OS 4.0 on a Mac...

[Seehund]

Naeem wrote:

Presumably there is nothing Apple can do to stop you loading a different OS though?  (judging by the wealth of yella-dog users with emacs / imacs).

Of course not. But the AmigaOS world is a mirror world, in this little universe, it's the owners/licensors/makers/whatever of AmigaOS that have decided to stop AmigaOS from getting a larger + cheaper + better + already available + continuously developed hardware base. In this little world, we're supposed to pretend that there is a sane reason to pretend that there still are "Amigas", and to buy our hardware only from "Amiga dealers".
One of the used excuses for not selling AmigaOS to a larger market is to prevent loss of sales. Smart, huh?

And there are *loads* of Macs out there...

Exactly. We can't have that, can we?

If KMOS are as indifferent, ignorant, uninterested and inactive as Amiga, Inc. used to be, then I agree with Bill Hoggett's post above. Then the licensing/bundling/dongling requirement will stay, AmigaOS won't ever run on any hardware other than what Eyetech sell, and thus it's dead before it's even released. Unfortunately, KMOS so far have done and said nothing, and seem to be impossible to get in touch with.

[Seehund]

Another argument is not being able to develop AmigaOS for all those differen macs/PPC boards and support users due to lack of resources.. I'd love to see OS4/MOS on every type of PPC board out there (not that many yet tho) but who is going to fund it..

Actually, I've only seen that argument being used "unofficially", like in forum posts. The illogical "anti-piracy" nonsense I was referring to is defacing a corporate website.

But of course you don't need to require that hardware vendors get themselves and their stuff licensed and start to sell AmigaOS-bundles, and that AmigaOS users should only be allowed to buy their hardware from such dealers, to accomplish what any normal Hardware Compatibility List does: Saying that "This operating system runs on hardware X, Y, and Z."

Let's just say, even if Amiga Inc drops the lisence it still won't happen unlees somebody is going to put up the cash.. Or do you have the money to do it ?

Sure, to sell a Product (AmigaOS running on Hardware X) you first need to make that Product. Currently, "Hardware X" only equals the Teron line of motherboards and only when sold by Eyetech (actually, so far it's equalled whatever the heck Eyetech happens to find, contrary to the touted "certifications" for "compatibility", "quality", "guaranteed supply" et c).

Running on better/cheaper/more commonly available hardware is essential, it means a better chance for return on the investment (the making of the Product). The licensing requirement is a hindrance to ever seeing that happen in the first place, regardless of whether it (=the investment/production) would be financially viable for KMOS/Hyperion.

Note that if AmigaOS was available for sale separate from hardware, it wouldn't even have to be Hyperion who made it run on and officially support that hardware. You could buy (or download from Aminet, depending on the altruism of the programmers ) for example a "Pegasos Software-kit" from a third party, and buy AmigaOS from KMOS/Hyperion. How much hardware would people be using with their Amigas today, if they only had hardware with officially released drivers from Commodore (or Escom/Gateway/AInc)? No PPC. No graphics cards. No PCI expansions ...

But where does this "every type of PPC board out there" stuff come from, and what does technical compatibility/feasibility issues have to do with this? No licensee = no OS. Without someone buying a license, it's pointless to even discuss what particular hardware that would make sensible targets. It doesn't matter if all that needs to be changed is one single byte, or if the hardware is alien technology from the planet Wo87yh87hswgre4xz. Again, No licensee = No OS. And even if someone would get a licence (yeah, right) for selling e.g. a PowerBook G4, then AmigaOS users would only be allowed to buy their PowerBook G4s from that licensee, even though the licensed and the "normal" hardware is identical just like with what's available today. All this must change, IMO.

Genesi said a few months back they would look into developing an MOS version for Macs (A kind of Knoppix idea I believe) and restated those intentions not that long ago, but I believe it when I see it..

Me too. Genesi make a living on their own hardware. It might make more sense some day depending on how MOS and the Pegasoses evolve.

Not meaning I don't think they are just saying it, I'm just saying they might not be able to do it, resource wise.

If anything, I think it's more likely to be the other way round. Resource-wise it shouldn't be too difficult a task to make MOS run on a Mac or two.

[Seehund]

Naeem wrote:
Interesting points raised there.

What is the problem with having a traditional business model based on users licencing the OS alone?

Apart from the computer shop that helped a sleeping Amiga Inc invent the compulsory licensing scheme losing their de facto hardware monopoly; no problem.

I mean Windoze CofA seem to work well enough for MS, couldn't Hyperion do the same?

Yes.

Of course dropping the compulsory licensing model doesn't mean that it couldn't be a good idea to also let dealers buy licences to sell some sort of "official" and  "Value Added" HW/SW bundles, in case anyone is interested.

OS people should write great OS'es.  HW people should do their bit.   But either one should not stifle the success (potential success rather) of the other.

Nicely put. There appears to be some confusion from AInc's side (and possibly KMOS's side, who's to tell?) what line of business they're really in, what sort of product an operating system is, and what they actually can make money on.

[Seehund]

CodeSmith wrote:

To me that means that each new supported mobo adds at least one more month until OS4 is released.

Why? I haven't seen anybody suggest that 4.0 shouldn't be released at all until more hardware is supported (which, with the current licensing scheme in place, would most likely mean "never").

[Seehund]

JKD wrote:
Seehund,
   I love your arguement but it implys that traditional business models and economics apply to the 'Amiga like' computers....but they don't.

The reality of it is that development (and support) of Amiga OS or an 'Amiga like' OS probably costs far more than the projected return...

Widen the hardware base and the development and support costs escalate.

Incrementally adding support for additional hardware would not cost anywhere near the initial cost for making OS4 in the first place and making it run on the Terons. Under the current circumstances the only possible returns on the money spent so far would be bundled sales to people who also are prepared to pay preposterous prices for outdated hardware on a closed-off "Amiga market". I would think that this "market" is as good as saturated already.