What will drive the New Amiga?

[BigBenAussie]

The other thing to mention is that building such a set top box, succeed or fail, is not a bad step for the Amiga community as we simply will have a different footprint for our favourite hardware. Its all good. Not even all the current Amiga community cares to upgrade to the fastest or most versatile thing available. An entry level set top box harms no-one and may just get some newbies back on board.

There is no reason why we can't take more than one tack in reinvigorating the Amiga platform.

I wanted to comment on the PSX2 Linux upgrade. I considered purchasing it, because I thought it would be cool to play around with programming on it. Although realistically speaking you can do that on any platform. It made me think back to the excitement I used to have in my early attempts at programming and how easy it used to be. Although I was programming well before this, I did like the concept of the c64 Epyx programming toolkit? Apart from limiting you to 16k, you couda written c64 Winter Games with it.

The thing that I would like for the Amiga platform is something like AMOS, or a games/graphics toolkit that is easy to use and understand so that hobbiests regardless of their level of competency can have a go at programming. Admittedly, it is a throwback to the microcomputer era but if you listen to a lot of the posts on the newsgroups you find that hobbiests are clamouring to help build the platform but lack the necessary skills to immediately program something. A dumbed down basic like programming platform that can manipulate 3d objects and landscapes to create a game would be magnificent. If it allows the creation of apps all the better. We have the opportunity to create a standard mechanism for issue on all Amigas like the basic that once came on all computers. Except this would be a super basic, maybe even compiled.

As for AROS, its a pity you can't use the Amiga name to slap on a box with x86 hardware. Hmmm. Unless Gary lets you. Then this would take away our reliance on more expensive PPC hardware and we could then be competitive with PCs as a platform. I know, it sounds schizo. I'm just brainstorming guys!!! :-). Hmmm the more I think about it, the hardware is keeping us back really, but without hardware we can't be taken seriously as a platform. We can't do it on software alone because linux eats us alive as a viable alternative platform for PCs. I think Amiga went PPC because everyone was too snobby to go the x86 route which woulda made more economic sense but woulda led to an outcry from the community. We have to live with the choices I guess and make it work.

[newbee]

Hello

Can anybody hear me??? I'm starting to wonder...

Rather than trying to invent something new, why don't we capitalise on what we do well already.

1. Easy to use.
2. Fast to start and stop (more time doing and less time waiting).
3. Silent (could be completely silent if we tried harder).
4. Cool (in terms of "thermal"), PPC CPU's run cooler anyway but besides that we do not need to push the MHz barriers to get work done.

Come on guys and girls.... Lets stop complaining about what we don't/cant have and start thinking harder about what we have/do well already.

Is there really anything else out there that starts quickly, runs quietly and is easy to use???

Regards
Darren

[stuart]

Yep, a silent Amiga is very cool. Who's turned on their PC at night and thought they'd wake the neighbours! :pissed: :nervous:

:pint: There are lots of little things that can be put together to in the amiga form that will make an amiga system stand out from the crowd, yes, yes, a silent case can be put onto any PC, there will always be similarities between species of computers.

:juggler: It appears to me that the first full amiga systems are going to be DIY jobs anyway.

Cheers, Stu.

[System]

> 1. Easy to use.

Very comparative statement.  I don't find the Amiga 'easy to use' because I'm used to Windows.  People purchasing a new machine won't find the Amiga any easier to use than the PC, or Mac for that matter.  Especially since they would have to pay 3x the price and assemble it themselves.

> 2. Fast to start and stop (more time doing and
> less time waiting).

Irelevant to most people.   Most people, like myself, leave their machines on 24/7 so their is no waiting.  A few extra seconds booting isn't going to really matter to the average person, especially when I've seen Amigas that take longer to boot (because of all the extra crap loaded) than an average Windows XP box.

> Silent (could be completely silent if we tried > harder).

Only relevant in the set top arena, and since you have to roll your own Amiga anyway, if silent is important to you, choose silent components (such as the power supply and heat sync).

> 4. Cool (in terms of "thermal"), PPC CPU's run
> cooler anyway but besides that we do not need
> to push the MHz barriers to get work done.

Also irrelevant to the average person who wants to buy a new machine.  The average person isn't going to be able to look past the Mhz myth to buy a new 1 Ghz Amiga at $500 or $800 USD for the motherboard when they can buy a complete 3.00 Ghz PC with Windows for under $1000.

Wayne

[stuart]

Wayne said: Most people, like myself, leave their machines on 24/7 so their is no waiting. A few extra seconds booting isn't going to really matter to the average person, ...

I'd say most people turn their PC off at night, who's right? who's wrong? it doesn't matter, a faster booting PC is better for those who wait for it to boot and irrelevent to those who leave it on, so therefore it's a good inclusion to the amiga spec because it can only be a benefit. ;-)

Cheers Stu.

[vortexau]

THIS is getting to be a hard thread to address!
I notice (also) just how far from their roots, and having a 'Joyful' computer experience, some have degressed!

Hammer said: "Security by obscurity is flawed."
but ignored the fact that OTHER OSs' are rarely
run so open (to exploits) as Windows is!

Is Mac OS X really inherently more secure than Windows?

Paul Thurrott writes for WinInformant.com, "After a summer of repeated virus and worm attacks, security experts and bored editors are turning once again to an interesting question: How many times does Microsoft software have to be attacked before we stop using it?

Do you agree with Thurrot's simplistic concept that Mac OS X security is achieved solely though obscurity? Or do you think The Washington Posts Rob Pegoraro is closer to the mark when he writes, "Windows XP, by default, provides unrestricted, 'administrator' access to a computer. This sounds like a good thing but is not, because any program, worms and viruses included, also has unrestricted access. Yet administrator mode is the only realistic choice: XP Home's 'limited account,' the only other option, doesn't even let you adjust a PC's clock."
 
Pegoraro writes, "Mac OS X and Linux get this right: Users get broad rights, but critical system tasks require entering a password. If, for instance, a virus wants to install a "backdoor" for further intrusions, you'll have to authorize it. This fail-safe isn't immune to user gullibility and still allows the total loss or theft of your data, but it beats Windows' anything-goes approach."

Shattering the Mac OS X 'security through obscurity' myth
Five new Windows Bagle virus variants break nasty new ground; Macintosh unaffected
Friday, March 19, 2004 - 09:46 AM EST

I can plainly forsee the time when it will become impossible to use a Win-PC, unless it remains unconnected from the Net!

THAT leaves the Mac for ordinary folk. Linux has remained in its role as the "IKEA" Solution of the home desktops; much user assembly required!

As to AROS . . . well, what become of BeOS?

Several (such as BigBenAussie) have made excellent points!
Win-PCs, X-Boxes and PSNs may have price & Performance, but they don't attract the casual coder (BTW, how many X-Boxes and PSNs have keyboards?)--- but we do need some modern equivalents of AMOS, etc!

@bhoggett;

People are not queueing up to buy microcomputers any more.

WHAT? Like they did for Win95? The Win-PC is a microcomputer!

I think that YOU have wholly forgotten what it could/can be like to run a do-everything machine that doesn't FIGHT YOU all the way!

Like BigBenAussie, I don't understand the attitude of the nay-sayers!
Don't YOU want something BETTER than the PC-Status Quo?

Wayne said:

I don't find the Amiga 'easy to use' because I'm used to Windows. People purchasing a new machine won't find the Amiga any easier to use than the PC, or Mac for that matter.

Thats a weird thing to say .. have YOU been away from the Amiga just TOO long?

. . .assemble it themselves.

Why would they HAVE to do this?

I have the feeling that the Amiga can be just about anything! Remember the CDTV and the REC Wonder TV A6000? The CDTV was too expensive, too limited, and too far ahead of its time. The REC Wonder TV A6000 was closer to the mark!
A modern equivalent would have to be smaller; have contemporary options such as firewire and wireless-connectivity; and use today's level of CPU technology. . . . But, can we ignor the Net-PC concept any longer? Look at connectivity today! Ever I am using a basic ADSL service!

Still, the initial user-base has to be "grown". The applications have to be produced.
Rome didn't get built in a day, . . but Rome replaced Greece as the centre of the civilized world!

"If you build it, they will come!"

[stuart]

:pint: I read somewhere that some motherboard makers were approached by IBM because IBM wants to expand its PowerPC line and so that may herald cheaper motherboards and chips and then...cheaper PCs and also possibly settop boxes capable of running AOS. If those of us that are working on amiga projects can keep going and get some results, if AOS is sent to market again then in a couple to a few years we'll have a lot more people playing. and maybe some of us can even earn a crust from our beloved amiga.

I'd just laugh my guts up if i went into K-Mart and saw amigas on the shelf again! - next to the DVD players. :roflmao:

Cheers, Stu.

[Waccoon]

I don't find the Amiga 'easy to use' because I'm used to Windows. People purchasing a new machine won't find the Amiga any easier to use than the PC, or Mac for that matter.

Easy-to-use is a vague definition.  What makes a computer easy is how well the documentation is written, and how closely the behavior of the computer mimicks what people EXPECT to happen.  As a studying interface designer, I'm very touchy about usability myths.

Besides, everything is just a clone of the most popular product on the market.  Nobody is going to make a new system from scratch and claim Windows wasn't an inspiration.  Set-top boxes are not easy to use because they don't have familiar methods.  This is what Linux people don't understand.  Who cares if a typical Linux system has a taskbar, icons, and a happy face on the "My Documents" folder?  Try installing new video drivers.  Windows is standardized so all you have to do is run Setup.exe and reboot.  Tell me that's not easy!

Is Mac OS X really inherently more secure than Windows?

Nobody gets security right, except maybe for Java.  Given that your personal files and passwords are a million times more important that your system files, it should be possible to quarantine any application on your system.  Today, the most *ANY* OS will do is divide all security into three groups:  OS, User, and Group.  There needs to be more gray area.  If your UNIX e-mail program runs a script, it has the authority to delete EVERY file in your account, even though it can't touch the OS.  Unix, be default, isn't much better than Windows is you run lousy software, and lousy software is the trademark of a popular computer.  If Windows was the underdog and UNIX ruled the world, you'd see UNIX crashing left and right, and Windows would be rock stable with few security problems.  At least Windows NT offers more levels of security, such as "Backup Operators", and "PowerUsers".  Each user should have his/her own security system that they can apply to each of their own folders and ban certain scripting programs from working with, or even seeing, certain folders.

but Rome replaced Greece as the centre of the civilized world!

Mind explaining why Greece is still here, and Rome is not?  ;-)

"If you build it, they will come!"

Just don't forget to build a hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue instead of one house on Baltic.

[TCMSLP]

"If Windows was the underdog and UNIX ruled the world"

You're joking right?  What do you think business runs on?   Most banks use AIX, Solaris and Linux (probably in that order), most telecoms networks run on HPUX, most large engineering companies (I'm thinking Airbus and the like) use Solaris or HPUX.   Windows has only ever lived on the desktop and as desktop support back ends (for example Exchange).  I really shouldn't need to point out that the majority of the internet infrastructure runs on various UNIX and Linux variants, too.

UNIX security is sufficient for most purposes.  If you wish to run a browser as a different user, you can;  then as you describe, your files are kept safe.   Likewise, assigning different users to different groups with access to their own unique parts of the system is ... as easy as assigning users to groups.
 
Also, regarding running 'setup.exe' and rebooting.  Try Ubuntu - it even finds the correct drivers for you.

Each to their own.  Fischer Price Windows 7 for people who need their hand holding, Mac OSX for those who know what they're doing and just want to get on with it, Linux (and UNIX) for people who work in IT, Amiga for people with a passion!   We don't want to dumb everything down to the same level!

Just my 2p.

[Cammy]

Starting arguments with skeletons is cool, it's time to start digging up old threads.

Ubuntu wasn't even released back when the previous post was made.

[TCMSLP]

*taunts skeletons*

You may have a point but Solaris, AIX and HPUX have been around since the early 80's, and SysV (and SysIII?) a few years before that.  So my point still stands

And yes, I didn't realise the post I replied to was from 2004 ... oops.


Steve

[slaapliedje]

Starting arguments with skeletons is cool, it's time to start digging up old threads.

Ubuntu wasn't even released back when the previous post was made.

No, but debian was, and I can install the nVidia drivers in debian with three commands (which you can string together), 'apt-get install module-assistant' 'm-a a-i nvidia' 'nvidia-xconfig'

And you don't even have to reboot, just restart X.

Ubuntu was on it's way to it's first release when the replied to post was there.

But meh, it is funny to bring up old threads...

slaapliedje

[smerf]

Hi,

@ Wayne, & the Amiga Community,

I just love it when someone agrees with me,

Thanks Wayne

Lets take a look at when the Amiga first came out, it had stereo sound, no other computer had that, it had unheard of graphics with 4096 colors, unheard of at that time, it had a multi tasking operating system, pc where still inserting floppies to use one program at a time and MACS where lucky to just boot up.

So there we have it, sound, graphics and multi tasking.

Now lets go back and look at the C64, it had sound, but not stereo, it had graphics, but not many colors, and it was a single program running computer.

Now when I first bought my C64, there was very little programs, but it had a BASIC programming language included and a manual on how to use it, and then on top of that it had a supporting magazine called Ahoy!, which came out with type in programs and tips and tricks. Then as time went on it had supporting companies writing software.

Now lets look at the Amiga 1000, it had stereo sound, 4096 color graphics, multi tasking and also included was BASIC computing language and a supporting magazine called Amiga World, which once again gave programs you could type in, and tips and tricks.
Now lets also say that in time Software Co. rolled into the equation. So what did I like about the C64 and Amiga, one typing in programs, and trying to find my typo errors, I really enjoyed trying to type in code to make music (failed terribly) and had loads of fun trying to get the graphics to do stuff.

So what is our niche, a home based computer that people could play with and use.

Graphics today on PC's is getting to the point where there is no catching up, sound is so realistic when hooked up to good speakers, is it a computer or a stereo.

But

What is lacking is a friendly usable computer that you could play with, without the fear of crashing it and taking all day to reload it. Face it the magic of the Amiga was actually that, being able to use it, experiment, and if you crashed it, it only took minutes to reload.

My opinion, it may not match other opinions.

Like

My opinion of Karlos is that he is a complete fun abuser, other people may have a different opinion which favors Karlos ( which I think sucks) but opinion none the less.

Please don't read the above line, I think Karlos is a kool person, he plays games like Crysis 2, on a PC, and I always thought he was a bean counting MAC user. Never will troll Karlos again.

Oh yeah, Commodore also had a software writing department to make software for their new computers to help on kickoffs.

smerf

[commodorejohn]

Did this topic just get a revival from a revival from a revival?

In any case, being my usual cranky retrophile self, I say that what will drive the new Amiga is hardware that is directly compatible with the old Amiga (in other words, a 68k-compatible CPU and at least as much compatibility with the old chipsets as they had with each other.)

[persia]

Sounds like my iPad 2.

Hello

Can anybody hear me??? I'm starting to wonder...

Rather than trying to invent something new, why don't we capitalise on what we do well already.

1. Easy to use.
2. Fast to start and stop (more time doing and less time waiting).
3. Silent (could be completely silent if we tried harder).
4. Cool (in terms of "thermal"), PPC CPU's run cooler anyway but besides that we do not need to push the MHz barriers to get work done.

Come on guys and girls.... Lets stop complaining about what we don't/cant have and start thinking harder about what we have/do well already.

Is there really anything else out there that starts quickly, runs quietly and is easy to use???

Regards
Darren

[mrmoonlight]

Hello

Can anybody hear me??? I'm starting to wonder...

Rather than trying to invent something new, why don't we capitalise on what we do well already.

1. Easy to use.
2. Fast to start and stop (more time doing and less time waiting).
3. Silent (could be completely silent if we tried harder).
4. Cool (in terms of "thermal"), PPC CPU's run cooler anyway but besides that we do not need to push the MHz barriers to get work done.

 
Is there really anything else out there that starts quickly, runs quietly and is easy to use???

Regards
Darren

Hi ,well done Darren and well said (Come on guys and girls.... Lets stop complaining about what we don't/cant have and start thinking harder about what we have/do well already.}
 
     Give me the stylish 1200/600/500  any day so near to being perfect ,the children adore it ,Games and music    that's what the youngsters of today want ,they don't need another towering tin can standing on the floor ,they like different and the amiga 1200 has a fashion statement of its own ,so little to do to make this Gem rock again,just my thoughts ,best wishes Brian.