Why not AmigaOS4 for x86 Platforms?

[mdwh2]

Karlos wrote:

Hammer wrote:

All this willy waving is well and good, but is there an existing amiga application, or any in development that can even tax the existing G4 sytems?

Any 3D rendering applications would tax any MPUs e.g. AOS's Cinema 4D R4.2.

Raytracers are not typical applications.

So what's a "typical" Windows application that taxes the latest CPUs? I guess there's games, but I can't really think of applications (at least, ones that couldn't be similarly discounted as "not typical").

[mdwh2]

lempkee wrote:
Antiriad:

yeah what a wise comment there :-) , just look how it went for BEos / Warp and all thoose other OS's that just had to go x86 and get wiped off the face of the earth.

Okay, I look at how BeOS was far more popular on x86 than it ever got on PPC.

Now, I don't know how profitable it was for them in comparison - but if they were raking in the money on PPC, then losing on x86, why did they stick with the latter?

The fact is that BeOS tried all three (their own PPC machine, Macs, x86 PCs), and failed on all three. That they tried x86 last before finally going bust doesn't prove anything.

As for bringing up OS2 Warp, what about all those OSs that went a non-x86 route and got wiped off the face of the earth (like, you know, AmigaOS, which is probably not used more than OS2 these days)?

sure they have a certain user amount still, sure they have alot of problems getting support for all their devices so naturally they just run XP or whatever to fullfill all their needs.

by saying it simple: there is no way to support x86 unless u support ALL the motherboards and geuss what...wont ever  happen and if people thought the A1 bugs was annoying then you should check the x86 pc arena.

The A1 has graphics and PCI cards doesn't it? Will people go rushing to XP because AmigaOS doesn't support every single PCI card out there?

[mdwh2]

leirbag28 wrote:
Whos talking about OLD custom chips? I certainly aint....im speaking of an entirely New Genration custom chipset as standard....................socketed so that they can be upgraded by the parent comapny Amiga Inc................just like the Enhanced Chipset and AGA................except they would be much more advanced................and you saving tons of cash cuz your just changing the chips......you can channel that extra cash in your pocket for the Chips................and Amiga Inc pumping more money into the 2nd set of More SUPER powered Custom Chips would justify it...............cuz every Amigan has the same machine!!!!

My computer has a "SUPER powered Custom Chip" plugged into a socket. It's called an AGP graphics card.

[mdwh2]

Karlos wrote:
Well, this is my point. This quest for faster and faster is driven mostly by a few types of application (eg games, or to be fair, raytracers etc) whilst the vast majority of software barely makes use of a fraction of the available power.

Which is why I find it amusing that people are complaining about amiga systems running on PPC's that are literally hundreds of times faster than their 680x0 predecessors and are still complaining that they aren't as fast as the latest x86 / x64.

I agree in some sense; I'm more bothered about other things that pure CPU speed. But price is also an important factor, and x86 wins out there too (at least, in terms of PC versus proprietary box; I don't know how CPU prices compare). Paying loads extra for a G5 which is possibly faster than any x86 might attract some people, but few want to pay loads extra for something much slower. Also, having faster models available (be it G5 or x64) has the effect of making the older slower models come down in price.

And whilst "most people" might not be interested in things like 3D programs, video encoding, compiling and so on, we're not really talking about most people - the typical user who only uses the web and email is sadly unlikely to get a non-mainstream OS anytime soon.

[mdwh2]

Waccoon wrote:

I agree in some sense; I'm more bothered about other things that pure CPU speed.

Why is everyone getting excited about the Mac Mini, then?

Presumably either its low cost or small size. I didn't think anyone was excited because it's the fastest computer in existance.

So what's a "typical" Windows application that taxes the latest CPUs?

Encoders and decoders, for some.  Wanna convert a whole ton of music to MP3's?  Video editing and photo manipulation is also becomming a killer app for many computers.

And aren't mp3 encoders/decoders etc available for AmigaOS too? That's my point.

[mdwh2]

Waccoon wrote:

Presumably either its low cost or small size. I didn't think anyone was excited because it's the fastest computer in existance.

In the threads about AmigaOne vs Mac Mini, speed seems to be the dominant issue.  People are willing to pay a lot for a new platform, but not at the performance the AmigaOne delivers.

Good speed for its price, which is exactly what I'm saying - and indeed anyway, I was the one saying that speed was important, in response to someone saying that it wasn't important. "People are willing to pay a lot for a new platform, but not at the performance the AmigaOne delivers" is basically exactly what I said a few posts ago when I said "Paying loads extra for a G5 which is possibly faster than any x86 might attract some people, but few want to pay loads extra for something much slower", so I do not think we are in disagreement here.

I then added that "I agree in some sense; I'm more bothered about other things that pure CPU speed." Which is true. Even if other people are bothered about having the fastest thing available irrespective of cost (and I'm not sure that interest in the Mac Mini indicates that), that doesn't affect what *I* am concerned with.

And aren't mp3 encoders/decoders etc available for AmigaOS too? That's my point.

Aren't they for 486's and SPARC and Alpha, too?  What's your point?

The original claim was that there is nothing on AmigaOS that takes advantage of fast CPUs. If encoders/decoders are an example of something that "takes advantage of fast CPUs", then these *are* available on AmigaOS. Repeating that they are available on other platforms is beside the point, as I never claimed that 486s, Sparcs etc have nothing to tax their CPUs.

[mdwh2]

terminator wrote:
Just how long do you think it would survive in the MS sandbox?

It would be dead in minutes. Who in their right mind would waste time developing for an x86 version of OS4 when they may as well just release it for Windows.

Why would anyone buy anything for the x86 version of OS4, when they can buy almost anything at the local pc superstore, today.  Not 18 months from now.

Replace "x86" with "PPC" in what you wrote, and the same points apply.

[mdwh2]

Waccoon wrote:

mdwh2:  The original claim was that there is nothing on AmigaOS that takes advantage of fast CPUs.

So, it's perfectly acceptable to put in slow CPUs?

Note I wasn't the one making that claim, I was the one arguing against it. I generally agree with what you write here.

[mdwh2]

terminator wrote:
Would you wait 2 years to buy an Amiga version of a game, and pay $75 for it, when you can buy the windows version right now for $50?

If I have a PC running Windows, I wouldn't wait. That applies whether the Amiga is on x86 *or PPC*.

If I don't have a PC running Windows, and I went out and bought an x86 PC to run AmigaOS x86, then it's unlikely that I would spend a load of money more on an OS, and then put up with all the hassles with dual booting.

Maybe yes, if I was that bothered about the game. But then in the scenario of a PPC Amiga, if I was that bothered about games I'd buy a separate Windows PC or console, buy games for that instead of the Amiga, *and* have the benefit that I don't have to faff about with dual booting.

AmigaOS cannot coexist on the wintel platform with windows.  Windows will trump everything.  MS has annihilated  every other operating system that tried to exist in their sphere.  Those who tried to make money from an alternate OS in that ecosystem were eliminated.

(Linux is an exception, it isn't a commercial product, nor does it really have any traction outside of a few specialized zones.  It costs nothing but your time to install, so it's no big loss if you don't use it.)

Yes but there is commercial software available for it, and contrary to what you claim, people do buy Linux versions of things.

Ask yourself why is there so much interest in WINE to run Windows-only software, if it'd be so easy to reboot into Windows?

Microsoft have come out with the most popular OS not just in x86, but on computing as a whole. There exist two vaguely mainstream but still minority OSs, one of which is x86 and one is PPC. So I fail to see how we can say that nothing can survive on x86, but it's easy on PPC.

[mdwh2]

terminator wrote:
When you're on PPC you are not in the MS sandbox.  They dominate x86.  Do you think bill gates lays awake a night worrying about Apple's sales?

If he doesn't, it's because they aren't enough as a threat.

If people start moving from PCs to Macs in large enough numbers, he most certainly will lay awake worrying.

No, he could care less.  All he is interested is selling another copy of Windows.  The MacOS doesn't run on x86, therefore it is irrelevant.

That would be why Microsoft are trying to get Windows running on every single (non-x86) portable/mobile device out there.

Microsoft most certainly do care about more than the PC, especially since the market is reaching stagnation point (most people who want a PC already have one, and Windows is good enough for most people), and the future of computing is bound to include lots of non-x86 PC devices that still need an OS.

terminator:  So an A1 costs more than a low end PC. Well, that's the price of admission. Don't like the price? Well, you are not obligated to buy a ticket.

Good point, but it seems a lot of Amiga users don't like the price of admission, either.  It wouldn't be so high if Amiga's business model involved branching out into new markets and focusing on software and killer apps, instead of trying to resell buggy, expensive hardware to die-hards just so they can run software that already runs on everything else:  Linux.

What separates the men from the boys is the cost of their toys.

There isn't the time or the space here for an economics lesson either.

So you are quite okay that PPC may mean less users due to cost, indeed you thing that's a good thing?

But on the other hand, you are against x86 because you think it will mean less users?

[mdwh2]

DavidF215 wrote:
What I meant was that basic computer tasks could still be done on an 040 or 060 processor. Tasks such as word processing, spreadsheets, small to medium sized databases, web browsing, some game play, etc.

Only basic web browsing, and simple/old games. And that still doesn't answer why bother, when you can get much better PCs for cheaper - indeed, PCs far more modern than this spec get thrown out in the trash these days.

I don't know about US prices, but check out the first system at http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/full_systems.html . £238.47 (with Windows XP) for an Athlon 2400+. Can a far slower 060 A1200 be built for less?

Also it's not just CPU speeds. AGA is way out of date - web browsing, word processing and spreadsheets are not as fun on 640x480. That's assuming you've paid the extra for one of those scandoublers to use a PC monitor, else you're stuck on 640x256 on a TV..

Even if we were considering an 040/060 AGA based Amiga, basing it around the A1200 would still be ludicrous, since it is much more expensive to add hard drives (being 2.5"), and CD/DVD drives (since they have to be external). Also it has heating problems with an 040 IIRC.