How about creating a Open AMIGA Consortium?

[HenryCase]

A6000 wrote:
AROS 68k should have all the features of AROS PPC.

NOOOOOOO! Why hold back development of features for AROS PPC that AROS 68k can't handle? There should be a base level of compatibility between the two but the systems don't need to be identical to achieve that.

A6000 wrote:
Programs written for AROS PPC should also run on AROS 68k

What about programs that need to take low level access of a machine? If it's possible to make a program easy to port then the developer should see that as a good thing anyway.

[A6000]

HenryCase wrote:

A6000 wrote:
AROS 68k should have all the features of AROS PPC.

NOOOOOOO! Why hold back development of features for AROS PPC that AROS 68k can't handle? There should be a base level of compatibility between the two but the systems don't need to be identical to achieve that.

A6000 wrote:
Programs written for AROS PPC should also run on AROS 68k

What about programs that need to take low level access of a machine? If it's possible to make a program easy to port then the developer should see that as a good thing anyway.

It's going to be hard enough to get developers to write for the aros machines without expecting them to create 2 or 3 versions, 68k, PPC, PC, a common os will help, if the 68k takes longer to run a program, so be it, at least it will run.
Low level access breaks compatibility with others, for example minimig uses paula but natami will use pamela, software can access both, but not at low level, in time 3d graphics will be handled by several different GPU's.
Low level access is fine for Identical hardware platforms, but we won't have Identical platforms.

[ToddH]

OK, this is the first I've heard of the NatAmi.  Interesting project.  I'll have to keep an eye on its development.

[HenryCase]

A6000 wrote:
It's going to be hard enough to get developers to write for the aros machines without expecting them to create 2 or 3 versions, 68k, PPC, PC, a common os will help

There will be common functions between platforms that will make porting easier, but if a program needs assembly routines to run efficiently I don't think there should be some consortium telling the developers they can't use them. The developers are doing the hard work after all. I am sure developers will want to use common APIs where possible (to make their life easier), you don't need to set rules up for this.

A6000 wrote:
Low level access is fine for Identical hardware platforms, but we won't have Identical platforms.

What's the point of having different platforms if you can't take advantage of their unique features?

[Einstein]

HenryCase wrote:

"Evolved" being the key word there, i.e. it needs to grow from our existing tech.

The OS is second in priority to the hardware IMO, need to draw up hardware tests first.

HW is irrelevant to me, as long as the OS is robust and has a nice thought out API.
Still, that does not mean I don't respect the efforts put into these HW projects, including this one, unfortunately though some of us are still waiting for the software (OS) counterpart to this project.

[A6000]

HenryCase wrote:

A6000 wrote:
It's going to be hard enough to get developers to write for the aros machines without expecting them to create 2 or 3 versions, 68k, PPC, PC, a common os will help

There will be common functions between platforms that will make porting easier, but if a program needs assembly routines to run efficiently I don't think there should be some consortium telling the developers they can't use them. The developers are doing the hard work after all. I am sure developers will want to use common APIs where possible (to make their life easier), you don't need to set rules up for this.

A6000 wrote:
Low level access is fine for Identical hardware platforms, but we won't have Identical platforms.

What's the point of having different platforms if you can't take advantage of their unique features?

I am not saying they cannot use them, I am saying a common os will eliminate the need to write, manufacture and stock different versions for different machines.
If developers want to use unique features of one machine, they can, but they must be expected to refund the money to those who bought the software thinking it would run on their machines but didn't, and NO publisher does that.
If you write some low level code, it will be obsolete as soon as the unique piece of hardware is upgraded, I do not want to buy new software if I upgrade my machine.
Each machine must have low level drivers written by the OEM, AROS will provide a higher level API, which the developers can use, or not, it is their choice, the easiest choice is to write for windows and expect all of us to use a PC.

[freqmax]

If I were to make an opensource A1200 (or A4000?). I would need:
 * AGA specification.
 * 68020 specification.
 * Amiga software tailored towards verification of specific hardware functionality. Ordinary games are good, but won't pinpoint problems.
 * Estimation of chip complexity, ie how powerful FPGA is needed.
 * An hardware group to correct schematics, and put it into physical hardware. Multilayer, BGA chips, and highspeed signals requires some serious verification.

As long as we don't need a physical cpu but rather use large FPGAs the last point could be eliminated. However using the real cpu (like Minimig does atm). Is one chip less to replicate properly.
Maybe this will give you an idea what would promote development of new amiga hardware.

I think a danger of formalised organisations is that they tend to get rigid by time. And persons involved might be more occupied to preserve their influence rather than help the overall purpose.

[itix]

Programs written for AROS PPC should also run on AROS 68k without recompiling, which suggests a hardware independant code like VP code or an interpreted language.

This exists already. Compile applications for 68k and it runs everywhere.

[A6000]

Excellent, will such programs also run on amigaos.

[persia]

Why hold back an operating system because you have to run 20 year old games that violate every good sense of programming?  All AROS needs is a classic emulator, like Mac did when they changed over.  UAE is the perfect candidate.   UAE will run the classic Amiga software and developers will have a less limited system to develop for outside the classic window.

[A6000]

persia wrote:
Why hold back an operating system because you have to run 20 year old games that violate every good sense of programming?  

The important thing is to have a common API.

There will be:-
Classic Amiga
Amigaone
Pegasus
PowerAmiga (PPC)
MiniMig
Natami
CloneA
and hopefully others.

I would like to buy new software that will run on all these systems, even Classic amiga so those machines still have a viable future.
I do not want to run 20yr old software on a Natami, I would want to run new software that takes full advantage of it's better features whilst still being able to run in reduced fashion on classic amigas.

The Customer does not want to worry about hardware differences or driver incompatibilities, he/she just EXPECTS that new software will work FAULTLESSLY on any amiga compatible.
Unrealistic, I know but what can you do?, the Customer is always right, IF you want to stay in business.

[freqmax]

@persia:
An operating system relies on drivers. So no need holdback. And still have hardware that can act both in game compatible mode. And "modern" mode. This hw flip can be accomplished with FPGAs.

@A6000:
We already have an "common API" be the means of the hardware released by Amiga Inc before going belly-up.
With Classic Amiga being the definition. MiniMig, and CloneA being clones.

Natami, and PowerAmiga (PPC) are extensions. Not neccisarily being compatible in all aspects. But keeping as many as possible aspects of classic Amiga compability.

Amigaone, and Pegasus is something completly else. Only seems to build on the love for motorola style cpus and the Amiga community.

So Amiga compability definition already exist more or less.

Anyone knows how M68060 stands up in comparision to Intel line of cpus?, natiami mentions 300x performance compared to  M68000.

[trekiej]

@ Thread:
I hope I am not talking out of turn.
 
I believe that Aros with UAE integration and KickStart replacement on a NATAMI board would be a big boost for us.
It looks like it would give a chunk of what we would want.
It is in our near future and closer than a dream machine.

I do not know about MorphOS,Syllable,etc. enough to recommend.

[biggun]

I think we are mixing topics here.
My understanding of the topic was to promote the idea
of an open group of AMIGA HW engineers.

This open group would help to build genuine Amigas.

My definition of genuine,original, or classic Amigas
are machines that can run orignal Amiga games or apps, natively.

This definition of Amiga includes the following machines:

A1000 (OCS)
A500  (OCS)
A600  (OCS)
A2000 (OCS)
A3000 (OCS)
CDTV  (OCS)

A4000 (AGA)
A1200 (AGA)
CD32  (AGA)

MiniMig (OCS)
Natami (SuperAGA)


Some people raised the valid point about software APIs-
Sharing the software API with Neo-Amiga operating System
is a valid but complete different topic IMHO.
We should not mix this topics with the HW discussion.

At the time when MOS and OS4 where created no one was able
to create a system like the MiniMig or Natami.
At this time it looked like it will never be possible
to build new AMIGA HW and the best option available
was to use PC hardware and to run a AMIGA like OS on the PC.

The Pegasos and the AmigaONE are systems that are able to run a NeoAmiga operating system.  The Aone and Pegasos are on the Hardware level not Amigas but PCs.
They are no more AMIGAS as any Dell or MAC is.
There is nothing wrong with building a PC and runnning a Amigalike OS on it!

I think is a valid option to go this route, especially as it looked as new AMIGA he could never be build
Fact is that the situation has changed now.

Two people have proven us that building new AMIGA HW is possible.

MiniMig and Natami are true AMIGAs.

There are still companies interested in building classic AMiGA HW.
Elbox is working in this area ince years, their problem
is that the can not produce AMIGA chipset themselve so ELBOX expansion cards always require an orignal AMIGA (ie A1200)
If ELBOX would use the NATAMI chipset instead of the A1200 then they could creatre new, standalone systems a lot more powerfull than the A1200 based machines.
There are other companies which want to create new classic AMIGAS too.

I think we all agree that there is a lot potential of working together.
If you are able to create a AGA chipset the next logical step is removing some limitation.
- For example, you will want to speed it up.
- And you can add new features like truecolor or 3D acceleration -  As the Natami does.

Three companies can develop their own AGA enhancements or they could work together and agree on common things.

Three companies could work on integration the Coldfire into AOS. Or they could work together on this.

I'm probably working to long as open source developer but my honest opinion is that sharing and giving is more important than "taking".

[trekiej]

@ Biggun:
I know I can not speak for others.  Some may still wonder what can be legally done with or to an Amiga.

Someone stated in another thread that Amiga Inc does not own much of the original Amiga except the OS and Name.

I believe that building a computer that is not an Amiga with the ability to run Amiga software is one approach.

[trekiej]

Looking at my earlier post, I see that Minimig and NatAmi is just that.  They are hardware with the capability to run Amiga

As far as Clone-A is concerned, is not creating an ASIC apart of the design process? (Application Specific Intergrated Circuit)  If a cycle exact design is implemented, a fab. company could make chips with it, if I understand it correctly.