What are the advantages of the present/future Amiga?

[amigaksi]

by alexh on 2008/8/31 13:49:03

>>    you can bet there exists a program that will work on original Mac not on your so-called Mac.


>I bet there are very few programs worth running that fall into this category.

It does not matter the number; in fact, there can even be none-- just theoretically exist (someone may write one) and that would show it's not backward compatible.

>If you find one of these programs and find you cannot live without it, there are numerous easy to use hardware level emulators at your disposal.

Well, unless the audio/kb/etc. of the new machine is a superset of the old machine, it would be hard to do any sort of emulation accurately.  Actually, you can state there is some Mac out there that does this since there are so many flavors  and new flavors coming, it's hard to keep up.

[amigaksi]

That should be "has a subset" not "is a subset".

by amigaksi on 2008/8/31 13:45:16

>by Piru on 2008/8/30 22:29:15

>@amigaksi
>Quote:

> a new "Mac" is NOT a Mac because of Intel chips


>Why not?

>I have both PPC and Intel Macs. There is no difference between them, except that the Intel Mac is much faster.

And how did you draw such a conclusion that they are both Macs. The Mac was originally a 680x0 and although overburdened (unlike amiga) had some support hardware like for audio/keyboard/mouse etc. so unless you have a system that is a subset of that hardware configuration you can bet there exists a program that will work on original Mac not on your so-called Mac.

[Beast96GT]

Well, first off, I didn't start the thread to become some kind of flame war calling people stupid.  And murple, the thread is for fun and at least keeping ideas fresh.  If we never talked about the new Amiga subject because there are "old threads" about the topic, nothing would ever be done to move forward.  Silly or not, it keeps the idea going and its kind of fun.

Here is my personal opinion regarding the questions I asked.  Mind you, I'm a software engineer, not a hardware guru--so I can't really tell you the problems associated with Motorola vs. Intel vs. PPC, etc.  Maybe that's why I asked the questions in the first place.

Here it is:

The Amiga originally was an incredible machine that could deliver graphics/sound/multitasking at an affordable price (yes, affordable--PCs were thousands of dollars).  The Amiga would need some kind of "niche" to fill that's not being currently exploited.  Of course the affordability would suffer, I would think, but there would a new draw to the Amiga.

I would like to think that the new Amiga would have an architecture that would not be held back by backward compatibility, as the PC seems to be.  Why couldn't backward compatibility be provided in software emulation?

There would need to be incentives for developing software for it.  Maybe a killer app that really fills the "niche"?

On more realistic note, however, I think Hyperion (sp?) has the right idea.  An OS would seem to be the most logical way to promote the Amiga despite the hardware it runs on.  Of course I know nothing about AmigaOS, but it seems to be the only way the Amiga will stay around.  Hopefully Hyperion stays around, too.

In the end, of course, it's a pipe dream, but it's still fun to discuss.  And I think it's good to bring it up, regardless of critics that think it's pointless.  

Thanks, for the silly fun.  

Chris

[Georg]

@Piru

The thing is that with computers software is everything. Who cares about the actual HW underneath as long as it's fast enough and bugfree?

Question: if MorphOS development had started today (not x years ago) - or maybe put differently: if cpu situation when MorphOS development started back then would have been as it is now - which CPU family would in your opinion have been the best choice?

[amigaksi]

by Beast96GT on 2008/8/31 14:38:39
...
>I would like to think that the new Amiga would have an architecture that would not be held back by backward compatibility, as the PC seems to be. Why couldn't backward compatibility be provided in software emulation?

I would state that it kills the userbase once you just develop a new machine that's not backward compatible and you have a new learning curve for development as well.  It could be backward compatible in software if the hardware supports it (that's why I was stating things like subset/superset).  For example, you can't show real-time sprites all over a screen on a machine that does not have sprites.

>There would need to be incentives for developing software for it. Maybe a killer app that really fills the "niche"?

PCs have always coexisted with Amiga/Ataris-- one having a different focus than the other.  All of a sudden people want to use the PC for everything once Amiga/Atari went bankrupt, but they did not redevelop the PC that fits the hardware requirements of Amiga/Ataris.  

There's nothing wrong with people asserting their opinions, but when people start declaring "it sucks", "it's stupid" we need evidence.

[alexh]

amigaksi wrote:
PCs are backward compatible for about 30 years; I can still run 8088 code on a Pentium IV.

No you cannot. The caches and internal pipeline structure means that a lot of code does not run as it was supposed to. I dont think you were a PC user during the transition to 32-bit x86 architecture and once again to the Pentium architecture. Either that or you've forgotten.

amigaksi wrote:
It does not matter the number; in fact, there can even be none-- just theoretically exist (someone may write one) and that would show it's not backward compatible.

Of course it matters. Creating a system that performs terribly for all applications just to support one or two rogue applications that are very rarely (if never) used (and have working equivalents) is just stupid. Like everything in life its a matter of numbers.

amigaksi wrote:
Well, unless the audio/kb/etc. of the new machine is a superset of the old machine, it would be hard to do any sort of emulation accurately.

Hard yes, but people have been working on them for decades. They are very good. Certainly good enough for a regular user. Because the MAC used libraries to abstract everything and there was far less "bang the metal" programming a highly accurate and compatible MAC emulator is far easier than say an Amiga emulator.

amigaksi wrote:
For example, you can't show real-time sprites all over a screen on a machine that does not have sprites.

Not true. It all depends on how much CPU power per VBL you have, what RAM bandwidth you have, what VBL synchronisation you have.

You think high level Amiga games use only hardware sprites? Of course not when the accelerated CPU's could pump 10x of them around in 1/10th the time.

[Piru]

@amigaksi

And how did you draw such a conclusion that they are both Macs. The Mac was originally a 680x0 and although overburdened (unlike amiga) had some support hardware like for audio/keyboard/mouse etc. so unless you have a system that is a subset of that hardware configuration you can bet there exists a program that will work on original Mac not on your so-called Mac.

I didn't own any of the m68k Macs, but I've used them. Considering some evolution, these PPC and x86 Macs look and feel the same. They run much of the same software (although now much more advanced). Frankly, I don't give a poop whether the underlying HW is m68k, PPC or x86. All of them work. x86 works faster than PPC. PPC works faster than m68k.

This is how I feel. I consider them Macs. Obviously you don't need to agree.

[Seiya]

amiga is missing in:

1) Software
2) porting to x86
3) porting to Qemu and PearPC.

the second point will be very impossible, but now, the only way to show the new AmigaOS to a major number of users is to run OS4 and MOS1/2 on emulator x86 like Qemu and PearPC.

 there is no advantage for the one that has developed the two OS, if these last remain confined on A1 or uA1.

[Piru]

@Georg

if MorphOS development had started today (not x years ago) - or maybe put differently: if cpu situation when MorphOS development started back then would have been as it is now - which CPU family would in your opinion have been the best choice?

Assuming that there would be no backwards compatibility issues to consider, clearly x86 (or x86-64 probably).

[downix]

Piru wrote:
@Georg

if MorphOS development had started today (not x years ago) - or maybe put differently: if cpu situation when MorphOS development started back then would have been as it is now - which CPU family would in your opinion have been the best choice?

Assuming that there would be no backwards compatibility issues to consider, clearly x86 (or x86-64 probably).

I'm still leaning more for keeping the software as 68k and emu it, a la Amithlon, thereby eliminating the whole native issue.  *shrug*

[Piru]

@downix

I'm still leaning more for keeping the software as 68k and emu it, a la Amithlon, thereby eliminating the whole native issue. *shrug*

Sure go ahead. I was asked my opinion and I gave it.

If the only goal is to run the old m68k apps in some boxed emulation and have the surrounding OS somehow new, then it will be quite hard to compete with Windows + WinUAE or Linux x86 + EUAE.

[Georg]

@Piru

Assuming that there would be no backwards compatibility issues to consider, clearly x86 (or x86-64 probably).

In recent times (months?) I think to have noted "indications" that several other people from MorphOS team might have similiar opinion. Might that be so?

[Piru]

@Georg

In recent times (months?) I think to have noted "indications" that several other people from MorphOS team might have similiar opinion. Might that be so?

I don't speak in behalf of other people. This is my personal opinion.

Anyway, this particular opinion was given about hypothetical scenario. It is in no way related to MorphOS as of today.

[quarkx]

alexh wrote:
I have to disagree with quarkx (not for the first time).

The ethos of AmigaOS was to make the user experience easier and better to the point where it almost doesn't feel like you are using a computer.

It doesn't matter what hardware it uses. To be honest if you're even THINKING what the underlying hardware is then the OS + applications have not done their job correctly.

The most functional, easiest to use User experience is what it aims for. Stuff "just works".

Taking a crappy stoic stance of "it's not pure" is so lame and not what computing is all about.

You use words "Spirit" and "Soul" and I say that your ideas are the work of Beelzebub. You've missed the whole point of OS level computing!

You could argue that the spirit and soul of the Amiga was not in the OS level but in the bang the metal programming that grew up around the earlier computer systems. But I doubt very much you are a programmer or know anything about this area. You are just a user. (As am I)

First, you are right, I am not or never said I was a programmer, but I just can't seem to understand your point at all. Why do you even bother with Amiga then if not for the hardware? Why is the price of all the amiga stuff so expensive, if none of the hardware mattered? By your argument, we should all just trash our amigas and run emulators, because the real stuff doesn't matter. X86 is going to go the way of the 68xxx sooner or later also. The hardware is the most important part of any computer system, otherwise, you just have trash.

[mdwh2]

Beast96GT wrote:
1) What would be special about it?  What would make people want to buy it instead of a PC?  

The same reasons people buy Macs: avoiding viruses etc; wanting an all-in-one combined hardware/OS package from the same company; just wanting to be different.

2) How can the Amiga recreate the charm it once had as an inexpensive multimedia computer?

All computers these days have the charm of being inexpensive multimedia computers. So there's no need to recreate it, just offer what everyone else offers these days.

3) What are the hardware solutions for the Amiga considering it typically uses hardware that can be outdated, limited in quantity, generally incompatible with market leader?

Well obviously it would be silly to use years old hardware, and there's no reason to restrict it to such hardware. The hardware solutions are those on the market today, which includes hardware that is compatible with Windows.

alexh wrote:
Dunno about you, but I certainly do not remember the Amiga as "inexpensive".

A Batman Pack which cost £399 in 1989 would cost in today's money (adjusting for inflation) £734.16. That is hardly inexpensive is it?

It was inexpensive compared to the alternatives to the time (e.g., PCs costing twice as much). But yes, computers of today are even more inexpensive.

[mdwh2]

zylesea wrote:
The issue of going x86 was discussed a zillion times already. the prob is the endianess. either you lose binary compatibilty (like AROS) or you lose cpu cycles (needed to continously swap endianess) - which wouldn't comply with the 'elegance through simplicity' approach.

It wasn't a problem for Apple.

And given that a modern x86 can run rings around the fastest '060, even with the burden of emulation, I'd say that's a far more elegant and simple solution than using outdated and expensive hardware.

DigitalQ wrote:
I consider that all modern computers running a modern OS (ie; Linux, Vista) contain all the best elements that made the Amiga special in its day.  In this light, I see the Amiga as being a contributor to the computer I'm using right now; which means that, in a sense, I am using a modern variation of the Amiga.

I fully agree. I've been using PCs for the last few years because they have become far more in the spirit of what the Amiga was. The Amiga lives probably more so than anything to do with DOS or classic MacOS. I could stick an Amiga sticker on it if I really wanted to, but I'm not really bothered about being loyal to a trademark.

murple wrote:
Without some continuity from the Commodore Amigas either in technology or engineers... I think it'd be an Amiga in name only.

Note that this is just like Mac OS X and Windows.

Things like the Minimig and AOne are cool, but I cant really consider them Amigas.

This seems to me an odd thing to say - do you say the same of modern Macs and Windows PCs (which are far more of a gap than the AmigaOne, where the only difference is a different CPU; Macs have a completely different OS too)?