>>And it's not 1985 anymore. Indeed!
Exactly, so people can't carry on saying custom chips, custom chips with OS3.1
What I mean is that I don't see why people have to keep assigning the name Amiga to machines which are not Amigas.
>>So, a SAM emulator running on a peecee will magically transform that peecee into an Amiga?
No if you read my posts carefully I haven't said that, read all my posts.
If you said this, then you implied it:
It runs OS4 then it's an Amiga, sorry it doesn't matter how you paint it.
My Minimig is an Amiga.
No, it's an FPGA computer.
So a motherboard with PPC (which the real Amiga had by the way) running AmigaOS is not an Amiga? Really?
Of course it's not. Just like a Draco isn't an Amiga, but a 680x0 AmigaOs platform. You can ask yourself, if you run a 680x0 MacOS on the Amiga, will your Amiga become a Mac?
You can't make an Amiga, in the same way you can't make a Ford Fusion.
Yes, you can, because you can reverse engineer the chipset, and do an exact copy. Very pricey, but technically entirely possible. Same goes for a Ford Fusion.
I sometimes wonder when people say that a computer running AmigaOS4 is not really an Amiga.
Because that would mean that, for example, a SAM emulator running AmigaOS4, would transform the peecee it's running on into an Amiga, and that is just none sense.
Amiga is defined by the hardware, and not the OS. If I run some sort of 680x0 Amiga port of a linux, then the machine is still an Amiga. In fact, it doesn't matter what a computer runs at all, it's still the same hardware.
Why do we need the primitive (by todays standards) Amiga custom chips to call the computer an Amiga?
Because that's what Amigas are: Computers from the past, and some people can't seem to get over that fact, and they have to keep assigning the name Amiga to computers that aren't Amigas.