Is the Amiga architecture still relevant today?

[Raffaele]

What a sad case of wanting to believe.

What you claimed was (I quote): "Audio section of DirectX engine in Windows was taken directly by Bars&Pipes Amiga software technology.".

This is funny, because Bars and Pipes does not even have an audio engine (MIDI != audio). It's a MIDI sequencer, and unlike e.g. Cubase/Logic etc. it's MIDI only, i.e. the audio engine you refer to doesn't even exist.

(btw - the patents (and the other stuff) you referred to is related to Algorithmic Composing, which is not the same thing as an audio engine at all. It's a fact that Blue Ribbon and their patents were purchased by Microsoft, but that's about it).

Bars and Pipes was it that was, i.e. nothing than a MIDI sequencer... But the method it used for passing data and dialoguing between its modules is the key feature used into direct music and then DirectX Audio Api.

At least so it was told to me from persons who asked Todor.

Maybe they were uncorrect, but I am sure it was so.

[ejstans]

Leander stop trying to re-write history.

Firstly if the engineers at Commodore were "allowed" to do what they wanted by their employers, then there's a good chance that Amiga might have survived a lot longer.  Commodore Inc, screwed up.  

There were plans in the early 1990's for hardware and software that would have extended Commodore's technological advantage and made your P100 CPU with 16 meg running Win 95 every bit the boat anchor that it was.

The Hombre (if that's what you're referring to) was basically a wholly new architecture and would not be backward-compatible except through software emulation. And in addition to AmigaOS, it was actually planned to run...Windows!!!

No amount of bug-fixes for that set up would have turned it from the horse-drawn carriage that it was, to the modern motor car that the Amiga still was.

Um, I think you have things backwards here. By this time, the Amiga was technologically ancient. I know because I upgraded my old Amiga 500 to a sparkling "new" Amiga 1200. My friend ditched his Amiga 500+ and bought a 486 instead. His PC ran circles around my Amiga, no matter how hard I refused to believe it...

[stefcep2]

The Hombre (if that's what you're referring to) was basically a wholly new architecture and would not be backward-compatible except through software emulation. And in addition to AmigaOS, it was actually planned to run...Windows!!!


Um, I think you have things backwards here. By this time, the Amiga was technologically ancient. I know because I upgraded my old Amiga 500 to a sparkling "new" Amiga 1200. My friend ditched his Amiga 500+ and bought a 486 instead. His PC ran circles around my Amiga, no matter how hard I refused to believe it...

i never knew they planned to run windows, but it wouldn't surprise, as Commodore was stupid enough to build PC's instead.

In what way did the 486 run circles around your amiga?  What were your specs?  An A1200 with an 030 and 4-8 meg would have let you do anything a 486 could and Win 3.1 was laughable running on said 486.  You'd be a masochist to contemplate running Win95 on it.  So i don't see how the 486 was superior.

[Raffaele]

Um, I think you have things backwards here. By this time, the Amiga was technologically ancient. I know because I upgraded my old Amiga 500 to a sparkling "new" Amiga 1200. My friend ditched his Amiga 500+ and bought a 486 instead. His PC ran circles around my Amiga, no matter how hard I refused to believe it...

I had Amiga1200 and PC 486 DX2-66 MHz

Despite the fact it could render 3D images with enormous more speed than A1200, and it could handle 3D graphics better than Amiga1200 (Frontier game for example) it was too slow on bitmaps, and not only real 24 bit.

Also I had 8bit audio Soundblaster that rendered audio in Fm... It was pitiful compared to Amiga audio 8bit real DAC.

When using serious programs such as Ventura Publisher (in DOS with its own GUI interface) and other software in Windows, then it was totally not responsive to user... What a waste of power...

Once I tried a floppy version of QNX on my 486 PC... I was astonished! It flied....

Sure MS-DOS and Windows were the real snails that blocked the real power hidden in 486 Processor!

[Raffaele]

i never knew they planned to run windows, but it wouldn't surprise, as Commodore was stupid enough to build PC's instead.

it was not stupid to run Windows on Hombre... It was just an alternative solution.

And perhaps once there was a version of Windows running on PowerPC machines...

[ejstans]

i never knew they planned to run windows, but it wouldn't surprise, as Commodore was stupid enough to build PC's instead.
 
In what way did the 486 run circles around your amiga? What were your specs? An A1200 with an 030 and 4-8 meg would have let you do anything a 486 could and Win 3.1 was laughable running on said 486. You'd be a masochist to contemplate running Win95 on it. So i don't see how the 486 was superior.

My spec was an Amiga 1200 with 4MiB fastram and a 40MHz FPU. That's generous too because most people didnt' have any fastram...

[stefcep2]

NO U.

Apple survive and thrive now because they offer an end to end computing experience that is seamless - Something that no one else can say they do in the general computing market. They were on their knees because it stubbornly refused to get off the PPC, yes, the iPod has been a runaway success, but be under absolutely no illusion: the move to x86 saved the computer lines.

Apples resurrection occurred with the the cancellation of the Mac clones, and the release of the iPod and the fruity ppc macs.  It took Jobs to make the company realise that they needed a point of difference, and that being a software-only company-which is where apple clones was heading-was not the way to go.   Its a common business principle: do what YOU do, and do it well, don't copy what the competitor is doing.  The move to x86 happened much later when it became clear that mac laptops could not be made with ppc chips of high enough clock speeds to compete with x86.  Windows compatibility was added relatively recently, but no-one buys a Mac to run Windows, but its a bonus If someone really wants it.

Commodore OTOH, dabbled in making PC's, and therefore supporting their direct competitor and entering a crowded market place and giving up their point of difference, the Amiga operating environment.  Thats why it was stupid that they apparantly also considered running Windows on their next-gen hardware at a time when MS was moving towards wiping alternative platforms out: if thats not giving your direct competitor a ringing endorsement i don't know what is.  Stupid is the only way to describe it.

[stefcep2]

My spec was an Amiga 1200 with 4MiB fastram and a 40MHz FPU. That's generous too because most people didnt' have any fastram...

OK so what couldn't you do that the 486 could..

[ejstans]

OK so what couldn't you do that the 486 could..

It simply couldn't keep up...

[Jope]

I have been wondering about this question for a long time now. What I mean about this question is this; in todays world, the differences between the Amiga architecure and the x86 architure still make sense? In other words if a new machine based on the Amiga architecture gets out, then is it really needed? Or?

Regards,
Sim085

No.

[shoggoth]

Bars and Pipes was it that was, i.e. nothing than a MIDI sequencer... But the method it used for passing data and dialoguing between its modules is the key feature used into direct music and then DirectX Audio Api.

Ok. Then we can agree on the fact that "Audio section of DirectX engine in Windows was taken directly by Bars&Pipes Amiga software technology." is a false statement.

Even if you replaced "Audio section of DirectX engine" with "DirectMusic", the statement would still be false, since it's not "taken directly by Bars & Pipes". It's based on similar concepts, inspired by Bars & Pipes, partly written by the same developer - but "taken directly" is a wild exaggeration.

[stefcep2]

It simply couldn't keep up...

Doing what?  Measured how?  Blue screens per minute Vs Guru's per days?

Having had an '030 A1200 and having to use a 486 running 3.11, and believe i knew many, many other in the same situation, I can't which was more enjoyable to use.

There's interesting review in Australian Commodore and Amiga review comparing Workbench 3.1 to Win 95 here? http://www.racevb6.com/acar/

Its the second last 1995 issue, its a nice read.

Comparing a 486 with Win 3.11 is a no contest.
:

[Karlos]

Doing what?  Measured how?  Blue screens per minute Vs Guru's per days?

Having had an '030 A1200 and having to use a 486 running 3.11, and believe i knew many, many other in the same situation, I can't which was more enjoyable to use.

Well, perhaps the comparison was out of the box. A 486 out of the box is significantly faster than an A1200 out of the box.

Textured 3D games were a lot faster and smoother on a 486 with VGA than a non-RTG amiga, even with an 030 at a faster clockspeed. Just compare Doom on a 25MHz 486 with VGA to a 40MHz 68030 with AGA, let alone a stock 020.

Not that you could actually run Doom at the time, as it hadn't been ported. Try comparing, say, TFX to see the difference. It isn't particularly great on an 060, but works fine on a modest 486.

[stefcep2]

Well, perhaps the comparison was out of the box. A 486 out of the box is significantly faster than an A1200 out of the box.

Textured 3D games were a lot faster and smoother on a 486 with VGA than a non-RTG amiga, even with an 030 at a faster clockspeed. Just compare Doom on a 25MHz 486 with VGA to a 40MHz 68030 with AGA, let alone a stock 020.

Not that you could actually run Doom at the time, as it hadn't been ported. Try comparing, say, TFX to see the difference. It isn't particularly great on an 060, but works fine on a modest 486.

3D was CPU intensive.  The amiga was never just about the CPU, the PC was mostly about the CPU. The architecture was never designed with chunky graphics in mind.  If it wasn't for Doom, it might not have mattered, for a bit longer any way.  But then again, that 486 ney even Pentium  PC could do what an 68020 with 4 meg and Scala could do at the time.

[gertsy]

@stefcep2
It is a nice read, I still have the mag here now. It was talking about usability and productivity and not raw power.  
A 486 25mhz pumped out around 15-20 MIPS depending on the architecture. Comparable to a 68040 @ 25Mhz.  
The 486 with 16Bit SB Cards in 93-94 was when the Amiga started being overtaken.  

Gertsy

[Manu]

3D was CPU intensive.  The amiga was never just about the CPU,

Maybe not "just" but in the mid / late 90's it was getting tiresome to have my acclerated Amiga 1200 switched on through out the night rendering the most a simple low resolution animation in Imagine. Boy, I wanted a "fast/faster" Amiga back then. I really started to feel back then how Amiga was not going to go anywhere at that time with all the promises hopes and so on.