Amount of MorphOS copies sold

[Iggy]

Henry,
I couldn't agree with you more.
Everyone in the community has similar interests and all our OS' are built around an OS3.1 API.
So why is there so much conflict?

Frankly, I'm using two NG OS' now and wouldn't mind trying the third.
Its hard to believe that with such a small base of users we have this many choices.

[HenryCase]

So why is there so much conflict?

I don't know man, your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that because all NG platforms are fairly similar, people pick up on the differences as a way to distance themselves from the other platforms, in order to justify the decision they've made on the platform they've chosen.

Frankly, I'm using two NG OS' now and wouldn't mind trying the third.
Its hard to believe that with such a small base of users we have this many choices.

I agree, I see it as a great sign of vitality in the Amiga scene, that despite our relatively small numbers we've got a disproportionate amount of choice when it comes to software, including operating systems. The diversity of choice is something to be celebrated.

[takemehomegrandma]

Do you know why I made that earlier statement? Please feel free to take a guess.

You have made *quite a number* of strange statements in this thread, like forum activity on amigaworld.net etc sites would have anything to do with the amount *users* of various platforms, like "MUI OWB" download statistics during a 6+ months period of time of turbulence, two OS updates, re-installations and injection of a few hundred extra systems to existing users, would give a good picture of amount of users, like when you claimed I have said "MorphOS is doing great" when I hadn't, like suggesting that MorphZone.org threads would be "low quality" and giving an "example" of "a 28 page thread slagging off the X1000" (a thread that hardly even speaks of the X1000), like trying to draw conclusions about amount of MorphOS users from Aminet *uploads* (heck much MorphOS SW doesn't even reach Aminet, but that's not even the point, the point is that this is equally hilarious as "user statistics" as your "website activity" were), etc.

I find your behavior very strange, almost obsessed (and no, *I'm* not the one pushing some case here, I have merely been replying to a post you did as a reply to a one year old post from me). Maybe MorphOS doesn't have more users than OS4, there is no certain way of knowing. I don't know, and *you* don't know, you have actually no idea, but you are quite desperate to discard it as "wishful thinking" though.

What we *do* have, however, is statistics of MorphOS registrations. And we *do* have DL statistics of *the single most anticipated and hyped piece of OS4 software ever!* (please don't insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting that only a few people would download this, not when the browser situation is so dire on OS4 as it is, not when it's "Firefox" from "the Friedens" we are talking about). I have never claimed that this could be considered absolute facts, I stressed that several times, in several posts. But put together, it all surely builds a *plausible* case. *Plausible*, not a fact. But it's funny to see how this obviously is so darn completely inconceivable to you, and in your desperation to prove it to be impossible and "wishful thinking", you come up with one "proof" more hilarious and ridiculous than the other.

Again, MorphOS had a head start of almost half a decade and it actually had employed/contracted developers in the beginning (not hobby based development like today), it has all the best Amiga standards *integrated*, it has the best performance, the best features, the best stability, the best Amiga compatibility, the best Internet SW, etc. And it has always had the much better HW situation, both more powerful and cheaper than OS4, and a much better driver support in the OS to go with that. These are quantifiable, measurable facts, not subjective opinions. But even if you *don't* agree with that (which I just *bet* you don't), you are incredibly naive if you can't conceive that there *will* have been an effect in amount of users (for *both* platforms) during the *many years* of a situation where the threshold of getting a MorphOS system being *extremely low*, while the threshold of getting an OS4 system being *extremely high*. Read my lips: "I-T W-I-L-L H-A-V-E A-N E-F-F-E-C-T", the difference is *way* too huge to be ignored! Being tied to a $3,000 system (that offers very little over a $250 MorphOS system) *won't* result in a platform growth for OS4, it will result in a *platform decrease*, at least over time! And this *will* show in various statistics, like for example how many downloads has taken place for the *holy grail* Firefox/Timberwolf software that you *safely* can assume at least 99% of active users will download (*at least* once)...

[takemehomegrandma]

@Iggy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA&t=16s

[HenryCase]

@takemehomegrandma
If you find my behaviour strange, then you still haven't grasped why I am doing what I'm doing. Please at least TRY to answer the question below, as putting yourself in someone else's shoes should help you grasp what's going on...

Okay, if you've been listening, what do you think the main point I'm trying to make is? I'll give you a hint, it's nothing to do with forum visitors.

the best Amiga compatibility

I find this interesting that you bring this up as a quantifiable fact. As far as I know, there has been no in-depth study of 68k Amiga software compatibility (correct me if I'm wrong on that). What has been noted is that there are some pieces of 68k Amiga software that run on MorphOS that don't run on OS4. This is fine, but what you overlook is that the opposite is true also, there are some pieces of 68k software that run on OS4 that don't run on MorphOS, such as DPaint III, DPaint IV, PPaint, etc... There's some mentions of DPaint IV compatibility in this thread:
http://pfa.amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=33140&forum=28&start=20&39

So what do you base this 'quantifiable fact' on? Is it just that MorphOS runs some software that OS4 doesn't, or do you have some better evidence than this?

[hooligan]

I remember running Dpaint and PPaint on my old (1.3 or 1.4) MOS. PPaint needed some tinkering in config though.

BTW Once there was a deal between Cloanto and Genesi for new version of PPaint for MorphOS.. of course that never realised like so many other good things.

[itix]

So what do you base this 'quantifiable fact' on? Is it just that MorphOS runs some software that OS4 doesn't, or do you have some better evidence than this?

Design decisions prevent running certain software on OS4. SnoopDos, MCP, MCX and any other software patching system vectors are out of question. Most 68k drivers are still compatible with MorphOS (although they are no use in Pegasos or Mac). Even 68k Workbench can be used in MorphOS.

Warp3D compatibility is known to be better in MorphOS. Ixemul compatibility is better in MorphOS (OS4 port lacks features like automatic stack enlargement).

WarpUp and PowerUp compatibility is obviously superior in MorphOS but it is not 68k software although WarpUp is part of AmigaOS 3.5/3.9.

68k MUI classes can be mixed with the system. AFAIK in OS4 it is not working.

Other minor details I remember is that in MorphOS MEMF_CHIP and MEMF_FAST are availab le so old software allocating specific memory type is not failing. Certain 68k->PPC and PPC->68k cross calls are supported better in MorphOS.

[takemehomegrandma]

@takemehomegrandma
If you find my behaviour strange, then you still haven't grasped why I am doing what I'm doing. Please at least TRY to answer the question below

By all means. Your view is that *even the thought* of MorphOS could be having a larger user base than OS4 is "more of wishful thinking than anything based in reality", it being "Extraordinary claims", obviously totally inconceivable to you. While not claiming with certainty that *it is* this way, I have during my posts put up at least 6 facts that combined gives a plausible case how it *could be* this way. Since you are so desperate to show how this is nothing but "wishful thinking", you have been using all kinds of strange arguments, really grasping for straws, like pointing at Aminet Upload Statistics(!!) and your perceived activity in selected forums(!!!), I mean come on!

Since I posted the last graph the other day, it has now been updated. Well, well, well, the trend (that *is* based on reality, like it or not) continues!



This definitely covers *some* old "classic" Amigans, curious about the "NG" thing, it covers some still active OS4 users wanting to have and use MorphOS as a complement to OS4, and possibly some *formerly* active OS4 users that simply can't afford/won't think it's worth the money to replace their dead-by-age AmigaOne XE system with what's currently being offered by A-eon and Acube.

What these people (in the blinking part above) did do during the very last month, is they have obtained a MorphOS compatible Mac computer by paying money in the range of $20-$300 (probably a hundred or two), they have downloaded MorphOS for free, they have used it and evaluated it for a couple of days, they have installed SW, they have been configuring it in various ways, they have browsed the web, they have played with it, they have been doing a lot of things trying to answer the question: "is this a good Amiga for my needs? A license will cost some money, will it be worth it?". And then *they have* taken the step and paid the €111 to get a key file, some have reported their serial numbers in that MorphOS Counter thread over at MZ, thus they ended up in this statistic. A similar amount is undergoing the same process as we speak. And yet a new group will show up in the statistics for the month after. And you know what? All these people will probably *continue* their social club activities, they will continue casting their votes in the AW.net pancake polls, start IRC-style chat threads, etc, even together with people not even having come close to anything Amiga in a decade but posting there anyway, thus keeping that site "active"...

Again;
The threshold of going MorphOS is *extremely low*.
The threshold of going OS4 is *extremely high*
This *had*, it *has*, and it *will have*, a direct impact on amount of users, for both platforms, as statistics shows...

I don't know why this would be so darn inconceivable, so much of "extraordinary claims", and so much of "wishful thinking" from "the other side".

I find this interesting that you bring this up as a quantifiable fact. As far as I know, there has been no in-depth study of 68k Amiga software compatibility

Well *I did bet* right on your reaction here, didn't I? No, I don't think anyone have bothered with *a complete* Amiga Compatibility comparison, and there are other areas as well where you could do such a comparison as well, like in features and stability. It's very much possible to put together these kind of comparisons, and MorphOS would win them all. I have been playing with the thought many times of producing these comparisons myself, but have been a bit reluctant to do so, because: 1) It would require a lot of time and effort, and 2) As soon as anyone dares to put up a public comparison of MorphOS and OS4 in any way, it's bound to cause uproar and riots, this is something you simply aren't allowed to do, it's taboo, and it will cause the same type of people come crawling up from under their rocks, spewing out their mantras about "negativity", "trolls", "what's the point in all this", shooting and ridiculing the messenger, trying to belittling the whole subject by making casual jokes about it, etc, we have actually seen some lesser examples of this in this very thread (like eliyahu, gertsy, Pyromania, smerf, etc).

There *are* a couple of factual comparisons in existence though. A very thorough performance comparison was made a few years ago (in that french web mag I currently can't remember the name on). MorphOS won, hands down, and as a result we saw countless of thread and unpleasant posts from people condemning the effort per se. Comparing HW performance, HW availability, HW price and HW bang/buck ratio is also a no brainer, there is no need to put these facts side by side in a table, everyone simply knows these facts anyway. A brief feature list comparison (based on publicly available information) could easily be put together (but is it really needed? Doesn't everyone already knows this?), it would take more time to create a comparison table with more in-depth listings. But as soon as you do, there comes these "why all this negativity" people creeping again...

[eliyahu]

There *are* a couple of factual comparisons in existence though. A very thorough performance comparison was made a few years ago (in that french web mag I currently can't remember the name on). MorphOS won, hands down, and as a result we saw countless of thread and unpleasant posts from people condemning the effort per se. Comparing HW performance, HW availability, HW price and HW bang/buck ratio is also a no brainer, there is no need to put these facts side by side in a table, everyone simply knows these facts anyway. A brief feature list comparison (based on publicly available information) could easily be put together (but is it really needed? Doesn't everyone already knows this?), it would take more time to create a comparison table with more in-depth listings. But as soon as you do, there comes these "why all this negativity" people creeping again...

just for reference i think you're referring to the 09/2009 comparison in obligement.  the article is here for those interested.  don't know if it is still valid given the progress in both MOS and OS4 (and the software used) over the past 2.5 years, but it certainly backs up TMHG's performance claims -- well, at least in the timeframe when it was done.

-- eliyahu

[HenryCase]

@takemehomegrandma

But as soon as you do, there comes these "why all this negativity" people creeping again...

Let me be absolutely crystal clear here, my problem is not with other MorphOS users, my problem is with you. I have no beef with MorphOS, and if you'd been paying attention you would've seen this.

No, I don't think anyone have bothered with *a complete* Amiga Compatibility comparison

...and yet you pass it off as a 'quantifiable fact'. Do you even know what that term means? Let me break it down for you. 'Quantifiable' = expressable as a quantity, demonstratably measurable. 'Fact' = demonstrated to be true. So 'quantifiable fact' = something that has been demonstrated, through measurement, to be true. Do you understand now, or do I need to break this down even more simply?

By all means. Your view is that *even the thought* of MorphOS could be having a larger user base than OS4 is "more of wishful thinking than anything based in reality", it being "Extraordinary claims", obviously totally inconceivable to you.

Nice try, but no. My issue is not with the possibility that MorphOS may have a larger userbase, but rather with the quality of your analysis. You cherry pick the metrics you wish to look at, find ways to strengthen the figures for MorphOS and weaken the figures for OS4, and even with the weak quality of these derived stats then use them to make bold statements you can't truthfully back up.

So again, to be clear, I have no problem with the stats, but do I have a problem with how you're using them.

Let me explain another way. Let's look at this using an equation. Here's what you stated before that started our whole debate:

MorphOSusers = 2 x OS4users x AROSusers

Okay, so that's what you wish to prove is true. Let's start with what we've got. As we don't know the value of any of the variables, they have to be derived. Here's the derivation used for MorphOSusers:

MorphOSusers = MorphOSregistrations / 2

Next, for OS4 users, you chose to use Timberwolf downloads (ignoring the larger MOS-OWB downloads, but I digress):

OS4users = Timberwolfdloads / 2

Next, for AROS users, you didn't base this on anything, but for no good reason guessed '50', so:

AROSusers = 50

Now, for each of those derivations, how do you know how accurate they all are? You don't. There is no way to determine a measure of tolerance for the result accuracy, so they're all a guess. So what you really have is:

guess = 2 * guess * guess

Yet, with that guess, you've decided to make it a statement to compare the user bases. I don't know how clear I can make this, but THE REASON I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU IS BECAUSE YOU'RE WILLING TO ARGUE THE BENEFITS ABOUT S**T YOU MADE UP!!

As for your other comments, I'm starting to get a feel how your mind is working. From my perspective, you don't think you're being antagonistic, you think you're doing your bit for platform advocacy, right? Platform advocacy in the sense of 'these are the facts, people deserve to be informed, once they are the facts will speak for themselves'. Am I right, is that what you think you're doing here?

If you are, then let me help you out. If you had kept these MorphOS registration stats purely about MorphOS growth, they would have been cause for celebration. In fact, they still are, despite your best efforts. Honesty is always going to be a more effective strategy than making things up to score extra points, so when you're doing your 'platform advocacy' bit again, stick the facts you can verify. Clear?

[takemehomegrandma]

@HenryCase

We have a fixed number of MorphOS registrations. This is number is not a guess at all.

We also have a fixed number of Timberwolf downloads, no guess at all there either.

There have been discussions on MorphZone.org about what would be a reasonable assumption about number of users (since some (but far from all) may have more than one computer registered). A consensus about a plausible number, is the amount of registrations divided by two. It's a very fair assumption, not a fact, but also not something taken completely out of the blue.

There have been a very extensive discussion on Amigaworld.net about the Timberwolf DL numbers as well (eight pages!). Many were shocked that the numbers were so low, and obviously having difficulties conceiving that. It is, after all, the single most awaited, hyped, anticipated etc piece of software *ever* on OS4, Firefox, coming with a possible result of solve the terrible browser situation on the OS4 platform, and completely free of charge to download. It's a safe assumption that close to 100% of all active users downloaded this piece of SW at least once, but these turned out to be only a few hundreds in total (it's only fair to divide the number by *at least* two, due to multiple machines in the OS4 world as well (not unique to MorphOS), notorious DL problems/errors with some OS4 browsers, etc). So this is also a fair assumption, not something taken completely out of the blue.

Putting these two variables together, it gives a picture (*with* big margin for errors) of a MorphOS user base far bigger than the OS4 one. And unlike what you are saying, this is *not* "guesses" (as you want to picture it), but *educated guesses* based on reasonable assumptions and estimations. Nothing taken out of the blue, nothing made up, nothing imaginary; just a reasonable, discussed, motivated extrapolation from the data we actually *do* have.

I have tried to put up a possible explanation to how it *could* be this way (MorphOS being bigger than OS4), where the common thread/key words in the context are: probably, I'm not claiming to be sitting on a complete set of statistics, I'm *not* claiming with certainty that things are this way, in no way could be considered as facts, *could*, *Plausible*, not a fact, While not claiming with certainty that *it is* this way, I have during my posts put up at least 6 facts that combined gives a plausible case how it *could be* this way. MorphOS was here almost half a decade before OS4, it has always had the better qualities, features, performance, amiga compatibility, etc, it has always had better, cheaper and more powerful hardware since the beginning, and for the last couple of years it has been cheaper than ever to run MorphOS on HW more competent than ever. The threshold of going MorphOS is *extremely low*, while the threshold of going OS4 is *extremely high*. All this *will* have an effect on amount of users for both platforms, you must understand that. And you must understand that not all people sitting all day *chatting* away their life on Amigaworld.net *about* OS4, are actual OS4 *users*, and only the OS4 *users* (not "forum activity") will download Timberwolf, the single most anticipated piece of software since Commodore went bankrupt...

[spirantho]

I don't want to get involved in this argument as obviously nobody's going to win it (unless someone compares the other to Hitler, of course, which automatically make him lose).

But I would say that Timberwolf downloads isn't representative at all.
For starters, anyone running OS 4.0 can't run it. Yet they're still OS 4.x users.
Secondly, anyone running a Classic is much less likely to try it, as they just don't have the horsepower or memory needed.
Thirdly, most of us are quite happy using OWB. I'd say some people may be saying "I'll download it when it's out of beta".

It's not fair to base number of owners on downloads of one program, no matter what that program is.

Back to lurking for me.

Edit: Personally, I use OS 4 mostly, but I'm pleased for MOS in the same way as I'm pleased for AOS and AROS, as succeeding at all with such a small market is something we should all be proud of, whether it be the OS we use or a different one. We're all in the same boat, here.

[A1260]

of course there is a lot of morphos users. when you have to get a new registration for each new mac you have if you want to use morphos. so these morphos users have a lot of old macs laying around the house for each morphos upgrade(maybe also include the pegasus1&2 from way back). the true numbers of active users (not people that just want to test and then forget about morphos) is more likely around 100 or less totally.

[Terminills]

@takemehomegrandma


Next, for AROS users, you didn't base this on anything, but for no good reason guessed '50', so:

AROSusers = 50

Niko's AspireOS had 181 downloads since friday.  If we discount 75% of those as people who just downloaded to see what it was.   That leaves us with 45.  So this must mean Icaros has 5 users.

Man you people take yourselves to seriously.

[takemehomegrandma]

For starters, anyone running OS 4.0 can't run it.

By all means, let's add MorphOS 1.4 users to the picture as well then...? :rolleyes: Honesty, why start counting nickles and dimes in a discussion based on approximations in the hundreds, keep it in three digit figures, or at least two digit, no need to pay attention to the one digit figures...

you have to get a new registration for each new mac you have if you want to use morphos. so these morphos users have a lot of old macs laying around the house

Uhm yeah, "morphos users have a lot of old macs laying around the hose", you know, that post was so retarded that I will let it speak for itself without furhter comments...

Niko's AspireOS had 181 downloads since friday.

That's great, all the power to AspireOS! While not really comparable to neither MorphOS nor OS4, I downloaded it myself, I take a look on those distros from time to time to see who things are going, but that doesn't make me no more "AROS" user than HenryCase's AW.net buddies *talking about* OS4 could be called "OS4 users"...


@thread

I fully understands how talking about user numbers in the hundreds (or below) is provoking to some, but the key term is *user* (not participator in the AW.net social club), and to quote myself from *a year ago* in this thread: "If the numbers seems disappointing to some people, I think they may have had an unrealistic view of the overall 'state of the nation'."

[number6]

@thread

I fully understands how talking about user numbers in the hundreds (or below) is provoking to some, but the key term is *user* (not participator in the AW.net social club), and to quote myself from *a year ago* in this thread: "If the numbers seems disappointing to some people, I think they may have had an unrealistic view of the overall 'state of the nation'."

Fine. No how about you present a plan to correct that situation, now that we've completed the 11 page adventure to reach that obvious conclusion.

#6