OK, why would I want to build a system that runs AOS with a 68K processor without the Amiga chipset?
This relates directly to my objections on the AGA design and Amiga evolution in general.
The original Lorraine concept is very elegant. It takes a very powerful microprocessor and combines it with a group of custom chips the off load some of the work that other systems would leave to the processor. This does not mean that the 68K couldn't handle those tasks.
The Atari ST managed with a far less competent chipset using the power of the 68K (and if it had a flaw, it was limited colors and screen resolution).
Brute force can work when a processor has enough power to handle these task adquately.
My own experience with that concept, running the day to day operations of Delmar Company in Middletown Delaware in the late 80's and early 90's. We worked with Peripheral Technologies in Marietta Georgia to produce a line of 68000 and 68020 computer that used an ISA bus (allowing us to use standard PC cards). There were 6809 and V20 coprocessor cards available and toward the end of it development and 68030 system and a revamped 6809 card (with a Tandy Color Computer 3 ASIC on it) were underdevelopment.
Like the Amiga, our systems were multi-tasking, but they were also multi-user. The base system (our 'terminal' system) has four RS-232 ports to support VT100 or VT52 terminal and was primarily marketed asfor use in applications like Point of sales systems.
However, we also offered an alternative system (that could still support additional terminals) that had a Tseng Labs ET4000 based video card, a PC keyboard and a mouse. we also contracted with a developer who had developed Windowing software for Gespac (another early Motorola based system builder) to port his Windowing package to our systerm.
What do any of this have to do with the topic? Well our brute force systems support five concurrent users, one of which had access to a GUI based interface that offered the same number of colors as an Amiga and the same display modes as a VGA PC.
I can't compare the two systems as their target markets were different (and the Amiga was definately a superior multimedia platform), but I'm proud of what our small group of companies managed to create.
And in on area, I think we had an edge over the Amiga. All our dsoftware access to our hardware ran through device drivers, meaning we weren't tied to specific hardware (as the Amiga is so firmly wedded to AGA).
Now, why is the Amiga chipset (which in the original Amiga was such an asset) a liability in later Amigas?
Because while the processors in later Amigas became faster and much more powerful, the chipset remained essentially the same. What was fast enough to assist a standard 68000, became a liability to an 020, 030, or 060 because it was SLOW inrelation to those processors. By the time you've reached the 68060 you would have been better off with the chipset and simply rewriting the OS to use retargetable drivers for alternate hardware. You guys don't get it, the chipset slows down later Amigas. And AGA made that WORSE.
So, that, in a nutshell would be my arguement for scrapping the chipset. Natami sounds good and 100% cpmpatibility sounds great until you realize that no other system has bothered to do this because it carries liabilities as well.
So what would I like as an final 68K based Amigiod system? Well 68060 50Mhz chips are still plentiful and cheap. An ISA bus would be another liability, but a PCI bus at 33Mhz would be a definate improvement over the sppeds the the Amiga chipset communicates at. A PCI graphics card for RG graphics (doesn't even have to be that modern a Voodoo3 or a Radeon 9000 would be fine, a modern stereo Audio codec would be useful (but might be cheaper as a PCI add on card) and other accesories (drive controllers, usb cards, etc) also might make more sense as cheap add on cards.
Now I appologize for the length of the post. I've edited it once so I've already read Toneoo7's comment after this. Who would buy it? Good question. I can buy a complete ARM system for $200 (which would be about the target price for what I'm thinking of) and the ARM system would be much more powerful and just as capable of run Amiga software.
But I like the idea of a low cost 68K system that relies on a real 68K processor I'm certain that it would be faster than any legacy Amiga (and yes its only compatible with OS friendly RTG compatible software).
After the negative posts, I've decided to pursue a proof of concept prototype. The only thing I ask is that you don't judge my ideas until I've had a chance to prove myself (or through my actions, disprove myself).
Jim
