I roll my own and I smoke a pipe, but there's nothing besides tobacco in it... 
Hmmm... How do you know that? I mean, perhaps the tobacco company is only the trademark owner of what you think is a tobacco company? Perhaps they have outsourced the tobacco cultivation using certain licensing policies which restricts the cultivators from growing "real" tobacco. Ever thought of that?
By this little sarcasm, I just wanted to point out that by your reasoning, how do we know if any brand or product is "real"?
The "commercial" revision of the TeronCX is the "new" A1 G3SE. I don't see why that is so controversial, or why you consider it's "trolling" to say it.
Because there are no changes in the A1 G3SE specifications since Escena got out of the picture. Eyetech got a hold of a MAI evaluation board and modified it to suit their needs. Like Eyetech said, the original Teron CX wasn't even made for mass production in the first place.
Also, the newer Teron CX design is not the first "commercial" version, the so called "evaluation" board was even possible to buy in as large quantity as you wanted with prices in proportion to the quantity (more boards ---> lower price per board). So, that version was just as "commercial" as this new version. However, after Eyetech became a partner, they now have much cheaper boards with better specifications due to a more mass production friendly design. Your theory simply fails to fit into any logic here as MAI was never interested in creating a mass production adopted design in the first place. This was even explained very clearly on their website as the initial design was more of a proof of concept thing for their chipset.
Your speculations are nothing but just that as long as you don't have proof. Show me proof of your theories or stop trolling. I mean, why should we simply believe you when official information as well as facts speaks an entirely different language? Because you say so?
Please don't give me that "I've spoken to the developer of the MAI boards" crap as I don't believe in a single word of it. Even if you would have spoken to *one of the people* (please note the use of plural) who made the design, his words would be twisted around by you into suiting your agenda anyway. Kind of like the way you twist Amiga Inc.'s or Bill McEwan's words around.
That reminds me, I would like your reply to that thread which we never finished off properly on slashdot. You can reply here as I can simply cross post from there:
>> The AmigaOne is an "Amiga" wether you think of
>> it as such or not.
>
> Oh yeah? And my daddy is stronger than your
> daddy! Lalalala-I-can't-hear-you!
>
> What the hell kind of argument was that
> supposed to be?
You say "no new Amigas" and then my reply is that it is per definition new Amigas as they own the trademark and noone but them define what an "Amiga" is.
> An Amiga was a home computer system that ran
> AmigaOS. The same company made both the
> hardware and the OS. The hardware was a custom
> job, as all computers back then, and the OS was
> dependent on custom chips and tightly coupled
> to the Amiga hardware. The hardware and the OS
> were made for eachother.
That is what *you* think an "Amiga" is but like I said, the meaning of the trademark isn't defined by you.
Sure, what you're talking about *used* to be the definition. But then, please wake up and realize that the definition has been redefined.
> Those days are over. THANK GOD! Unless some
> industry giant or inhumanly rich hardware
> genius comes along and pulls out the fastest,
> most advanced and cheapest hardware anyone's
> ever seen - and can keep up with development
> and pricing - then "new Amiga hardware" is
> something to fear.
Now that is per definition FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), period.
> AmigaOS is all that is left today, and you
> simply cannot have avoided that nobody makes or
> is planning to make any hardware with AmigaOS
> in mind, especially not Amiga Inc. Instead
> AmigaOS will run on third party hardware. No,
> you haven't missed that.
So, are you saying that Eyetech's AmigaOne hasn't been made with AmigaOS4 in mind? Please don't even mention MAI, Eyetech wouldn't have chosen their design if it didn't suit AmigaOS4. I'm sorry but, the AmigaOne has been made available to Amiga users for one purpose and one purpose only; to run AmigaOS4.
>>> I'm sure those "AmigaOne 1200/4000"
>>> motherboards are still praised somewhere on
>>> the horribly outdated amiga.com web site.
>>
>> You should really try reading the official
>> information available from Amiga Inc. before
>> citisizing them. Your speculations are not
>> appreciated, Seehund.
> Oh well. Here [amiga.com] is my "speculation."
That is an old section of the website, of course you will find outdated information there. I'm sure even you are competent enough to find the new AmigaOne section which is here: http://os.amiga.com/products/one/
I mean, I can look at the news archive of Amiga.org or even slashdot, does the fact that they have old information mean that they are outdated? No.
> While you read it and weep, please note the old
> humourous references to an operating system
> based on "AmigaDE". It's really good for a
> laugh.
AmigaOS4.2 will have AmigaDE support. That means this information is still pretty much valid as they are talking about a future product.
> Ooooh, they've got that embarrassing old
> Zico [amiga.com] joke still up there! "AmigaOS
> will run on... ummm... a computer... with some
> processor of some kind... And a next generation
> Matrox GFX card! That's mighty important!"
You're reading the corporate part of the Amiga website, of course they present simple concepts. Why would a potential investor be interested in more details?
Anyway, all of this are parts of the former design. Try pointing your browser to http://www.amiga.com and then navigate from there. If anything is outdated, then it is your bookmarks.
Oh, BTW: AmigaOne stuff is AmigaOS4 related, not corporate related.
>> That should read; "In order for your product
>> to be officially AmigaOS4 licensed, the
>> hardware vendor has to:".
> Which is synonymous in this case. What the ####
> is your problem?
Let me put it like this:
That should be "What the COPULATING is your problem?".
If you still can't see it, let's just end this argument right now.
>> AmigaOS vendor? Please elaborate, I have no
>> idea of what you're refering to. You do NOT
>> have to distribute AmigaOS4 with your licensed
>> product.
> "we will require, as part of the licence
> conditions, that a copy of Amiga OS is
> purchased with all boards sold that are capable
> of running it." [amiga.com]
Oh for christ sake! Of course I meant that you can sell the very same piece of hardware either as AmigaOS4 licensed (distributed with AmigaOS4 and the hardware verification bits) or unlicensed (without AmigaOS4 and the hardware verification bits). This means that even if you license your hardware, you can still sell it without AmigaOS4 just as long as you don't distribute any AmigaOS4 hardware verification binaries with it. Licensing your hardware does NOT restrict your hardware to be distributed with AmigaOS only, period.
> I've had it with you. I have said THE EXACT
> SAME ####ING THING as quoted above FOR EIGHT
> DAMN MONTHS, and I even said IN THE VERY SAME
> POST that you're replying to, and you start
> babbling about me failing to understand?
Yes, you are failing to understand the difference in what we're both saying. Things isn't always about what you say but rather *how* you say it. Saying "you have to be an AmigaOS vendor in order to license your hardware" is the same thing as "hardware with the AmigaOS4 hardware verification binaries installed must be distributed with AmigaOS4", but at the same time it isn't. You're saying the right things in the wrong way and I do believe this is intentional.
> Amiga Inc has NOTHING to do with AmigaOS apart
> from the trademark and license.
They OWN the AmigaOS, isn't it relevant enough? They provide support for AmigaOS3.9 on classic Amiga hardware today and they will be providing support for AmigaOS4.0 on AmigaOne hardware tomorrow.
> "Amiga Inc ALLOWS anyone to become an AMIGA
> HARDWARE manufacturer"? And you compare the
> AmigaOS situation with Apple's OWN HARDWARE?
> And you top it off with basically saying "it
> doesn't suck because it sucks less than another
> totally unrelated and incomparable and
> irrelevant thing that really sucks"?
Exactly. I mean, if they suck more, why don't you have a petition against them instead?
> Begone. You made me SHOUT. My brain hurts.
Don't blame me because you are emotionally involved.
I would also like a reply to a specific contribution I made to a discussion we had on ANN the other day (
http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1036645965&category=web&start=301#message306):
>> have the thought that this is actually causing more damage than helping ever
>> crossed your mind, Seehund?
>
> Damage to whom or what, and how? What is it you think could cause damage to
> something? Actually selling the software, or just people saying that the
> software should be available for sale?
So, claiming that:
* the AmigaOne is not an "Amiga" computer at all
* Amiga Inc. isn't interested in the Amiga desktop market at all
* their hardware licensing policies will kill the Amiga market
* they are repeating the mistakes of commodore
all over every computer related news website on the net isn't the slightest little bit of damaging PR? I mean, if you haven't followed the Amiga the last decade, why should you even bother looking at it if this is the information you get? I'm telling you: IT ISN'T HELPING YOUR CAUSE! It will only make people look away and most definitly contribute to your doom predictions. And if this happens, like the little prick that you are, you will probably go around telling everyone how right you were.
Now, I could make this post ALOT longer if I wanted to, as there are ALOT of flaws in your (internet) widely spread theories. I normally don't bother with people like you but your actions has simply gone too far. This Anti Amiga Inc. PR of yours simply must be stopped before you kill the little chance that we have left, if any at all exits.
Surprise me by replying with perfectly sensible logic. No, that would more than just surprise me, it would probably give me a fatal shock.
