cell the next multimedia chip. Sony, toshiba and ibm wants that their cell be used in all types of devices from computers to wasihg machines. So it will be not difficult to abtain cell processors
That's what the marketeers say. The vast majority of Cell applications boil down to a math co-processor or programmable DSP. The "computers" proposed are workstations, not desktops. Apple also outright rejected both ideas of using Cell for Mac, as well as porting OSX to PS3.
Every time a console manufacturer says their system is not just a game machine, but a "multifuncion" device, how often are they actually used for things other than games?
Also, I'm sure Sony et al want Cell to be used in consumer devices, as all hosts will have to be developed not just with Cell, but Sony software tools. You can't buy a custom processor based on a more generic design, and not expect to be locked in somehow. I wonder how many of those washing machiens will be forwards compatible with next year's model. :roll:
DonnyEMU: The problem I had when it was announced that the Mac was heading onto Intel is that it's the obvious writing on the wall.
Exactly. What does Apple know that Amiga doesn't?
A: A lot. Note that Apple also makes a lot of ARM-based devices.
melgross: The most realistic route has got to be taken. I've looked at this for a long time, and I truly can't find any better idea than to move to x86 at this point.
That would be especially easy NOW, since OS4 apps are still fresh and developers can make the ports. Older apps from the classic Amiga are pretty much abandonware, and will never be ported, so emulation is the only way out.
Of course, the OS is supposed to provide the tools for proper CPU abstraction. If Hyperion doesn't care about x86, hard-codes for PPC, and doesn't bother making the proper tools, porting apps to x86 will be difficult. So far, it looks like that's what Hyperion wants.
yak: Dave Haynie once said the same thing, common hardware (x86) is the only way out.
He should know, as he tried to make his own PPC motherboard. Funny how the input from even the most experienced Amiga experts is often brushed away.
DonnyEMU: I was suprised when the AmigaOne made it to production even for the time it had.
Well, it was a fairly raw MAI Logic reference design. Nothing special, but not much had to be done to get it to work.
DonnyEMU: The community needs to stop and smell the roses and realize that the concepts of the Amiga are still with us long after the original platforms death and people like em enough to carry them over to x86 and PPC and even ARM.
In the long term, custom hardware could creep its way back into the platform. Today, it's not feasable, and will only reduce the number of developers that can access the platform.
-
So, does anyone think anything could really be done to influence the direction of OS4 hardware at this time? IIRC, all these arguments had already been voiced before OS4 was even commenced. The arguments made sense then, and they are just the same today. It's all been discussed many times in forums, and opinions have been voiced to the various parties involved, but the path of OS4 has been set in stone.
Maybe AROS has more potential long term, and certainly doesn't suffer the same separation from the users that some other projects do, but until now, I have haven't found any really good reason to use it. Am I wrong in thinking there isn't much you can really do in an AROS environment as of yet?
@melgross You were talking about making some sort of action to influence OS4 development, right? What do you think would be effective at this point? After all that has been said and done already, and particularly as there are multiple parties involved, each with their own interests at stake, I find it hard to see any major changes being made.
-
Unfortunatly, I don't know the parties involved. If it were Apple...
This is why I suggested that those who do have some influence, and who are known, the site operators, and such get together on this. They have to agree about what a common goal should be.
I know that everyone has their favorite version, distro, or whatever anyone wants to call it. But that has to be worked out. People have to bow to the common good, even if it doesn't meet their own private wishes. A consensus.
A forum about it on each site would help. User groups have to be involved. But, people have to decide what has a best chance, and build from there. The entire community has to speak with one vioce, at the same time, with one organization.
In other words, if the "best" version is run by a group that simply usn't interested in cooperating, then tell them; Screw you. Then go to the next. but, of course, first everything has to be explained.
The other problem is to keep calm in discussions, and not get frustrated if most people don't want your choice. That's going to happen.
This isn't something that will take a month. It might take a good part of a year. But it has to start somewhere, and the sooner the better.
I see things slipping away.
-
Wow Tonight seems to be my night for adding my .02 worth.
I am a lover of Macintosh and one of the Apple Faithful ... Apple ticked me off in 1995 when they didn't seem to care that Classic MacOS (that is OS 7.x -9.x) was just really a bunch of spaghetti code and it looked like they were in death throws much like Commodore went through. I like to think that the Mac community would have pulled together like the AMI community did when C= went under.
Anyhow, I switched to Windows and then came back to Macintosh in 2001 and do use OS X (10.4) on a first model Mini as well as my Dell GX-150 I bought to run Windows XP and hopefully soon Linux.
All that is to give background: I think it would be great if MacOS was available for any Intel machine... I think that would be the best course for Apple. They consistantly state that they wish to get out of the hardware business, yet they never do. Mr. Steve Jobs is very much about doing things his way and darn the torpedoes if someone disagrees! Apple has made a great comeback with the decision to develop OS X. I believe Microsoft is losing favor amoung home users and I think that Amiga Inc perhaps should consider making OS 4 run on Intel processors and standard PC hardware, the main problem with this dream (and I admit it is a DREAM)... is that the reason MacOS classic and even the BSD based Darwin kernel MacOS X are so stable is the hardware is selected and it is not meant or even disirable to write drivers for all available hardware because there is just so many different variations you need to make that work. Windows really is good at working with whatever hardware you would like to throw at it. MacOS X is becoming better at this. But Amiga Inc would have a lot of driver writing to do to make this work, possibly even would have to trash all development and start over to accomplish OS 4 running on Intel based hardware... which would be way to costly. There are plenty of PPC processors out there. And lets not forget that what makes AmigaOS so cool is the fact that it is so small and is stable because it also has the kickstart ROMs to hold a lot of the OS.
This would be great to implement in a modern OS... IMHO.
Anyhow, I think Microsoft's heyday and stranglehold on the market is fading these days.
-
melgross wrote:
The G4 is totally obsolete, useful for nothing.
Aww crap .. you mean I've taken to many happy pills lately and I'm not really ripping a CD (and listening to it), re-encoding a video and reading Amiga.org on a G4 CPU'd computer ?
Bugger!
;-)
-
Nope! I have three G4 towers here at home, along with two G5 towers.
By obsolete, I don't mean that they can't still be used if you have them. I mean that we won't be seeing anything new using those chips.
The question is; Do you always want to be about two generations behind in everything?
Do you expect a G5 model anytime soon? How about dual core?
Nvidia 7900, or ATI 1900 boards?
Should I go on?
Even running in virtual mode on a new machine, the OS will fly.
The new machines are so much faster that all of the specialty chips can be emulated in software, and STILL be faster.
Sparky wrote:
melgross wrote:
The G4 is totally obsolete, useful for nothing.
Aww crap .. you mean I've taken to many happy pills lately and I'm not really ripping a CD (and listening to it), re-encoding a video and reading Amiga.org on a G4 CPU'd computer ?
Bugger!
;-)
-
The question is; Do you always want to be about two generations behind in everything?
On x86 world running windows you always have the perfomance of two generations behind.To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point
Linux has become as bloatware as windows in the lastest years so........
And onother os on x86 is only another win for windows as every pc sold is money for microsoft :madashell:
-
On x86 world running windows you always have the perfomance of two generations behind.To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point
Because running non-M$ OS, you can take advantage of the awesome hardware capabilities.
Linux has become as bloatware as windows in the lastest years so........
Yet I don't see anyone crying over Linux if it's running on a out of date PPC? Bloat in Linux means the distro screwed something up. At a old PC and kill off xorg and then tell me how slow Linux (or BSD) is. Slap in a AROS-Max CD and then tell me how slow the old box is. That should give you a yardstick when comparing these modern x86/x86-64 boxes running some OS as light as AROS is.
And onother os on x86 is only another win for windows as every pc sold is money for microsoft
More bull cookies! You can buy a PC with Linux or buy a Mac without the M$ tax. The only PCs I've bought from a OEM are laptops. Build your own system, like you would with a Peg or A1 mobo! I could go on an cry over the Apple tax on every PPC box, but I would be as wrong as you are over x86 and M$ tax.
But your looking for unreasonable and silly reasons to continue on being a ludite, don't let reality stop you from your mission.
:horse:
Dammy
-
@ irishmike
But Amiga Inc would have a lot of driver writing to do to make this work, possibly even would have to trash all development and start over to accomplish OS 4 running on Intel based hardware... which would be way to costly.
I don't understand why people think that x86 version of AmigaOS would have to contain drivers for all available PC hardware. Let it be only 1 commonly available motherboard with 1 commonly available gfx card and a couple of other needed add-ons. That would be far more better than what we have now (drivers for not-manufactured-and-expensive A1 only).
Support for other boards and cards could be added later. Take a look at Linux, it didn't support all of the HW at the start, today the support is very good.
-
Because running non-M$ OS, you can take advantage of the awesome hardware capabilities.
That´s is what i want to say, AmigaOS on "outdatet" PPC will perform as updated as and awesome ultra modern PC running the ultimate windows
And yes i can run non-microsoft OS but not all OS´s has drivers for all, for example on my notebook neither linux,Beos, qnx or solaris recognize the modem.So in the end you ended searching for a specific solutions for run another operating system
But your looking for unreasonable and silly reasons to continue on being a ludite, don't let reality stop you from your mission.
Are my opinions.Are you saying that I cannot give my opinion?? Because that is the impression that you gives me with your words
-
melgross: By obsolete, I don't mean that they can't still be used if you have them. I mean that we won't be seeing anything new using those chips.
Well, technically something is obsolete, or outmoded, when it is no longer useful. :-)
Fransexy: On x86 world running windows you always have the perfomance of two generations behind.To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point
I think you're still stuck in 1995. Try running Windows98 on a 1Ghz Celeron. Then replace it with WindowsXP. You should notice a huge improvement in performance, even without much more memory usage.
Windows isn't the klunker it used to be, even if the amount of hard drive space it requires is crazy. All of this is the hardware's fault, of course, especially since x86 code is more compact than PPC code. :roll:
Then again, my Mac mini clearly shows that MacOS X alone uses 12GB of space. Windows is far smaller than that. Does anybody complain that MacOS is bloatware? Nah, let's all skewer evil M$.
yak: I don't understand why people think that x86 version of AmigaOS would have to contain drivers for all available PC hardware.
Probably because that's the mistake made by pretty much every commercial OS creater that tries to break into the market. With all the hundreds of OSes out there, you think some companies would figure this out. But no, Microsoft still enjoys its monopoly.
Look at Be. They were selling a proprietary PPC machine for $5,000+, which nobody could afford. Then, they went to Mac clones, and once Jobs killed all of those systems, Be went to "stock" hardware. Why didn't they make a new BeBox using an x86 board and chipset? Why did they waste so much time making drivers? Why did they announce they were going to the "information appliance" market at the very end? Why don't people learn from the mistakes of others?
Fransexy: That´s is what i want to say, AmigaOS on "outdatet" PPC will perform as updated as and awesome ultra modern PC running the ultimate windows
AmigaOS isn't as robust. AmigaOS doesn't have even a fraction of the capabilites of Windows.
It would be more fair to compare AmigaOS to another largely underdeveloped OS, like a heavily stripped, old version of Linux. Yeah, the old version of Linux runs nice and fast, too, but nobody uses it. Guess why.
-
That's very cute.
Fransexy_ wrote:
The question is; Do you always want to be about two generations behind in everything?
On x86 world running windows you always have the perfomance of two generations behind.To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point
Linux has become as bloatware as windows in the lastest years so........
And onother os on x86 is only another win for windows as every pc sold is money for microsoft :madashell:
-
Technically, then, the old 68000 isn't obsolete either, but we know that it is as well. Obsolete means that the purpose or performance or cost to manufacture is superseeded by more current models. I'm sure the C64 is still useful, that doesn't mean that it hasn't been obsolete for 20 years.
Waccoon wrote:
melgross: By obsolete, I don't mean that they can't still be used if you have them. I mean that we won't be seeing anything new using those chips.
Well, technically something is obsolete, or outmoded, when it is no longer useful. :-)
-
@Melgross
Please can you stop posting your replies on the top of the quoted text? Everyone else on this forum posts replies at the bottom, and one person quoting a different way makes it very hard to follow the thread, and also means people may have to re-arrange the text to quote what you wrote.
--
moto
-
Sorry. The quote button is in a stupid place then. It should be at the top.
-
I see your point - the button is at the bottom, and it puts the text at the bottom, so you left it at the bottom :-) I think most of the people on this forum (myself included) are following Usenet etiquette, in which most people quote from the top down and put their reply right at the bottom.
--
moto
-
You're right of course. What happened is that this was the first time I used quotes here. When I decided to quote, I couldn't find the button, which on other forums is where the reply is, on the original post. The quote is automatic when you hit reply. This threw me. It was only when I scrolled down to give up and post, that I saw it. So that's how I started to use it.
This is typical of Amiga problems though, isn't it? Everything is backwards.
-
Fransexy wrote: To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point
I have been looking at "Vista" which is supposed to be the next great Windows. It scares me that M$ is planning to implement an OS that has the power to change the Web on any computer running the new Windows. This is all in the name of Digital Rights Management. But consider: If there is questionable content on my machine that someone (currently not defined who this would be) at Microsoft did not like they can delete it from every machine that runs Vista on the Internet. Assuming that the originating owner of the machine you downloaded this "questionable content" from was on Vista, M$ with a keystroke could wipe the item from the face of the Internet. Very Scary!
If this (one scenario I heard as outlined above) is true of Vista, then I will definitely NOT upgrade. This would be a catalyst for me to make the permanent switch to Linux. Despite my "hold out" programs. I feel a lot of people are thinking the same way.
Mind you, right now (today) the Vista OS is still being developed (it is supposed to be a total departure from NT) and Vista is merely a nicer looking Windows -- if you check out M$.com and look at Vista you can decide for yourself ;-)
My only problems with Linux at this point are the lack of software for my Printers (I can get drivers yes, but example My Epson Stylus Photo R220 prints CDs with special software, not able to do it under Linux -- one feature gone that I use all the time unless I am on a Mac or Windows -- Same with my HP all-in-one). And the two programs that I have found no Linux equivalent for. iTunes and TextPad(on Windows) or BBEDIT (on Mac) to do my coding. The Linux software in these realms is just not there.
-
@ irishmike
No need to worry. If such a "feature" will be there it will be hacked in couple of weeks after the release.
-
But why even upgrade to headache 2.0? I am not sure how integrated the system is. You can't hack out kernel based encryption of the files put on the OS. The buzz is that once you copy your files to the new OS, they are encrypted and can not be copied to any other machine. I am not sure if that is true or not, but even if it is not... I have been convinced that Windows ends at XP for me.
-
I think you're still stuck in 1995. Try running Windows98 on a 1Ghz Celeron. Then replace it with WindowsXP. You should notice a huge improvement in performance, even without much more memory usage.
I had installed windows98 then upgrade to xp, xp was so slow on my machine that i have to install windows 2000, so no, i not notice an huge improvement in performance with XP is quite the opossite.
I have proven and installed almost every avaliable OS, so maybe you are who is stuck in the 95
-
Funny, I AM running XP on a 1GHz celeron laptop (with 384mb ram) and, although I was impressed with the performance increase between vanilla-XP and when-I'd-turned-off-the-bells-and-whistles XP - now I'm used to it I rather miss W2K (which is on my desktop).
A lot of this is down to the fact that the hard drive will only run at PI0 mode even though it is capable of UDMA4 (and yes, I have enabled DMA in both BIOS and device manager - I also tried deleting and reinstalling the primary IDE bus - no effect).
So I'm still weighing up W2K - WXP? Which is less annoying?
WXP will barely function with less than 256MB memory, Windows 2000 was reasonably happy with 128MB+.
The wizards actually seem to work in XP, however doing things manually seems much harder than previous generations. Which is a turnaround - after X-generations of windows where I'm used to doing things manually with the wizards being an annoyance, I find I now HAVE to use the wizards, and I don't like this.
The rollback feature is a plus - but I'll use this once a year, so it's not a deciding factor.
Drivers included with WXP are a plus, but Driverguide is only a click away.
With a 1.86GHZ/533fsb/2Mb cache dothan running with 1GB memory using Windows 2000 it is by far the best machine I've ever had, and better than most I've ever used. Think I'll stick with 2k until something requires I upgrade.
-
Fransexy: I had installed windows98 then upgrade to xp, xp was so slow on my machine that i have to install windows 2000, so no, i not notice an huge improvement in performance with XP is quite the opossite.
Sorry, man, but I do those kinds of upgrades all the time. XP is quite a bit faster, overall, provided you use the classic interface.
I've never done a 98 to XP upgrade, though. I always do clean installs. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an upgrade turns the machine into sludge.
BootWB: A lot of this is down to the fact that the hard drive will only run at PI0 mode even though it is capable of UDMA4 (and yes, I have enabled DMA in both BIOS and device manager - I also tried deleting and reinstalling the primary IDE bus - no effect).
Is this an nForce-based motherboard? nVidia has their own ATA driver which may help. There are also known problems between Maxtor drives and nVidia chipsets.
BootWB: So I'm still weighing up W2K - WXP? Which is less annoying?
The main reason I've avoided XP (besides the issues changing hardware configurations), is that I hate those stupid pop-up balloons.
Also, Microsoft changed almost everything regarding network settings -- for worse. I despise the new wizards. Win2K is much, much easier to set up with regard to networking. Then again, Windows networking was always braindead to begin with. ;-)
Think I'll stick with 2k until something requires I upgrade.
I hope you've archived all the Win2K tools that you've gotten from Microsoft over the years. They're no longer available for download. I tried to get ACT 3.0 to help someone make a compatibility patch for 2K, only to find out it has been completely replaced by ACT 4.1, which will not run at all on Win2K.
Microsoft supports their products for 6 years. While that's longer than most companies will support their products (*cough* Apple *cough*), now that Win2K is out of its support life, you may want to update. XP is also a "consumer" product, rather than the workstation product that is Win2K, so it'll likely be supported for a very, very long time.
-
Sorry, man, but I do those kinds of upgrades all the time. XP is quite a bit faster, overall, provided you use the classic interface.
I've never done a 98 to XP upgrade, though. I always do clean installs. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an upgrade turns the machine into sludge.
I tried the two (as i said i like to prove all OSS and combinations),And surprising XP is faster with an upgrade than clean install, and is faster intalled over a fat partition than on a NTFS one; these are my experiences obviosly your average could vary, perhaps you do not notice the difference in fast machines but in limited computers you see the slownest of the xp over old versions of windows what corroborates my exposition that you need the next generation PC for run in "happily" speeds each new version of Windows