i voted none of the above because i would like to see the current os/mb companies supported through sales of complete systems thru cusa.
on an aside i would still like to see some progress on os4 for x86 based partially on aros to reduce development time.
example present: natami(or equivalent) in a600 case supporting os 1.3 to 3.1 sam 440/460 in a500/a1000 style case running os4 x1000 in a a2000 style case with os4 future: x86 itx mb in an a1200 case running x86 os4 x86 atx/matx mb in an a3000/4000 case running x86 os4
Last edited by jkirk on 20-Dec-2011 at 03:55 PM. Last edited by jkirk on 20-Dec-2011 at 03:52 PM. Last edited by jkirk on 20-Dec-2011 at 03:25 PM. Last edited by jkirk on 20-Dec-2011 at 03:23 PM.
_________________ Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.
@wawa What i want is a more affordable os4.x compatible system but with something like natami or at least minimig for backwards compatibility/custom chipset support.
Over there at Amiga.org, EDanaII suggests multiple polls:
Quote:
CPU * M68K * Natami M68K softcore * PPC * ARM * x86/x64 * Other
Motherboard * x86 based * PPC sam/x1000 based * Natami/Amiga based * Other
OS * AmigaOS 3.9 * AmigaOS 4.1 * MorphOS * AROS * Amithlon/Umilator with OS 3.9 * Amithlon/Umilator with OS 4.1 (assumed: 68k compiled version) * Amiga-like with Linux kernel (to enable memory protection, smp, etc...) * Any Amiga like option listed above. * Linux * Windows * Other
20 crawler(s) on-line.
121 guest(s) on-line.
0 member(s) on-line.
CritAnime 
