Is It Emulation or Not -- the Dilemma

[ElPolloDiabl]

If the program runs well without bugs/crashes and it is not a resource hog then it is  great program.
Linux is great for reliable use of productivity software. I just found out that Direct 3D is not yet implemented. I need to go back to dual booting for the moment.
Windows is still necessary to play some games. All I do is play games on Amiga.
Since I found out that the x86 core converts things into RISC micro-ops - I could care less about what hardware I'm running on.


I agree with the above. There are several levels of emulation. An FPGA is not original hardware, but if it is programmed well or better than the original - it sounds like an advancement not an emulation.

[foleyjo]

I think everyone is missing 1 important point.... It's not a dilemma.
A dilemma is 2 choices both leading to  a bad outcome.

[Thorham]

I think everyone is missing 1 important point.... It's not a dilemma.
A dilemma is 2 choices both leading to  a bad outcome.

Yeah, welcome to human language use where 'can' is often used instead of 'may' and the words 'amateur' and 'professional' are used to imply quality, while those two words have nothing to do with quality at all.

Feel free to add more examples

[persia]

"Criticism" does not imply a negative opinion.

[Seiya]

OK,

Here is the thread, so go at it: When you run software written for one computer (let us say an Amiga) on another computer (for instance a PC, MAC, or DEC PDP 11/40), what is it?

it's an Amiga
If it's Amiga a common motherboard with PowerPC with AmigaOS4, it will be Amiga any platform that run AmigaOS,  native or emulation

[Thorham]

it's an Amiga
If it's Amiga a common motherboard with PowerPC with AmigaOS4, it will be Amiga any platform that run AmigaOS,  native or emulation

Nonsense. Amigas are hardware, produced by Commodore and Escom. The software doesn't define what the hardware is, the hardware defines what the hardware is. Or I suppose an Amiga running an MSX emulator is an MSX? Right :rofl:

[desiv]

I just found out that Direct 3D is not yet implemented.

http://wiki.winehq.org/WineD3DOnWindows

Not only do they have it, they have ported it back to Windows..  ;-)

desiv

[Iggy]

Nonsense. Amigas are hardware, produced by Commodore and Escom. The software doesn't define what the hardware is, the hardware defines what the hardware is. Or I suppose an Amiga running an MSX emulator is an MSX? Right :rofl:

This "issue" is pointless if the emulation is flawless.
I don't need an Amiga to run Amiga software.
And I don't need an MSX machine to run MSX software.
Am I then running an Amiga or MSX computer?
Of course not, but regardless of whether or not its via emulation, I am running the software (getting the intended results).
 
And  Mac OS moved across three ISAs, aren't Macs still Macs?
AOS4.1 has more in common withAOS3.1 then OSX does with previous revisions of Mac OS (the API has been preserved).
 
So yeah, a PPC Amiga is an Amiga.

[Thorham]

This "issue" is pointless if the emulation is flawless.
I don't need an Amiga to run Amiga software.
And I don't need an MSX machine to run MSX software.
Am I then running an Amiga or MSX computer?
Of course not, but regardless of whether or not its via emulation, I am running the software (getting the intended results).

Of course, but that wasn't what Seiya said.

And  Mac OS moved across three ISAs, aren't Macs still Macs?

Yes, they are, because Apple calls their machines Macs, and they get to decide what their machines are called and not anyone else.

So yeah, a PPC Amiga is an Amiga.

I beg to differ, and so do many classic users.

[Iggy]

Yes, they are, because Apple calls their machines Macs, and they get to decide what their machines are called and not anyone else.
 
 
I beg to differ, and so do many classic users.

EXACTLY! The entity assigned the rights to a trademark and related IP gets to control the naming of their product.
 
So Amiga OS4.1 IS Amiga OS.
And the AmigaOne is an Amiga.
 
Of course, the problem comes when we consider CUSA.
Unfortunately they fit my definition, because I find myself siding with you and against consideration of their hardware as Amigas.
 
"I beg to differ"
Entirely your right.
I'm not sure how I can justify my contradictory points of view.
 
But it is the way I feel about the situation.
 
And a MorphOS system is not an Amiga, but its a lot closer then a CUSA system.
Completely confusing.
No wonder we have so few new users.

[desiv]

This "issue" is pointless if the emulation is flawless.

I agree with that..  
(Although I enjoy the technical discussions...)
I mean, in an "emulation turning test," if you put an emulated system into an original case and no one could tell the difference, would it matter?

Of course, it sounds like MorphOS (and others???) have taken it beyond that and improved upon it.  So you get improvements because of modernization with very good compatibility.

I think that's really kual ( <--for you Kesa!! ).  
Of course, for me, I'm into Amiga for a retro feel and the "I can't believe you can do that with XX year old technology."

But I really appreciate how nice the NGs appear.
(And I reserve the right to get into the NGs at some time in the future.. ;-)

I do think it's funny when I use the word "emulation" and it's taken as a bad thing.
I know sometimes it's used that way by some.  But really, I appreciate how seamless this works, and I think it's great...

I also really appreciate WinUAE/AmigaForever.  WinUAE is a great "complete emulator" and AmigaForever is a great package for it..
I recommend them a lot.  And I use them quite a bit for staging and testing.
 
But I realize the differences (more so from the information I've gained in these threads) in how the emulation is being used in MorphOS versus some of the other platforms.  If anything, it makes me appreciate MorphOS all the more.

desiv

[Iggy]

Thanks Desiv,
Moving forward is an important issue to me.
On MorphOS and emulation.
Many system calls (essentially all) are native PPC code.
And when running a PPC Amiga title like Heretic or Quake2, virtually everything is native.
 
Its rare to see an OS so seemlessly suport two ISAs.
Even OSX didn't do this this well with Rosetta.

[danbeaver]

Well some people agree with me; that does not make them "Right or Wrong."  I am afraid that "Branding" does muddle the issue, but as I see it a 68K Mac is a 68K Mac produced by Apple and called a "Mac."  An Intel Mac, produced by Apple and called a "Mac" is a Mac.  Unfortunely (for this discussion), Apple "muddled" this line of thinking, since current "Macs" use a standard "PC" hardware set (of chips).

I stand by what I said/typed earlier, since the Amiga team did not produce a PPC based Amiga, I am using an "Amiga-like" operating system (OS 4.1) on a "modified" Amiga.  I also use real Amiga OS on the same hardware; however the OS 4.1 "emulates" a "Classic" Amiga operating system.  The "Next Generation" Amigas are a new breed of hardware running an Emulated Amiga Operating System (or EAOS for short).  "Its not a question of where he grips it!  It's a simple question of weight ratios!  A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut."

Non-Amiga hardware running an Amiga-like operating system does not make it an Amiga. It is "Zeros" and "Ones;" major binary here: Software vs Hardware.   Amiga software = Amiga Software; Amiga Hardware = Amiga.  You cannot dissolve away the Amiga design team; they designed "Amiga Hardare" first; they designed it when they were called, "High Toro," and the hardware was called, "Lorraine."  Apple designed the G4 PPC Apple Mac among other "Apple Macs,"  and like Amiga, Microsoft, et al, they ALL ripped off the Xerox PARC Star GUI of Windows, Icons, Mouse and Pointers.  Xerox acted stupidly by not copyrighting their invention, read "Dealers of Lightning" by Michael Hiltzik.

In the end, the Amiga is a designed hardware set, its software is software (yes, binary, zero and ones, blah, blah, blah).  If the hardware runs Linux, it does not become "Linux;"  Microsoft started out selling software; if the hardware ran it, then the hardware did not become DOS 6.22 or Windows 3.11.

[psxphill]

Microsoft started out selling software; if the hardware ran it, then the hardware did not become DOS 6.22 or Windows 3.11.

Weirdly they seem to have taken over the term PC (i.e. the "I'm a PC" adverts). Even more odd is that it was Apple that started it with the Get a Mac adverts.
 
So if it runs Windows then it's a PC, if it runs MacOS then it's a Mac. If it runs Linux, well I'm not sure what it is as Linux runs on my phone, my NAS, my TV but not one computer I own.
 
Running windows on a macbook air makes it ?

[commodorejohn]

[Iggy]

So if it runs Windows then it's a PC, if it runs MacOS then it's a Mac. If it runs Linux, well I'm not sure what it is as Linux runs on my phone, my NAS, my TV but not one computer I own.
 
Running windows on a macbook air makes it ?

How about running Snow Leopard on a system you put together with a Gigabyte motherboard and an i5 processor (and only running Windows under Parallels 7)?
 
People tend to refer to hacked systems like that as a Hackintosh, but lets face it, its still a PC (not a Mac).
Muddy waters indeed.
This discussion is being to sound like a blues jamb.