Is It Emulation or Not -- the Dilemma

[Thorham]

An Amiga running 68K Apple code of a Mac (ShapeShifter or whatever), is emulation of an non-Amiga operating system on dissimilar hardware.

In the case of 68K Mac OS this isn't completely true, because much of that operating system runs directly on the Amiga's 68K CPU. In fact, it might be the case that all the Aple specific hardware code has been replaced with Amiga equivalents, in which case there isn't any emulation going on at all (but I don't know that).

In fact Charles Babbage beat them both by 200 years by inventing a virtual machine without a virtual operating system.

Don't you mean that Babbage designed the Analytical Engine (first Turing complete computer), which he wasn't able to build due to being unable to raise the finances for it's construction?

[Thorham]

First, the CPU alone does not define the computer; I've got a 68000 CPU stored in a shoe box, that doesn't make the shoe box an Amiga nor an Apple.

Of course it doesn't and I never said it does. It's simply a fact that you don't need to emulate an OS if it can run on the CPU directly, as is the case with 68K Mac OS. Only the hardware specific parts would have to be replaced.

B) Alan Turing proposed his design for an instruction set in 1938 long before Bletchley Park and hardware to run it.  That is virtual

In his case you're probably right, but I was talking about Babbage, who designed his computer to be built, making it non-virtual, unless every machine design is virtual.

[Thorham]

I think everyone is missing 1 important point.... It's not a dilemma.
A dilemma is 2 choices both leading to  a bad outcome.

Yeah, welcome to human language use where 'can' is often used instead of 'may' and the words 'amateur' and 'professional' are used to imply quality, while those two words have nothing to do with quality at all.

Feel free to add more examples

[Thorham]

it's an Amiga
If it's Amiga a common motherboard with PowerPC with AmigaOS4, it will be Amiga any platform that run AmigaOS,  native or emulation

Nonsense. Amigas are hardware, produced by Commodore and Escom. The software doesn't define what the hardware is, the hardware defines what the hardware is. Or I suppose an Amiga running an MSX emulator is an MSX? Right :rofl:

[Thorham]

This "issue" is pointless if the emulation is flawless.
I don't need an Amiga to run Amiga software.
And I don't need an MSX machine to run MSX software.
Am I then running an Amiga or MSX computer?
Of course not, but regardless of whether or not its via emulation, I am running the software (getting the intended results).

Of course, but that wasn't what Seiya said.

And  Mac OS moved across three ISAs, aren't Macs still Macs?

Yes, they are, because Apple calls their machines Macs, and they get to decide what their machines are called and not anyone else.

So yeah, a PPC Amiga is an Amiga.

I beg to differ, and so do many classic users.

[Thorham]

Running windows on a macbook air makes it ?

It doesn't make it anything; it's simply a macbook air running a piece of software called Windows. Software doesn't change the hardware into anything, the hardware simply is.

[Thorham]

and PC users locked out of OSX.

Is that a bad thing?

[Thorham]

I really hope you legacy users take the time to explore the NG offerings.

Not interested at all.

"Amiga", to you its a beloved hardware platform.

Indeed, and that's what I'll stick to, to Amiga.

No, I'm not using an Amiga. I've moved forward.

I use an A1200, but I've moved forward, too: I bought a PC that flies around anything next gen 'Amiga' so fast it ain't funny.

[Thorham]

Not a problem, as there are plenty of other more open minded users.

It has nothing to do with being closed minded. I like classic Amiga computers and simply don't have any interest in PPC+AOS4/MorphOS, just like I have no interest in graphics and sound cards for classic Amiga computers, or watching professional sports for that matter. Lack of interest doesn't imply closed mindedness.

I actually downgrade my X86 systems by breaking down and selling the parts of the Socket AM3/Phenom II system I had.

And I use my PC as a simple and boring workhorse.

As far as performance goes, I have a balance that suits my purposes.

I don't need the fastest PC either, which is why I didn't spend a lot on mine.

Funny, but I find myself agreeing more with danbeaver than those of you who are arguing against his basic proposition.

Eh, what was that again? Too many posts

Frankly, I'd say use what works for you and keeps you happy.

Always. Clearly there's simply a difference in hobby and needs here