Pictures of AmigaOne motherboard and statements from Alan Redhouse

[System]

Then buy a Pegasos. You won't be forced to run Linux and you can run your old apps. What more do you want?

What more does he want? Likely he wants AmigaOS4!  :-) Sure MorphOS is nice, but for Amiga software compatibility he could run UAE on Linux as well and probably use a much larger percentage of his legacy software!

[System]

So please, before you start making such wild claims as compatability issues, run the product first.

And maybe I and some friends did test a recent version of MorphOS...

As you probably have access to the latest MorphOS updates, can I make out of this that you say that currently MorphOS offers a similar level of 68k Amiga software compatibility as compared to UAE solutions?  :-o  ;-)

[System]

Just buy a WinTel and run the latest WinUAE.

If you own a Windows box then WinUAE is a nice additional solution for Amigans. I have recently written an extensive article for WinUAE beginners at OSNews.

Anyway Kronos, I believe you have misread this discussion between Downix and me. My relpy was regarding, wanting something else than just Amiga software compatibility. In which case UAE solutions offer more software compatibility due to chipset emulations.

[System]

oh, for goodness sake....

Amiga OS4 is gonna crush morphos.

Go ahead.
"how do you know this"?


 :-D

[System]

Mike, you've never run the latest MorphOS to the best of my knowledge, how would you know how much software it can and cannot run?

Because morphos does no chipset emulation? So yes, UAE does definately run more software than morphos.

[System]

@ logain

You seem to forget that MorphOS has an UAE too.

No I wasn't and for the record UAE ports are available for almost all better known OSes, including MacOS, AmigaDE and even AmigaOS itself.

The point of the original discussion was that an user was likely waiting specificly for AmigaOS4 and not solely for compatibility with Amiga software, for which there are many alternatives. According to community polls a new Amithon emulation solution by Bernie is the most popular, followed by an AmigaOS4/AmigaOne solution.

You should also not forget that you can run MorphOS applications right from the start (which have the Amiga look&feel) instead of Linux apps for an unforeseeable time.

Yes, the entire ABOX is built on top of an Alien kernel, above this kernel is a second "reimplemented" Amiga-like Exec kernel. Everything within the ABOX is very Amiga-like, a similar structure, similar filenames, similar components, etc. Just like with Amithlon (Linux), the underlying kernel/OS is hidden from the user. Quark is just as alien to AmigaOS, as for instance QNX Neutrino or Mach.

And also dont forget, that A-Box' JIT performance is ways higher than the Linux/WinUAE-JIT..

This depends on the hardware as well.

Funny enough lately with every positive AmigaOS4/AmigaOne thread, there seems to be attempts to artificially transform it into a MorphOS propaganda thread.  ;-)

[System]

@ Downix

Last time I checked, however, I didn't ask "what was more popular."

I fail to see your point. *I* was talking about which solution is more popular, even amongst mainly German Aachen show visitors (Peg/MOS are German products, Genesi focussed event). So there is a much larger group amongst our little community, who want to have AmigaOS4 specificly.

A group of Germans would prefer a Pegasos/AmigaOS4 combination, which of course will not happen before Genesi signs a contract. And it should be noted that this was also influenced by Genesi's FUD spread about Mai and Eyetech's products, which may backfire as AmigaOne-XE boards use the new Articia chipsets, unlike still unavailable Pegasos boards.

But considering Genesi's crusade, I doubt that this would become possible any time soon.

Do not forget that you asked: "What more do you want?". Answer "AmigaOS4".

so it looks like AOS4 and MOS are equal in that respect.

The point is that many people want AmigaOS4 specificly, the legacy Amiga software compatibility isn't a decisive argument to many. It would be fairly easy to create a UAE solution, including chipset emulations on top of a Linux, QNX or whatever other kernel, which then takes over the complete system in a similar way like the ABOX currently does.

Or ExecSG, which is also an alien kernel that can emulate the Executive Library.

Correction, ExecSG is a new and improved PPC version of the original Exec kernel. There is no additional kernel running on top of ExecSG.

[System]

Ok sorry, then i misunderstood this sentence: "In which case UAE solutions offer more software compatibility due to chipset emulations".

Yes you must have, UAE offers more compatibility with Amiga software than an ABOX. UAE normally does not take over the complete system, like Amithlon and ABOX/(MorphOS) do, however if there was a large demand for this it would not be too difficult to accomplish. You could even run UAE inside UAE if you like...

Thats true..but just for the record, A-DE is not an OS (and definitly not "better known" )

The AmigaDE is an OS, with intent being its foundation. Some think the AmigaDE is something which runs on top of intent, but actually the AmigaDE simply includes intent.

If you meant to say that the AmigaDE isn't currently a desktop targeted OS, then I would agree. But intent can either run hosted as a transparent compatibility layer on top of other OSes or the OS can also be used non-hosted, like is the case with Kyocera's Pocket Cosmo PDA for example.

So when OS5 comes (if ever) you'll also whine about its alien kernel and the second "reimplemented" Amiga-like Exec kernel which runs in a "sandbox"?

First of, AmigaOS5 (64-bit) is still a long way off. And I do not think sandboxes would be implemented in the same way as currently is done with the ABOX, where the sandbox takes over the complete system. And for the record I am not whining... I am trying to be informative!  :-)

[System]

@ DaveP

Im not a MikeB fan

Phew, what a relieve.  ;-)

Every post you make I can almost hear the sound of the Eyetech cash register going one more time.

One thing you can be sure of, I will not go onto MorphOS community websites to tell people that they should buy  Eyetech's solutions instead, or artificially take over positive MorphOS threads. And for the record I have only ever stated that the Pegasos is a well designed motherboard, just like the AmigaOne-XE.

[System]

I happen to like the feature list of the Pegasos better, and like it's smaller form factor.

The Pegasos is excellently designed hardware. If the hardware would come with AmigaOS4/PPCBoot and offers G4 CPU options at a time of proper availability, I would surely consider buying a board in addition to getting an AmigaOS-XE.

My personal preference would however go towards an AmigaOne-XE solution, as I currently prefer to have an additional PCI slot instead of a smaller form factor board.

to get the flames above

I haven't seen any real flames in reply to your messages. My reactions were intended to be informative and there was just some little general criticism with regard to AmigaOne news items resulting into Pegasos propaganda threads.

[System]

To my knowledge, the first 66-MHz PCI-Slot is completely shared with AGPx2.

Yes, the FUD/misinformation campaigns by certain individuals in the past have been fairly effective.

There are two buses,

* 3 x 33 MHz PCI on one bus
* 1 x AGP (2x) and 1 x 66/33 MHz PCI on the other

There's nothing wrong with this. What it does mean is that, if you use an AGP grahics card in combination with a *very high bandwidth* PCI card on the *same bus*, the performance of either may suffer from bottlenecked performance. There's nothing here for anyone to spread FUD about, I would recommend to consume most of such statements with extreme scepticism.

[System]

@ Kronos

With regard to PPCBoot, the Frieden brothers have done an excellent job. For some more info, turn here.

@ logain

But if intent can run unhosted now

This isn't something new, this has been the case all along. Only, it often makes more sense to run hosted because device manufacturers mostly already use well established OS solutions in combination with a large library of legacy software.

It wont be that way in the final stage! As you most probably know, theres the so-called Q-Box in development which will be the complete new OS in the end

I know, but I currently care just as much about the QBOX as I do about QNX or OpenBeOS. How much Amiga-like will this non-hosted environment be in the future? A question to which I haven't gotten a clear answer (yet).

Sorry for being harsh!

OK thanks.  :-)

I agree with Downix on his point that different people simply have different needs. Nomatter what you decide to buy is only your business. IMO we should only try to control the high amounts of misinformation and FUD being spread. IMO the more accurate information being spread, the more likely our communities can grow stronger.

[System]

@ kronos

No OF, wasn't a good BootROM solution at all. I already stated this at a time when there was no alternative in sight for the AmigaOne. Sure they could have patched it, to make it function more properly, but there were simply too many design flaws and bugs.

MAI didn't hire the Frieden brothers for nothing. Sadly for AmigaOS4 development this caused some additional delays, as another much bigger and more resourceful 3rd party was unable to deliver a proper solution.

just a few days ago it served as an excuse for the newest

There have been many well founded reasons for delays. Note that many other companies suffer from countless delays as well, including Genesi or a multi-billion dollar company like Microsoft.

[System]

@ Kronos

Sometimes it makes sense to use something different. For instance Apple made the decision to develop a new webbrowser called Safari, instead of using more tested IE or Mozilla solutions. The result is already alot more satisfying.

Designers can learn from previous design flaws and bugs found in previous solutions, so to use earlier bad experiences to their own advantage by designing a better solution.

[System]

@ Frodo

If this is a so bad solution, why so many industrials use it?

If Windows and IE are such bad solutions, why so many industrials use them?

Just because many companies or people use something, doesn't per se mean there aren't any better possible solutions thinkable. Why do you guys even bother working on MorphOS anyway then?

@ Jedi

always blind integrist the MikeB...

You can't come up with proper arguments, so you resort to childish name calling?