AMIGAONE.... isn't it an obsolete technology already?

[dylansmrjo]

In Denmark you can for £356.52 get a Peg2 with 256 MB DDR-RAM, a G4 @ 1 GHz, Radeon 7000 with 64 MB RAM, and a MorphOS cd (which would be replaced with AOS4 if it was available - but unfortunately it isn't).

I would buy such a solution, if it ran AOS4.

A mA1-C with somewhat similar specs costs £610.85. And that's the main problem.

A lot would be gained if AOS4 was ported to the Peg2.

[dammy]

One reason why MorphOS and AmigaOS4 (have to) stick to PPC is
backwards compatibility. AROS is ported to x86 (or rather it always
was) but you cant use existing M68k, PowerUp or WarpUp software with
it.

Actually the first platform for AROS was on the Amiga.  It migrated to x86 from the Amiga.  As using existing Amiga apps and such, AROS has EUAE.

Dammy

[jake]

Before I start this reply, I have to say tat it's late and I've had a few tins of beer....

I have been an Amiga user for almost two decades and overall it still remains my favourite computer to work with, but as far as I can see, the Amiga (hardware and software) is defunct technology.

We all used to say :-
My Amiga boots faster than your PC... Still true, but now with XP (my wife uses it, not me), the only time I have to reboot is with a major service pack or when I go on holiday - Not an argument anymore.

My Amiga makes better use of it's resources (memory, disk, etc.) - Resources like RAM and hard drives are so cheap now, who cares.

My Amiga multi-tasks better than windows - Still does, but there was so much hacking, kludges and non OS-friendly software, it became about as reliable as British Rail.

There are fewer security risks on the Amiga - Only because too few people use it and it isn't worth targeting.


I will still use my A1200 (I plan to teach my son basic computing / programming with it), but what made the Amiga great has either been emulated, copied or suppased by Windows and Linux. I don't think it will ever again be affordable. There's just too much catching up to do. It pains me to say it, but we all know it's true.

I write this from a Linux box (Authentication, file server, DNS server and proxy server) - There ain't no way Bill is taking over in this household.

Posting with regret. :getmad:

[dammy]

My current favor micro-ATX mobo is an ASUS A8N-VM for $91.50 (with shipping no less).  Great Bang:Buck ratio.  Throw either a el-cheapo Athlon64 939 or a Athlon X2 and you got a nice little setup.

Dammy

[Tripitaka]

How about porting OS4 to run on Elate/Intent? Virtual CPU/Fast java engine/3D Graphics and physics etc.!
Had to ask. :lol:

[Waccoon]

People, please stop arguing about current standards.  The whole point to PC hardware is that you can buy anything you want.  Some people want to spend cash for a good machine.  Some people want cheap stuff.  AmigaOne doesn't give that flexibility.  If Amiga wants proprietary hardware, they can make their damned hardware lock for a licensed, modified PC mobo, which they can relicense anytime they want -- and rebadge a laptop or tablet PC while they're at it.

Amiga laptop?  When is that going to happen?  If Hyperion had any interest in "aBook", then Amiga mini would already be available.  It isn't.

I upgrade my PC every two years.  My budget is $300 for a motherboard, CPU, and memory, $150 for a video card, and $100 for a hard drive.  I haven't bought a new case in four years, though I did finally get a kickass thermally controlled power supply for $70.  I'm an audiophile, and my Audigy still doesn't need to be replaced (it only cost me $45, anyway).

I suppose all this puts me in the budget PC arena (cooler and quieter, anyway).

My system is an ABit IS7 mobo with a 2.4Ghz P4 that is almost totally silent, and my CPU temp never goes above 40 degrees C.  Nothing other than number crunching uses CPU cycles, thanks to the brilliant architecture of my i865 PE chipset.  I have more USB 2.0 ports than I know what to do with, and use an external USB hard drive to make backups, which is almost as fast as my S-ATA drive.

Nobody can convince me Amiga can make a better machine than this.  Ever.  All this talk about PPC being supirior makes me sick.

Oh yeah, and I still can't read my A1200 floppies on an AmigaOne.  That's nice, too, for "official" hardware.

How about porting OS4 to run on Elate/Intent? Virtual CPU/Fast java engine/3D Graphics and physics etc.!
Had to ask.

That's why I was interested in the new Amiga in the first place.  Funny how OS4 seems to be going well while AA is either dead or just a private club that doesn't need to show off any real technology.

With so many Linux spinoffs, how can it be so damn hard to make just one Amiga update?!

[seer]

@dylansmrjo

Nodoby with a sane mind would ever buy a Mac Mini. Mac OS X is extremely slow, and eats system resources in a way that ought to embarass Steve Jobs. It's as bad as Vista.

Have you even used Vista ? I keep reading how people call it a resource hog and is worse then XP but having used Beta1 and CTP2 on VMWare (512MB Ram allocated) I can safely say Vista outperforms XP and uses only little more then XP. Not bad for a beta.

[itix]

Backwards compatibility is mostly important when you have a large application base. However, there is hardly any application base left on the Amiga side - compared with Mac OS X, GNU/Linux and Windows.

It is still better than nothing. TCP/IP stacks, browsers, mailers,
paint programs, development tools, text editors, archivers,
system monitors, pdf viewers, movie players, net radio streamers...

Besides that, machinecode for the PPC looks much better than x86 machinecode.

Uglier than m68k machine code... dealing with 32-bit constants is
pain.

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:

dylansmrjo wrote:

Besides that, machinecode for the PPC looks much better than x86 machinecode.

The PPC is elegant :-P

Have you ever looked at PPC asm? It's horrible... Granted x86 is no oil painting, but PPC is hardly any better... If it's elegance you want then it has to be 68k...

I can't deny it, PPC asm took me some time to get to grips with, but well, I prefer the programming model over x86 still.

68K is still more intuitive though :-)

[coldfish]

by Waccoon on 2005/11/19 18:30:33

Amiga laptop? When is that going to happen? If Hyperion had any interest in "aBook", then Amiga mini would already be available. It isn't.

I scored an old Compaq E500 @600Mhz for $50, that does a pretty good job of pretending to be an Amiga using WinUAE and AIAB. :-)

It is actually pretty good!

...and the closest thing to an Amiga laptop I'll ever own.  

[dylansmrjo]

Look at the hardware requirements for Vista. It says all which is needed

Of course you can get "decent" performance if you turn of several services, just like we do on XP to get better performance.

Personally I prefer Windows 2003 Server of the Windows versions I've used so far (starting with 3.0 back in the old days).

Gentoo Linux is much better, but not a choice for the ordinary user, but definitely a choice for me :-P

The day when Mac OS X (and newer for that matter) and Windows and Linux can run with a GUI on hardware similar to what AmigaOS 4PR can run on... then I'll stop calling it bloated and slow ;-)

[seer]

Look at the hardware requirements for Vista. It says all which is needed

Which one ? AFAIK there's no official final list yet. Most "requirents" I have seen are from a "in the know" journalist..

Besides, is there any OS out there that had a major upgrade and kept the same hardware requirements ? Even Amiga OS has grown in hardware requirements.. Not as bad tho but still..

Of course you can get "decent" performance if you turn of several services, just like we do on XP to get better performance.

Thats just it... I never turned of any of the services in Vista. And there are plenty more as default compared to XP..

Offcourse the "eyecandy" needs more and most hardware requirements are targeting the "eyecandy.

I also installed beta 1 on a P4 2Ghz 256MB with a "slow" Geforce4. Not the lowest spec PC out there but not what one calls high end these days. Again Vista outperformed XP without any tweaking.

Personally I prefer Windows 2003 Server of the Windows versions I've used so far

Vista is based on Win2003 code and said to be the fastest and most stable Windows available out there.

The day when Mac OS X (and newer for that matter) and Windows and Linux can run with a GUI on hardware similar to what AmigaOS 4PR can run on... then I'll stop calling it bloated and slow ;-)

That will never happen....

[dylansmrjo]

seer wrote:
That will never happen....

True, and the day when I'll stop complaining about them being bloated will never happen too :-P

No doubt Vista on reasonable hardware is faster than XP. XP is anything but optimized in regard to I/O and is a far cry from the speediness known in Win2K3 Server.

Hardware requirements for Vista is atm. (according to MS):

2 GB RAM, DDR-RAM2
Graphics card with no less than 256 MB RAM and support for DirectX 9 (this is just to show the desktop and the standard theme, mind you).

This is recommmended minimum, not nescessarily the lowest possible minimum.

Most hardware running to day cannot run Vista without turning off several services.

It takes a fast machine (like a P4 @ 2.4 GHz - it's still a fast machine - and far away from lowend machines - remember - clockspeed hasn't got higher on x86 for a few years) to run Vista reasonably.

For Vista (and Mac OS X) to become decent systems requirements for 3D MUST disappear.

They are bloated. Period.

[coldfish]

For Vista (and Mac OS X) to become decent systems requirements for 3D MUST disappear.

I for one am looking forward to an OS that finally uses the 3D hardware in my computer.  It seems like a logical and well overdue progression.

[dylansmrjo]

It already does (in games).

But it's terribly terribly horribly wrong, to use it in regard to draw a 2D desktop.

It adds NO functionality at all.

But of course it can be used for more heavy weight eye candy that completely kills your computer, but heeey... if that's you want then go ahead.

You'll just have to live with the fact, that what your computer could do in 10 minutes in 1985 still takes 10 minutes today. Just with hardware much much faster :lol:

People who like eye candy like the Mac OS X and Vista way should be banned from using or looking or even thinking about computers. Period.  :-P

[bloodline]

dylansmrjo wrote:

People who like eye candy like the Mac OS X and Vista way should be banned from using or looking or even thinking about computers. Period.  :-P

I suppose you think that all GFX chips should only be used for games?

Yes! We should all go back to the horrid BIOS text shell of the IBM PC...


Come on, If my computer has a chip that can pump a billion pixels around the screen per second, I damn well want to use it in every application where it can be used! :-D