Wither Natami?

[Jakodemus]

@bloodline

Yes, UAE is fast and very compatible, but you have to run it on top of windows/linux/morphos etc. With hardware you can boot straight to the system we all love.

If you are happy to use UAE as your primary Amiga, it's fine for me and I suppose that it's fine for everyone else too, but some of us want to have new hardware dedicated only for Amiga and you shouldn't have any objections against that.

[bloodline]

Jakodemus wrote:
@bloodline

Yes, UAE is fast and very compatible, but you have to run it on top of windows/linux/morphos etc. With hardware you can boot straight to the system we all love.

With a minimal Linux set up or Amithlon... you would never know the difference.

If you are happy to use UAE as your primary Amiga, it's fine for me and I suppose that it's fine for everyone else too, but some of us want to have new hardware dedicated only for Amiga and you shouldn't have any objections against that.

Find one objection from me regarding the Hardware clones. You'll find none, in fact I would like to get one, I just wish people who don't understand anything would stop banging on that Hardware Amiga clones are inherently better than software! Also if they could stop posting tenchnical nonsense as fact that would cheer me up too.

[TheDaddy]

>>The level of ignorance in this has become too great not to address.

I think you are getting a bit too excited about nothing. :-)

>>Think before you post. Formulate a response, try and establish the point you want to make. You need to make sure that know why you are posting.

I am finding your comments a bit offensive may I say. We are all free to express our opinion even without technical knowledge, at least not until a fascist regime comes in telling us what to do.

>>Now, just go back, edit your post appologize for wasting people's time and enjoy the learning experience.

Why? How obnoxious, please spread your infinite knowledge over us ignorant, little people. I think you might need a lesson in modesty.

>>A Hardware clone of the Amiga is inherently no better or worse than a Software clone. BUT we are in a situation where the Software clone (UAE) is MUCH more mature, and thus compatible than even the most mature of the Hardware clones, MiniMig.

I was mainly arguing the point that someone said that the Minimig/Natami are NOT an Amiga, now mature or not it's not the case, let's not try and change the discussion. I clearly, and others, proved that anything running Amiga OS and applications can be called an Amiga.

[TheDaddy]

>>Find one objection from me regarding the Hardware clones. You'll find none, in fact I would like to get one, I just wish people who don't understand anything would stop banging on that Hardware Amiga clones are inherently better than software! Also if they could stop posting tenchnical nonsense as fact that would cheer me up too.

I believe you said that Minimig/Natami are not real Amigas, that is all I am trying to defend. As for whether an hardware clone is better than software emulation I don't care but I know that I prefer having a new piece of hardware (Minimig/Natami) rather than a pc running UAE just because I like the effort put into this by Amiga developers.

[TheDaddy]

@bloodline

I am not arguing whether UAE is better or not than Minimig/Natami, I am not arguing that and I am not interested in it.

I am just defending the accusation that Minimig/Natami are not real Amigas.

A real Amiga is very hard to define, as we know, many threads have failed in this.

[WotTheFook]

Blimey, I never realised that there was Turing-type test for what was a 'real' Amiga and what was not, I have to thank the fanboi trolls on here for making me aware of this fact....

If it runs Amiga software, it's an Amiga, if it's hardware or not, the rest is just semantics.

The hardware purists need to realise that is isn't 1988 any more, you can't get the original hardware, so if you replicate it in another chip, what's the problem?

The software purists, ditto to the above. If you couldn't tell by looking at the screen and using the mouse etc, it's an Amiga, isn't it?

Also, if you replicate the Amiga chipset and add "AGA with knobs on" like Natami are planning, how can you claim it's an Amiga, since you have modified it? If I mod my A1200 by adding an IDEFix and a laptop DVD/CD drive, is it still an Amiga?

[TheDaddy]

>>Blimey, I never realised that there was Turing-type test for what was a 'real' Amiga and what was not, I have to thank the fanboi trolls on here for making me aware of this fact....

:-)

>>If it runs Amiga software, it's an Amiga, if it's hardware or not, the rest is just semantics.
The hardware purists need to realise that is isn't 1988 any more, you can't get the original hardware, so if you replicate it in another chip, what's the problem?

Thank you! I couldn't have put it better! :-)

>>Also, if you replicate the Amiga chipset and add "AGA with knobs on" like Natami are planning, how can you claim it's an Amiga, since you have modified it? If I mod my A1200 by adding an IDEFix and a laptop DVD/CD drive, is it still an Amiga?

Agree on everything you say. Is a pumped up A1200 with Mediator and PCI cards (from the pc world) still an Amiga?

To me the Natami/Minimigs are real Amigas.

Just be thankful that someone is sweating on these pieces of hardware for everyone to enjoy.

Thanks WotTheFook :-)

[the_leander]

TheDaddy wrote:
>>Which part of, it's an emulation done in hardware was not clear?

I leave that to be explained by someone more technical than me. To me the Minimig and Natami are real Amigas, just because the timings aren't "perfect" means little. The Minimig isn't a perfect clone, I see it as an improved A500.

The end result might well be an improved A500, but that doesn't change the fact that it is essentially still a hardware based emulation. At best you could call it a clone, which is in no way a bad thing, as it happens.

TheDaddy wrote:
>>The Amiga is a family of personal computers originally developed by Amiga Corporation. Development on the Amiga began in 1982 with Jay Miner as the principal hardware designer. Commodore International bought Amiga Corporation and introduced the machine to the market in 1985. The name Amiga was chosen by the developers specifically from the Spanish and Portuguese word for a female friend,[1] and because it occurred before Apple and Atari alphabetically.

So anything that isn't within that definition is not an Amiga? So Amiga Inc. release a new motherboard (made with fpga bits or new custom chips) with OS4.1 and stick an Amiga logo on it and according to your explanation this would not be an Amiga?
LOL!

I wouldn't call an AmigaOne an amiga, no. As for OS4.1, never used it, so couldn't say. OS4 looked pretty, but seemed very unstable on all the different hardware types I tried it on.

I wouldn't call a PC running Amithlon running an Amiga either, yet the net result would be the same - seemless operation of the AmigaOS and its software library running at stupidly fast speeds.

TheDaddy wrote:
>>Commodore are not around so the rest of your point is moot. The Commodore name lives on, and produces a very nice set of PCs. End of.

So everything ended with Commodore? So following your argument Amiga ended when Commodore went bust. Amiga is dead. LOL!:-)

The Amiga line of computers did yes, there were however many clone attempts, a few of which actually made it out of the door, but most never left the paper they were drawn up on.

TheDaddy wrote:
>>An idea so fundamentally above the capacity of the current name holders that it too is a moot point since it'll never happen.

How do you know? Also let's assume Amiga Inc. DID licence the Amiga name to Dennis and the Natami team, would you still say they are NOT REAL Amigas?

I know because I've watched them since the beginning, I've watched them lie, steal and beg, I've watched them burn through venture capital like it was going out of fashion and not a single worthwhile product get released.

As for your point, I'd say it is far closer to the original Amiga both in intent and execution (hell, having gone over the site again recently I'd argue it was more of a Nyx clone on acid then anything we mere mortals ever got our mitts on, but there you go), but no more a real Amiga then Amithlon was. That said, it would however be completely impossible to tell the difference beyond the rather obvious speed bump such a system would provide.

TheDaddy wrote:
So basically what you are telling us is: "A real Amiga can only be called such if it has custom chipsets designed by either Jay Miner (he is not with us anymore unfortunately) or by any ex-Commodore engineers running Amiga OS", which version I can't say because I am not sure if you consider anything after OS3.0 being REAL Amiga OS.

Sorry to brings this up but those times have long gone, there is no research facility anymore, no more huge sums of money to play with, it's all gone, the only dedicated hardware engineers left are right here on this forum, and they have my full respect.

Actually Amiga.Inc had stacks of cash, they frittered it away and produced.... nothing.

The original Amiga was both a revolution to the computer industry and a revelation to those who used them, those days are gone. NatAmi it has to be said is imho what the AmigaOne should have been from the beginning. That they aren't originals is by no means meant as an insult, as Bloodline said wrt Amithlon - you would never tell the difference, I suspect the same would likely be true of a NatAmi, they're both brilliant ideas and Amithlon was outstanding in its execution.

[TheDaddy]

>>The end result might well be an improved A500, but that doesn't change the fact that it is essentially still a hardware based emulation. At best you could call it a clone, which is in no way a bad thing, as it happens.

I can't comment on that, I don't really know how the Minimig works, the fact remains that I can run my favourite games on it, Workbench and it was made from scratch by an Amigan, this is enough for me to call it a real Amiga.

>>I wouldn't call an AmigaOne an amiga, no.

?! :-?

So what is an Amiga? Give me your definition please.

>>Actually Amiga.Inc had stacks of cash, they frittered it away and produced.... nothing.

I agree with you. :-)

>>The original Amiga was both a revolution to the computer industry and a revelation to those who used them, those days are gone. NatAmi it has to be said is imho what the AmigaOne should have been from the beginning. That they aren't originals is by no means meant as an insult, as Bloodline said wrt Amithlon - you would never tell the difference, I suspect the same would likely be true of a NatAmi, they're both brilliant ideas and Amithlon was outstanding in its execution.

Let's hope it gets released, a new piece of hardware wouldn't hurt since Amiga Inc. don't seem interested anymore.
 :-)

[the_leander]

TheDaddy wrote:
>>The end result might well be an improved A500, but that doesn't change the fact that it is essentially still a hardware based emulation. At best you could call it a clone, which is in no way a bad thing, as it happens.

I can't comment on that, I don't really know how the Minimig works, the fact remains that I can run my favourite games on it, Workbench and it was made from scratch by an Amigan, this is enough for me to call it a real Amiga.

>>I wouldn't call an AmigaOne an amiga, no.

?! :-?

So what is an Amiga? Give me your definition please.

Already given earlier in this thread. See the wikipedia link for details.

To be clear, imho, the NatAmi and minimig should be classed as compatibles or similar, in the same way the Drako was, or the C=One is for the C=64.

As for the AmigaOne, that should be classed as an abortion, in all its different models.

TheDaddy wrote:
>>The original Amiga was both a revolution to the computer industry and a revelation to those who used them, those days are gone. NatAmi it has to be said is imho what the AmigaOne should have been from the beginning. That they aren't originals is by no means meant as an insult, as Bloodline said wrt Amithlon - you would never tell the difference, I suspect the same would likely be true of a NatAmi, they're both brilliant ideas and Amithlon was outstanding in its execution.

Let's hope it gets released, a new piece of hardware wouldn't hurt since Amiga Inc. don't seem interested anymore.
 :-)

I too would like to see it released, then again I'd like to see the issues with regard to Amithlon resolved so as to allow for a much greater market, I for one would love to see AmigaOS 3.9 running on my EeePC.

[bloodline]

WotTheFook wrote:
If it runs Amiga software, it's an Amiga, if it's hardware or not, the rest is just semantics.

So a PC running ReactOS is Windows? A Linux box runing Wine is also Windows?

These meet your requirements... but they are Not Windows, they are clones.

Every AMD or intel box running MSDOS or FreeDOS, is an IBM PC?

Again... they are not IBM PCs they are clones.


The key difference is that the behaviour of the original is known and well documented. The clone is a new system, which is compatible with the original.

The hardware purists need to realise that is isn't 1988 any more, you can't get the original hardware, so if you replicate it in another chip, what's the problem?

There are subtle differences with hardware... have you forgotten the long thread where myself and Karlos tried to work out the actual response of the Paula DACs... which is nonlinear, due to the now long obselete chip Fabrication process used by Commodore! No modern chip suffers from this nonlinear nature and as such sounds different.

The nature of the MiniMig, for example, not being a gate level copy of the Amiga, means that it is still full of bugs. While the chip is compatible with the Amiga chipset, the subtle interations of the various circuits is different, which upsets certain software.

I'm not a Hardware purist, by any stretch, as a man who sold his hardware synths for softsynths... but I do get annoyed when people make false claims.

The software purists, ditto to the above. If you couldn't tell by looking at the screen and using the mouse etc, it's an Amiga, isn't it?

No, it's not... for all the same reasons as I stated above... it's a clone. A workalike. My pefered Amiga option right now, due to advanatages too numerous to mention.

Also, if you replicate the Amiga chipset and add "AGA with knobs on" like Natami are planning, how can you claim it's an Amiga, since you have modified it? If I mod my A1200 by adding an IDEFix and a laptop DVD/CD drive, is it still an Amiga?

Because one is an Amiga with bits bolted on... the other is a new system, that tries to be compatible with the Amiga Chipset.

If you made a Gate level copy of the Amiga chipset, with accurate timings, and tried to match the electical properties as best as posible WRT the DAC/ADCs etc... then yeah, I'd say you had yourself a real Amiga.

If I were to take a Lotus and then put a shell on it to make it look like a Delorian, and fitted out the interior to look like a Delorian... that's not a a Delorian.

If I were to take the Delorian plans and build one using new parts, to the original specs... then yeah... that's a Delorian...

[WotTheFook]

@ bloodline

I am not going to copy and paste comments here for the sake of an epic post. Suffice to say that you all appear to be arguing over what appears to be a Turing-type test, where the user tries to work out if the machine at the other end of the mouse and keys is an Amiga.

If all you had was a screen, with a mouse and keyboard that looked like the Amiga ones, could you really tell without seeing the hardware... This is the test they applied for artificial intelligence, it should surely be good enough for the Amiga....

... except that such a test doesn't exist. Oh dear....

All this hardware-versus-software debate is devisive, we all love the Amiga, isn't that enough?

[TheDaddy]

@bloodline

Come on, we are splitting the hair now.

Millions of cars share millions of parts but they are still Fords, Fiats, Opel, BMWs, Audis and so on.

I would like to say that if the Minimig/Natami can, to a certain extent, be 90% compatible with old Amiga software then they are Amigas.

I was also thinking would you call an Amiga a real Amiga if it couldn't use hardware add-ons designed for a specific Amiga model? I would still call it an Amiga.

If someone said to me: "From tomorrow we have three new Amiga models but they are not 100% compatible with old Amigas/Amiga software", I would be enourmosly happy and thankful. It wouldn't even cross my mind to check if and why they are not 100% compatible.

 :-)

[bloodline]

WotTheFook wrote:
@ bloodline

I am not going to copy and paste comments here for the sake of an epic post. Suffice to say that you all appear to be arguing over what appears to be a Turing-type test, where the user tries to work out if the machine at the other end of the mouse and keys is an Amiga.

If all you had was a screen, with a mouse and keyboard that looked like the Amiga ones, could you really tell without seeing the hardware... This is the test they applied for artificial intelligence, it should surely be good enough for the Amiga....

... except that such a test doesn't exist. Oh dear....

All this hardware-versus-software debate is devisive, we all love the Amiga, isn't that enough?

Ok, this is getting annoying because I agree with you that it doesn't matter if you are running a real Amiga, an Emulation or an FPGA... since that was my original point!!!

Then someone stated that Emualtion was not as good as the real thing, so they wanted NatAmi or MiniMig... This is why I am now having to argue that the FPGA clones are not the real thing. I am not saying they are better or worse than Emulation, or better or worse than a real Amiga. But they are different.

[persia]

A lot of the Amiga World is like a time capsule, a frozen look into where we were 20 years ago.  Does anyone actually argue about what a PC or Mac is?  No, they have all gone through a series of changes over time but a Mac is still a Mac, whether it is running a beta version of Snow Leopard or OS 7.5.1.  

Nobody in the PC world argues that a P4 isn't a real PC because it's slow and has only one core!  There are still a few people running Window 3.1 and they are still PCs as much as a 4 core Xeon Vista computer.

The trouble with Amiga is that we lost a living Company long ago and have no one to tell us where Amiga is going.  So some folks want to live in the World that existed at Commodore's Death Nell Vigil (TM), whilst others want to modernise the hardware and run the 15 year old OS on modern equipment.  Still others want to take the concept of Amiga and ring it into the 21st Century.  

When the Amiga was released it was cutting edge, it was capable of things that no other personal computer was capable of at that time.  It squandered that lead and the company went belly up.  The Amiga's capabilities in 2008 look oddly nostalgic.  Think about where Amiga would have been today had Commodore not been found floating at the top of the tank!  Amiga's with GBs of RAM, 8 cores, TB hard drives.  It was able to squeeze so much out of so little, what could it have squeezed out of modern equipment?

AmigaDos would have been rewritten many times by now. The original creators made some choices, such as the lack of memory protection, that were necessary back them but now make no sense, they would have fixed them and built a new OS.  It probably would have had to run the old stuff through a Classic system like the Macs used to have.  But new software would have arisen and the old games updated to run in the new system.  

For a decade and a half the Amiga has been leaderless, slowly losing it's user base.  WHy do we need to tear at each other?  We're all that's left, maybe a few thousand scattered across the globe.  We have different visions, different ideas  We disagree on what we want, but we don't disagree on what we don't want.  We don't want the Amiga relegated to history.

 

[WotTheFook]

Amen, Persia, here endeth the first lesson.

 :bow:  :bow:  :bow:

 :cheers: