Who currently owns the rights

[Samuar]

I like the ideas mentioned here. A good productive discussion.

The idea of cheaply reproducing a classic amiga, using less chips and making it widely available (and hopefully:) cheap does appeal.

After all, there is a project which has created a C64 on an ATX board, i believe called the CommodoreOne.

http://www.go64.de/english/frames/commodoreone.html

If it can work for the C64, then surely - with our community base and perhaps some effort, a 68K ATX amiga could be brought to us.

It would have to be a cheap alternative to the PPC, which would be the difficult part - but I suspect it would be worth it. If the price is right, I see no reason why existing A1 owners would not want to own both.

Perhaps a good way to start such a project would be to target computer science students at universities - cheap labour looking to make a name for themselves in this world. We shouldn't forget such students - the SPARC processor, for example, was created by two students.

Samuar

[Samuar]

Miniturization sounds like a great idea - i'm all for it.
But do we have a problem related to the custom amiga chips (for graphics and sound etc) - i.e. the very thing that made Amigas much better than any other 68K based machines. If we dont have the schematics, or if we do and we dont have the rights to use them, then surely we are stuck.

samuar

[Samuar]

So, whats the solution?

I am guessing the question is "how do we make a very cheap amiga 'clone'(?) that can be purchased on masse and run old games on TVs etc?"

[Samuar]

i presume, that attempting this with an older, less complicated amiga would be easier than with a new model. I.e, a 500 rather than a 1200?

Or is the internal difference between the two only speed?

Samuar

[Samuar]

Perhaps we could contact KMOS and ask them who owns which IPs - as I doubt they would have come into this community without doing their homework first. Hopefully, they'll have a list of which parts of the original amiga IPs are owned by which companies.

Samuar

[Samuar]

UAE already works on Sega Dreamcasts - which come with controllers and TV-OUT; second hand they are about £20 and you can purchase Keyboards and Mice for them. Hell, I've got Doom on Linux running on mine.

Out of this box, we wouldnt need the GD-ROM Drive (special kind of CD-ROM) if replaced with flash; no need for the Modem or Broadband adapter - which would reduce its profile considerably.

[Samuar]

The MIPS + Uae idea looks to be the simplest, quickest and cheapest way of getting this product idea to market - as suggested by bloodline - which only leaves getting licenses for games.

However, a prototype shouldnt be too hard to knock up, which could run games that we already have single licenses for.

Running Uae ontop of another OS seems practical, especially if a little extra time is taken to make the os, say linux, small, lightweight and can boot quickly - almost becoming invisible to the consumer. This isnt too difficult to do as linux is excellent in embedded devices.

Once a prototype is ready, it could be demo'd at Amiga Shows (tho the device is more aimed at any home users, rather than amiga followers) and then aim to get some financial backing and get IP issues sorted.

I'd be interested in working on such a project.


Samuar


Edit/Addition:
The Sega Dreamcast uses a SuperH processor as opposed to a MIPS. However, with a bit of hardware and software work, it could be used as a proof of theory concept prototype.

[Samuar]

Yeah, SuperH is pretty decent. When you consider an SH4 with 16MB RAM and a PowerVR2 (graphics) chip can, when combined, runs Quake III Arena off an 1GB optical disk, I'd say its impressive.

My x86 box couldnt run Q3A with 16MB RAM.


Samuar

[Samuar]

@CatHerder
Hopefully it shouldnt be too expensive at all. The most expensive parts of PDAs are the screens (LCD & touch), the large amounts of memory and no doubt the Windows CE cost.

In essence, the idea is very similar to yours, but uses more work done by others - therefore reducing development time.
In fact, the key difference is a modern processor running UAE in some way - and once suggestion being via linux.

[Samuar]

Embedded technology is not that expensive. Whislt the Dreamcast did cost $150 when it was released, that was arguably the best money could buy.

I think a £20 s/u dreamcast would make a good, cheap early prototype - it already has the stuff we need, although it comes with a lot of unnecessary extras.

The stage after would be to put together an embedded processor, small amount of RAM, a flash device plus it the input/output channel. Combine it with the software and we have our one off device.

Purchasing embedded components at the quantities you specified earlier would reduce the costs to little more than fabbing the components you were suggesting (if not cheaper because they are already being purchased by others). The big save would be that we wouldnt have to convert older designs to newer fabbing processors (or do any reverse engineering).

I consider this idea to be a merger of CatHerders and bloodlines suggestions and points.

As to the ROMs, i purchases a 1.3 ROM as part of a Amiga Emulator CD a while back (not as good as Amiga Forever no doubt) - but it was only £5. That £5 must have included the profit of the distributor and shop (Game/Electronics Beautique), the cost of licensing the ROM from Amiga and the costs and profit of the manufacturer. This would suggest to me, that the ROM is but a small fraction of the original £5 cost. Which, if the same licensing were available to us, would be perfect.

Samuar

PS//
I consider this to be one of the more interesting threads I have ever participated on.

[Samuar]

@CatHerder
Forgetting the wonderful world of IP for a second:
What does your idea use instead of our processor & chip combination and how is it cheaper?

[Samuar]

...not to mention existing OS support, from an OS which UAE runs on too.

[Samuar]

ARM is another alternative, particularly since UAE has a working binary for it. Not sure as to pricing.

Samuar

[Samuar]

Yeah, i've been keeping an eye out on mini-itx for a for years now. I think nano-itx will be ace (squeeze a computer into a 5 1/4 inch drive bay). Its a pity they arent cheaper. But, as a demo to potential investors...

On the other hand, we should consider sticking to the architecture we chose for the final product - if only so that we dont need to code the same things twice. I wish there were more embedded boards that came with TV OUT as standard like the above pictured nano-itx board.

Samuar

[Samuar]

I think we have all got past our earlier arguments and/or differences. We seem to be concentrating on making progress on one of the best opportunities for the community in a while.

I think the next question is what do we do next?

Edit:
Suggestions, as always, are greatly appreciated.