So were the Morph OS folks wrong all along?

[bloodline]

Interestingly I don't think of the Machines that we now call Macintosh as the same machines from the past. I thought MacOS 1 through to 9 were utter crap, with hardware that was crippled and expensive.

For me the current Macs are consumer branded NeXTstep machines, and I love them

In reality Commodore would only have survived if it had become a Multimedia Card maker for PCs... It would be like Nvidia now

[commodorejohn]

Saturn:
They were able to make it do things toward the end that were not originally advertised.

Oh, true, it's just that it took a lot of getting used to for them to really exploit it, since it was so complex. It really is a pretty solid piece of hardware for the time, especially where 2D gaming is concerned.

Interestingly I don't think of the Machines that  we now call Macintosh as the same machines from the past. I thought  MacOS 1 through to 9 were utter crap, with hardware that was crippled  and expensive.

Not so! System 7 was by far the best of the Mac OSes and (while it's not very well-suited for power-user tasks) it has the nicest interface of any OS I've yet encountered. New MacOS is just BSD with a pretty skin on it.

[TheBilgeRat]

Not so! System 7 was by far the best of the Mac OSes and (while it's not very well-suited for power-user tasks) it has the nicest interface of any OS I've yet encountered. New MacOS is just BSD with a pretty skin on it.

I used System 7 through 8.something and enjoyed it a lot.  Definitely what made me like Apple after Amiga.  Had to abandon it tho, once I got heavily into gaming.  Wintendo was where it was at after that

[lsmart]

Not so! System 7 was by far the best of the Mac OSes and (while it's not very well-suited for power-user tasks) it has the nicest interface of any OS I've yet encountered. New MacOS is just BSD with a pretty skin on it.

Well I'd say UI wise System 7 had about the same merits as the current iPhone. By the time it was called 9 it had gathered some entropy and was less stable than OS X. While NeXTSTEP had a great GUI, they screwed most of the unique features of both MacOS and NeXTSTEP on the way or slowly degraded them into nonexistence. Today Mac OS is really friendly to Windows users and tolerable for Unix hackers, but isn't as homogenous, as it was before.

However in 1994 the Mac was very very expensive, the OS was slow and had no multitasking and no great games. I couldn't justify buying one any more than people can justify an X1000 today.

[Iggy]

Personally, I think OSX is a big improvement over earlier Mac OS'.
But then most of my recent experience has been Wintel based.

Of course with RIM pushing QNX based systems we may see a resurgence of micro-kernel based OS'. That approach has always offered distinct advantages. OS9 and RTOS (for DVI players) were micro-kernal based as is MorphOS.

[bloodline]

Personally, I think OSX is a big improvement over earlier Mac OS'.
But then most of my recent experience has been Wintel based.

Of course with RIM pushing QNX based systems we may see a resurgence of micro-kernel based OS'. That approach has always offered distinct advantages. OS9 and RTOS (for DVI players) were micro-kernal based as is MorphOS.

Did you know, MacOSX is based on the Mach microkernel? Wikipedia it

[psxphill]

They had some sort of convoluted scheme to make it "add up" to 64 bits. Apparently also made it really hard to code for

The graphics chip was 64bit, using bits to describe a systems power is about as meaningless as quoting it's clock speed.

[Forcie]

Not so! System 7 was by far the best of the Mac OSes and (while it's not very well-suited for power-user tasks) it has the nicest interface of any OS I've yet encountered. New MacOS is just BSD with a pretty skin on it.

Agreed! System 7 is probably my favourite user interface ever! (Sorry Workbench ) System 8 and 9 were not quite as good looking, and OS X is pretty tasteless, even though I run it today. I wish I could skin it like System 7, but ShapeShifter does not work anymore.. :/

[commodorejohn]

Bigger problem with System 8/9 is that they're absolute behemoths compared to 7, and yet they got installed on basically anything post-1996 whether it had the oomph to run them or not. It's like running OS3.9 on a stock 1200.

[_ThEcRoW]

@AmigaNG
"Or you could say, selling a 111Euro incomplete, feature lacking and slightly unstable take on what Amiga OS could be with MUI on old out dated second hand macs hardware systems, then NO!"

Hmmm, my MorphOS box is pretty stable. And for incomplete, what are you referring to exactly?.*The last time i heard about os4 it didn't had usb 2.0 yet.

[Iggy]

Did you know, MacOSX is based on the Mach microkernel? Wikipedia it

No I hadn't heard that. Thanks. I wasn't aware that there were BSD implementations that used a micro-kernal.
That makes me appreciate Apple's OS all the more.

[Iggy]

@AmigaNG
"Or you could say, selling a 111Euro incomplete, feature lacking and slightly unstable take on what Amiga OS could be with MUI on old out dated second hand macs hardware systems, then NO!"

Hmmm, my MorphOS box is pretty stable. And for incomplete, what are you referring to exactly?.*The last time i heard about os4 it didn't had usb 2.0 yet.

Actually, my Powermac has proven more stable than my Windows boxes running MorphOS. And we certainly have a more complete OS then AOS4.
But I'd take either before trying to resort to AOS3.X for day to day use.
NG systems aren't just an alternative, they're capable/modern enough to rely on for daily use.

[dougal]

In my opinion the only Amiga's are the A1000, A500/+, A600, A1200, A2000, A2500, A3000, A3000T, A4000, A4000T and CD32 and even though its not branded as such, the CDTV. (Did i miss any models?) Basically anything produced by Commodore and Escom/Amiga inc that has the Amiga chipset and runs Workbench/AmigaOS.

The Sam440, AmigaONE and rest of the over priced and under powered PPC rubbish is NOT and never will be considered as an Amiga in my opinion.

MorphOS is very Amiga like but they never called it AmigaOS or Workbench because it isn't and at least it runs on relatively cheap G4 PPC hardware like G4 Macs.

[smerf]

Silly boy! Of course it isn't.
At least WE never pretended it was.

Hi,

Went to look for morph os for an Amiga 1200 decked out with a DCE ppc card and noticed that the only thing morph os supports is MAC machines. If I liked MACS or wanted a MAC I would of bought one. Now I will listen to the fan boys that it is running an Amiga OS, it isn't an Amiga OS if it in no way supports some sort of Amiga system.

All Morph OS is, is another OS for a MAC computer, by their standards since they quit programming for an Amiga machine.

smerf

[runequester]

In my opinion the only Amiga's are the A1000, A500/+, A600, A1200, A2000, A2500, A3000, A3000T, A4000, A4000T and CD32 and even though its not branded as such, the CDTV. (Did i miss any models?)

I guess the A1500 if you want to be really obscure

[AmigaNG]

@AmigaNG
"Or you could say, selling a 111Euro incomplete, feature lacking and slightly unstable take on what Amiga OS could be with MUI on old out dated second hand macs hardware systems, then NO!"

Hmmm, my MorphOS box is pretty stable. And for incomplete, what are you referring to exactly?.*The last time i heard about os4 it didn't had usb 2.0 yet.

Actually, my Powermac has proven more  stable than my Windows boxes running MorphOS. And we certainly have a  more complete OS then AOS4.

Well compare to modern platform we are all behind the times and to be honest I only wrote that to wind up takemehomegrandma as his comments where only designed to wind up OS4 users
"If you are going to sell to a bunch of ~200 tech nerds "an insanely  overpriced piece of unproven HW with 2007 level performance and features  nobody really needs, wants and even knows what it is for, bundled with  an incomplete, feature lacking and rather unstable take on what Amiga OS  was about", then NO!"

Just returning the favor.