Just wondering what you folks think.
Do you think it'd be better to have a closed hardware platform as the majority, or are you on the side of the typical PC with a mish mash of parts ?
I'll go first by incessantly rambling on and on, thereby boring you all to no end.
I decided to get into Amiga after building my PC a few months ago. Typical PC with all the higher end crap, ended up costing a BUNCH. I always wanted to own such a ridiculous machine, but now that I own it, am totally bored with it.
There seems to be nothing really good to do (as a home user) on such a machine. Many games that would use it are just over hyped crap. Short of Arma 3, there seems to be NOTHING coming out that needs a massive machine. Thanks to CONSOLES, a lot of the stuff is also just crappy ports. Even what is coming out seems to be more just point and shoot crap.
I think that all this massive power is going to waste and crappy programming is tolerated. Going to a single unified hardware configuration has some advantages in this day and age:
1. BUG FIXES - We might all have bugs, but then everyone would get fixes sooner as 1 fix would work for everyone.
2. Programming could be made more efficient - More optimized compilers and dev tools.
3. Programmers could optimize apps like no ones business - If a C64 could pound an IBM 5150 into the ground @ 1mhz due to integration and optimization, what could we do with a Core I7 and GTX 680 or Radeon 7990 platform ?
Software developers could spend more time being creative with less platforms to have to master, and as the machines got pushed to their limits, things would have to be done more efficiently (see above).
4. Machines would be worth something when you sold them.
5. No more "My 'puter is better than yours.."
IMO old machines were more "fun" to use even taking into account the fact that that it wasn't all done before.
If it were up to me, I'd take whatever is a really high end platform and freeze it for 5 years as the standard pc. I owned an IMac till recently and IMO there are benefits to standardized hardware (now ppl should be free to know the inner workings however). I also owned a C64 and so I can see how programming efficiently can work.
IMO Jack Tramiel would have preferred the current PC ecosystem of cheap parts from everywhere.
iOS ecosystem was highly benefited due to "somehow" standardized hardware.
Unfortunately, competition (and shareholders) force them to upgrade HW on a periodic basis.
BTW, sometime ago, I suggested to Amiga-like-OS developers, like AROS for example, to choose ONE (just one) configuration:
- Let's say:
* Intel Core i5-3570K (Ivy Bridge)
* Intel DZ77GA-70K, Intel Z77 Express, BIOS 0049
* Sapphire Radeon HD 7970
* (2 x 4 GB) Crucial PC3-12800 kit
All users here would be able to create their own AROS-Amiga y1000 with not a huge amount of money
They (developers) would be able to do things just one time, knowing exactly what to expect.
Of course, they would have to ignore any other request, like: "ohhh, but I have a nice i3 or this motherboard is prettier/cooler or whatever". At the end of the day, is a niche/hobbyist OS, not a competitor to Windows, Ubuntu or Android. Not even OSX tries to support several different HW...
It's a lost battle trying to support a lot of hardware.
Same goes for MorphOS. I would say, pick 1 (just one desktop) and just 1 notebook model:
* Powermac G4 Dual 1.42 with Radeon X and etc... and/or * Powerbook G4 1.67 15
but for those, give full support, like Wifi, Bluetooth and etc.
