X2000 or sue ... your comments

[Iggy]

SSolie promised "MUI 4, like MorphOS already has" except this "MUI4" isn't actually what he claims it to be.

If he were honest and said "We will be enhancing MUI3.9 with our own reimplementations of MUI4 classes from MorphOS to facilitate easier porting of MorphOS software to OS4" then he would have more credibility.

See here for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Thanks Nik.

I just surprised that these guys are this transparent with this.
Stuntz hasn't been involved in our MUI4 for quite awhile.
And there is nothing wrong with them re-implementing classes  used by our version of MUI.
But it would be nice to hear Stefan's opinions on all this, as all we will get out of the AOS community is bluster.

And they ARE obviously copying from us.

Of course, I LIKE the idea of enhanced compatibility.

Even if this willingness to work together only seems to work one way.

[takemehomegrandma]

@ utri007

I wrote this on MZ and copy/pasting it here:

guruman wrote:
Our MUI4 (I'd say, to avoid confusion, the only MUI4) is version 4.2, copyrighted 2012 by Stefan Stunz. Their is 4.0, copyrighted 2006 Stefan Stunz.

The only public stable (non-beta) version of MUI that existed back in 2006 was MUI 3. A few (2?) public betas of MUI 4 was released after that over a few years before it formally arived in MorphOS 2.0 in mid-2008.

That the info screen of the OS4 "MUI4" says:
(C) 1992-2006 Stefan Stuntz
(C) 2006-2013 Thore Böckelmann, Jens Maus

...means that this is *NOT* the MUI4 that Stefan Stuntz spent a few years developing post 2006, it's something else, developed by some others. And to confirm this, itix heard from an OS4 beta tester that this is something Hyperion built themselves on top of the MUI3.9 they bundle with OS4.

I'd also say that the internals of MUI4, which were completely and heavily rewritten, are completely different for this release.

Of course, they are simply not there, since the internals in OS4 "MUI4" is MUI3.9!

As far as I can tell, these are most of the functionalities of MUI4 needed for Odyssey and MPlayer built on top of MUI 3.9.

Indeed, that seems exactly how this is. It's MUI 3.9 with selected custom written third party classes added, and a "MUI4" sticker slapped on. A "bastard fork", that will (as itix says) always be a little left behind because Hyperion must wait new MorphOS SDK to be released in order to implement changes to their development tree.

Feel free to correct any errors, but please do it by bringing new info to the table, and not by some pointless "TakeMeHomeGrandma isn't a reliable source of info"...

[Iggy]

Feel free to correct any errors, but please do it by bringing new info to the table, and not by some pointless "TakeMeHomeGrandma isn't a reliable source of info"...

Thank you old friend.
We may frequently differ, but that was well phrased.

[takemehomegrandma]

SSolie promised "MUI 4, like MorphOS already has" except this "MUI4" isn't actually what he claims it to be.

If he were honest and said "We will be enhancing MUI3.9 with our own reimplementations of MUI4 classes from MorphOS to facilitate easier porting of MorphOS software to OS4" then he would have more credibility.

See here for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

I fully agree.

I think it's inderstandable if they want to implement a framework to make it easier to port and maintain modern MUI apps like Odyssey and mplayer etc, but there is more to MUI4 than the those classes. AFAIK, MUI4 meant big rewrites of the MUI internals, it was developed by Stefan Stuntz from 2006 and onwards. IMHO it's a bit unfortunate to call something "MUI4" if it would indeed be "MUI3.9 with a select set of new classes". That would he confusing.

If not outright misleading.

[redfox]

@vox

Back to the original topic ...

IMHO ... If you are not satisfied with your X1000, then you should sell it and find something else.

There are many choices available.

---
redfox

[Vanilla]

It's not like he was sold broken hardware like the idiots that fell for the Eyetech scam.

What scam was that? I have an Eyetech A1/XE. It's worked fine for the past ten years and is still working today. The only problem I have are drives and cables playing up. The A1 itself works fine. :-?

[Iggy]

What scam was that? I have an Eyetech A1/XE. It's worked fine for the past ten years and is still working today. The only problem I have are drives and cables playing up. The A1 itself works fine. :-?

Not exactly Eyetechs fault.
It shares the same flaw as the Pegasos 1, a dodgy Northbridge that was released with some serious issues.

[utri007]

Not exactly Eyetechs fault.
It shares the same flaw as the Pegasos 1, a dodgy Northbridge that was released with some serious issues.

I belive that he owns a system and doesn't like to be called "idiot" as your friend Nicholas just did.

Seems that Itix source was not that reliable, or at least quite much internal MUI funtions has rewrited to work as MUI4 does, but more like it is based old MUI4 sources. Wich means that not just classes has intergrated to it.

But hey, those idiots who like to call people idiots, liars, thiefs etc. doesn't earn that much attention.

[Niding]

I fully agree.

I think it's inderstandable if they want to implement a framework to make it easier to port and maintain modern MUI apps like Odyssey and mplayer etc, but there is more to MUI4 than the those classes. AFAIK, MUI4 meant big rewrites of the MUI internals, it was developed by Stefan Stuntz from 2006 and onwards. IMHO it's a bit unfortunate to call something "MUI4" if it would indeed be "MUI3.9 with a select set of new classes". That would he confusing.

If not outright misleading.

Is the release an improvement over the old version?

[vox]

MUI 4 and Ambient on the list of wanted OS4 features?

Aside from the obvious (and already stated multiple times above) I and I am surprised he didn't demand a port of the reggae framework

I and I are I and you in unity with God, or I wid Jah pon me side.

Surely, I will use reggae. No need to beg Steven and hear anymore lame excuses. If there is lack of manpower, AEON should fund it. We can hell donate if they know how and who. They just take projects and leave em half finished :hammer: unlike reggae :afro:

[vox]

@vox

Back to the original topic ...

IMHO ... If you are not satisfied with your X1000, then you should sell it and find something else.

There are many choices available.

---
redfox

No I have right to be refunded. 1 year return to base warranty. See X1000 Quickstart guide.

[Kronos]

Without reading quickstart guide (and no intent in doing it):
You have a 1 year return warranty in case of the product failing.

Did your X1000 break ? Doesn't seem to be so
Did OS4 fail to work in the scop that it was supposed to work when you bought the X1000 ? Hmm, everybody pretty much knew it was unfinished and progressing at a snail's pace back than, so good luck trying to proove that.
Is OS4 even part of what is warrantied by AEON ? Doubtfull

Also such a refund would only happen AFTER you returned the X1000, not include any shipping cost and be reduced for the time you allready used the product.

[vox]

Without reading quickstart guide (and no intent in doing it):
You have a 1 year return warranty in case of the product failing.

Did your X1000 break ? Doesn't seem to be so
Did OS4 fail to work in the scop that it was supposed to work when you bought the X1000 ? Hmm, everybody pretty much knew it was unfinished and progressing at a snail's pace back than, so good luck trying to proove that.
Is OS4 even part of what is warrantied by AEON ? Doubtfull

Also such a refund would only happen AFTER you returned the X1000, not include any shipping cost and be reduced for the time you allready used the product.

Babylon!

I ll swap with fancy DJ Nick, and he ll do some work for I.

Seen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLTEIqbwh4

Dis one inna Yugoslav by Yugoslav
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDDo0l5pt_M

[Megamig]

The whole A-Eon's business model is stuffed. You cannot charge a premium for incomplete products and then wonder why people complain. So what if the hardware is great if the drivers are still in beta. What A-Eon needs to learn in future is not to release products prematurely and to provide them complete (hardware and driver wise). If that means that you have to limit hardware advancements at the expense of delivering proper drivers - so be it!

[Kesa]

But some people like the idea of buying into a product that is still in beta or alpha and be a part of its development. There's a trend at the moment with video games called "early access" where people pay full price for a game still in development and the consumers know exactly what they are getting into. So i wouldn't say their business model is screwed - i would say it's good for what it does.

[spirantho]

The X1000 is a fully usable computer, the only beta drivers are not a problem because they provide add-in cards instead until the Beta drivers are complete.
3 production runs wouldn't happen on a broken business model. I only know of one person (Vox) unhappy with his x1000 out of over a hundred, and his reasoning is to do with os4, not the hardware.