Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: Naeem on June 17, 2004, 05:22:30 PM
-
Hi there,
Has there been or ever likely to be a version of Amiga OS running on Mac Hardware?
I know Mac dont let you run their OS on other hardware thanks to early clones out-performing them :-)
Presumably there is nothing Apple can do to stop you loading a different OS though? (judging by the wealth of yella-dog users with emacs / imacs).
And there are *loads* of Macs out there...
-
Presumably there is nothing Apple can do to stop you loading a different OS though?
No, but they can stop the development of a commercial OS, most of the linuxes are free to download.. There are many more arguments against OS4 on Mac Hardware (and lots of pro as well), I guess you could search these forums for it..
-
If AmigaOS ever ran on Macs, there would be no point in buying the much inferior AmigaOnes. To protect Eyetech's interests, AmigaOS 4 will never run on anything else except the AmigaOne. Only should Eyetech fall out of the picture or out of favour will anyone see any effort whatsoever in getting AmigaOS to run on any other hardware.
-
But to the Amiga as a platforms interest, it would be a very good thing for OS4 to run on other PPC hardware.
imho.
-
Yes and the same applies to MorphOS. Although the entry level price tag is slightly less painful on Pegasos, having MOS or OS4 on a Mac is having your cake and eating it (as the saying goes..)
"Woohoo, i can get a sexy machine, run OSX native instead of lower performing MOL kludge and *dual boot* to Amiga OS...."
Well...like Amithlon users do on x86
FWIW Same reasoning as why no AOS x86
Steve
-
Naeem wrote:
Presumably there is nothing Apple can do to stop you loading a different OS though? (judging by the wealth of yella-dog users with emacs / imacs).
Of course not. But the AmigaOS world is a mirror world, in this little universe, it's the owners/licensors/makers/whatever of AmigaOS that have decided to stop AmigaOS from getting a larger + cheaper + better + already available + continuously developed hardware base. In this little world, we're supposed to pretend that there is a sane reason to pretend that there still are "Amigas", and to buy our hardware only from "Amiga dealers".
One of the used excuses for not selling AmigaOS to a larger market is to prevent loss of sales. Smart, huh?
And there are *loads* of Macs out there...
Exactly. We can't have that, can we? :P
If KMOS are as indifferent, ignorant, uninterested and inactive as Amiga, Inc. used to be, then I agree with Bill Hoggett's post above. Then the licensing/bundling/dongling requirement will stay, AmigaOS won't ever run on any hardware other than what Eyetech sell, and thus it's dead before it's even released. Unfortunately, KMOS so far have done and said nothing, and seem to be impossible to get in touch with.
-
One of the used excuses for not selling AmigaOS to a larger market is to prevent loss of sales.
Another argument is not being able to develop AmigaOS for all those differen macs/PPC boards and support users due to lack of resources.. I'd love to see OS4/MOS on every type of PPC board out there (not that many yet tho) but who is going to fund it..
Let's just say, even if Amiga Inc drops the lisence it still won't happen unlees somebody is going to put up the cash.. Or do you have the money to do it ?
I know you hate the "dongle" method, but people would give the same crap towards Amiga/Hyperion/Kmos even if they didn't have the "dongle"..
Genesi said a few months back they would look into developing an MOS version for Macs (A kind of Knoppix idea I believe) and restated those intentions not that long ago, but I believe it when I see it.. Not meaning I don't think they are just saying it, I'm just saying they might not be able to do it, resource wise.
-
by Naeem on 2004/6/17 12:22:30
Has there been or ever likely to be a version of Amiga OS running on Mac Hardware?
There is work for a hosted AROS (http://www.thenostromo.com/teamaros/bounty_details_15.html) going on. More donations to cheer the coder on, are of course, cheerfully excepted.
Dammy
TeamAROS
-
Interesting points raised there.
What is the problem with having a traditional business model based on users licencing the OS alone?
I mean Windoze CofA seem to work well enough for MS, couldn't Hyperion do the same?
OS people should write great OS'es. HW people should do their bit. But either one should not stifle the success (potential success rather) of the other.
-
Another argument is not being able to develop AmigaOS for all those differen macs/PPC boards and support users due to lack of resources.. I'd love to see OS4/MOS on every type of PPC board out there (not that many yet tho) but who is going to fund it..
Actually, I've only seen that argument being used "unofficially", like in forum posts. The illogical "anti-piracy" nonsense I was referring to is defacing a corporate website.
But of course you don't need to require that hardware vendors get themselves and their stuff licensed and start to sell AmigaOS-bundles, and that AmigaOS users should only be allowed to buy their hardware from such dealers, to accomplish what any normal Hardware Compatibility List does: Saying that "This operating system runs on hardware X, Y, and Z."
Let's just say, even if Amiga Inc drops the lisence it still won't happen unlees somebody is going to put up the cash.. Or do you have the money to do it ?
Sure, to sell a Product (AmigaOS running on Hardware X) you first need to make that Product. Currently, "Hardware X" only equals the Teron line of motherboards and only when sold by Eyetech (actually, so far it's equalled whatever the heck Eyetech happens to find, contrary to the touted "certifications" for "compatibility", "quality", "guaranteed supply" et c).
Running on better/cheaper/more commonly available hardware is essential, it means a better chance for return on the investment (the making of the Product). The licensing requirement is a hindrance to ever seeing that happen in the first place, regardless of whether it (=the investment/production) would be financially viable for KMOS/Hyperion.
Note that if AmigaOS was available for sale separate from hardware, it wouldn't even have to be Hyperion who made it run on and officially support that hardware. You could buy (or download from Aminet, depending on the altruism of the programmers ;)) for example a "Pegasos Software-kit" from a third party, and buy AmigaOS from KMOS/Hyperion. How much hardware would people be using with their Amigas today, if they only had hardware with officially released drivers from Commodore (or Escom/Gateway/AInc)? No PPC. No graphics cards. No PCI expansions ...
But where does this "every type of PPC board out there" stuff come from, and what does technical compatibility/feasibility issues have to do with this? No licensee = no OS. Without someone buying a license, it's pointless to even discuss what particular hardware that would make sensible targets. It doesn't matter if all that needs to be changed is one single byte, or if the hardware is alien technology from the planet Wo87yh87hswgre4xz. Again, No licensee = No OS. And even if someone would get a licence (yeah, right) for selling e.g. a PowerBook G4, then AmigaOS users would only be allowed to buy their PowerBook G4s from that licensee, even though the licensed and the "normal" hardware is identical just like with what's available today. All this must change, IMO.
Genesi said a few months back they would look into developing an MOS version for Macs (A kind of Knoppix idea I believe) and restated those intentions not that long ago, but I believe it when I see it..
Me too. Genesi make a living on their own hardware. It might make more sense some day depending on how MOS and the Pegasoses evolve.
Not meaning I don't think they are just saying it, I'm just saying they might not be able to do it, resource wise.
If anything, I think it's more likely to be the other way round. Resource-wise it shouldn't be too difficult a task to make MOS run on a Mac or two.
-
Naeem wrote:
Interesting points raised there.
What is the problem with having a traditional business model based on users licencing the OS alone?
Apart from the computer shop that helped a sleeping Amiga Inc invent the compulsory licensing scheme losing their de facto hardware monopoly; no problem.
I mean Windoze CofA seem to work well enough for MS, couldn't Hyperion do the same?
Yes.
Of course dropping the compulsory licensing model doesn't mean that it couldn't be a good idea to also let dealers buy licences to sell some sort of "official" and "Value Added" HW/SW bundles, in case anyone is interested.
OS people should write great OS'es. HW people should do their bit. But either one should not stifle the success (potential success rather) of the other.
Nicely put. There appears to be some confusion from AInc's side (and possibly KMOS's side, who's to tell?) what line of business they're really in, what sort of product an operating system is, and what they actually can make money on.
-
I follow some of what you said.
you lost me in the licensing argument though, but it sounded convincing :-)
A thought, and I think you alluded to this.
Pegasos makes it known that they allow any OS to run on their hardware and dont request any royalties or such-like for anyone wishing to do so.
So... there is nothing to stop a 3rd party (since we know A1 / Hyperion require a licence before they will let their OS go to other HW), a) acquiring this licence and developing the Pegasos port and b) shipping Pegasos boards with OS4.0
From what I hear pegasos has trouble selling units itself. It'd welcome anyone taking on wholesale lots of its hardware.
The idea could be a double edged sword. This 3rd party could have a pegasos amnesty. Hand in your old pegasos based system and take away a new OS4.0 based system for little more than the 75 USD or whatever OS unit price.
These salvaged boards could then be re-fed through the system, removing MorphOS of course. I dont think you can resell commercial OS's without a licence (in this case MOS) :-)
-
Seehund,
I love your arguement but it implys that traditional business models and economics apply to the 'Amiga like' computers....but they don't.
The reality of it is that development (and support) of Amiga OS or an 'Amiga like' OS probably costs far more than the projected return...
Widen the hardware base and the development and support costs escalate.
Genesi/bPlan have the 'bundled' route - the OS is 'free' with the hardware. This is the 'Apple' model...stick with known hardware, control the software..control the total solution cost.
Hyperion/Eyetech/KMOS/AInc have some undisclosed deal. The OS seems to be also bundled 'free' at this point in time. I'm not smart enough to fathom the deal but it seems that:
AInc gets $ for use of the Amiga name
KMOS gets $ because they 'own' the OS
Eyetech has to make their margin on the hardware
Someone pays Hyperion for the OS (kickback from hardware sale?)
Steve
-
@seehund, bhoggett:
According to Hyperion, OS4 has been written to sit on top of a HAL, which should make porting to different PPC motherboards less painful than a large-scale rewrite. However, these HALs have to be written. I don't think for a minute that all PowerMacs have the same chipsets, for example a "candy" iMac is probably not going to have the same NB controller as an eMac, or one of the server G4 Macs. That's even assuming you only intend to support "new world" PowerMacs. Each new northbridge needs a new HAL, and the HAL is such a fundamental part of any OS that you have to be 100% certain of its stability before you can say it's done. To me that means that each new supported mobo adds at least one more month until OS4 is released.
In a way, it's a smaller version of the argument against OS4 on x86: which motherboards do you support? right now it's been decided to pick just one, just to get the ball rolling. I would have personally been much happier to be able to pick from at least 3 different models, but I understand why for now at least my choices are Take it or Leave It. It's not a conspiracy, it's a necessity.
-
don't think for a minute that all PowerMacs have the same chipsets, for example a "candy" iMac is probably not going to have the same NB controller as an eMac, or one of the server G4 Macs.
Why not? You really think Apple are going to sepnd serveral $million designing a new Northbridge for every new model?
They may enhance NorthBridges but even then they'll still be based on the previous version.
The G5 NB will be different but only because it needs to be.
-
Why not? You really think Apple are going to sepnd serveral $million designing a new Northbridge for every new model?
One word: progress :-)
I would expect (and I'm sure several million Mac users would demand) that Apple come up with an improved chipset every few years to take advantage of things like DDR memory and faster buses (IIRC the "candy" iMacs had a 66MHz bus, while the "desklamp" iMacs have a 166MHz bus)
The Mac is like the Amiga, in that users expect their computers to last more than three years. Upgrading is something you do because you want to, not because an OS and office suite vendor demands that you do :-) How many Mac models should OS4/Mac support?
-
The Mac is like the Amiga, in that users expect their computers to last more than three years. Upgrading is something you do because you want to, not because an OS and office suite vendor demands that you do How many Mac models should OS4/Mac support?
Note that, MS Office XP** and Windows XP** works fine on Celeron @433Mhz/PentiumII @400Mhz IF you throw in at least 256MB of RAM(PC66) and 7200 RPM hard disk(~25MB/s sustained). Pace for the development of core logics in X86 markets is mostly due to competitive forces e.g. battle royal between the following players i.e. VIA, NVIDIA, AMD, ATI, SIS, ALI/ULI and Intel.
**Assumed to be Microsoft.
-
@Hammer:
Depends on what you mean by "fine". I remember trying to run Windows 95 on my 486 DX2/66 with 8MB of RAM (well within the requirements written on the box), and it was an exercise in patience. I have since vowed not to run any PC software unless my computer exceeds the "recommended" requirements, and many times the software I use (mostly versions of Word, Power Point, Visual Studio and assorted games) was more usable after a hardware upgrade.
Maybe my dig at Microsoft was a bit unfair, upgrade-itis is a disease that affects the entire PC industry.
-
A couple of comments (from an Apple customer):
(a) How many people are going to want to buy an Amiga given the politics around licensing? Should I buy an "Amiga", Genesi's offering will be the only one to receive due consideration. This is largely because of the politics behind licensing Amiga OS.
(b) Very few Apple customers care about chipsets, and I get the impression Apple doesn't change them very often. You can break down Apple's offerings into five product lines (iMac, eMac, iBook, PowerBook, and PowerMac), and you can expect minor changes every two years or so. You can expect quite a few of the controllers to be shared between every product line (eg. audio, ethernet, USB). Laptops may be the biggest issue because they are still using ADB controllers (ie. parts of the design are probably nearing 10 years old). It sounds like the biggest problem would be video cards, where Apple uses chips from two manufacturers and switches frequently. Then again, this may be less of a problem for Genesi because they would be able to enter NDAs (unlike Linux developers).
-
CodeSmith wrote:
To me that means that each new supported mobo adds at least one more month until OS4 is released.
Why? I haven't seen anybody suggest that 4.0 shouldn't be released at all until more hardware is supported (which, with the current licensing scheme in place, would most likely mean "never").
-
JKD wrote:
Seehund,
I love your arguement but it implys that traditional business models and economics apply to the 'Amiga like' computers....but they don't.
The reality of it is that development (and support) of Amiga OS or an 'Amiga like' OS probably costs far more than the projected return...
Widen the hardware base and the development and support costs escalate.
Incrementally adding support for additional hardware would not cost anywhere near the initial cost for making OS4 in the first place and making it run on the Terons. Under the current circumstances the only possible returns on the money spent so far would be bundled sales to people who also are prepared to pay preposterous prices for outdated hardware on a closed-off "Amiga market". I would think that this "market" is as good as saturated already.
-
Why? I haven't seen anybody suggest that 4.0 shouldn't be released at all until more hardware is supported (which, with the current licensing scheme in place, would most likely mean "never").
Well, the reason why no-one's suggested delays is because there's only one supported non-classic motherboard right now, that's the point (in fact, as far as I can tell the developer pre-release is meant to placate AmigaOne owners, the intention is still to sell both AmigaOne and Classic versions at the same time)
As to the licensing scheme, I've never seen it but I've heard nothing that would indicate it's not like most other licensing schemes, ie "pay me and you can use my brand name and logo, as long as you don't make me look bad in the process". Everyone involved has repeatedly said that there's nothing exclusive about the license - the "problem" is that no-one outside of the little group of companies involved think the Amiga brand name is worth anything any more (that is, assuming they even thought PPC motherboards are worth selling at all). Think of it as the conspiracy to keep fridge salesmen away from the north pole.
Regardless, I'm sure that if I decided to start selling Terons with MOL and MacOS on them, Apple would want to talk to me about a license too, even if I paid for MacOS in full.
-
This wouldn't be a problem if the A1 hardware wasn't so outdated and way, way, way over priced. That seems to be the base of this whole thing. The hardware is so outdated as to be funny, it less funny when you look at what they are asking for the old stuff and just becomes sad. I like Amiga OS, I think OS4 is bound to be a good OS, the people working on it are dedicated to making it good. However, I don't think they are going to get back very many former Amiga owners and even less new users at their prices. I won't.
-
Definition: Amiga
1) An antique computer famous for it's graphics and video capabilities.
2) A marketing label for hardware and/or software which is intended to be marketed as poorly as possible and for the highest price conceivable.