Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: Iggy on December 28, 2010, 03:13:44 AM
-
But let's face facts guys. Amiga video is out of date. 256 color modes are garish, distorted and not photo realistic. Workbench is old, later versions are bloated, and it is not being updated.
Frankly, I have to conclude that your self justifying arguements to your reasoning for clinging to this outdated tech is soley based on your desire to retain certain games (and maybe a few other pieces of poorly written software that bangs hardware directly).
After considering AROS68K, I'm wondering if a simple PCI based 68K system would make a good project. Dump Paula and include a better audio system. Scrap ECS, AGA, etc. and rely soley on RTG.
Forget FPGAs and just use a 68k processor (020, 030, or 060).
Modern memory, usb, harddrive controllers.
Then build a verion of AROS that will outperform any legacy Amiga.
No it won't be compatible with AGA (it might be powerful enough to emulate ecs).
And Workbench? Has anyone here investigated Scalos? Why are we working so hard to recreate dated obsolete software that hasn't been updated in over a decade when there are better substitutes.
If we're going to reimplement elements of the Amiga, by eliminating some backward compatibility we could have a much more powerful, up to date system.
If anyone else is intewrested in this, let me know. It would be just as compatible as an Amiga 4000 using RTG, and we could consider options that aren't available with legacy hardware.
-
Why on earth does everything have to be "photo realistic" !!!
Just because software was written that bangs the hardware doesn't mean it was poorly written, in fact most hardware banging software was very innovative and written by some very clever people.
Scalos is as you claim everything else on the Amiga to be, outdated... so why is this piece of outdated software being pushed so hard by you or are you just letting you highly biased opinions get the better of you.
If you can't accept the Amiga for what it is then stick to your powermac and leave the good stuff to those who truly enjoy it please... :)
-
I'm not sure I understand. If you want a more modern system and backwards-compatibility with oldschool Amigas doesn't matter, why would you bother with an 040/060-based system at all? Switch to Coldfire and you've got a mostly 68k-compatible architecture at higher speeds, or scrap the whole thing and get a $150 ARM SBC, (http://beagleboard.org/) or an Atom board if you want to run AROS. It doesn't really make sense to drop crucial components of backwards compatibility and then try to claim it's the same thing.
-
Isn't that what AROS for ARM is for? There really isn't anything left for saving in the original hardware except for the ability to run the original software. Besides, if you run AROS x86 with the Janus UAE integration, all of that hardware banging software isn't banging hardware anymore.
-
Isn't that what AROS for ARM is for? There really isn't anything left for saving in the original hardware except for the ability to run the original software. Besides, if you run AROS x86 with the Janus UAE integration, all of that hardware banging software isn't banging hardware anymore.
Yes, I'm a big fan of ARM too. Unlike the X86 (and like the PPC) it has the same endian structure as the 68K.
As to questions of why I would want a system that is only partially compatible, I think RTG owners would understand. I'd settle for an Amiga derivitive that was only RTG compatible because I wouldn't be locked into a specific video structure.
And Franko, don't presume a moral high ground because your willing to stubbornly stick with outdated hardware. Again, we're both using a Mac.
Only I'm using it the way it ought to be used. If you want to be negative, feel free not to post on this particular thread.
I think a system with no more compatibility than a Draco (but with modern expansion capabilities) would be cool. You don't have to contribute in any way.
Oh, and btw, your attack on emulation? I remember you positively responding on the Natami. Hate too disappoint you (or ciontradict Thomas) but FPGAs ARE emulating hardware (so its no more a real Amiga than Amiga forever).
Now, why would we want to do this? Because and RTG equipped A4000 is damned expensive. We could build a better system that was just as compatible that would cost less. I can get 68060/50s for about $40. I can flesh out the details of this prosal pretty quickly, but I'm not going to waste my time argueing with others about their narrow view of what an Amiga should be.
If anyone has a positive comment or practical idea, I'm open to your posts.
Anyone else can go back to playing with their toys.
-
THe thing the amiga community needs to sort out is:
Are we recreating the past?
Are we building something for the future?
Once everybody has settled on that, and settled on being hobby projects rather than some sort of fabled return of the promised land, we can move forward (or backward)
-
@ Iggy
Gawd... you don't half make me laugh...
If you think I'm taking the moral high ground your sadly mistaken, If I ever do you'll be the first to know...
The point about the Natami and why I like this Idea so much is that is supposed to be 100% backward compatible, how it achieves this is of no consequence to me. If it's not 100% backwards compatible then I wont be buying it.
Negative !!! you haven't had a good thing to say about the Amiga in any the threads you been currently posting in, so don't talk to me about being negative.
You go on telling folk to go play with their toys, any respect I had for your opinions and what you have to say (and I did respect a lot of the thing you have said previously) has now gone straight out the window and went splat all over the concrete below.
PS:I feel free to post wherever I want and don't need advice on where to post, thank you very much :)
-
@ Iggy
Gawd... you don't half make me laugh...
If you think I'm taking the moral high ground your sadly mistaken, If I ever do you'll be the first to know...
The point about the Natami and why I like this Idea so much is that is supposed to be 100% backward compatible, how it achieves this is of no consequence to me. If it's not 100% backwards compatible then I wont be buying it.
Negative !!! you haven't had a good thing to say about the Amiga in any the threads you been currently posting in, so don't talk to me about being negative.
You go on telling folk to go play with their toys, any respect I had for your opinions and what you have to say (and I did respect a lot of the thing you have said previously) has now gone straight out the window and went splat all over the concrete below.
PS:I feel free to post wherever I want and don't need advice on where to post, thank you very much :)
Franko, feel free to go trolling whereever you feel you must. I just hope you don't divert too many of the post with a point (like the one before yours).
And its yor opinion that my posts haven't been positive. My posts only reflect my disappointment at the failure of our community to evolve and expand.
As mentioned in the post before yours, I guess I'm on the side of new evolving systems.
And btw, if you're hoping for 100% compatibility with the Natami you're bound to be disappointed since there isn't 100% compatibility amongst all Amigas.
I'm logging off for the night. We can take this up tomorrow. Take care old man.
-
The trouble with this place is it gets harder and harder to spot the trolls from the poeple who just have a halfbaked idea an present it in a defensive/offensive way.
Me, I'm one of the trollish kind. I think Iggy might be the latter? :oP
-
Franko, feel free to go trolling whereever you feel you must. I just hope you don't divert too many of the post with a point (like the one before yours).
And its yor opinion that my posts haven't been positive. My posts only reflect my disappointment at the failure of our community to evolve and expand.
As mentioned in the post before yours, I guess I'm on the side of new evolving systems.
And btw, if you're hoping for 100% compatibility with the Natami you're bound to be disappointed since there isn't 100% compatibility amongst all Amigas.
I'm logging off for the night. We can take this up tomorrow. Take care old man.
Growl... Blargh... Im a big bad troll now coming to eat up poor Iggy... :roflmao:
Ah well nighty night young Iggy I'll sneak up behind you tomorrow (or should I say today, it 5am here) and we can carry on our little debate... :)
Off now to do some trolling and maybe even a bit of witchcraft in the woods at the back of me house... fee fie fo fum I've got a smelly bum... :)
-
It's a hobby! Anyone pretending anything else is kidding themselves.
-
Seriously it is a hobby and I happen to like messing around with it. Personally I would rather wait and buy Natami then what you propose as for me it looks too limited for what I want.
-
halfbaked idea an present it in a defensive/offensive way.
+1
-
Lies, blatant lies!
-
Amiga video is out of date ... clinging to this outdated tech ... retain certain games (and maybe a few other pieces of poorly written software that bangs hardware directly) ... working so hard to recreate dated obsolete software that hasn't been updated in over a decade
All of those things are part of a retro computing hobby. I don't really understand why this is such a problem for you.
--
moto
-
So isn't the video of Amiga OS4.1 not photorealistic enough ?
[youtube]khS4TcsZ1nM[/youtube]
If you want Workbench 3.1/3.5/3.9 to look like that, it is possible.
My OS3.9 has a normal background picture, ok it's an Amiga 4000 Micronick tower with a Cyberstorm 060/PPC 50/200 with 128MB and Cyberstorm Vision PPC card, but yeah, looks realistic enough.
I even got a good AmigaAmp mp3 player and looking at a fantasy landscape background.
The photo is as real as on a PC or Mac.
Why are we still stuck in 2D, while everything is 3D and even touchable and in the near future even smellable ?
If you want to take Workbench to the extreme, talk to these guys:
http://www.obscuradigital.com/technology/
-
I only read the original post, so I appologize if other people have covered similar points.....
Firstly, from one side of the coin, sure, what you say is true enough, but you seem to be completely disregarding the fact that generally people dont expect custom chipset based amigas to compete in certain areas. Some people (myself included) enjoy working within those limitations. It's a challenge to see what results can be obtained with an old system. Especially one as flexible as the Amiga. Not only that but a machine, regardless of how powerful it is, is only as productive as the person behind the helm, and as dated as most of it is, a lot of classic amiga software can obtain good results, and as quickly as machines with hundreds/thousands of times the raw power.
Personally, besides 68k based systems Im predominately an AROS guy. Im interested in both MOS and OS4.x, but I dont have the hardware anymore. Have been verging on buying a mac and a license for MOS, but havent gotten around to it yet. After a while of using AROS (for no reason other than availability in the beginning) it becomes about the journey as much as anything. All slightly off topic, but written for the point of backstory.
My AROS machine is a Core2duo @3.86ghz + 1 gig geforce9600 gt + 2 gig dual channel ddr2@1066 is, in Amiga terms quite a hefty machine. Even in terms of modern pcs it's only a few steps behind the modern grade. With AROS I have access to 2d + 3d acceleration, better video player, better web browsing,... typically more up to date features. Despite this however I couldnt refrain from also installing amithlon/os3.9 as AROS, as much as I like it and see it as the likely "future" of amiga simply doesnt offer me things I like that an os3.x based machine does. It's more powerful for me because I know amiblitz and other 68k development tools better than I know c/c++ and amiga native apis, despite only giving me 40-50% the raw speed, and me having to use a much weaker video card (4 meg matrox g200 pci vs 1024 meg gf 9600gt pci express).
And perhaps a little ironically, I still find myself wishing I had a classic amiga instead as amithlon, while very good, still doesnt offer me the complete functionality of a real 68k amiga.
Anyway, I guess if there's a point it's just re-itterating, with a real example or 2, that it's not always about raw power and modern features.
Somewhat ironic though dont you think that a person using a 2nd hand mac, quite behind the times is having problems with people enjoying thier own old computers ?
-
The trouble with this place is it gets harder and harder to spot the trolls from the poeple who just have a halfbaked idea an present it in a defensive/offensive way.
Me, I'm one of the trollish kind. I think Iggy might be the latter? :oP
To be honest my biggest problem with this place is the poor grammer that has surfacing recently. No offence to you coldfish but after reading a couple of posts on a different thread (i think it was about AGA) i started getting a little confused. Not about the topic but the grammer that was used. I think technical talk about computer hardware is confusing enough without having to try and understand poor grammer as well :)
-
THe thing the amiga community needs to sort out is:
Are we recreating the past?
Are we building something for the future?
Once everybody has settled on that, and settled on being hobby projects rather than some sort of fabled return of the promised land, we can move forward (or backward)
You're not going to get everynone to settle on that, because people have entirely different goals. They can co-exist, but don't expect everyone to move in the same direction. When has Amiga users ever done that anyway?
-
You're not going to get everynone to settle on that, because people have entirely different goals. They can co-exist, but don't expect everyone to move in the same direction. When has Amiga users ever done that anyway?
For me, the Amiga is a game machine, I don't need it to be a supercomputer with touch interface, but I wouldn't mind :)
You can't compare your Amiga to a PC or Mac, it's that simpel.
Although some wish it can do as much, you won't get there untill someone actually starts to put in the work.
If there is someone who can do the hardware, it's Jens.
Look at what the ACA is doing to the accelerator market already.
Now only we need someone to do the software.
-
But let's face facts guys. Amiga video is out of date.
It's 2010 Iggy, of course something released in 1992 is going to be out of date.
This thread is totally stupid.
-
Oh, and btw, your attack on emulation? I remember you positively responding on the Natami. Hate too disappoint you (or ciontradict Thomas) but FPGAs ARE emulating hardware (so its no more a real Amiga than Amiga forever).
No they are not. They are a re-implementation of the hardware, rather than software emulating the hardware running on an underlying OS and hardware that can't allow perfect emulation. Many people are interested by FPGAArcade and Natami, not because they think they will be up-to-date computers but because they will allow them to continue their Amiga hobby.
This thread is just set up because Franko actually responded to you in the other thread, and you didn't like it and you're having a stroppy hissy fit.
-
It's 2010 Iggy, of course something released in 1992 is going to be out of date.
This thread is totally stupid.
We dont want none of yoor kind,.... damned "logicals" thinks thems can come in and wreck a perfectly good rant ;)
-
Franko, feel free to go trolling whereever you feel you must. I just hope you don't divert too many of the post with a point (like the one before yours).
And its yor opinion that my posts haven't been positive. My posts only reflect my disappointment at the failure of our community to evolve and expand.
As mentioned in the post before yours, I guess I'm on the side of new evolving systems.
And btw, if you're hoping for 100% compatibility with the Natami you're bound to be disappointed since there isn't 100% compatibility amongst all Amigas.
I'm logging off for the night. We can take this up tomorrow. Take care old man.
Natami is basically a FPGA based PC i.e. Amiga program compatibility is not a large issue.
-
No they are not. They are a re-implementation of the hardware, rather than software emulating the hardware running on an underlying OS and hardware that can't allow perfect emulation. Many people are interested by FPGAArcade and Natami, not because they think they will be up-to-date computers but because they will allow them to continue their Amiga hobby.
This thread is just set up because Franko actually responded to you in the other thread, and you didn't like it and you're having a stroppy hissy fit.
Sorry. I'll try to ignore Franko's squirrely wrath. And no, this thread was created because more than one person's posts made me think about Franko's question and other things that have troubled me.
BTW - An FPGA is a programmable gate array. everytime you start it you have to re-load the software that allows it to emulate the target hardware. So, no, the Natami is not a reimplementation of the Amiga (unless your willing to concede that that can be done via software). A true reimplementation of the Amiga (in dedicated silicon) would be much more expensive to develop than the Natami. It would also be faster, wouldn't require loading an FPGA on boot, and in volume it would be cheaper to produce. But, that's never going to happen since, as was pointed out, at this point Amiga's are mainly a hobby to the majority of you.
OK, let me thank those of you who have made some supportive statements. It is absolutely true that I am at the other end of the Amiga spectrum from Frankp.*What I'd dearly wish to get across to him is that our differences of opinion in no way diminish the regard and fondness I hold for the guy. But i do believe Amiga's can continue to evolve. AGA was not the end, RTG is an improvement in display quality. Workbench was fine when it was current, but there are replacements for it. And to the post on AOS4, in what way do you think I don't agree with you. I LOVE AOS4 (even though I'm a MorphOS user). NG systems prove the Amiga can continue to develop and flourish.
As NG systems become more advanced, I do expect to see them become competent daily use systems. Will they be competitive with PCs and MACs? Well without the resources of a large backer that would be difficult. But look how good they look now. Its not impossible, it could happen.
I'm leaving the house right now to take my wife to work. When I get back, I'll post my initial 68K proposal. Take care all.
Jim
-
poor grammer
... (i think it was about AGA) i started getting a little confused.
Pfft...
--
moto
-
BTW - An FPGA is a programmable gate array. everytime you start it you have to re-load the software that allows it to emulate the target hardware. So, no, the Natami is not a reimplementation of the Amiga (unless your willing to concede that that can be done via software).
The 'software' is hardware description language. It deals with electrical signals and circuits - "on a rising signal, do XYZ", etc.
It compiles to a logic circuit (or how to configure the FPGA's circuitry to behave - in hardware - as the logic circuits described). You can compile the VHDL into silicon itself, use that to create an ASIC, and there you have your native hardware. The FPGA doesn't RUN the compiled VHDL, it becomes it.
It isn't emulation. It's a re-implementation. There is a world of difference.
-
The 'software' is hardware description language. It deals with electrical signals and circuits - "on a rising signal, do XYZ", etc.
It compiles to a logic circuit (or how to configure the FPGA's circuitry to behave - in hardware - as the logic circuits described). You can compile the VHDL into silicon itself, use that to create an ASIC, and there you have your native hardware. The FPGA doesn't RUN the compiled VHDL, it becomes it.
It isn't emulation. It's a re-implementation. There is a world of difference.
That is strictly a matter of opinion, as the hardware requires reconfiguration each time it is restarted, its still relying on a software program that configures it.Whether the hardware "becomes" what the code tells it to or is programmed it emulate it is a matter of interpretation.
And using VHDL to develop silicon would not be the optimal way to design an ASIC.
Now I'm going to drop this unproductive topic a move to the post I promised.
-
NG systems prove the Amiga can continue to develop and flourish.
As NG systems become more advanced, I do expect to see them become competent daily use systems. Will they be competitive with PCs and MACs? Well without the resources of a large backer that would be difficult. But look how good they look now. Its not impossible, it could happen.
There you have it, if someone puts in a hell of lot of time, then this could be a future Amiga fans can build on.
If you truly want to take the OS to a new level then it has to become open source first.
If Hyperion still keeps hanging on to it themselves, we are not going to get far.
They have done some work on the Classic verision of 4.1, but with open source it could grow a lot faster.
As for hardware, I think we need to let go of the PPC ideas, cause cleary we are not going to get the internal code writing from DCE.
Even if they were to release it, the processor is just too outdated and too slow.
Also Motorola 68K proccesors need to go if you truly want a future.
We need to be looking at just modernday processors and write the software to that platform, it shouldn't be that hard considering we allready do it with WinUAE and again on open source, it will get done a lot faster.
We can hang on to the idea of other processors running our Amiga software or we can say: If you can't beat them, join them!
The hardware will be the same then, but the software won't.
No it won't be able to beat Windows, Mac Os and Linux, but just maybe it could end up in the top 5 of used OS'es.
-
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
-
OK, why would I want to build a system that runs AOS with a 68K processor without the Amiga chipset?
Why would anyone at this point? Who would spend good money on such a thing?
-
Why would anyone at this point? Who would spend good money on such a thing?
I won't, I would rather spend good money on someone porting all Amiga software to the x86 platform, lets face it, we are not going to get anywhere if we continue to :smack: on old hardware.
-
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more
-
i have to ask why some of the people are here, if you really want a true next generation Amiga OS that hold on to nothing of its past and works differently and modern then go and join BeOS or QNX community's both OS have been compared to what a modern AmigaOS should perhaps be, but that's the point if you change so much of the OS is it really Amiga any more and I know where going into a topic that has been covered 100's of times what makes an Amiga, an Amiga?
But to me the reason I'm still here is because of way the OS is layout and works, its just simple, I like the drag screen affects, I like access to my ram disk and I like a lot of other little touch here and their that make it an Amiga experiences, some of the legacy apps like deluxe paint and scalos I still love using and yes the classic games as well.
All I want is a OS that works the same way my current Amiga works but it can not only play the classic stuff but can do some more modern things like play DVDs, handle the new media formats, surf the net, and bring back some of the fun I use to have with computers that sadly disappeared the day I had to move to windows. (saying that however windows7 I must admit to it being the best thing I have ever used from Microsoft so far, why it took them so long to deliverer something that just works I will never know. ie still crap however :) thank god for firefox!) . To me AmigaOS4 offers the closest thing to my dream, I still would like to see a bit more work put in making it more backwards compatible maybe we will in a future update.
-
Exactly! Get a PC and install OS/2 then because IBM gave Commodore AREXX and Commodore gave IBM some ideas and permission to use certain Amiga software methods in their OS.
I have an Amiga to play Amiga games, cost is not an issue because emulation via WinUAE is not the same thing (for a start USB joypads are just wrong) and well if you ever played the crappy DOS ports of Cinemaware games then you see why you need an Amiga to play Rocket Ranger in its most superior form (as well as all the other Cinemaware games)
I can play Donkey Kong or Rainbow Islands on MAME sure but Amiga had some games that were actually far far superior on Amiga compared to any other format.
I am not interested in Iggy's proposed machine, if I can't load my actual original floppy disk games on it anymore then it's not an Amiga for me :)
As for 256 colours not being enough....what do we do with all the awesome 64/128 colour arcade games like Gauntlet then? Seeing as there isn't a single update of this game, or Gauntlet 2, worth playing or even a rip-off that comes close to it why should I not play it because it doesn't have 24bit colour? Does Xbox live version of Gauntlet look much better with 4x resolution and smoothed out graphics? Nope.
Same with Amiga games. And when was 256 colour a limit for Amiga video files...we do have HAM6 and HAM8 to play with too you know.
-
Hardware wise doesn't really both me much, as performance, well I've seen amigaones running and sams system, the OS seem pretty nippy to me, so I think performance wise when the x1000 arrives wont be a problem, availability of hardware also not a problem, you can go and buy a sam system now, there are a few second hand systems out their too, the biggest problem I see is cost, custom hardware and small quantity is always going to be a problem, but if more people bought and supported amiga ppc computers the price would come down, plus the price of second hand amiga ppc systems are coming down and isn't it a bit more cooler that the Amiga is being different to everyone else, that Amiga systems are nearly custom made. To me that makes it even more an Amiga system. If only aeon or acube could make a cheap ppc system for around the £300 mark I believe all this talk of x86 vs PPC would be over.
-
i have to ask why some of the people are here, if you really want a true next generation Amiga OS that hold on to nothing of its past and works differently and modern then go and join BeOS or QNX community's both OS have been compared to what a modern AmigaOS should perhaps be, but that's the point if you change so much of the OS is it really Amiga any more and I know where going into a topic that has been covered 100's of times what makes an Amiga, an Amiga?
But to me the reason I'm still here is because of way the OS is layout and works, its just simple, I like the drag screen affects, I like access to my ram disk and I like a lot of other little touch here and their that make it an Amiga experiences, some of the legacy apps like deluxe paint and scalos I still love using and yes the classic games as well.
All I want is a OS that works the same way my current Amiga works but it can not only play the classic stuff but can do some more modern things like play DVDs, handle the new media formats, surf the net, and bring back some of the fun I use to have with computers that sadly disappeared the day I had to move to windows. (saying that however windows7 I must admit to it being the best thing I have ever used from Microsoft so far, why it took them so long to deliverer something that just works I will never know. ie still crap however :) thank god for firefox!) . To me AmigaOS4 offers the closest thing to my dream, I still would like to see a bit more work put in making it more backwards compatible maybe we will in a future update.
Interesting, I don't think the poster after you got your point, but I did and let me say I glad to see at least one poster has whatn I consider the valid alternative to the "we gotta keep the same hardware" line of thought.
You are absolutely right! AOS4 is a legitimate sucessor to the Amiga legacy (and I think AROS and MorphOS are valid too).
The platforms different, but its BETTER. And the OS has all the system call and design features to make an Amiga programmer feeel right at home.
And it looks great. Anyone the pretends that eye candy isn't appealing isn't being honest.
And yes, we've had to give up some of the legacy software, but its amazing how much of it we can run and in the future that compatibility is only likely to improve.
Hey, there may be a day when all legacy apps run seemlessly under AROS like native X86 apps.
Heres a prediction, no matter how strong your personal attachment to your legacy hardware is and no matter how deeply your feelings run, soon we will be fully capable of running all your software and a host of BETTER software on modern platforms that are truly competitive. Then your arguements for Amiga forever will look as valid as Apple II fiorever. Life evolves. Get with the program.
Jim
-
And using VHDL to develop silicon would not be the optimal way to design an ASIC.
What do you mean ? Do you want to place every transistor by hand ? Or are you referring to the higher level languages (SystemC or SystemVerilog) ?
For medium size ASICs I think RTL languages like VHDL or Verilog are still the right thing to use.
greets,
Staf.
-
That is strictly a matter of opinion, as the hardware requires reconfiguration each time it is restarted, its still relying on a software program that configures it.Whether the hardware "becomes" what the code tells it to or is programmed it emulate it is a matter of interpretation.
But if I make an Altera Hardcopy version of the design it magically tranform into 'real' hardware just because it does not need a Flash to get started ? And the same if I would use some of the Flash based FPGAs or a one time programmable FPGA ?
greets,
Staf.
-
I think AmigaNG nailed it in that it all comes down to the "what makes an Amiga an Amiga" question. Personally, I fall closer to the opposite end of the spectrum: to me, the Amiga is about an elegant hardware architecture that was designed alongside and tightly integrated with an elegant system-software architecture, running on a very nice, assembler-friendly CPU. While I don't disagree that AmigaOS is a fine piece of software (though I haven't used 4+ and can't really speak for that,) it's just one of the components - removing any of them significantly diminishes the appeal for me. That's why Linux/Amix on the Amiga is more of a "oh, look at that" novelty, PPC accelerators hold no interest for me, and stuff like AROS on a PC is kind of boring.
That's not to say that I begrudge devotees of any of the above their own little triumphs, but it does make me wonder, if the software is so plainly what matters, why bother retaining any hardware compatibility, especially going to all the bother of designing a new system around an old processor?
Heres a prediction, no matter how strong your personal attachment to your legacy hardware is and no matter how deeply your feelings run, soon we will be fully capable of running all your software and a host of BETTER software on modern platforms that are truly competitive. Then your arguements for Amiga forever will look as valid as Apple II fiorever. Life evolves. Get with the program.
And this is what I really don't understand. If you feel like this about legacy hardware, why are you essentially proposing to build what amounts to a different kind of legacy hardware? The oldschool 68k processors are out of production, stop at 32-bit data bus width, and don't go above 100MHz. If your attitude towards legacy hardware is "get over it and move on," why go to all this trouble? Why not just go with an existing board for a modern architecture and save yourself time, money, and trouble?
(And no, I won't "get with the program," thanks. Some of us value the full Amiga architecture more than being "truly competitive.")
-
@ Iggy
Sorry. I'll try to ignore Franko's squirrely wrath
It's ok just fed the squiggles for today and had me breakfast (nice greasy fry up, even though it is 3:30pm here) so everyone this end is happy and content right now... :)
Me and you shall just have to agree to differ on this subject and call a truce here, best for us both (and the other members who have to read this stuff) to withdraw graciously from the field of battle and settle for a draw... :)
Keep on with you idea/project and don't let me or anyone else discourage you are after all trying to actively do something in a manner that you think is best and for that I salute you sir... :)
(just try please and get you idea across without dissing AGA so much and telling folk to go play with their toys... ;))
Best Regards... :)
Franko
-
And using VHDL to develop silicon would not be the optimal way to design an ASIC.
It's only how a lot of companies actually do their work. Even AMD's Bobcat x86-64 core is VHDL - yeah, it costs them some potential clock speed, but the benefits outweigh the downsides for them. ARM cores are designed in VHDL as well. I expect a lot of other cores are - CPU, GPU, etc. Designing custom silicon these days needs a lot of resources. Anyway, who would care, Natami/FPGAArcade Minimig as custom silicon would run very fast even if made on an ancient 250nm process.
Edit: Must reiterate that it would still be very costly and highly unlikely to happen, hence the FPGA solutions which will still end up thrashing a classic Amiga into the ground in terms of performance and features - and at least the hardware can be updated with bugfixes! We can all hope a Chinese knock-off company makes an Amiga-in-a-joystick ASIC one day that we can hack apart like the C64-in-a-joystick :-)
Btw, Franko - I don't think that Natami will be 100% compatible with classic Amiga software, especially demos and games that really hit the hardware and do timing incorrectly (assume 68k clocks, rather than use hardware timers, etc). Maybe there will be an A500 level core developed in due course to allow that, but don't expect it out of the box.
-
@ Iggy
It's ok just fed the squiggles for today and had me breakfast (nice greasy fry up, even though it is 3:30pm here) so everyone this end is happy and content right now... :)
Me and you shall just have to agree to differ on this subject and call a truce here, best for us both (and the other members who have to read this stuff) to withdraw graciously from the field of battle and settle for a draw... :)
Keep on with you idea/project and don't let me or anyone else discourage you are after all trying to actively do something in a manner that you think is best and for that I salute you sir... :)
(just try please and get you idea across without dissing AGA so much and telling folk to go play with their toys... ;))
Best Regards... :)
Franko
Yes Franko, it must just be the Irish in me looking for a fight where there isn't one. What do you expect from people chronically malnourished for centuries under the 'kindly" rule of the British?
I I DO so much enjoy your posts and perspective (although I ain't eating the hagis - what the heck were you Scots thinking - ugh!)
-
Haggis is lovely.
But they're a pain to catch, running across the hills in their wild natural state.
-
I think AmigaNG nailed it in that it all comes down to the "what makes an Amiga an Amiga" question. Personally, I fall closer to the opposite end of the spectrum: to me, the Amiga is about an elegant hardware architecture that was designed alongside and tightly integrated with an elegant system-software architecture, running on a very nice, assembler-friendly CPU. While I don't disagree that AmigaOS is a fine piece of software (though I haven't used 4+ and can't really speak for that,) it's just one of the components - removing any of them significantly diminishes the appeal for me. That's why Linux/Amix on the Amiga is more of a "oh, look at that" novelty, PPC accelerators hold no interest for me, and stuff like AROS on a PC is kind of boring.
That's not to say that I begrudge devotees of any of the above their own little triumphs, but it does make me wonder, if the software is so plainly what matters, why bother retaining any hardware compatibility, especially going to all the bother of designing a new system around an old processor?
And this is what I really don't understand. If you feel like this about legacy hardware, why are you essentially proposing to build what amounts to a different kind of legacy hardware? The oldschool 68k processors are out of production, stop at 32-bit data bus width, and don't go above 100MHz. If your attitude towards legacy hardware is "get over it and move on," why go to all this trouble? Why not just go with an existing board for a modern architecture and save yourself time, money, and trouble?
(And no, I won't "get with the program," thanks. Some of us value the full Amiga architecture more than being "truly competitive.")
I agree with you on all points and have no intention of giving up my PPC hardware (even though X86 is tempting and the future might be in ARM).
And I don't begrudge the diehard Amiga loyalists their attachment to their legacy hardware. The fact that it can still be used productively is a testament to the integrity of the original concept.
Lord knows I would NOT want to have to suffer with an old PC, but an Amiga would still retain its appeal.
I do get frustrated at times with the negative take so many of you have on NG systems. Not your cup of tea? Hey, that's cool, but it is mine. I've the fact that I've got a fair level of legacy compatibility (which is constantly increasing) and I can play games like QuakeIII.
Doom on an Amiga was cool for its time, but fragging someone online with more mordern graphics just makes me smile.
And I appologize for posting the Ambient screen shot on Franko's thread. Its not fair to compare hardware that is seperated by that many years of development. I mean, yeah, it looks cools, but when I look at the workbench screens you guys are posting all I can think is "Windows didn't look this good for several generation and Mac was Black & White - Damn that still looks modern".
-
But if I make an Altera Hardcopy version of the design it magically tranform into 'real' hardware just because it does not need a Flash to get started ? And the same if I would use some of the Flash based FPGAs or a one time programmable FPGA ?
greets,
Staf.
OK Staf, its hardware, especially if its a permant flash. But its still not as fast as silicon designed the painful way.
FPGAs and other programmable logic are great tools and they serve great as glue logic. I'm just not impressed with the idea of emulating processors with them.
-
@ Iggy
I should have guessed you were Irish with ideas like that... :lol:
We Scots only eat haggis before going into battle against the sassenachs, it give you the runs so when we bend over and raise out kilts in battle we can fire a nice juicy, lumpy brown sticky keech at them, that sends them back over the border... ;)
(stinks like hell and is a bugger to wash off... :))
Cheers :drink:
@ Hattig
I'm just gonna wait and see when and if the Natami appears just what it can do, still seems to me like one of the better things around at the moment, only time will tell... :)
-
@ Iggy
I should have guessed you were Irish with ideas like that... :lol:
We Scots only eat haggis before going into battle against the sassenachs, it give you the runs so when we bend over and raise out kilts in battle we can fire a nice juicy, lumpy brown sticky keech at them, that sends them back over the border... ;)
(stinks like hell and is a bugger to wash off... :))
Cheers :drink:
@ Hattig
I'm just gonna wait and see when and if the Natami appears just what it can do, still seems to me like one of the better things around at the moment, only time will tell... :)
Yes, if they can pull it off it will be an impressive system.
-
...I ain't eating the hagis - what the heck were you Scots thinking - ugh!)
It's really no different to a sausage if you think about it ;)
-
Haggis is great.
...though I've only had the vegetarian version.
-
Haggis is great.
...though I've only had the vegetarian version.
If its's got no guts in it, it ain't a haggis ;)
-
While the wild Haggi is indeed a vegatarian itself (living mainly off thistles and bumfluff) once you've hunted one down and clubbed it to death with a bug lump of wood and cooked it for yer dinner, it is now a meat product fit for a king... :)
vegetarion Haggis... no such thing tone007, you've been conned, probably some chinese import you were sold made of plastic and old bits of pirated DVDs... :)
I'll get the Scottish Branch of the FDA on to it straight away... :)
-
THe thing the amiga community needs to sort out is:
Are we recreating the past?
Are we building something for the future?
Once everybody has settled on that, and settled on being hobby projects rather than some sort of fabled return of the promised land, we can move forward (or backward)
I agree with Rune wholeheartedly. I bought an Amiga to enjoy what I once had but if Amiga is to have a future, it has to be making an OS for the future; not tied to any hardware (a.k.a. MAC OS) and can be installed on many different types of hardware (Linux, AROS, etc...). The OS needs to be efficient, not bloated like Windoze.
-
vegetarion Haggis... no such thing tone007, you've been conned, probably some chinese import you were sold made of plastic and old bits of pirated DVDs... :)
I realize this. My wife is a vegetarian and loves to cook, though, and found a recipe for it.
She almost ordered me some real haggis from Scotland, but the shipping cost was ridiculous.
-
Just thinking about what goes into haggis is about as unappetizing as seeing the food preperation areas of a Chinese resturant.
-
Properly prepared, I'd eat human.
-
Properly prepared, I'd eat human.
Correctly seasoned, it would probably beat haggis.
-
I agree with Rune wholeheartedly. I bought an Amiga to enjoy what I once had but if Amiga is to have a future, it has to be making an OS for the future; not tied to any hardware (a.k.a. MAC OS) and can be installed on many different types of hardware (Linux, AROS, etc...). The OS needs to be efficient, not bloated like Windoze.
Considering these post, I am quick to admit that my proposal is not a good idea.
I'll leave the legacy users to their dreams of the Natami and wish them well.
For now, I'm sticking with PPCs (and keeping an eye on the X86 and ARM developments).
We all have our preferences, and I got about all I'm likely to get from 68Ks. Why revisit something that could have been that still causes me great anguish? Hey, the platforms were so good that they linger on via the dedicated self abuse of we fanatics.
Take care all.
Jim
-
But if I make an Altera Hardcopy version of the design it magically tranform into 'real' hardware
Yes, If You make hardcopy of your FPGA program, then you will get the real thing, not a emulator.
For now, Natami/Minimig are emulators.
just because it does not need a Flash to get started ? And the same if I would use some of the Flash based FPGAs or a one time programmable FPGA ?
What a moron.
-
What a moron.
Was that necessary?
-
What a moron.
What a charmer.
-
What a charmer.
Yep, I'm feeling more than little guilty of being a bit too aggressive myself. I mean frankly I think of FPGAs as a form of emulation myself. But there's programable logic available right now that I would hesitate to add to a design because it would simply it.We are all getting a little too hostile.
Amiga.org the Palestine of computer websites.
-
I think it becomes such a source of contention because there's a stigma attached to emulation, like it's "not punk enough" or something - it's like the inaccuracy of early emulators was codified as being the nature of emulators in general. I mean, I'm an "original hardware" guy myself, but come on. Strictly speaking, though, FPGAs aren't the same thing as software emulators - they are hardware, even if they have to be soft-configured, and aren't quite as efficient as a dedicated ASIC.
-
I think it becomes such a source of contention because there's a stigma attached to emulation, like it's "not punk enough" or something - it's like the inaccuracy of early emulators was codified as being the nature of emulators in general. I mean, I'm an "original hardware" guy myself, but come on. Strictly speaking, though, FPGAs aren't the same thing as software emulators - they are hardware, even if they have to be soft-configured, and aren't quite as efficient as a dedicated ASIC.
No they lend themselves to low volume projects, but they do suffer some limitation. And frankly, some of the emulators I've seen lately are frighteningly accurate.
-
Exactly! Get a PC and install OS/2 then because IBM gave Commodore AREXX and Commodore gave IBM some ideas and permission to use certain Amiga software methods in their OS.
Try this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AREXX) instead of that totally nonsense OS/2 one.
-
Ah, what the heck, one more post of Ambient.
(http://www.meta-morphos.org/modules/td-galerie/imgs/20081029130510-2.jpg)
-
Yep, I'm feeling more than little guilty of being a bit too aggressive myself. I mean frankly I think of FPGAs as a form of emulation myself. But there's programable logic available right now that I would hesitate to add to a design because it would simply it.We are all getting a little too hostile.
Amiga.org the Palestine of computer websites.
Sorry I was agitated and I put my questions in an offensive way; my apologies.
But for me it is very hard to understand the fundamental difference between a SRAM based FPGA and a Flash or anti-fuse based FPGA. The transistors inside the device are working exactly the same way only the configuration is done differently; there are even SRAM based FPGAs that are combined with a Flash die in one package (through system-in-a-package) so no external configuration is needed.
As I am currently employed in the hardware design business I follow closely what is happening in this world through things like FPGA Journal (http://www.techfocusmedia.net/fpgajournal/). A lot of the equipment for telecom or networking is using FPGAs now; if you open a Cisco router there is a good chance it contains an FPGA. So for some people here a big part of the internet is now run not on 'real' hardware but on emulation of hardware. Personally I would call is hardware and not software.
This target market is also the reason why Altera and Xilinx try to beat each other with the speed of their IOs.
greets,
Staf.
-
I realize this. My wife is a vegetarian and loves to cook, though, and found a recipe for it.
She almost ordered me some real haggis from Scotland, but the shipping cost was ridiculous.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8480795.stm
-
We Scots only eat haggis before going into battle against the sassenachs, it give you the runs so when we bend over and raise out kilts in battle we can fire a nice juicy, lumpy brown sticky keech at them, that sends them back over the border... ;)
I thought that's what curry's for. Now I'm all confused. :(
-
Sorry I was agitated and I put my questions in an offensive way; my apologies.
But for me it is very hard to understand the fundamental difference between a SRAM based FPGA and a Flash or anti-fuse based FPGA. The transistors inside the device are working exactly the same way only the configuration is done differently; there are even SRAM based FPGAs that are combined with a Flash die in one package (through system-in-a-package) so no external configuration is needed.
As I am currently employed in the hardware design business I follow closely what is happening in this world through things like FPGA Journal (http://www.techfocusmedia.net/fpgajournal/). A lot of the equipment for telecom or networking is using FPGAs now; if you open a Cisco router there is a good chance it contains an FPGA. So for some people here a big part of the internet is now run not on 'real' hardware but on emulation of hardware. Personally I would call is hardware and not software.
This target market is also the reason why Altera and Xilinx try to beat each other with the speed of their IOs.
greets,
Staf.
No, dude that wasn't directed at anything you said. We have a valid difference of opinion here with no clear answer. does a reprogrammed hardware array actually become what its instructed to act as or is it emulatng it? I think both points of view here have enough validity that there isn't a clear answer.
What we were objecting to was the insolent comment using the term moron.
At times things DO get heated here. But you MUST understand that while we often have profound differences of opinion, we do have a common interest and a basic level of civillity and respect for each other.
Hell I love some of the guys (even if we choose to disagree). Franko is very straight forward with just enough of the strangle sense of humor the I grew up with (the Scots like the Irish are fond of baffling you with their humor). Tone007, very terse, concise, cutting and sharp. Karlos, focused on Linux, but open to alternative. Heck I can't cover everyone I've interascted with here, but they've helped me reconsider some of my ideas, they've helped with with problems, and they've amused the hell out of me.
Please, in no way take any thing that has been said recently as a negative commentary of your posts, and please feel free to continue to contribute. I've made the mistake of suggesting someone not do that once too often. And coming from a Country that guarantees free speech, I sometimes forget that not only don't I have that right, but I have got a moral obligation to at least consider the opinions of the speaker.
Take care,
Jim
Oh, and BTW in another thread I mentioned a PPC motherboard design I'd spent a few months on, on of the core components was a programmable IC that eliminated several complex timing oriented glue circuits I would have had to include in the '90's. So, I to think these things are a fantastic step forward in electronic technology. Imagine being able to write code to contuct a custom IC?
If we'd had this a decade or two ago WE could have built the next Amiga.
-
Hey, I want at least few of you to approve (or disapprove), but I'd like to go off target a bit a re-address that issue on the initital power of the PCs X86 processors (the8088 & 8086) vs. processors in alternative systems.
I think people opinion of X86 is clearly influenced by their later generations and I'd like to make a couple points, but I don't want to ponificate w/o general concensus.
-
Hey, I want at least few of you to approve (or disapprove), but I'd like to go off target a bit a re-address that issue on the initital power of the PCs X86 processors (the8088 & 8086) vs. processors in alternative systems.
I think people opinion of X86 is clearly influenced by their later generations and I'd like to make a couple points, but I don't want to ponificate w/o general concensus.
Actually, I'd have to say the opposite. Some people still dislike/mock/whatever x86 cpus based on how they were back in the days when Amiga was competitive. To this day it's not uncommon for people to look down on x86 cpus based on the fact the 16 bit versions (pre 386) were inferior to 680x0 cpus in the mid 80's. Heck, Ive even seen some people convinced that the x1000's pa6t and successors will be competitive, or even superior to current x86 cpus (not sure if that's funny or sad really :-))
-
Sorry I was agitated and I put my questions in an offensive way; my apologies.
But for me it is very hard to understand the fundamental difference between a SRAM based FPGA and a Flash or anti-fuse based FPGA.
The difference is that the FPGA performs a program in LUT, and Hardcopy has direct wire connection.
FPGA is commodity hardware.
And the same chip today may be the Amiga, c64 tomorrow and the day after the dishwasher controller.
Depending on what software it is loaded into it.
This is the same situation as with an ordinary PC running an emulator.
-
Actually, I'd have to say the opposite. Some people still dislike/mock/whatever x86 cpus based on how they were back in the days when Amiga was competitive. To this day it's not uncommon for people to look down on x86 cpus based on the fact the 16 bit versions (pre 386) were inferior to 680x0 cpus in the mid 80's. Heck, Ive even seen some people convinced that the x1000's pa6t and successors will be competitive, or even superior to current x86 cpus (not sure if that's funny or sad really :-))
GOOD, I'll take that as an approval. While I have X86-64 systems, and they've finally grown to be prowerful useful machines they're still resource pigs that have required decades of constant upgrades to get to this point.
Now as to the processor in the original PC, the 8088. Yes it had 16 bit instructios, yes it ran at 4.77Mhz, BUT it was CRUDE. Remember, I've previously mentioned that I was an early Motorola supporter. So 6800, which gives indirect birth to the 6502, which takes away some of the attention that should have been given to the much better 6809. We don't even have to talk about that super computer level Unix/Xenix monster the 68000 here.
Lets just compare a 2Mhz 6809 in a SWTPC computer to a 4.77Mhz 8088 in a PC. In many operations, the 6809 is FASTER. The PC is limited to running a crude rip off of CPM called MS-DOS. As today, CPU speed is not the only determining factor when considering processing prower. The 6809 suppports position independant re-entrant addressing which allowed it to utilize a time-slicing priority based multi-tasking multi-user OS (Microware/Radisys OS9 - there eventual basis for the CD-i player).
Intel processors could not truly match this kind of capabilty until the '386 was introduced. Ever try to run Windows 3.1 on anything less than a '386? Trust me, I had evalution copies of Win3.0 supplied by IBM before release and I know what hardware they were recommending.
And again, if you think an MS-DOS based Windows system provided true priority based multi-tasking, you're buying into the hype Microsoft put out and your delusional.
In fact, until Microsoft implented the NT kernal, multitasking was an uncontrolled, you might lock it up nightmare.
So congradulation Amiga users! Anytime anyone tries to tell you that a PC had some edge over your system ANYTIME during the active production life of the Amiga, feel free to laugh in their faces.
Because the PC took almost TWO DECADES to catch up to what could be done on early Motorola processors, let alone you much better Amigas.
Should anyone ever question my stance on this, let me be clear, we did not lose this battle based on he technical merits of our systems. We lost due to poor business management, marketing, and the strength that comes with market dominance bringing a wealth of software (even if a lot of it is crap). The PC SUCKED when it was introduced. And each sucessive generation should have been marketed "Windowsx/iX86, this time it sucks less".
We could still do better, sometimes I think you guys are just to timid or you don't remember (or weren't there to witness) how things were at the beginning.
-
GOOD, I'll take that as an approval. While I have X86-64 systems, and they've finally grown to be prowerful useful machines they're still resource pigs that have required decades of constant upgrades to get to this point.
Now as to the processor in the original PC, the 8088. Yes it had 16 bit instructios, yes it ran at 4.77Mhz, BUT it was CRUDE. Remember, I've previously mentioned that I was an early Motorola supporter. So 6800, which gives indirect birth to the 6502, which takes away some of the attention that should have been given to the much better 6809. We don't even have to talk about that super computer level Unix/Xenix monster the 68000 here.
Lets just compare a 2Mhz 6809 in a SWTPC computer to a 4.77Mhz 8088 in a PC. In many operations, the 6809 is FASTER. The PC is limited to running a crude rip off of CPM called MS-DOS. As today, CPU speed is not the only determining factor when considering processing prower. The 6809 suppports position independant re-entrant addressing which allowed it to utilize a time-slicing priority based multi-tasking multi-user OS (Microware/Radisys OS9 - there eventual basis for the CD-i player).
Intel processors could not truly match this kind of capabilty until the '386 was introduced. Ever try to run Windows 3.1 on anything less than a '386? Trust me, I had evalution copies of Win3.0 supplied by IBM before release and I know what hardware they were recommending.
And again, if you think an MS-DOS based Windows system provided true priority based multi-tasking, you're buying into the hype Microsoft put out and your delusional.
In fact, until Microsoft implented the NT kernal, multitasking was an uncontrolled, you might lock it up nightmare.
So congradulation Amiga users! Anytime anyone tries to tell you that a PC had some edge over your system ANYTIME during the active production life of the Amiga, feel free to laugh in their faces.
Because the PC took almost TWO DECADES to catch up to what could be done on early Motorola processors, let alone you much better Amigas.
Should anyone ever question my stance on this, let me be clear, we did not lose this battle based on he technical merits of our systems. We lost due to poor business management, marketing, and the strength that comes with market dominance bringing a wealth of software (even if a lot of it is crap). The PC SUCKED when it was introduced. And each sucessive generation should have been marketed "Windowsx/iX86, this time it sucks less".
We could still do better, sometimes I think you guys are just to timid or you don't remember (or weren't there to witness) how things were at the beginning.
I have a feeling me and you would get on pretty well! Cracking post.
:drink:
-
In fact, until Microsoft implented the NT kernal, multitasking was an uncontrolled, you might lock it up nightmare.
Hey, that sounds just like Amiga (including OS4.1!)
Luckily the NT kernal has been in use since the 90s.
-
Clearly, the problem here is that everyone has a different idea of what Amiga is or should be. For some, it's a retro hobby not unlike the C64, but others want a fully modern machine at least as capable as a Wintel/Macintel.
-
Hey, that sounds just like Amiga (including OS4.1!)
Luckily the NT kernal has been in use since the 90s.
Yep, but the first non-enterprise related use is in Windows 2000 (which I was rather impressed by) in 2000, and the first version aimmed at the general market was Window XP (can't even remember that date). Of course subsequent versions (Vista, Win 7) have really just be reworked versions of the same thing (but that is nothing new Win95 to WinME are essentially all very similar).
What we still don't have under AOS4, MorphOS, olr AROS is any support for SMP. Now that does place us at a disadvantage over Windows and OSX. Even some form of ASMP would help utilize cores that languish on many NG systems because of support for only one processor.
Oh, and one thing I'll note you do not see under any Amiga related OS' are those stupid DLL libraries. What sub-genius at Microsoft thought a flat, monstrous database of library files was a good idea? It's a great way to corrupt your OS. is any su
-
Hey, that sounds just like Amiga (including OS4.1!)
Not quite, though. The Amiga had preemptive multitasking from the get-go, while Windows and Mac took upwards of a decade (ten and seventeen years, respectively) to get that far. Amiga crashes are more due to a lack of memory protection (which, again, neither competitor had for a good while, though they did achieve it sooner than preemptive multitasking.) That can be fixed with any Amiga accelerator that includes an MMU, whether on the board or on-chip in the CPU.
Also, the NT kernel has existed since the early '90s, but it didn't become commonplace outside the business world until Windows XP, in 2003.
-
Not quite, though. The Amiga had preemptive multitasking from the get-go, while Windows and Mac took upwards of a decade (ten and seventeen years, respectively) to get that far. Amiga crashes are more due to a lack of memory protection (which, again, neither competitor had for a good while, though they did achieve it sooner than preemptive multitasking.) That can be fixed with any Amiga accelerator that includes an MMU, whether on the board or on-chip in the CPU.
Also, the NT kernel has existed since the early '90s, but it didn't become commonplace outside the business world until Windows XP, in 2003.
I'm glad you posted that John. I'd have to say its a point that everyone mentioning '386. '486, and Pentium processors keeps forgetting. Window3.0 to WindowsME are all DOS based. I remember selling these version all being marketed as priority based preemptive multitasking systems and thinking "Oh yeah where's the task scheduler and how is priority set?". But you now there's an old Republican trick that seems to work in computer marketing too. If you just keep repeat some BS line long enough, and significant number of the people who are too lazy to verify your claims will believe you.
All Windows variants prior to NT were more of a multitasking as long as some obscure process that is under no supervisory process decides to use up all the systems resources, going it an uncontrolled loop, etc.
The Amiga may have meditated, but Windows had the horrifying (and often system corrupting) blue screen of death. Anyone miss BSODs? I went back a reinstalled some variants like Win98 recently to see if there was any nostalgia value. It was just as unplesant as I remembered.
There are a few people playing with retro PC, but frankly I think they must be into pain.
I sold PCs along side our 68K computers and I have no fond memories of the painful growing period that belonged to the early PC. Amiga was cool out the door. Might have pooched the shoot later, but it was never that painful.
As I've said before, people only think kindly of the PC because it sucks a lot less than it used to.
-
Oh, retro PCs are perfectly fun - just so long as you eschew Windows. Get it loaded up with FreeDOS, grab some old shareware titles, and you can kill hours on an old PC.
And I had way more BSODs than I've ever had Guru Meditation errors, and most of those were just due to faulty disks. Honestly, I think that's the biggest pain with the Amiga: the sheer number of games that insist on being played directly from aging floppies, often with some proprietary filesystem so you can't even kludge up your own hard drive install. It's no wonder WHDLoad had to be written.
-
I wouldn't mind owning something like a 5150, just for its historical significance.
But yes, early versions of windows were awful. Programs holding on to memory even after exiting them (this can happen with amiga too but it doesn't seem to be very frequent, at least in 3.1), an app crashing would bring the entire system down (win98 can sometimes recover, but it seemed to be exception rather than rule), system registry corrupting for no apparent reason, app's multitasking only with great pain (pretty good in 98, not good in 95, painful earlier), different types of memory making apps hard to run etc etc.
DOS is not very capable, but it DOES benefit from generally being pretty reliable. As long as you are only doing one thing at a time, and you can sort out the memory issues, you're probably better off, especially compared to win 3.1
-
As I've said before, people only think kindly of the PC because it sucks a lot less than it used to.
Maybe I was just lucky, but I went from DOS to Win3.1 to 95 to 98 (even a brief stint with ME) to 2000 to XP to Vista to 7, and I was always able to get what I needed to done without much trouble at all.
I like to think of it more as skill than luck, though.
-
Maybe I was just lucky, but I went from DOS to Win3.1 to 95 to 98 (even a brief stint with ME) to 2000 to XP to Vista to 7, and I was always able to get what I needed to done without much trouble at all.
I like to think of it more as skill than luck, though.
You must be one of the luckiest PC users on the planet. Virtually no one I know hasn't faced an unretreivable crash under an early versions of Windows.
I remember the first time I tried to overclock an SATA RAID array equipped PC. Man! Who would think you could destroy the integrity of your hard drives contents when that part of the hardware isn't affected by the overclock?
I'm actually quite impressed with how bulletproof the last few versions have gotten. They can even rebuild some missing or damaged OS components. And no more BSOD (heck I don't get many crashes of any kind).
-
I'm actually quite impressed with how bulletproof the last few versions have gotten. They can even rebuild some missing or damaged OS components. And no more BSOD (heck I don't get many crashes of any kind).
I'm no expert, but I'd chalk it up to a combination of Linux gaining popularity with the techies (once it became accessible for mere mortal nerds in the early 2000s) and Apple saying "Unix? Yeah, we'll take some of that," and going from a pretty, user-friendly OS buried under 17 years of cruft and kludge to a pretty, user-friendly OS completely re-tooled around a full-featured, time-tested architecture (after some, uh, initial issues, I'm told.) It takes a lot to make a behemoth like Microsoft rethink their game, but suddenly having two credible competitors, one for each end of the market, going up against a pile of feces like Windows ME and a company reputation for developing software as solid as a Soviet-bloc compact car will do it.
-
I'm no expert, but I'd chalk it up to a combination of Linux gaining popularity with the techies (once it became accessible for mere mortal nerds in the early 2000s) and Apple saying "Unix? Yeah, we'll take some of that," and going from a pretty, user-friendly OS buried under 17 years of cruft and kludge to a pretty, user-friendly OS completely re-tooled around a full-featured, time-tested architecture (after some, uh, initial issues, I'm told.) It takes a lot to make a behemoth like Microsoft rethink their game, but suddenly having two credible competitors, one for each end of the market, going up against a pile of feces like Windows ME and a company reputation for developing software as solid as a Soviet-bloc compact car will do it.
Hey no fair! I kinda liked the Lada. Where else are you going to get a Fiat124 based sedan with a crank handle for when the starter fails? Don't go disparaging solid com-bloc hardware with your libelous comparisons!
-
I'm no expert, but I'd chalk it up to a combination of Linux gaining popularity with the techies (once it became accessible for mere mortal nerds in the early 2000s) and Apple saying "Unix? Yeah, we'll take some of that," and going from a pretty, user-friendly OS buried under 17 years of cruft and kludge to a pretty, user-friendly OS completely re-tooled around a full-featured, time-tested architecture (after some, uh, initial issues, I'm told.) It takes a lot to make a behemoth like Microsoft rethink their game, but suddenly having two credible competitors, one for each end of the market, going up against a pile of feces like Windows ME and a company reputation for developing software as solid as a Soviet-bloc compact car will do it.
All versions of OSX prior to 10.5 were absolute dog faeces tbh.
-
All versions of OSX prior to 10.5 were absolute dog faeces tbh.
Harsh Nicholas. I've got a copy of 10.4 (Tiger) and I don't think its that much worse than 10.5 (but then I don't really care for OSX either - which explain why the OSX hard drive lays near my MorphOS/Ubuntu based Powermac ready to be installed in case I need firmware updates).
And besides, its not <10.5 thats dog feces, its Steve Jobs soul (if he still has one).
-
All versions of OSX prior to 10.5 were absolute dog faeces tbh.
I was out of the Mac game by then, so I'll leave judgement to those who've actually used it, but: as bad as Windows ME?
-
I was out of the Mac game by then, so I'll leave judgement to those who've actually used it, but: as bad as Windows ME?
Mac OS X 10.0 had lots of issues (read the old Ars Technica articles on OS X) but the OS rapidly improved. They all had the solid Unix underpinnings however, and I'd rather use 10.1 than Windows ME. A lot of the issues reported were people moaning about differences from classic Mac OS too, rather than actual flaws like Windows had.
10.2 brought OpenGL accelerated desktop compositing amongst other things, 10.3 brought the very useful Expose, and 10.4 (the first version I used) was very solid.
-
Still no hardware accelerated flashh though.
Tiger on my mac mini cant watch youtube using flash
-
Still no hardware accelerated flashh though.
Tiger on my mac mini cant watch youtube using flash
Yeah, well, Adobe Flash has issues on any platform that isn't Windows. It's hardware accelerated if you have Snow Leopard and nVidia graphics though.