Do you use RTG?

[nicholas]

I use a Picasso IV Zorro 3 in my A4000D.

Do Macs running CGX on MorphOS and/or Picasso96 on UAE and Amithlon count too?

In fact, will my A1200 count when it gets an    Indivision AGA Mk2?

[Iggy]

When I had my A2000 souped up with an 060 and was online with it, yes - RTG all the way. I've essentially traded in that scenario for a MacMini with MorphOS however  

Can't vote myself for the same reason. There is no non-RTG MorphOS configuration.

[matt3k]

Hey Rune,

If you choose to add RTG.. Spend the bucks and go with a Retina BLT Z3 or Picasso IV.  The performance difference is evident and it makes workbench usage very nice.

Good luck!

[Iggy]

Hey Rune,

If you choose to add RTG.. Spend the bucks and go with a Retina BLT Z3 or Picasso IV.  The performance difference is evident and it makes workbench usage very nice.

Good luck!

I like the one combination Karlos has:

A1200T Apollo 1240 28MHz / 32MB / Mediator1200 / Voodoo 3000 / OS3.9

But using a Voodoo3 requires a PCI busboard

[matt3k]

I like the one combination Karlos has:

A1200T Apollo 1240 28MHz / 32MB / Mediator1200 / Voodoo 3000 / OS3.9

But using a Voodoo3 requires a PCI busboard

Nice spot Iggy...

The Voodoo would be an awesome choice.

The purist in me never wanted to leave the zorro card and 68k processors.  Silly really, then I bought a peg2 and MOS lol... So much for that ...

[magnetic]

Guys if you are going to spend all kinds of money to upgrade a classic do yourself a favour and pick up a cheap 1ghz powermac for $100 and reg morphos for $150 and $250 you have a box that will kick any rtg amigas ass.

[Iggy]

Guys if you are going to spend all kinds of money to upgrade a classic do yourself a favour and pick up a cheap 1ghz powermac for $100 and reg morphos for $150 and $250 you have a box that will kick any rtg amigas ass.

Hey Mag,
Your best buddy Franko won't run that OS on his Macs (but he seems to think AOS4 and the X1000 have something to do with "real Amigas").

Your argument makes sense when you consider that a Mediator busboard costs more (by itself) then the entire system you've mentioned.

[fishy_fiz]

Ive said it before, but RTG gfx is soooo much better than custom chipset for anything remotely serious. Makes an Amiga feel much more solid, not to mention the speed increase. If I only had the one Amiga it'd be RTG based, no questions, but I like to have an AGA machine too, just cos I get a kick out of working within its limitations.

[Iggy]

Ive said it before, but RTG gfx is soooo much better than custom chipset for anything remotely serious. Makes an Amiga feel much more solid, not to mention the speed increase. If I only had the one Amiga it'd be RTG based, no questions, but I like to have an AGA machine too, just cos I get a kick out of working within its limitations.

The solutions that allow both to co-exist  are ideal for running everything.

[fishy_fiz]

As for MOS/PPC Mac vs. spending money on classics, theyre different kettles of fish. I'll spend decent money on my classic without thinking twice. It's a unique machine with unique hardware and software. What it sets out to do it does well. MOS on the other hand does nothing no other machine does (in fact it shares most of its sftware base with other machines), and its hardware is quite generic. Classics excel at doing what they where intended for whereas MOS/PPC mostly gives a substandard effort at being what it sets out to be (a "modern" system).

This isnt to say I dislike MOS, far from it, but I really dont see it as an alternative to spending money on my classics. It's simply a different kettle of fish.

[commodorejohn]

It's a unique machine with unique hardware and software. What it sets out to do it does well. MOS on the other hand does nothing no other machine does (in fact it shares most of its sftware base with other machines), and its hardware is quite generic.

This. I don't use my Amiga because I want it to be exactly like a modern PC, I use it because I like it for its own sake and its own peculiar nature - same with all my other old computers.

[amigadave]

As for MOS/PPC Mac vs. spending money on classics, theyre different kettles of fish. I'll spend decent money on my classic without thinking twice. It's a unique machine with unique hardware and software. What it sets out to do it does well. MOS on the other hand does nothing no other machine does (in fact it shares most of its sftware base with other machines), and its hardware is quite generic. Classics excel at doing what they where intended for whereas MOS/PPC mostly gives a substandard effort at being what it sets out to be (a "modern" system).

This isnt to say I dislike MOS, far from it, but I really dont see it as an alternative to spending money on my classics. It's simply a different kettle of fish.

I don't disagree with you about MorphOS being a "different kettle of fish" than a Classic Amiga computer, but the rest of your post is quite negative and IMHO, inaccurate.  Although the software base for MorphOS native is small, it does exist and only MorphOS compatible hardware can run those programs, or games, and more native MorphOS software is being written all the time.  That part is no different than what is happening with the AmigaOS4.x camp, or even the AmigaOS3.x group, with the exception that MorphOS2.x can also run most of the software that was written for AmigaOS1.x to 3.x faster than the original hardware and can even run many AmigaOS4.x software titles through an emulation wrapper.

MorphOS2.x is not for everyone, but it does fill a purpose for those of us who want an Amiga-Like experience that is faster and has certain improvements over the original system software, while running on faster hardware that is (slightly) newer.  MorphOS2.x is not intended to compete with Windows, or MacOSX, or even Linux on the latest and greatest hardware that has just been released, so I disagree with your statement that MorphOS2.x does not do what it was intended to do and do it well.

I also spend money on my Classic Amiga systems and enjoy using them, but for me, MorphOS2.x is just one more way for me to enjoy running some Amiga software and also a step forward, while still keeping most of the feel from the original.  Your mileage may vary and I completely understand that, but I have to disagree with most of your statements regarding what MorphOS2.x is, or is not.

[Iggy]

I don't disagree with you about MorphOS being a "different kettle of fish" than a Classic Amiga computer, but the rest of your post is quite negative and IMHO, inaccurate.  Although the software base for MorphOS native is small, it does exist and only MorphOS compatible hardware can run those programs, or games, and more native MorphOS software is being written all the time.  That part is no different than what is happening with the AmigaOS4.x camp, or even the AmigaOS3.x group, with the exception that MorphOS2.x can also run most of the software that was written for AmigaOS1.x to 3.x faster than the original hardware and can even run many AmigaOS4.x software titles through an emulation wrapper.

MorphOS2.x is not for everyone, but it does fill a purpose for those of us who want an Amiga-Like experience that is faster and has certain improvements over the original system software, while running on faster hardware that is (slightly) newer.  MorphOS2.x is not intended to compete with Windows, or MacOSX, or even Linux on the latest and greatest hardware that has just been released, so I disagree with your statement that MorphOS2.x does not do what it was intended to do and do it well.

I also spend money on my Classic Amiga systems and enjoy using them, but for me, MorphOS2.x is just one more way for me to enjoy running some Amiga software and also a step forward, while still keeping most of the feel from the original.  Your mileage may vary and I completely understand that, but I have to disagree with most of your statements regarding what MorphOS2.x is, or is not.

Thanks Dave,
I almost felt inadequate when comparing a legacy system with my MOS system.
While the sole purpose of an original Amiga system is to run Amiga applications, MorphOS systems are designed to run AOS applications and MOS native applications (and the native applications are usually a big improvement over the legacy apps).
And Ambient is much nicer visually then Workbench.

[zipper]

RTG - for 14 - 15 years already. It has been a necessity to keep Amiga somewhat useful in Internet use.

[fishy_fiz]

I don't disagree with you about MorphOS being a "different kettle of fish" than a Classic Amiga computer, but the rest of your post is quite negative and IMHO, inaccurate.  Although the software base for MorphOS native is small, it does exist and only MorphOS compatible hardware can run those programs, or games, and more native MorphOS software is being written all the time.  That part is no different than what is happening with the AmigaOS4.x camp, or even the AmigaOS3.x group, with the exception that MorphOS2.x can also run most of the software that was written for AmigaOS1.x to 3.x faster than the original hardware and can even run many AmigaOS4.x software titles through an emulation wrapper.

MorphOS2.x is not for everyone, but it does fill a purpose for those of us who want an Amiga-Like experience that is faster and has certain improvements over the original system software, while running on faster hardware that is (slightly) newer.  MorphOS2.x is not intended to compete with Windows, or MacOSX, or even Linux on the latest and greatest hardware that has just been released, so I disagree with your statement that MorphOS2.x does not do what it was intended to do and do it well.

I also spend money on my Classic Amiga systems and enjoy using them, but for me, MorphOS2.x is just one more way for me to enjoy running some Amiga software and also a step forward, while still keeping most of the feel from the original.  Your mileage may vary and I completely understand that, but I have to disagree with most of your statements regarding what MorphOS2.x is, or is not.

Youve sure read a lot into things I never really said.
What I said was perfectly accurate. Simple fact is MOS *doesnt* have much in the way of software comparable to the classics, and the hardware itself is quite generic. Yes it has some decent software, but there's nothing overwhelmingly enticing for me about it (nor any of the other "NG" options). I dont particularly find 101 little bits and pieces exciting which is what the majority of original "NG" software is if you exclude the classic 68k/ppc library and open souce software.
Negative, maybe, but Im simply pointing out truths, so if its negative it simpy relects the state of the "NG" options. Again, this isnt to say I dislike them,.... Ive spent hundreds and hundreds of hours coding for them. I wouldnt do that if I was disinterested. Simple fact is there's no market, ergo very little exciting software that's not derived from exisiting software. The same is true of classics thse days too.
I never for a second suggested MOS was in any way, shape, or form bad. Heck I ever said so in my post.
I also never implied that classics are in any way the only option. Im interested in all amiga flavors and have had both MOS and OS4.x machines before (and currently also still have an AROS box).

Long story short, I just dont see any of the NG options as a replacement for the classic amigas yet. Its not as simple as "want an rtg amiga, buy a ppc mac and mos, it's faster too" as suggested, which is what I was responding to. Again, theyre simply different kettles of fish.

[Iggy]

Youve sure read a lot into things I never really said.
What I said was perfectly accurate. Simple fact is MOS *doesnt* have much in the way of software comparable to the classics, and the hardware itself is quite generic. Yes it has some decent software, but there's nothing overwhelmingly enticing for me about it (nor any of the other "NG" options). I dont particularly find 101 little bits and pieces exciting which is what the majority of original "NG" software is if you exclude the classic 68k/ppc library and open souce software.
Negative, maybe, but Im simply pointing out truths, so if its negative it simpy relects the state of the "NG" options. Again, this isnt to say I dislike them,.... Ive spent hundreds and hundreds of hours coding for them. I wouldnt do that if I was disinterested. Simple fact is there's no market, ergo very little exciting software that's not derived from exisiting software. The same is true of classics thse days too.
I never for a second suggested MOS was in any way, shape, or form bad. Heck I ever said so in my post.
I also never implied that classics are in any way the only option. Im interested in all amiga flavors and have had both MOS and OS4.x machines before (and currently also still have an AROS box).

Long story short, I just dont see any of the NG options as a replacement for the classic amigas yet. Its not as simple as "want an rtg amiga, buy a ppc mac and mos, it's faster too" as suggested, which is what I was responding to. Again, theyre simply different kettles of fish.

For you, perhaps. As for me, I don't have nearly as much interest in legacy apps. And I  can run a fairly decent web browser, play back DVDs (and most HD video), and use more than 256 colors at once.