AmigaOne clones?

[Thellenbow]

@T-Bone

I just signed the petition. I've thought this way for some time now. What I can't understand is how AI doesn't see the logic of it.

Tony P

[Thellenbow]

jumpship wrote:
A clone is ok in a market that is already working, but given the small size of the Amiga market as it stands a company needs to know that they will sell a certain amount to make a return to make the venture worth while. At the moment few is better, although if the Amgia gets anywhere near as big as it used to be, Amiga "clones" would be a great thing. It creates competition and lowers prices, but the market has to be able to sustain the number of manufactures, without that ability no (sane) businessman would consider it.

This doesn't make sense. If I am selling software, my only concern is how many machines can I get it on. Remember that expression, user base? That is what selling software is all about. Anyone with a PPC Lunix system might like to give AOS a try. :-)  But if you have to fork out a lot more money just to buy another system for the sake of the OS.... A cheap scape like me might send $100 for an OS just to try it out, but $800? :-o

[Thellenbow]

neofree wrote:

But again, it's going to have to be a lot cheaper for it to be reachable to me.  I can't beleive I just paid $150 USD for an A1200 with A1230 and SCSI.   Sure this is an awesome deal compared to all of the others, but for as old as this machine is, it is high.

Neofree

Hey, I just saw a 266 PC for $350 at some kind flea market. Talking about rediculous. :crazy:

[Thellenbow]

Tigger wrote:
 The fastest x86 chip is not only cheaper then the fastest G4, its also much more powerful.   Current Dual G4 Mac at 1.25 Ghz is getting eaten up by single 3 Ghz P4 systems at less cost.   In 4 days we may see faster Macs, but all I have to do to beat them is talk about dual P4s and its all over again.
 

Tig

IMHO, I think is functionality. P4's and AMD's might be faster, but they cannot do as many things. Not being an expert on processors, I could be wrong, but comparing the RIST vs CIST(?) design, the RIST has greater functionality and uses less energy. The fact that you don't need a bunch of cards to do things on a Mac, where as a PC can't do anything without a bunch of cards is the point.  ;-)