Do you use RTG?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[fishy_fiz]

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.

256 colors a plus in an RTG thread ?  Little odd dont you think. Amigas have been running more than 256 colors for 20 years via rtg.

Yes, MOS can offer a nice compromised system for the modern computing world. But this is maybe my point. Everyone else (even phone users) are running 1080p video, have fully functioning browsers (no discredit to Fab's MOS OWB, its the standout browser for "amiga" systems), play bluray video, have gaming more modern than quake3, etc, etc.
I just find the classics more interesting and leaving me with less wants. The classics do what they set out to do nicely. Any NG amiga option stands out as comproised because a person expects more from a current system.

Also, incase you missed it Im not anti NG amiga, and quite like MOS. Would I have spent hundreds of hours developing for those systems if they disliked them, or didnt get the point ? As much as I like them though, and as much as I did what I could to try to redeem the problems with them I find myself discontent with them still.