Is It Emulation or Not -- the Dilemma

[danbeaver]

Sorry, but the hardware has always defined the computer and the owners of said hardware design get to name it. An Amiga is the hardware that Commodore sold. The operating system is superficial. If MorphOS (as in v 1.45) ran on an Amiga, that computer does not become a Morph computer; it is an Amiga running MorphOS.

[danbeaver]

@danbeaver

Then you are saying that C=USA's Amiga is the true Amiga since they have the legal right to name it?

Hmm, BRANDING?  Let's use my logic: Did CUSA design their hardware? Uh... No.  It is a frickin' Intel based chipset oft called a "PC."  Did they buy the name to sell stuff?    Uh...  yes, I suppose.  Is the stuff they sell original.  Well they are "copying" the case design one of the previous BRAND name owners.  Is their software an emulation? Yep.

And "Native" code?  Does the code define the hardware design?  Well, which came first the hardware or the code?  In the case of an ORIGINAL design, I vote that the hardware came first.  Heck, the Amiga team "emulated" Jay Miner's chip design on a Mac to work on the Amiga OS software, only to find that when the actual chips arrived, they did not behave like the "emulated" ones.  "Native code" means as much as "binary code."  It is a tree that blocks your view of the forest.  If "whatever software" runs on the designed hardware, the computer does not become a "whatever software" computer.  It doesn't matter were he grips it, the coconut does not become the swallow [vida supra].

P.S., Dilemma from Greek "Di" = two and "Lemma" = assumption, proposition, argument or theme.

[danbeaver]

Dude, I totally agree!  

As far as the Apple Mac and Intel...  that is what I described earlier as "muddled."  I mean to sell a product like a computer for a wider profit margin it makes sense to skip designing your own hardware and use "someone elses" standard platform (I have no idea who defines that standard).  This means cutting your R&D hardware staff and their costs.  You then just kludge your "Mac OS" to run on the new hardware and now you have a "new Mac." Now any advances (by others) to the hardware becomes YOUR advances; it is now YOUR 16 core 64 Gig USB 5.0 Mac Air_Pro_Heavy computer.

In fact that describes the issue of emulation: the Mac OS is now "emulated" on Intel hardware, just like MorphOS, RuninUAE, WinUAE, et cetera.

[danbeaver]

With Intel Mac's the only time emulation comes into it is when running PPC applications. An Intel Mac is a thing in it's own right, it doesn't emulate itself when running applications compiled using the Intel Mac SDK.

 
Good Point!

Let's put it the way Apple tried to sue Microsoft over Windows:  "You then kludge the 'look and fell' of your operating system to run on whatever is the hardware flavor of the week.  Thus 'emulating prior code' to give the consumer the idea nothing has changed; you sell it as just  another 'improvement' to the Mac."

[danbeaver]

Well I'm not sure what an "acticle of faith" is, nor that software has faith (agnostic).  But code does not define the hardware, and your non-specific code either worked like Java (JIT compiler) or was written in some binary that at some point reached specific hardware.  If your code was not compiled for the hardware, but was interpreted to run on the hardware, by whatever API or "other layer of software," then it was emulated.  Prior to compiling, all code is generic (in my experience, and no ASM doesn't need compiling), now whether it has Faith or is Agnostic is not for me to say.  But the hardware defines the computer.  The software, well just defines the software.

If the designers had made a hardware system and called it "Morph" and the subsequent OS was called "MorphOS," then it would be a Morph Computer.  As it is, Apple designed that hardware, Morph designed an "emulation layer," and low, and behold, it ran SOME software marketed for the Amiga (hardware) computer.

[danbeaver]

Thank you, you have finally agreed with us!  MorphOS is an emulation layer allowing Amiga software to run on non-Amiga hardware.

So are we done?

[danbeaver]

We should be, since its a premise I've never denied.
But then I consider it a feature I like, so its not a issue with me.
It would be foolish to incorporate backward compatible hardware if this solution is entirely adequate.

I'm sorry you thought this was directed at you, Iggy, but it was not; your position is clear and acceptable; no dilemma there!

[danbeaver]

Iggy, I like your point of view.  I have a Mac-Mini G4 with a registered MorphOS 3.1 version that I used for 2 weeks as part of my curiosity.  It is slick, fast and works well for the few applications it has.  I had more fun on my A4000T all maxed out and running OS 4.1, so I have the little Mini set out to the side of my office.  

For grunt related "work issues" I have a "2 cycle PC" on one wall of my office and by A4000T on the other. I use the term "2 cycle" because I never build a computer within 1 of Moore's Cycles; I found the best price/performance 1.5 to 3 years behind.  then every 2 cycles I gut the box and upgrade the motherboard, video and whatever.

When I want real what-you-see-is-what-you-get, I use my Amiga and usually Final Writer or PageStream; there is no equivalent, in my mind, in the Intel world.  Don't know about Macs, I can't build them (well maybe now, but then the software costs would kill me).  Heck, I use Word '97 on my "PC" along with Acrobat 9.4 and shareware stuff.  I bought IRIS OCR and Nitro Pro 8 recently, but I hate software I have to pay to update every year!

Sorry, off thread.

[danbeaver]

Persia, there are many reasons to emulate, you just used Apple's reason for moving the Mac "look and feel" to newer hardware. I use my A4000T with OS 4.1 that uses emulation to give a new appeal to old hardware (and to use a PPC I bought in the 1990's and just sat on my 68060 board).  In both high school and college we had to write emulators as part of the course work.

TMHG,
On the other hand, semantics rules many lives and thus ruins many lives. To say that 'X translate software code, but it would never emulate software code' is just pathetic. To use the terms "native and natively" as if this was proof of God's existence in the world of computer science is equally sad; or to call the code "binary."  These are silly semantics meant to obscure insecurity.  RW Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[danbeaver]

Wrong. It has a compatibility layer to run Amiga software natively.

If you mean there is an emulation layer to execute 68k code then we can agree. This emulation layer is not limited to 68k Amiga software but could be used to implement MacOS compatibility layer or execute 68k software written for MorphOS.

Semantics ....

Yes you could call the emulation code a "compatibility layer;" works fine for me

[danbeaver]

MorphOS and AmigaOS better integrate 68k than it is possible using X86 or ARM f.e. and you can add features by adding 68k libraries. On the other hand is a sandbox solution more clean so you can make changes to the OS more easily without breaking 68k compatibility. Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. From a user point of view (expecially when it is not a hardcore amigian) it is not important if it is emulated (in hardware or software) or not, the user is only interested what programs run on the system and how good is the hardware he/she gets for the money. If I have the choice to have tighter integration but am stuck to aging and expensive hardware platform or have a sandbox solution and modern hardware and a better improvable OS I would clearly take the second.

I'm confused; are you saying it "is" or, "is not" emulation?  We will have to start another thread on the "user experience, sandboxes," and flea collars

[danbeaver]

Uh....,   Itix, "Pedantic?"  Could we read the book passage to which you refer?

[danbeaver]

Simulation! :laugh1:

Immolation?

[danbeaver]

Psxphill,
 I've leaned not to trust WikiPedia entries and when in doubt always try to check their references.  I'm afraid I found the following quotes from references 2 and 3:

Ref. (2) David Gerber (2002)

"1 Description of the system
1.1 Introducing MorphOS
MorphOS is the rst successful attempt to run Commodores A1200, A3000 and A4000s operating system on a PPC processor and improved systems free of legacy Commodore hardware. Its based around the Quark microkernel and runs the OS within an emulation box providing a fast 680x0 emulation. A fully PPC native exec replacement provides ways to write native PPC programs running into the emulation box in a mixed mode. For consistency, well call the Commodore system ABox from now on."
---
Ref. (3) MorphOS Full Features List -- v1.1  11/12/02 by the MorphOS team.

"A-BOX Components

Static 680x0 emulator
It emulates 680x0 instructions. All 68881 and 68882 opcodes are supported too.
The most used FPU instructions are replaced with emulation opcodes easier to decode.  Some
unused features are not emulated."..."Other filesystems (like PFS3) run emulated"


Well, food for thought.