Pegasos Gothenburg Show 2002 announced

[Seehund]

@samface:

Why would you have a petition about the new Amiga if there won't be one?

I don't know of any such petition. There is however a petition about the distribution policies for future versions of AmigaOS.

Why do you claim that there won't be any AmigaDE for the AmigaOS?

(I said AmigaOS 4.) *I* wasn't claiming that, Bill McEwen is. I based my statement on that.

Why do you keep saying things that only an employee of Amiga Inc. could possibly know, such as the AmigaOS5/DE beeing just a vague concept?

AmigaOS 5 does not exist and is most likely not in development yet (apart from the DE components, if such indeed will be included), as that would require at least a finished AmigaOS 4, more likely 4.5. OS5 is a hypothetical concept, and until it's in development it's a hypothetical concept on paper.

The DE is a concept, and IMO it's extremely vaguely defined.

Simple as that. You didn't read any of the links?

What you can't see doesn't exist, right?

Whatever you can't see but can read announcements about its planning in marketing must be tangible reality or even feasible, right?  :- P

why does it "belong" on Amiga news sites

A bunch of people have repeatedly told you their arguments for this. Scroll around.

why would I not consider them an enemy of Amiga?

I assume you mean Amiga Inc.
Well, it's up to you of course. It's just that it generally makes people queasy to see someone muster all his/her might to fight what s/he feels is an "enemy" of a commercial entity. Others usually say "competition" and "options", even if they're economically affiliated with either commercial entity.

No, they buy ready-made boards. [...] Eyetech has nothing to do with any hardware design [...]

Stop making up lies about the AmigaOne, from Eyetech's AmigaOne FAQ:

[snip: Eyetech says the A1G3SE is not 100% identical to the TeronCX]

That's official.

What are you trying to say? I never said the "AmigaOne G3SE" was identical to the TeronCX. I said the A1 is not designed by Eyetech, and that they buy a ready-made board. Where's the lie, and what's this got to do with the newsworthiness of Pegasos or any potentially AmigaOS compatible hardware for that matter?

Amiga Inc. wants to create a new platform they call the AmigaOne.

I don't know what they want other than what they have announced publicly, and that does not include any plans for an "AmigaOne platform", unless you refer to the old "AmigaOne/Zico" crap. "AmigaOne" is a trademark used by one licensed distributor for the piece of hardware it's distributing. Nothing more and nothing less.

They want to be able to provide their customers with a complete product, not just the software. They do this by cooperating with hardware manufacturers and *anyone* is free to apply for an AmigaOne distribution license, hardware manufacturers as well as dealers. They think that this will bring the customer a certain quality experience adding more value to the name "Amiga".

The only product provided (well, marketed) by Amiga Inc. is AmigaOS (ignoring the DEAAAACE stuff).
Funny choice of words there, "cooperating". There's a marketing director position open in Snoqualmie...
AmigaOS is dependent on hardware. If you sell a piece of software like AmigaOS you cannot under any present circumstance impose any restrictions on its possible hardware base. As I said before, go ahead with licensing, but it simply MUST NOT be a requirement for seeing absolutely essential ports of AmigaOS to more hardware. There is no need for any compulsory licensing/bundling/dongling requirements to get the little "cooperation" (a hardware sample and documentation) you need to make your software running on a piece of hardware. The compulsory licensing et c. is an obstacle against such "cooperation".
"Free to apply for a license"? Well, anyone is free to put their hands into a meatgrinder too, that doesn't mean anyone is going to do it without a sufficiently large incentive.
Even if someone came along and licensed some new hardware, it would still mean that only the licensed version of this hardware would be available only via this licensed channel for AmigaOS users. All this is in effect a very serious flaw in AmigaOS - not for technical reasons, but because of short-sighted greed and politics.
If they want to add "value" from hardware to the Amiga brand, they'd better start making their own hardware, and then it must be cheaper, better and faster than other desktop consumer hardware. This is not happening. The Amiga brand isn't gaining anything, AmigaOS is instead once again becoming known as "that dinky little OS that only runs on special hardware from special vendors", even though there is no technical reason for this. Sure, sell licensed hardware using the "AmigaOne" trademark, only the licensed hardware would be connected to the precious "Amiga" name, but it's insanity to NOT have the OS ported to as much hardware as possible and sell separate copies as well.


But anyway, Pegasos stories have their place on amiga.org.

[Seehund]

samface wrote:

It's just so sad to see how the Amiga community has become such an easy victim for this kind of marketing scam...

[samface]

@Seehund

Repeat after me: Buying a motherboard design from a hardware designing company and then modifying it for your purposes is not the same thing as bying a ready made board.

Also, do you remember the blue prints on Eyetech's webpage in the AmigaOne's early stages? You know, the one Eyetech made on their own but couldn't use because Escena didn't deliver the necessary chipsets as promised? What I can't believe is your ignorant statement about Eyetech not having anything to do with hardware design. If you don't believe me, browse to: http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/pics/a1board.gif

Furthermore, drop this whole "Bill McEwen said" crap, you know just as well as I that his reply wouldn't be the same today. For how long are you going to have this grudge against them simply because they made changes in their plans?

And then, stop speculating about the AmigaOS5 and the AmigaDE. Just because they haven't told *you* about the details yet, does that mean that their plans in their office in Snowqualmie has to be "vague"? No.

The "AmigaOne" trademark is a property of Amiga Inc. and they have defined it as hardware that has been ensured to run AmigaOS. Your definition mentioned in your post simply isn't true.

Finally, stop your "must not be" about their license requirements. It's their OS and they decide which hardware they want to support, not you or anyone else. They've decided to only make support for the hardware manufacturers willing to cooperate because they think that will be the best thing to do. You obviously don't have the capacity to comprehend their motive for this but yet you seem to be confident enough to challange their decission. Tell me, how come you think you know these things better than them? I've asked you this so many times without getting even as much an attempt to reply as you prefer to ramble on about your own vision on how you would have done things if you were the owner of the Amiga. Please, can't you even try giving me a reason for why I should listen to you at all?

But anyway, Pegasos is not an Amiga computer.

[AmiGR]

Also, do you remember the blue prints on Eyetech's webpage in the AmigaOne's early stages? You know, the one Eyetech made on their own but couldn't use because Escena didn't deliver the necessary chipsets as promised? What I can't believe is your ignorant statement about Eyetech not having anything to do with hardware design. If you don't believe me, browse to: http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/pics/a1board.gif

--

This design was made by *ESCENA* and the protos were produced in the *DCE* laboratory under eyetech'ssfunding. The blueprints were made by
Martin Schuller.

Finally, stop your "must not be" about their license requirements. It's their OS and they decide which hardware they want to support, not you or anyone else. They've decided to only make support for the hardware manufacturers willing to cooperate because they think that will be the best thing to do. You obviously don't have the capacity to comprehend their motive for this but yet you seem to be confident enough to challange their decission. Tell me, how come you think you know these things better than them? I've asked you this so many times without getting even as much an attempt to reply as you prefer to ramble on about your own vision on how you would have done things if you were the owner of the Amiga. Please, can't you even try giving me a reason for why I should listen to you at all?
--

Of course, it wasn't their sweat that was spent to make it, so they can kill it off by limiting it to whatever
they want. And don't tell me anything about funding
for the development cause Hyperion develop OS4 with their own financial resources.

[samface]

@AmiGR:

Oh well, who cares. Eyetech is still the ones providing us with the hardware, they are the ones making it possible. Saying that they don't have anything to do with hardware is still false.

What you said about the AmigaOS not beeing any sweat and therefore no loss to kill is still not a reason for why they would do such a thing. It simply doesn't make sense. Besides, they can't. Their contract with Hyperion forbids them and gives Hyperion the right to continue development and release it to the end users even if Amiga Inc. themselves would go bancrupt or whatever.

[blubbe]

Please tell me then, why would your "butterfly" theory be better than the facts I've been pointing out in this thread?

Oh, why bother.. you have such disrespect for facts
that it would be no point anyway. So please stop
and try to use arguments (that are full of crap)
as they arent arguments anyway. You just make
things up along to try proove that MOS is evil and must die. We know that you think this. Good for you.
Now go make some use instead.

 :-)

[samface]

@blubbe:

To sum things up of the "oh-so" important "facts" and arguments stated in this thread by blubbe:

1. I have been stung or scared by a Butterfly as a kid.

2. There is no point in giving me real arguments or facts.

3. The things I've repeated so many times, over and over for the last 2 yrs is something I've just made up as I go along.

4. My arguments are crap. No need to tell me why, they just are and I should accept that and go away.

5. My arguments are not even arguments.

Is that correct, blubbe?

[AmiGR]

The death of Amiga Inc or even Hyperion wouldn't
be the death of OS4 after it's release. Limiting it to
a VERY small market will be it's death. Hyperion
originally planned to target every possible hardware
combination they have the resources to develop for
(I've seen several interviews saying that), while with
the distribution policies they can't do that.

[AmiGR]

Which arguements? Most of the time you just flame
MOS with no point AT ALL.

[blubbe]

By your defenition of facts then yeah.
Otherwise.. well, I didnt say 1, I didnt say 2,
actually I didnt say any of those, but its pretty close

Lets take this piece of comment for example
to show how you without any respect of facts
try to throw dirt on MOS:

And then you say that I don't have anything for why it would be irrelevant to Amiga users? Listen and listen carefully, WinUAE has better support for Amiga applications than MorphOS since it only runs retargetable Amiga applications.

So what, put UAE on MOS and run non-rtg apps.

Ontop of that, it doesn't run Amiga applications natively in any way, it emulates.

What do you think MOS does ??
Edit: What do you think WinUAE does ?

 MorphOS will also not run AmigaOS4 applications and MorphOS applications won't run on any AmigaOS.

Neither will UAE, what your point ?

To sum things up:

MorphOS is an OS that doesn't run on Amiga hardware,

Yes it does, on classic PPC.

MorphOS applications won't run on AmigaOS and emulation is required in order for it to run Amiga applications. Per definition that makes it a non Amiga compatible (or even related) OS.

Yeah, same can be said of UAE. Again Whats your point ?

Pegasos is hardware not capable of running AmigaOS natively which makes it easy to define as non Amiga hardware.

But Amithlon/UAE is better then ?? What ?

So, tell me; why would this be more Amiga relevant than WinUAE?

Because unlike UAE, its not JUST an emulator..

-- well, not a single line that provides any real arguments against MOS.

[AmiGR]

> MorphOS is an OS that doesn't run on Amiga
> hardware, MorphOS applications won't run on

Excuse me? I beg your pardon? So, the AmigaOne is more of an Amiga than my 1200, right?

> AmigaOS and emulation is required in order for it
> to run Amiga applications. Per definition that
> makes it a non Amiga compatible (or even related) > OS.

So? it works EXACTLY the same way OS4 does.
Native PPC libraries and devices on which 68k
apps run under 68k emulation. Do you read?
*68k* emulation. It does *NOT* emulate the APIs
in any way, it reimplements them in the A/Box which
is the only part of MorphOS you see right now.

You keep posting crap about stuff you know nothing about.

[samface]

Well, like Tickly and I already agreed to earlier in this thread, it's a matter of wether you find WinUAE to be Amiga related or not. You and him obviously does while I don't. I mean, would an Amiga with PCTask installed be a PC related computer? IMHO, alternative platform software compatibility through emulation simply isn't magicaly turning that underlying hardware or OS into beeing classified as a part of that platform. People are beeing intentionally fooled into thinking otherwise giving them a ride on someone else's trademark for free. Remember when you could even search for "AmigaOne" in google and Pegasos advertising would show? But then, it's ok since they will "save" the Amiga with their alternative platform, right?

[samface]

Excuse me? I beg your pardon? So, the AmigaOne is more of an Amiga than my 1200, right?

Here we get to another point of mine. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that Amiga Inc. owns the Amiga brand and is therefore allowed to define whatever they want to be "Amiga" as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's IP? The AmigaOne has been defined to be the new Amiga by Amiga Inc. so therefore yes, it is more Amiga than the classic Amiga hardware as it was labeled to be Amiga by previous owners of the name. I even dare saying that your Amiga 1200 isn't an Amiga at all, it's previous Amiga hardware. It's "used to be", "no more" and "dead", can you hear the violins?

[Kronos]

Ah so the ~3 million units sold by C= and Escom are NOT Amigas,
but the ~20 units sold by Eytech sofar are, even so they can't
even run any Amiga-SW atm. (outside UAE that is).

Man your funny !

IF AInc can proove that MorphOS includes their
IP than they have the right to go against it.

But sofar they have delieverd zero evidence, and I doubt they ever will.

In this case MorphOS is legal, and just a competition product,
and competition is GOOD, because without it AInc/Hypeion would have gone
on a much simpler concept for OS4, like it was planned in early 01
(OS3.9 running in a non-JIT emu).

If AInc fails to stand up to the competiton, than they will die
regardless if you can read Pegasos-news here or not.

[samface]

So? it works EXACTLY the same way OS4 does.

Are you saying that Hyperion has reverse engineered the MorphOS A/Box? Or, perhaps they don't work as *exactly* the same way as you said... (Hey, you're the one that wrote "exactly" in capitol letters.)

It does *NOT* emulate the APIs

Now where did say that? Guess what? I didn't. On the contrary, I've said that they have reverse engineered the AmigaOS API's in previous posts in this thread. That's hardly the same thing as emulating, now is it?

[samface]

But sofar they have delieverd zero evidence, and I doubt they ever will.

But then, you're hardly involved in this case at all, now are you? How could *you* possibly know anything about their evidence at all?