So were the Morph OS folks wrong all along?

[Iggy]

The complaint levelled against OS 4 was always that the hardware was too expensive for what it did, and that the only reason people were clinging to it was the name.
 
The complaint levelled against CUSA is that the hardware is too expensive for what it does, and that the only reason people are clinging to it is the name.
 
 
Everything thats wrong is right again?
The world is backwards?
 
 
EDIT: In order to facilitate discussion:
 
Does the name matter?
What makes a machine amiga?
Is anything post CBM amiga?

Silly boy! Of course it isn't.
At least WE never pretended it was.

[Iggy]

I won't pretend to be the ultimate arbiter of what makes an Amiga an Amiga (if you want my personal opinion, I've helpfully written it down,) but I know what doesn't make an Amiga: PC clone hardware running Linux.

So this doesn't count?

http://www.softhut.com/cgi-bin/test/Web_store/web_store.cgi?page=catalog/hardware/amiga/developerbundle.html&cart_id=8052394_12649

And this doesn't count?

http://www.amiga.com/shop/

[Iggy]

well, I guess thats where the question comes in: Was it just the name all along?

From current events, you'd think so.
But if that was the case there wouldn't be so much friction between AOS4 and MorphOS camps.

Some say the heart of the system was in the chips.
Personally, I think it was in the software.

[Iggy]

No.

But they've got Amiga badges. And they're authorized by the IP holder.

[Iggy]

Im inclined to agree with you that the software is what makes it so.
 
It seems that these days, the name is what counts. I guess thats how the world works now

Its gotta be, otherwise a Mac is a PC.

[Iggy]

What linux do you run on your 1200's btw?
I know there's a 68K Debian.

For the life of me, I can't imagine an old 68K computer running Ubuntu 10.10 (which is on both my PC and My PPC mac).
So I do see your point runequester.

[Iggy]

In my humble opinion it really doesnt matter. For me, AROS is just as much part of the amiga experience as is my amithlon box, as is my a1200. I dont believe theyre as "Amiga" (capital "A") as the machines designed in the 80's and early 90's (nor do I think MOS or OS4.x are), but so long as it looks, behaves and walks like Im a duck, Im happy to call it a duck. Ironically, despite my acceptance of all amiga flavors, the one thing I see myself being reluctant to accept as "amiga" are the machines being produced by C-USA, not because I dislike them (Im not fond, but that doesnt play any part in my opinion), but because it appears they'll share nothing with the ancestory the name derives from.

That's GREAT! I love the duck analogy. If it quacks, its a duck, huh?
As should be obvious, my choice of "Amigas" isn't even an Amiga.
Even so, I still feel like I've got a stake in this.
Why don't we all wait to judge the C=USA Amigas till we see how they quack?

[Iggy]

They've more or less told us how they'll quack. It'll rhyme with "ununboo"

Dammy over on Moobunny keeps insisting it'll be something entirely different.

I find it very hard to believe, but Im willing to be surprised.

Frankly, that wouldn't bother me that much. Probably a better solution than AmigaXL (on top of QNX) was.
Is Hyperion's OS that much better? Would you feel better with an X86 version of AOS4 or a new version of Amithlon?

[Iggy]

Of course a Mac is a PC...
And a Mac running OSX is a BSD PC with a purtier GUI...
(Ok, MACH if you're a purist, or more directly a descendant of OpenStep.. ;-)

And they are definitely not MacOS based machines anymore...

It does get tricky...
If you took a PC, put it in an Amiga case, rigged it to boot Windows and then go straight into WinUAE, hiding Windows altogether..

You know most people using it would think it's an Amiga...
Yeah, some purists might notice scrolling issues, but WinUAE is that good..  It'd fool most people....

At that point, is that PC an Amiga?
Does it pass the Amiga Touring Test?
And if most people can't tell, does it matter?

So, if it doesn't matter really, why do I think an Amiga has to be 68K based???  Am I just that much of an Amiga fanboy/biggot???

...

Probably..
68k 4EVER!!!!!   :roflmao:

desiv
p.s.  The preceeding e-mail might have had a point when it was started, but it entered Joycian irrelevance fairly early on..  Go about your business.

Don't sweat it. I'm not here to negate your prejudices. But frankly, I'm satisfied with non-68K based solutions because they work very well.

So, to paraphrase something someone else just posted, if it walks like a duck its a duck.

[Iggy]

Iguess Im not in a hurry for it to all be "remade". Keep classic classic. For everything else, there's linux

Then you're closer to buying a C=USA product than I am.

'Cause I would rather use MorphOS than either AOS3.x or Linux.

[Iggy]

Nah. I got a 300 dollar PC that does everything I want from a day to day computer. I'll use that until it breaks, then get whatever is the same price class at that time.

That's amusing. I'm posting this from an Athlon 64 5000+ based system that's mutated over the last several years to the state its in now. Not a single part is less than 2 years old (including the 9600GSO video card) and I think its got about $300 currently invested in it (and it would still outrun a C64x).

[Iggy]

I can't think of a single hardware feature of the original Amigas I would retain outside of the OS.
Everything used to build NG based systems today is so much more capable that arguing for custom chipsets is pointless.
Everything evolves. Well almost everything. The Amiga chipset barely changed as the models progressed. What started out as a remarkable symphony of a very capable processor and well matched chipset became a mess with processors many times more capable and a chipset that was only slightly better than the first model.

[Iggy]

All computers have to perform the same tasks and all computers use 'custom' chips (unless they're based on SOCs which is about as 'custom' as you get).
Yeah, Amigas worked well when they were current. Today's computers work even better. What worked well in the '90's isn't necessary these days.
So what's left except the OS?
I like MorphOS and AOS4 'cause they're compact, efficient, and boot quick. Very Amiga-like.

[Iggy]

Personally, I think OSX is a big improvement over earlier Mac OS'.
But then most of my recent experience has been Wintel based.

Of course with RIM pushing QNX based systems we may see a resurgence of micro-kernel based OS'. That approach has always offered distinct advantages. OS9 and RTOS (for DVI players) were micro-kernal based as is MorphOS.

[Iggy]

Did you know, MacOSX is based on the Mach microkernel? Wikipedia it

No I hadn't heard that. Thanks. I wasn't aware that there were BSD implementations that used a micro-kernal.
That makes me appreciate Apple's OS all the more.