I don't get it.

[Methuselas]

@ Those who are talking about "camps."

While I can't say this isn't about camps -- there will always be someone who thinks it is -- I can guarantee that for many of us this is about _suicide._

Let's say you have a friend who managed to jump off a cliff. Now, let's say you have another friend, just like the first, who is getting ready to jump off another cliff, and you say "Stop, Amigo! Please don't jump off that cliff!" Is this motivated out of hatred? Jealousy? Anger? C'mon, get serious! It's because you don't want to see another friend get hurt.

Now, let's say you try to talk some reason into that friend, but he won't listen; he's still bound and determined to jump. Do you, A) stand their silently and let him? B) Get angry and ask him why he's doing this? C) Plead with him not to do this? Or, D) Tell him you're superior to him, so go ahead and jump!

Many Amiga fans are wondering why Hyperion and Clan are preparing to jump off a cliff. People saying things like "too expensive and/or too weak" fall into the "why are you doing this?" category, not the "silently let him" or "go ahead and jump" category. For many, this has moved from wonderment to criticism and then anger because Hyperion doesn't appear to be listening. Without a rational explanation of why this particular hardware and price ratio was chosen, how else can they react?

People like myself, who have argued that "it should be x86, but if it must be PPC, then xBox, Wii or PS3" aren't doing so out of jealousy. We're motivated out of astonishment. If you want to succeed, you need a user base, and in order to have a user base, your solution must be affordable. And, instead, we see our friend getting ready to jump off a cliff yet again.

It sad, really, but I guarantee you, it ain't about camps or jealousy or anything other than fear, disbelief and amazement.

+ Googol

I don't think I could have said it better, myself. No matter how hard your try, however, it just falls on deaf ears.....

[KThunder]

Very well put EDanaII

I must admit to a certain amount of amusement though. As in "500 bucks for a PPC accelerator... Ha!"  or "800 dollars for a motherboard I can only use for what? you're joking!" or lately "2200 dollars for x1000 LO(freak i'm hyperventilating)L"

I have tried not to be negative but when I saw the projected price for the x1000 I literally did laugh out loud. I didn't post about that till now, but I'm sure there will be some that will buy it. More power to them I guess, just don't look down on an Amiga Forever and Aros fan.

[the_leander]

the first part was just my hypothesis on what might have happened based on  dammy statement.

Whether or not it was a hypothesis, what you stated would amount to perjury if that was the case.

However since you seem so adamant

Only about your hypothesis.

you should point me out the exact document where they stated under oath about 3.1 not being used. (i'll be waiting for this).

I made no such claims. My response was based purely upon what you wrote in response to Dammy. Any statement sent to a court has a header on the top of it which reads:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of that the foregoing is true and correct.

So, if your hypothesis is in fact an accurate portrayal of events... Whoops.

Then again.. This is Ben Hermans and Bill McEwen we're talking about here and they're not exactly known for their honesty, so who knows.

[Iggy]

Wow, even this topic has become argumentative!

What was Karlos' point again? Ah, fudge it.

[DAX]

@The_Leander

I made no such claims. My response was based purely upon what you wrote in response to Dammy. Any statement sent to a court has a header on the top of it which reads:

so you intervened (with no proof whatsoever) just for the pleasure of argumenting with me? I'm honored!

So, if your hypothesis is in fact an accurate portrayal of events... Whoops.

Then again.. This is Ben Hermans and Bill McEwen we're talking about here and they're not exactly known for their honesty, so who knows.

No, my hypothesis is just an hypothesis (forum chit chat if you wish), but I heard several times (made an example) that OS3 "C" parts are used in OS4.

[the_leander]

@The_Leander
 so you intervened (with no proof whatsoever) just for the pleasure of argumenting with me?

Who was arguing? I was merely pointing out that your hypothesis, if true had some serious strings attached. Nothing more nothing less.

but I heard several times (made an example) that OS3 "C" parts are used in OS4.

Any OS3.x C code from what I've read would almost certainly have been post Olaf Barfals cleanup for 3.5/9. As from what I've read the original source for 3.1 was an unholy mess of 68k Assembler, BCPL and C written for a mix of obscure (And probably now discontinued) compilers. The removal of most of the Assembler and BCPL for 3.5/9 was likely one of the main reasons for the apparent "sluggishness" of those releases compared to 3.1 with all the bells and whistles installed - the newer releases were far more loosely tied to the hardware.

I doubt original much if any, unaltered C= era C source code ever passed by Hyperions desk, and even if it did I can't see much of it having remained once they'd re-jigged the OS for hardware other than the original.

[DAX]

Any OS3.x C code from what I've read would almost certainly have been post Olaf Barfals cleanup for 3.5/9. As from what I've read the original source for 3.1 was an unholy mess of 68k Assembler, BCPL and C written for a mix of obscure (And probably now discontinued) compilers. The removal of most of the Assembler and BCPL for 3.5/9 was likely one of the main reasons for the apparent "sluggishness" of those releases compared to 3.1 with all the bells and whistles installed - the newer releases were far more loosely tied to the hardware.

I doubt original much if any, unaltered C= era C source code ever passed by Hyperions desk, and even if it did I can't see much of it having remained once they'd re-jigged the OS for hardware other than the original.

Yeah sure, but unless you can check out the source code this is just another hypothesis, with the difference they can look at the source (both new and old) while you don't.
For the moment I'll take their word...

[coldfish]

Meh!

I'm tired of watching the bald monkeys fling sh*t at each other.

'night all.

[the_leander]

Yeah sure, but unless you can check out the source code this is just another hypothesis, with the difference they can look at the source (both new and old) while you don't.
For the moment I'll take their word...

Well that "hypothesis" is based on their own words, what they stated in the court docs (yes, I did read them, all of them, have you?) As well as comments of other developers who have seen and commented publicly about the state of the original C= code.

Indeed to cover your implication of my lying about having ever visited AW.net there is a post there by Ben Hermans bigging up Olaf for all his hard work in unstuffing the 3.1 code. It is very similar to what was stated in the court case btw.

[DAX]

Well that "hypothesis" is based on their own words, what they stated in the court docs (yes, I did read them, all of them, have you?) As well as comments of other developers who have seen and commented publicly about the state of the original C= code.

Indeed to cover your implication of my lying about having ever visited AW.net there is a post there by Ben Hermans bigging up Olaf for all his hard work in unstuffing the 3.1 code. It is very similar to what was stated in the court case btw.

Well I could tell you many things, but I would then need to post links to the parts where what I say is corroborated

You should understand that when you have people with access to the sources telling a story, no matter how we argue, unless we take a look at sources directly and compare, we are just speculating.

You know what their current stance is, and you cannot prove them wrong (even if you could provide links for the court statements which seems you cannot, it still proves nothing practically speaking. what if they used it anyway? unless you check with your own eyes it's all speculation, mine and yours).

[Retro_71]

I have said it before else where but they have gone a very weird route expensive hardware and just average specs. And as for camps i don't belong to any camp i love all things Amiga Morph OS, OS4 and AROS but let face it they will not replace my win7 systems as they are my hobby not my living. And i would pay 1500 (AU$2500) if it was a high spec machine but it isn't i actually was a bit sad when i saw the spec's and the price.
Anyway i do hope the sell them but not to me just can't justify the Performance <> Cost of it.

[the_leander]

Well I could tell you many things, but I would then need to post links to the parts where what I say is corroborated

Well, here are the Frieden brothers statements. Ben's corroboration is on AW.net as part of an interview he did. If you look through the rest of the case it comes up time and again that Hyperion ended up having to go through Olaf to get the 3.1 source code as AI didn't have it. Olaf had previously worked with AI on the 3.5 and 3.9 projects and not been paid.

You should understand that when you have people with access to the sources telling a story, no matter how we argue, unless we take a look at sources directly and compare, we are just speculating.

That's a very cute way of dismissing everything handed to you before you've even got it. Well played.

You know what their current stance is, and you cannot prove them wrong

Which would be a logical fallacy. But by the same token, the implication you keep making that something other than what their statements in court say requires you to back it up.

(even if you could provide links for the court statements which seems you cannot,

A-Inc VS Hyperion court documents. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

 

it still proves nothing practically speaking.

Heh, so regardless of anything else you're just going to dismiss whatever it placed before you, fair enough.

Well at least you're consistent in your dismissal of anything you don't like. So much for your statements on AW about trying to end conflict.

We're done.

[amigadave]

I am guessing that the longer it takes A-Eon to produce boards and complete systems to get into the beta-testers hands and then again, another production run to get more systems into general sales release, the more likely it is that the entire project will fail and never be completed.

There has already been more than enough negative comments by dozens of people about the specs, the proposed price, the lack of information regarding the CPU, etc., to discourage other potential purchasers.  If any of us were in a position where we were putting up thousands of our own dollars/euros/pounds to fund the X-1000 project and we read all the negative comments being written over the last few months, I think most of us might start having second thoughts about going forward and spending even more money on the project to see it finished if we were not sure how many sales could be made to recoup some or all of our investment, let alone make any profit.  So if more potential purchasers keep writing forum messages stating that they like the idea of a new Amiga, but the spec to cost ratio of the X-1000 is not for them, what are the chances that A-Eon may at some point realize that they will not be able to sell enough machines and/or boards to recoup their investment and then decide to cancel the project instead of risking even more money to complete any stage of the production?

[the_leander]

@amigadave

Depending on how smart/willing to cut their losses the person is behind it is, I'd say very likely.

If the fella behind it had actually done market research before jumping in with both feet I suspect even the prototype as seen at the vintage fair would never have been commissioned.

[DAX]

It's not I want to dismiss but until I see proof I don't believe what people tells me.

We discussed two things, 1)The X1000 similarity to the Devcon93 papers, and the 3.x Sourcecode actually used in OS4.

1) I told that the X1000 is very similar to what was described at devcon93 (generic mobo with modular components) and I explained to you why I reached that conlcusion: the last amiga they talked about (hombre was no Amiga) at 1993 devcon was to have the AAA chip-set as a  modular interchangeable board, the whole project was ditched, we know  that, but if for a moment we want to forecast what would have  happened in case they made it, we can clearly see that by 1996/97 off  the shelf GPUs, which were advancing at the pace of a new chip every 3  months at the time (from 10 different companies) would have replaced any  chip-set C= had in mind (with the difference that in the A4000 adding  an RTG card still leaves the old chipset there, with that new Amiga,  after taking AAA away, there would be no GFX chipset left inside the  machine) and by today any Amiga would use Ati or Nvidia GPUs (there was  no competing with that evolution speed, too fast).

You told me that, "that could be said of any modern PC" but it would seem that you fail to realize that that's how the world went.
GFX chipsets in this survival of the fittest rolling ball we live in, lost their battle and went extinct regardless of Amiga, so saying the X1000 is no Amiga because of lack of fabled chip sets is absurd.

2) source code: I only see talks about the NG exec there ( and warp3D and elf), the C parts I talked about were in Intuition, and other components, they commented on several occasions the C part is used at least as a base for many things (now OS4.1Up2 has a lot of updated components so who knows).

I believe them and don't see any evidence in the documents you posted, moreover if we don't check the actual sources, we'll never know for sure (is their words against yours).

Notice that it is you who is trying to be authoritative, I only post my impressions and explain "why" I have them.

[Pyromania]

I want to add a little positive news to this thread. If the X1000 sells well and the XMOS technology is innovative and allows 3D rendering to be spead up we will add support for XMOS in Aladdin 4D 6.x or 7.x. The original creator of Aladdin 4D Greg Gorby wanted to support the Transputer project which XMOS descends from. We will respect Greg’s wishes and take advantage of this cool feature of the X1000.