Is emulation based x86 machines in Amiga cases really a no no? or......

[commodorejohn]

I never said anything against NeXT, just that it isn't Mac.

[Amiga_Nut]

Just had pasta (DeCecco Orecchiette Aglio&Olio) for my evening meal, but wouldn't mind about some Börek.

The great thing about Börek is you can have both sweet and savoury versions, meaning you could still have it for afters too

[Amiga_Nut]

I never said anything against NeXT, just that it isn't Mac.

OSX took a bit of NEXT but yes I agree, NEXT <> Apple Mac sadly.

[TheDaddy]

@Thoram

>>I find that quite insulting to what Amiga really is

Sorry about that but there is concrete evidence about my statement

>>And it's not 1985 anymore. Indeed!

Exactly, so people can't carry on saying custom chips, custom chips with OS3.1

>>So, a SAM emulator running on a peecee will magically transform that peecee into an Amiga?

No if you read my posts carefully I haven't said that, read all my posts.

[TheDaddy]

@Amiga_Nut

>>No, it's an OS4 compatible, OS4 being some software some Germans THINK is what is Amiga and need UAE to run Rocket Ranger.

OS4 feels AmigaOS, has the code in it. OS4, for me, is more Amiga than AROS, MOS or WinUAE. Coupled with a suitable PPC board makes it an Amiga (to me). And just before you start, I have got AROS, MOS and WinUAE.
So based on the fact that I have OS4 and I use all the others I CAN come to an empirical conclusion.

>>How the fek is that Amiga? I can run classic software Amithlon on X86 hardware just as fast as on MOS or OS4 so that's full of fail.

You really need to read my posts better. We are not discussing IF we can run classic software as fast or faster. This is not the point.

>>If all you want is an OS4 computer cool, me I want either an Amiga or something that doesn't cost £1200+ for the "pleasure" of running what Hyperion wants me to think is Amiga

You are free to do so

>>edit: I did NOT see the post above before writing my comment. What is plainly clear is had Amithlon been developed further we would have no need for the OS4 MOS pretenders

It's still an emu isn't it?

>>Amiga has a Paula chip and loads Cinemaware floppy disk originals with realtime access FACT. Anything else is emulation sorry if that offends people.

But it's an Amiga from 1985. That is an Amiga as much as a SAM with OS4. It came first. Nobody wrote it in stone that an Amiga has to have a custom chipset or load "floppies" to be an Amiga. My Minimig is an Amiga. It loads games from a SD Card and it's faster, way faster than my A500.

[TheDaddy]

@fishy_fiz

>>No, if it runs OS4 then it runs OS4, still not technically an Amiga.

How is that? Technically define Amiga.
So a motherboard with PPC (which the real Amiga had by the way) running AmigaOS is not an Amiga? Really?

>>My Amithlon box runs AmigaOS, is that an Amiga? (and no its not entirely emulation, only the 68k side)

To me it isn't. If you read my posts I have got them all and it doesn't feel Amiga as much as OS4. It's a personal thing.

There haven't been "official" Amigas since Commodore died. But you are discussing my impression and experience and I am saying that based on my experience of all the AmigaOS/hardware spin offs OS4 feels like home.

>>Hyperion dont own the Amiga brand, nor do Acube or A-EON, ergo cant produce Amigas.

True. But they make the closest thing to an Amiga (whatever that may be), my point of view.

>>As much as it pains me to say it only A.Inc (perhaps now C-USA, depending on what happened there) can produce computers that are Amigas. Will I buy them, or even support them? Absolutely not, but that changes nothing.

And this is where I believe you are wrong because from what you say whoever has the name can make the REAL stuff? This is absolute nonsense. So I set up a company that makes the "real" Amigas, let's say a perfect reproduction in hardware of an A1200 but more modern, a Natami for example. But because it's called a Natami it's not an Amiga because Amiga Inc. or CUSA haven't put the name on? Ridiculous.

>>As I said before, if people want to play the "it's official 'cos its the legal successor using the original sources" game then its nothing but hypocricy to try to claim a Sam is an Amiga. Cant have it both ways. It's a vehicle for OS4, nothing more regardless of how you try to paint it.

You need to define real Amiga. Otherwise your point is moot.

[itix]

@TheDaddy

To me the only real Amiga is my Amiga 500. It has the original chip set and original code in, done by original Amiga engineers.

[itix]

Is the proposed price point of the ones Commodore USA were planning to build the actual problem, which was effectively maybe 4x the cost of the x86 components.

Put it this way, would you buy a reasonably priced A1200 look alike computer running on an i7 or an i5/Llano based A600 look alike computer?

And if this is something some people would consider what is a reasonable price point do you think for this sort of thing

I'm not saying it's good or bad I am asking if you took away the excessive price tags for the proposed Amiga/c64x i7 machines would they then become something you would consider, even as a novelty, to get your WinUAE kicks on for example?

Btw while I like my Morphed Macs I don't really understand why x86 is more wrong than PPC, MIPS, Alpha, or any other platform?

[OlafS3]

There is no problem with your definition of "Amiga". There are a lot of different definitions right now and all are ok (as long as they are based on the heritage). But that is only the definition of a part of the community. For me emotionally what is not using custom chips (or at least reimplementing them like f.e. the Natami) is not Amiga. So all NG platforms are more or less the same for me (except that Aros is more sympathic to me because it is open, independent and free of charge and running on standard hardware). But I have no problem with different views. But we should not discuss about the differences but how we could connect the different platforms and to improve the situation (f.e. by hardware-addons)

[Daedalus]

No, it's an OS4 compatible, OS4 being some software some Germans THINK is what is Amiga and need UAE to run Rocket Ranger.

How the fek is that Amiga? I can run classic software Amithlon on X86 hardware just as fast as on MOS or OS4 so that's full of fail.

It's not Amiga. It's AmigaOS. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. Like others have said, there haven't been "Amiga" computers produced since the Escom / AT days. You've got AmigaOS running on some Amigas and some other machines, Amiga-like OSes running on other machines, and emulators running OS3.x. None of them are actually Amigas, but they're all close, all have their advantages and disadvantages, and all suit different tasks.

Amiga has a Paula chip and loads Cinemaware floppy disk originals with realtime access FACT. Anything else is emulation sorry if that offends people.

True, that's a fact, but it's also a rubbish definition. What if Paula had been upgraded for AGA? I personally think Paula should've been ditched and replaced for the AGA chipset, but would that have meant the A1200 and 4000 weren't Amigas? Also, I have a couple of Amigas without floppy drives, thus they can't run Cinemaware from the original disks. Does that mean they're no longer Amigas? I really don't get this obsession with Cinemaware anyway, and certainly can't understand how that makes an Amiga, especially since none of my Amigas have ever run it. It is a fact that Amigas have Paula and run Cinemaware, but that's only a couple of arbitrary features which are conveniently cobbled together to take the place of a proper definition. Sorry if that offends you.

[psxphill]

@TheDaddy

To me the only real Amiga is my Amiga 500. It has the original chip set and original code in, done by original Amiga engineers.

 
That would be the Amiga 1000 (or just "Amiga" as the first were called), the A500 was a cost reduced version by commodore.
 

What if Paula had been upgraded for AGA?

It wouldn't matter. Whatever commodore designed for AGA would have become an AGA Amiga. AAA was also an Amiga, albeit unfinished.
 
The Amiga Technlogies machines were also Amiga's, they were basically the same as the commodore machines.
 
There are no Amiga's produced since then.
 
You can't make an Amiga, in the same way you can't make a Ford Fusion.

[TheDaddy]

That would be the Amiga 1000 (or just "Amiga" as the first were called), the A500 was a cost reduced version by commodore.
 

 
It wouldn't matter. Whatever commodore designed for AGA would have become an AGA Amiga. AAA was also an Amiga, albeit unfinished.
 
The Amiga Technlogies machines were also Amiga's, they were basically the same as the commodore machines.
 
There are no Amiga's produced since then.
 
You can't make an Amiga, in the same way you can't make a Ford Fusion.

What's a Ford Fusion?

[Ancalimon]

I sometimes wonder when people say that a computer running AmigaOS4 is not really an Amiga.

So according to this logic, the calculator tool running under AmigaOS is not really a calculator?

Why do we need the primitive (by todays standards) Amiga custom chips to call the computer an Amiga?

While some people were using Amiga's just for playing games without touching AmigaOS ever, some of us were using Amigas purely for AmigaOS not caring about custom chips at all. Actually some of us were using RTG graphics cards and sounds cards to overcome the limitations of the Custom chips!

Simply make the new AmigaOS x86 emulate custom chips using "custom chipset drivers" instead of running things inside UAE. That way everything will be seamless.

[dammy]

I sometimes wonder when people say that a computer running AmigaOS4 is not really an Amiga.

There are a few Amigas running PPC accelerator and OS4.  The vast majority of the systems running OS4 are AmigaOne and Pegs and SAMs.

[Thorham]

>>And it's not 1985 anymore. Indeed!

Exactly, so people can't carry on saying custom chips, custom chips with OS3.1

What I mean is that I don't see why people have to keep assigning the name Amiga to machines which are not Amigas.

>>So, a SAM emulator running on a peecee will magically transform that peecee into an Amiga?

No if you read my posts carefully I haven't said that, read all my posts.

If you said this, then you implied it:

It runs OS4 then it's an Amiga, sorry it doesn't matter how you paint it.

My Minimig is an Amiga.

No, it's an FPGA computer.

So a motherboard with PPC (which the real Amiga had by the way) running AmigaOS is not an Amiga? Really?

Of course it's not. Just like a Draco isn't an Amiga, but a 680x0 AmigaOs platform. You can ask yourself, if you run a 680x0 MacOS on the Amiga, will your Amiga become a Mac?

You can't make an Amiga, in the same way you can't make a Ford Fusion.

Yes, you can, because you can reverse engineer the chipset, and do an exact copy. Very pricey, but technically entirely possible. Same goes for a Ford Fusion.

I sometimes wonder when people say that a computer running AmigaOS4 is not really an Amiga.

Because that would mean that, for example, a SAM emulator running AmigaOS4, would transform the peecee it's running on into an Amiga, and that is just none sense.

Amiga is defined by the hardware, and not the OS. If I run some sort of 680x0 Amiga port of a linux, then the machine is still an Amiga. In fact, it doesn't matter what a computer runs at all, it's still the same hardware.

Why do we need the primitive (by todays standards) Amiga custom chips to call the computer an Amiga?

Because that's what Amigas are: Computers from the past, and some people can't seem to get over that fact, and they have to keep assigning the name Amiga to computers that aren't Amigas.

[TheDaddy]

@Thoram

>>What I mean is that I don't see why people have to keep assigning the name Amiga to >>machines which are not Amigas.

Exactly, it's all down to personal experience and after testing a few "Amigas" I personally think that OS4+SAM (X1000 which I haven't tested yet) is the Amiga for me more than any other combinations and as much as Amiga as, dare I say, an A500!


>>My Minimig is an Amiga.
>>No, it's an FPGA computer.

Again you fall in the trap of considering Amigas just the Commodore machines. From my perspective and point of view it's an Amiga. It even has a 68000 cpu!


>>Of course it's not. Just like a Draco isn't an Amiga, but a 680x0 AmigaOs platform. You >>can ask yourself, if you run a 680x0 MacOS on the Amiga, will your Amiga become a Mac?

It depends how you run it. Natively, emulated?

>>Amiga is defined by the hardware, and not the OS. If I run some sort of 680x0 Amiga port of a linux, then the machine is still an Amiga. In fact, it doesn't matter what a computer runs at all, it's still the same hardware.

And who decides that? That is nonsense. So the only machines that can be called an Amiga are the Commodore machines?
So when I speak to someone I have to say "I have a dedicated PPC motherboard configured to run AmigaOS4 which is the natural and spiritual successor of the operating system present on the machines once produced by the now defunct Commodore"? I just say I have a new generation Amiga, because that is what it is.