Public Release of MorphOS 2.6 & Introduction of PowerMac Support

[nicholas]

In comparison to say AOS or Mac OS Leopard the price is pretty much comparable - or at least it was back in 2005 when I purchased Leopard although I suspect the price have changed since.  £100 may seem a bit expensive for a pair of OSes that many would deem as under-developed, but at the end of the day someone has to pay for and fund future development.  Butterflies and Boing balls don't grow on trees ya know.

Snow Leopard is £20.

[nicholas]

You have to pay for your vices mate

Indeed!

I think I'll have to reboot every 30 minutes until Christmas. lol

[djrikki]

Snow Leopard is £20.

Thats because its a very minor update on Leopard itself.  The difference between Leopard and itself pre-decessor Panther were massive in comparison.

Watch them whack the price back up again on the next major release.

[nicholas]

Thats because its a very minor update on Leopard itself.  The difference between Leopard and itself pre-decessor Panther were massive in comparison.

Watch them whack the price back up again on the next major release.

I beg to differ, architecturally Snow Leopard is a huge update from Leopard.

[nicholas]

Yes indeed it's by far the cheapest one of the two commercial NG options available!

(Only AROS is cheaper, but that's not even close to be comparable to MorphOS, so...)

If OS4.1 was available for PowerMac's I'd buy that too, but unfortunately for us it isn't. :/

[ferrellsl]

Bloody hell, almost £100 for a licence key? :shocked:

Yes, I have to agree with you.  Others on here will point out that OSX is comparable in price, but OSX supports multi-core CPUs and has a wealth of applications out there.  Try finding a decent office suite and a modern web browser for MOS.  OSX also supports a broader range of hardware.  MOS is still limping by on old ATI 9xxx series video cards. And yes, it will run on a multi-core system but only uses one core.

[djrikki]

Well purely from the user-experience PoV the difference isn't that huge and I should know as I have been using both for sometime and they are nearly identical.  So sure, not going to argument about whats on the hood as I don't know, but purely from what you can do and how stuff operates differences are barely noticeable.

Although this damn Snow Leopard sucks at opening the Scripts menu from the menu bar - takes like 30 seconds just to open the blast-thinged - god knows why it was fine when I bought the machine back in the Spring.

[nicholas]

Well purely from the user-experience PoV the difference isn't that huge and I should know as I have been using both for sometime and they are nearly identical.  So sure, not going to argument about whats on the hood as I don't know, but purely from what you can do and how stuff operates differences are barely noticeable..

I use and develop on Snow Leopard on a daily basis, it is to Leopard what MorphOS 2.6 is to OS3.1 or Windows XP is to Windows 95.

[djrikki]

Ah Mac coder.

Perhaps I'll PM you some day, maybe you have some experience in building Cocoa-based applications? (XCode?). I've produced some meaty applescripts over the past 12 months in relation to office automation and could do with a configuration editor rather than expecting settings to be kept in a plain text file.  Just a tiny app with text fields, list-boxes and a few buttons for adding/deleting items with a save button.  Perhaps I should also store settings in a plist and have the applescript(s) read from it at runtime as that does seem to be the correct way to go around things rather than store SMB usernames and passwords and other items completely insecure in a plain text file lol.

Off-topic I know sorry Amigans. =P

[redrumloa]

Yes, I have to agree with you. Others on here will point out that OSX is comparable in price, but OSX supports multi-core CPUs and has a wealth of applications out there. Try finding a decent office suite and a modern web browser for MOS. OSX also supports a broader range of hardware. MOS is still limping by on old ATI 9xxx series video cards. And yes, it will run on a multi-core system but only uses one core.

I paid $550 for a SuperCPU 128 back in 2007 (though it is now worth ~$1,500). Should I compare my 128 to a Mac with OSX too? ;-)

[ferrellsl]

I paid $550 for a SuperCPU 128 back in 2007 (though it is now worth ~$1,500). Should I compare my 128 to a Mac with OSX too? ;-)

Sure.  Compare away.  The only system of the 3 that you can do any real work with is OSX.  Peopled don't buy MOS for nostalgia.  Nor do people buy OSX for nostalgia.  They buy it to get things done.  That's the point.  You're trying to justify the expense of MOS like it's some sort of antique to be collected.  MOS is still being produced.  It's not an antique.

[nicholas]

Sure.  Compare away.  The only system of the 3 that can do you can do any real work with is OSX.  Peopled don't buy MOS for nostalgia.  Nor do people buy OSX for nostalgia.  They buy it to get things done.  That's the point.  You're trying to justify the expense of MOS like it's some sort of antique to be collected.  MOS is still being produced.  It's not an antique.

I bought the G4 just to run MOS and purely for nostalgic reasons as I got rid of all my Amiga's a few years ago. lol

[ferrellsl]

I bought the G4 just to run MOS and purely for nostalgic reasons as I got rid of all my Amiga's a few years ago. lol

You could just as easily have used WinUAE and saved a lot of money if you're looking for nostalgia.  Or buy a used classic Amiga.  MOS is marketed as an alternative to OS4 and is touted to be "modern".  It wasn't developed for the sake of nostalgia.  It was developed with some backward compatibility in mind, hence the ability to run some apps from OS3.9 and earlier.  MOS's strength is also its weakness.  It's strength lies in being able to run native MOS apps at blazing speed.  There just aren't very many native apps.  So sure, spend several hundred dollars for a dedicated MOS box and a copy of MOS to run pre-OS4 apps, but you can do it much cheaper and faster in WinUAE.  Until some developers make some useful applications for MOS, my PegII will continue to be an expensive boat anchor taking up space in my basement.

[jj]

You could just as easily have used WinUAE and saved a lot of money if you're looking for nostalgia. Or buy a used classic Amiga. MOS is marketed as an alternative to OS4 and is touted to be "modern". It wasn't developed for the sake of nostalgia. It was developed with some backward compatibility in mind, hence the ability to run some apps from OS3.9 and earlier. MOS's strength is also its weakness. It's strength lies in being able to run native MOS apps at blazing speed. There just aren't very many apps. So sure, spend several hundred dollars for a dedicated MOS box and a copy of MOS to run pre-OS4 apps, but you can do it much cheaper and faster in WinUAE. Until some developers make some useful applications for MOS, my PegII will continue to be an expensive boat anchor taking up space in my basement.

£111 for small user base OS is not a lot to ask.   Its more about support than anything.  Compared to Win 7 or OSX then it is alacking in apps.  But that is hardly surprissing.   And the diffference in my opnion between running winUAE and MorphOS.  MorphOS wins hands down.

[EDanaII]

@ Ferrellsl

Your points are all valid except for the fact that everyone interested in AmigaOS is here for nostalgia. The "nostalgia" user base is likely 10 times larger than anything else available for Amigoid systems.

Two cents.

Ed.

[Fab]

Try finding a decent office suite and a modern web browser for MOS.

The browser is rather modern (quite obvious since it's based on a very recent WebKit version). And there are native applications for most standard needs too (video, audio, net, emulators, opensource games, filesharing, ...)

You may be right it lacks an office suite. However, I'm not sure Office work is the 1st thing people expect from their "home OS" when they come back from work (but well, that's just me .