Do you consider either the PegososPPCs or AmigaOne to be true Amigas?

[mdwh2]

Madgun68 wrote:
Nope. Far as I'm concerned, nothing past the classic machines is a "true Amiga." Money and a sticker don't make an instant Amiga out of anything.

What operating system it runs doesn't matter. Running Linux on an Amiga still leaves you with an Amiga. Running Linux on a Mac still leaves you with a Mac. Running Windows/MacOS on other hardware doesn't turn your machine into a X86/Mac.

So what makes a Mac a Mac?

[mdwh2]

Kronos wrote:
Macs were allways bought based on image and the SW, not the HW.

Really? I've heard all sorts of reasons given for people buying Macs, including plenty of people who like the hardware.

Macs have changed cradually from 68k to PPC running OSX, something that just
didn't happen with the Amiga (a few 1000 PPC or PCI addons by 3rd party don't count).

So "Macs have change gradually and Amigas haven't, as long as we ignore some of the gradual changes in Amiga hardware"? If the small number of them makes them not count, then unless OS4 sounds vast numbers, it won't exist either according to this.

Having said that, changing things to look at why people buy or bought the machines is a good idea - when people talk about "new Amigas" and so on, presumably they're looking for something that does what they currently use their Amiga for, but better.

But unless you've conducted extensive surveys of the Mac and Amiga communities, I don't see how you can say what you say. The only conclusion we can reach is that some people will buy the new machines as if they were new Amigas; some will stick with older machines; some will switch to an entirely new platform; and perhaps some will buy them, but consider it as a platform switch.

Yes, I first bought an Amiga because it had decent graphics and games at a low price, which won't be true of any new Amiga now - but it stopped being true *years* ago. When I stuck with the Amiga through the late 90s, it was because of the OS and the software. So if any new Amiga was to tempt me because of the OS and software, this wouldn't be some contradiction.

For those you now want to yell "but it has the Name and the "true" OS" :

Is anyone actually saying this? Perhaps a few will buy based on brand loyalty, which is not necessarily a wrong thing (not to mention that really, brand loyalty isn't about just the name).

At the end of the day, whatever people think is the answer to the question posed by this thread, AmigaOS 4, MorphOS, Amithlon, AROS, as well as things like UAE will continue to be discussed and covered on "Amiga" forums because they're viable ways to run Amiga software. And no doubt that AmigaOnes will in future, when OS4 is out, be referred to more generically as "Amigas", because that's it's name - referring to it as such doesn't mean that one is stupid and thinks it's actually an A500 in disguise.

[mdwh2]

Kronos wrote:
@mdwh2
I'll have to point you to the reply Madgun made, we are not discussing
wether
they are "Amiga" or "Amiga-like", but wether they are "true Amigas",
and to
that question only A600-A4000 will get a positive answer FROM ME.

99% of all Amigas ever sold use 68k, and only a minority of those use
Zorro.

How many Macs were sold with 68k, how many with PPC ? Or NuBus vs PCI
?

So does this mean you are defining it based on the majority of models sold?

This is a reasonable definition - often when trying to classify sets of objects that aren't exactly the same, we look at what the majority possess.

But remember that this is also a definition that can change with time. If AmigaOnes with OS4 actually arrive, sell more than a small amount, and perhaps the Amiga lasts quite a few more years, then the definition will change to include these machines. On the otherhand, back in the time when the first PowerMac was only just released, one can imagine them not being considered "real" Macs (I don't know if Mac forums were full of discussions like these - but the fact that they used the seperate term PowerMacs shows that the term needed to be distinguished seperately - but a few years later, they were just Macs, and I haven't heard the term PowerMac in a long while).

Also when the AGA Amigas were released - at that time the A500 was by far the most popular Amiga, and for a while the market was split into "AGA" and "non-AGA".

This is kind of what I was getting at, in that only time will decide this. Perhaps the new machines will flop, in which case they won't really be grouped as "true" Amigas by most people. But if in ten years time PPC based Amigas are still around, and during that time they get covered and discussed in "Amiga" forums such as these, anyone who suggests that they're not "real" Amigas will probably get strange looks

(Talking of the A500, was that a typo when you said "A600-A4000", or did you mean to not include it?