I prefer 68k because

[wawrzon]

i have just restored my 3.x mediator +++ setup i needed the other day after demotivated trying to get around my pc multi-track hard disk recording tools like cubase, and my a4k 060/50 is like a fresh wind. i wish hd-rec with ahi and p96 pci drivers would already work with aros68k, since then i might be spared to restore my hd setup from 2009, which still was easier than windows or apparently preferred os4 clean setup. an a4k like that works like a charm for multi track hard disk recording, a thing you wouldnt expect from a 50mhz machine.

other than that i still have put my hopes with aros(68k) as closest to genuine amiga as i can tell.

[ElPolloDiabl]

When I said I don't like AROS.
I really meant I don't care for AROS on x86/ x64. It doesn't have anything more that Linux has and Linux will do it better.
The developers must not want it to be a 1/1 clone of OS3.1

AROS 68k is very good.

[danbeaver]

I just prefer Amiga's in most forms; I'm not a big game player, so I like the boxes.  The "feel" of an Amiga is what I like, whether that shows up on an NG (PPC) or not (68K).  Emulation on a Intel CPU, ARM or within a VM is not my cup of tea.

[kolla]

You can run AROS hosted on a custom Linux setup and have best of both worlds. In fact, that is exactly what AEROS is

http://www.aeros-os.org/

[Gulliver]

I prefer 68k because it is what an Amiga uses.

[danbeaver]

It also used cheap batteries, capacitors, and thieving executives.

[fishy_fiz]

When I said I don't like AROS.
I really meant I don't care for AROS on x86/ x64. It doesn't have anything more that Linux has and Linux will do it better.
The developers must not want it to be a 1/1 clone of OS3.1

AROS 68k is very good.

To each their own and whatnot, but that seems an unusual stance for someone, who earlier in the thread suggested they'd get a ppc amiga at some point.
Much the same software, much more expensive, much slower. Also, x86 AROS has the best version of UAE for amiga-oid flavors.

Also, x86 and 68k (along with other AROS archs) share the same codebase. How can one be very good and the other not? If anything the x86 version is better due to it offering functionality/hardware support not available to 68k.

That aside, and despite some seemingly convoluted/misinformed ideas, I do sort of get what you're saying.
Amiga is interesting for its different/unique software base, which contrary to what a surprising number of NG users/new people seem to say, is still more than usable. It may not have the bloat of modern software, but it has a good chunk of the functionality, and results are as good as anyone else. Yes, software is often more streamlined, and more to the point, but that doesn't mean it's outdated. Heck, I still prefer some of this "outdated" software to modern offerings. Bloat doesn't get in the way and a person can focus on what they want to. If it pans out that the software doesn't offer a certain functionality, then it can often be attained through other software sharing said functionality via arexx or whatever else a person uses.

Remove this, and what are you left with? A generic desktop OS. This however is true for all amiga-oid flavors, probably moreso for OS4 than other (sobjs for amiga? huh, if I wanted convoluted Id use Linux) . At least with AROS you get to use modern, decent hardware and it doesn't cost you your house


Honestly I have to wonder how many people actually use their amiga? It's like half the people on forums (who inform others (haha)) don't even know the system.

[ElPolloDiabl]

@above
It's free can't complain, but any modern software I would like to use would be available on Linux as well.

It also used cheap batteries, capacitors, and thieving executives.

Funny LOL except ordinary electrolytic capacitors should only last about ten years.

[itix]

It also used cheap batteries, capacitors

Honestly who would have expected A1200/A4000 is still used almost daily 20 years later?

[guest11527]

After 12 years after the start of the project NatAmi, I do not believe that I ever see a fast 68k in FPGA.

Let me clear one thing up: Natami did not claim to have a 68K in an FPGA. Instead, it was a re-implementation of the native chipset in an FPGA. The CPU was/is a 68060@50Mhz. Yes, slow compared to today's standards.

Fast 68k in FPGA is like a yeti, no one ever never seen it.

Huh? The natami certainly existed (one is on my desk) but in an incomplete and unfinished state. The Phoenix CPU emulation core (on a vampire FPGA board) also exists.  

ppc is slow, ppc is expensive, but unlike NatAmi (apollo), ppc exists.

PPC is not compatible to native Amiga applications - the "NG" Os is a new Os, partially on the basis of the AmigaOs with some new stuff and a bit of the old (non so well-designed) interfaces, and an emulator on top. Honestly, why would I then want a PPC in first place if I need emulation anyhow? A PC with UAE can do the same, and comes with a much more stable and tested Os as well.  

Besides, PPC on the desktop is pretty much a dead end now that one of its major users (Apple) has left the scene.

PPC is a hundred times faster than real 68k, and a couple of times faster than WinUAE.

Not really. It is certainly faster than 68K, but not a hundred times. Comparing this with emulation is pretty tough because you're measuring a lot of different things under one number. The slow part in emulation is not really the CPU emulation - it is the emulation of the chipset that costs power.

[biggun]

Not really. It is certainly faster than 68K, but not a hundred times.

We did quite some extensive testing of various applications / algorithm both on 68k and PPC.

First of all on 68K the is a huge performance difference between the different models.
There is a huge speed difference between a 68000 and 68030.
And again there is a tremendous performance diffrence between an 68030 and a 68060.
Of course high clocked PPC is faster than lower clocked 68060.

But in many benchmarks the speed improvement from 68030 to high clocked 68060 was actually bigger than the improvement from 68060 to PowerPCs.

Lower end PPC systems like EFIKA, SAM or G3-system can be catched by new 68K implementations.

[wawrzon]

as usual, thors comment is spot on.

[ElPolloDiabl]

In this discussion I use 68k software a lot more.

PowerPC must be faster for the moment. FPGA may become faster in future.

Really I wanted to find out what was missing from AROS, MorphOS and OS4

[motrucker]

No offense here.  What I didn't say cleanly was that I can appreciate an OS and library of apps being driven by a community of users rather than a profit motive and corporate needs.  This may be more true of Debian than other distros.  Despite Amiga being a commercial product, users made tremendous contributions to the system, usually for free.  During the 80s and 90s, it was always exciting to read of the latest developments and try the coverdisks.  The Debian community seems to have more in common with Amiga's than those of Windows and Mac, for me anyway.



Have you had experience with MorphOS, yet?

I agree with with your assessment of the Amiga community  (even the Debian community, I guess). I still have a huge collection of Fred Fish disk's with mostly PD and freeware programs.
I have not had any real experience with MorphOS. Mostly just looking over some one's shoulder - But I like what I see so far.

[Tenacious]

I have not had any real experience with MorphOS. Mostly just looking over some one's shoulder - But I like what I see so far.

I registered it for a G4 Quicksilver.  I will probably always keep this as possible future discovery system.  After I got it running, I realized I had been expecting something different.  I thought it would be my familiar Amiga OS ported to Apple's PPC hardware (This is my shortcoming for NOT researching it better).  The skeleton is there with all of the familiar directories (C, S, L, Libs, Devs, etc) but, none of them are populated with the OS files!  It's another kind of emulation, the flavor is there but not the heart of the OS that I've spent so much time learning.

Like modern OSes, there is a trend toward online package management.  In spite of this, I couldn't seem to find the packages that were rumored to make the experience more Amiga-like.  In the end, I lost interest, another shortcoming of mine.

The MorphOS team has made a great system, and if I get over the impact of what it really isn't, I will probably return to it someday.  

If I have missed the boat and misrepresented MorphOS, someone please point me in the right direction.  

[kolla]

You have missunderstood, and it seems your familiarity with AmigaOS in general is limited too :p

The files you are looking for are in MOSSYS:

MorphOS uses assigns to keep the OS directories away from where users and programs drop files, so for example C: is assigned to SYS:C and MOSSYS:C, where the latter contains all commands and SYS:C is where user installs his own commands. The advantage is that one can easily update MOSSYS: without messing with user installed files.