I think.........

[fishy_fiz]

Commerically, yes its quite stagnant, but there's new software and new ports done daily. Not just this, but a lack of commercial interest doesnt mean that what does exist already suddenly stops working.

Also why must something rise to prominence for it to be fun? I see it time and time again at various amiga forums that people try to come up with ideas for "the return of the amiga".... something I never exactly understood. The amiga didnt vanish. It's still on my desk, I can, and do, still use it. Along with a few of it's brothers that are "new" additions to my amiga hobby in AROS and MOS.

I guess it all comes down to what a person wants and needs to a degree. Personally I enjoy the current offerings (not just NG, but an average classic these days has a harddrive, extra ram, and so on) more than I enjoyed amiga back in it's heyday,.... always been a fan, but I enjoy using the systems for more than just playing games these days, and while its a little behind in some ways vs. the mainstream, I enjoy what Im currently doing with my amiga systems more than I did when predominantely playing floppy based games.

[fishy_fiz]

Funny to see Photoshop used as an example of why the amiga isnt modern anymore....

I was doing a game creation centric 3 year course at uni a couple of years ago (c/c++, 3ds max, ai programming, flash, actionscript, photoshop, etc., etc.).
For the 2d graphics part I mostly worked from home on my amiga systems using amiga software while the vast, vast majoprity (everyone except one other guy who used psp) used Photoshop cs3 (maybe 4, but I think it was 3, was a few years ago) and lo and behold who do you think got the best marks for that class?  Me  
The comments attached to my work were something along the lines of, "nice professional, interesting work. A class above the usual generic looking work I receive".

[fishy_fiz]

Well that the thing,... tools are just tools, it's down to the user what he does with them. There's plenty of instances where a lack of bloat can be a plus and can produce decent, different results. Look around the net, there's a heck of a lot of stuff you can pick the tools used, and more often than not this isnt a good thing.

Best tool for the job, and in my humble opinion sometimes the amiga, even in this day and age is still up to the task (especially now that something akin to "retro" has become mainstream again).

Although I do have a decent Windows machine (i7-2600k, gf 570gtx), and actually enjoy it I'll still turn to my a1200 or amithlon/os3.9 box 1st as often as not.

Long story short, it all comes down to what a person does with a machine, and how well they know it and its software when it comes to how productive a person can be. I dont say this as a slur, but I do wonder how many people do much more than browsing, playing games, watching movies and a bit of tinkering sometimes.

[fishy_fiz]

Actually, it's not A.Inc that disallowed AROS to be used. This aggressive attitude shown was after it became clear that the Hyperion/A.Inc courtcase stipulated A.Inc (and inherritently C-USA) werent allowed to release any AmigaOS style OS.
Granted, there's some truth in the fact that none of the NG options are ready for the mainstream yet, but the aggression towards AROS was inspired more by the realisation they couldnt use it even if they wanted to coupled with the fact that they also discovered it wasnt going to be a free ride (notice how theyre only using other peoples work that costs them nothing?).

Due to this I really dont see C-USA getting many supporters here in the amiga world. I personally couldnt care less enough to bash them, but the simple fact is nothing they produce will be anything resembling the amiga people enjoy. They can fine tune thier linux distro until the cows come home, and put it into an amiga style case, but this doesnt stop it being a linux distro and sharing nothing with the amiga people enjoy.

Hypothetical, but I also disagree that current limitations in amiga based oses mean it needs to be disregarded and started again for it to advance. Funny enough these "words of wisdom" seem to usually come from people who have never developed for the system, and dont really know what's required.
Look at where Windows has ended up, on a core with disadvantages vs amiga os, or how far linux has come along. Yes it's quite some work, but there's no reason AmigaOS based systems cant advance similarly.

[fishy_fiz]

I dont disagree that AROS (or indeed any "NG" amiga option) isnt ready for the mainstream, but your choice ofe xamples is,... err,... unusual  
Reaction isnt overly important, and AROS can run 68k executables seemlessly  (although it requires quite some grunt to do so in a decent way).

[fishy_fiz]

While youre entitled to your opinion the key thing youre missing is that with Linux, amiga vanishes in all but name. An emulator limited to a core that the amiga base wants to see extended and advanced really offers nothing to an amiga user. Not that I dislike OS3.x or 68k, its my most used amiga platform, but this doesnt stop th amiga fan in me wanting to see it progress still, which it is doing outside of C-USA, licensed brand name or not.

Amiga, in any of its guises simply isnt linux. The amiga experience vanishes this way. Being that most amiga fans are reasonably computer literate, if they wanted a linux distro, theyd already be using an linux distro, without having to pay excessive prices on hardware.
The Mac comparison in my opinion is inaccurate. Yes, the hardware is standard x86 gear, but the experience isnt (I say this as someone who loves to hate apple as well). You buy an apple product, you get an apple product, not a rebadged Linux distro.

[fishy_fiz]

I hope you're joking but didn't see any smilies so I'm not sure. I guess if all you want to do is run CLI programs or obsolete/hacky GadTools/MUI stuff you could get by without it, but I know I certainly couldn't. And therefore as a consequence, for example, it is completely impossible to produce any ports of any ReAction-based software to AROS without completely rewriting the GUI, which is just not feasible in most cases. There are many other enhancements from OS3.5 and OS3.9 that are missing from AROS (and MOS and OS4 too for that matter), I can't believe this is the case but it is. OS3.9 is now 11 years old so I'm not quite sure why the delay. I understand that the sources are not available but neither OS3.1 sources (nor Windows sources and WINE manages to emulate Windows). It's somewhat analogous to if WINE only supported up to Win95.



Last time I checked it couldn't, but I'll take your word for it that it can now do this.

Obsolete Mui. In the same sentence as OS3.x reaction? Now I hope it's you thats joking  
I cant think it one bit of software that I use that uses reaction rather than MUI, and Im predominantely an OS3.x user. MUI on the other hand I use constantly. IBrowse, Wookiechat, Amirc, Voyager, Scout, Scalos. I could go on and on. The only things I can think of that use reaction are a few simple preferences tools. Most of which I replace with MUI equivalents where possible anyway.

[fishy_fiz]

@Minuous

AROS aims for OS3.1 compatibility. Despite what many people have been saying for a long time, many people seem unable to grasp (perhaps selectively) that this doesnt mean "restricted to". There's many cases where it goes beyond anything OS3.9 (or4.x) has.
"Not very compatible at all" is a bit of a stretch simply because it lacks something that it never sought to include. You yourself indirectly mention that Reaction isnt nearly as heavily used as MUI. Additionally there actually has been a little work done on a reaction wrapper. Not to mention that there's plenty of work more important than yet another gui systems that adds only a small amount of software. None of it of any significance either (might be an exception or 2, but I cant think of any at the moment).

AROS sets out to be OS3.1 compatible, but enhanced in its own ways beyond that. It doesnt aim to be a remake of OS3.x.  Personally I see things like GTK (which aros has via gtk<->mui wrapper) as more important than reaction.

[fishy_fiz]

"No Windows PC can match it"?. In what sense? Performance wise Windows beats a Mac 9 times out of 10 (remember the malloc probs anyone?). Not to mention better drivers on Windows and various other areas where support is superior.

This aside though Apple actually put thier own flavor on BSD/Next. They have thier own apis and many of thier own technologies. It's not a bog standard *nix distro. Cocoa, Obj-C, and so on. Ive seen no indication that C-USA are intending to do the same. OSX was, from the very 1st release it's own product, COS isnt. Heck, theyve not even bothered to update thier UAE core, and instead rely on the open source community to hopefully one day do it.

There's absolutely nothing to make it stand out. Licensing a name simply isnt enough.
Im all for a new OS that has its own features and advantages, but nothing C-USA is doing suggests that's thier plan. If I wanted to use a standard Linux distro, Id use a standard Linux distro.

Additionally, again, it wasnt A.Inc that had any influence on C-USA's choice to use Linux. Amiga Inc. themselves arent even allowed to create an AmigaOS inspired system.