@tommywright

Amiga operating system was the sort of official name since day 1. However, workbench is the name of the GUI.

Commodore never really referred to it as "Amiga OS" or such or any specific name. It was basically referred to as the Amiga operating system as the operating system of the Amiga computer. You'll see it referred to collectively as Amiga operating system in the user manual but Amiga was really much referred to is the computer series. Then Commodore was a computer company and less a software / operating system seller and the o.s. was packaged with each unit.

It was during ESCOM era that "Amiga OS" was being branded with the exception of the Amiga CD32 with 3.1 (IIRC: On CD-ROM). It was Escom that brought about Amiga OS 3.5 with Haage & Partners. 3.1 was the last official release of Amiga operating system by Commodore Electronics Ltd. / Commodore-Amiga. It was during the early transistion state where Escom was using both Commodore and Amiga brand. In fact, Escom incorporate Commodore as a subsidiary and Amiga as a subsidiary of that. Then reorganized that when they reorganized it sometime by 1996 with Commodore and Amiga being separate subsidiaries of Escom. Commodore brand was used for some PCs and the Amiga was making the 4000T (which Commodore did make just before demise) and a rare 4060 model(s).

In 1997, Commodore was divested to Tulip and Amiga remained until 1998 when they divested it to Gateway. This was a series of hand passing.

It was during Escom that the package was actually being referred to as "Amiga OS" in a more official form. The change came about when the packaged OS was put onto a single disc in the CD32 (IIRC) but I believe the 4000T was a multi-floppy package but the
CD32 preceded the 4000T.

After 3.1, the subsequential versions was CD based.

There is alot of history but in the 3.0 and prior versions, the disks was labeled for kickstart, workbench, etc. Ok, Kickstart became ROM based in the post A1000 model. But the whole collection of disks makes up the Amiga operating system along with Kickstart.

In any case, Commodore didn't really market and sell the OS as a seperate package from the computer except for replacement disks. Then there wasn't Amiga clones and such.

Much of OS upgrading came after upgrading to a newer Amiga and some folks upgraded their older models along the way. It is something Commodore didn't really make a big point of it. Then Commodore was trying to sell computers not operating systems.

My floppy disks are labeled Amiga® Workbench, etc version 1.2 to 3.1.

The 68k CDs are labeled Amiga® OS3.5/3.9.

The PPC CDs are labeled Amiga® OS 4.0 (Amiga Inc) & AmigaOS 4.1 (Hyperion).

So after the settlement, Hyperion changed it to AmigaOS.

_________________
Hate tends to make you look stupid...

@sundown

What about Amiga CD32 ?

After reading some further.... it seems that CD32 didn't come with a Workbench CD-ROM. This was an upgrade method.

However, for some reason, Amiga Operating System was only labeled near the end of Commodore Electronics Ltd. In 1994. This was probably around the time that Commodore was probably beginning to change their mode of thinking a litle bit and when CD-ROM was an option Commodore was exploring for future edition. It was hardly ever labeled by Commodore. However, I would assume that 3.0 and 3.1 production after Escom bought Commodore was labeled with Amiga OS while Commodore originally did not ever labeled things in that manner except for a written text reference in the manuals. So the Amiga OS maybe an ESCOM and later-era thing.

Last edited by Wildstar128 on 12-May-2011 at 05:33 AM.

@Wildstar128

Likewise explained,
AmigaOS was always AmigaOS, only while it was floppy based components were labeled as what is on floppy (Workbench, Fonts, Extras ...)

Workbench version indicates AmigaOS version (one of the major complains about CUSA trying to theft Workbench V name, which happily they campaigned for and disengaged).

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

@Wildstar128

Quote:

So the Amiga OS maybe an ESCOM and later-era thing.

Don't know, I do know my A4000T floppies say Escom, my OS3.9 CD says Amiga Inc., my OS4.0 CD says Amiga Inc., & my OS4.1 CD says Hyperion.

I have no clue about the CD32 s/w disk as I never owned or played with a CD32.

_________________
Hate tends to make you look stupid...

@sundown

Well all the following Amiga OS versions after ESCOM kept with the trend of the Amiga OS label.

@damocles

Why would someone be ridiculed for buying a PC? Most of us here already use an MS/Linux/Mac x86 combo for our ordinary daily tasks. But, damn, now that I am thinking of it, even the most hardcore CUSA fans haven't reported to place a pre-order. Furthermore, I did a quick check on many Commodore64 (the original) fora and no one has done it as well. It is amazing, to say at least ;)

_________________

@vox

Yes, the code base and everything is the same. It was only during the ESCOM and later era that the OS was being called Amiga OS or AmigaOS (a variant of the spelling). The truth is, Hyperion can not use the AmigaOS or Amiga OS title unless permitted to do so. But in any case, it doesn't matter much but Commodore actually used it in documentation for quite a long time but not on the labeling of the disks.

Commodore had been doing so for some time. It was kind of quasi-formal but not exactly so. It was kind of interesting because Commodore never really went into that effect of naming the OS but it became defacto and eventually Commodore applied the use of it.

Amiga was the computer and the operating system of the Amiga was simply the Amiga'a operating system. Therefore by defacto term Amiga Operating System.

So in all essence, Commodore really wasn't so concerned about "naming" the OS. However, the OS was made up of key components called Workbench, kickstart, etc.

So, if Commodore USA wants to go with it, they have flexibility to brand the trademark for an OS any way they choose. Amiga can be branded to any system where they hold rights to use the name through license agreement. So, if they want to go with new x86 processors or whatever, it is a choice of dealing with things in 2011 vs. 1980s. 68K was chosen for price/power comparison in 1983/1984 when it was the Lorraine project as it was a cost effective choice. If x86 processors had the power and speed and price, Jay Miner would have used it. The Amiga was originally aimed as a next gen game console so the price mark was more fitting. Of course, Commodore kept to 68K for price point. However, Commodore had no qualms in using x86 architecture. Don't forget the PC and Colt line.

But it is 2011... x86 is by far king in price and power. PPC at 1 GHz single core costs (even at 1 Million unit order) more then a 2-3 GHz Quad core x86-64 cpu. So, there is no way the overall board cost be cheaper and more cost effective. So, it really comes down to competing tech. Right now, there is no competing CPU architecture. Intel has a real world monopoly in the desktop and there is no way to compete with it without investing alot of money and getting more computing power with less transistor count so you can have a smaller cpu die that would allow more cpus per wafer board and increase production volume in least material and operational costs.Less wafer board waste and more volume of production with a cpu with more performance will equal edge.

6502 was king because it was 10,000 transistor and had comparable power and effective performance for price bang and intel was just overall more expensive at a significantly larger transistor count which meant a larger chip dimensions and that meant fewer chips per wafer and the cost is in the number of wafers required to produce x number of chips. More chip density per wafer = lower price.

A modern multi-core 6502 built on 64-bit architecture with deep pipeline and packaged in a multi-core setup would be fast and inexpensive but it takes some R&D and getting the volume production run.

So why would PPC be viable. The most current and most powerful PPC based Amiga (with exception to AmigaOne x1000 by Hyoerion) is basically running on nearly 8 year old tech. Will the price be 2-3 years behind the curve? WIll you be spending $2500 for a $600 computer?

That is the fundamental problem.

Will Hyperion and A-EON Technology get the volume up enough to be price competitive. How many would be sold? Is it sufficient for Commodore USA to be a business. How sustainable is 200 individuals?

Take some thought about it from a business standpoint.

@Cool_amigaN

It isn't because it is a PC. It is because some folks here and there would view that a C= logo affixed to an x86 pc that isn't a lineage successor to the classic hardware because some folks still live in the fantasy dream that they want either the C= logo no longer be used OR if used would be used on some new super 256 core 64-bit 6502 processor running at 4 GHz per core or some fantasy proprietary tech that is 100% backward compatible with all prior tech.

They want Commodore to be a proprietary system that is entirely built on a new 6502 super processor or some new Motorola cpu for Amiga.

The idea of it has to be either 65xx ISA or a Motorola cpu architecture like PPC and 68K ISA. Well.... how viable and sustainable is that when there is less then 200 people world wide that uses these machines as their primary computer.

Removed 3 sentences. Reason: Flame. No AR for this though, since it was general flaming, not directed at specific members. Still, not OK though. /tomazkid

Just the way it is.

Last edited by tomazkid on 12-May-2011 at 10:29 PM.

http://www.commodore-amiga.org/forum/27-commodore-usa/3656-amigaos-4?limit=15&start=15&lang=en#4000

Most enjoyable read in a long time!

_________________
There are very interesting in all languages.
http://www.kensonpro.com
Program, codes for websites, hifi, measuring instruments and more. The site is of more than 1200 pages and nearly 3Gb .

@Wildstar128

Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: @vox Yes, the code base and everything is the same. It was only during the ESCOM and later era that the OS was being called Amiga OS or AmigaOS (a variant of the spelling). The truth is, Hyperion can not use the AmigaOS or Amiga OS title unless permitted to do so. But in any case, it doesn't matter much but Commodore actually used it in /...../

I fully support your description!

It clearly describes why Commodore chose the older 68K, and why they currently had probably been selected x86 as CommodoreUSA done.

_________________
There are very interesting in all languages.
http://www.kensonpro.com
Program, codes for websites, hifi, measuring instruments and more. The site is of more than 1200 pages and nearly 3Gb .

@_Steve_

Quote:

_Steve_ wrote: @eXec Quote: What has that to do with my question? Spam again Well, the only spamming I see has been a majority of your posts here in this thread. I have spoken before about instant restrictions for repeat offenders, so please find yourself on a 7 day restriction.

Totally wrong and unfair treatment by the exec!
AW has improved a lot recently. Why ruin it?

_________________
There are very interesting in all languages.
http://www.kensonpro.com
Program, codes for websites, hifi, measuring instruments and more. The site is of more than 1200 pages and nearly 3Gb .

@linnar

It was simple:

Best feature to price basis for the goal and objective. 68K was the best choice for what the Amiga would be at the time. 65c816 (the best 65xx alternative to the 68K was cheaper but didn't quite have the feature muscle needed or desired for the Amiga. Intel was more expensive and surely had higher clock frequencies available then the 7.xx Mhz ( 8 MHz...10 MHz) but the Intel had some notorious cycles per instruction and was a bit pricier.

Today's x86-64 processors has all the functional capabilities of every 68K processor on the face of the earth. It has the power to do whatever we can desire.

I think it was a design choice based on options at the time for a leading end game console that would be revolutionary then it transitioned into full fledge computer.

I don't have any personal issue with Hyperion and surely Hyperion can support the limited 100 folks who will buy the AmigaOne x1000 and the limited number of folks using PPC Amiga. They are small and the will always remain small because the market is small. They will hardly be full-time businesses. You don't think the owner of Hyperion is making his mainline of income through AmigaOS. You can't spend more then 100 hours of time without breaking the ROI where the Return is less then the Investment. That is part of the primary problems of making a living doing work for the classic.

I can't possibly hope to make any money on classic Commodore 8-bits or Amiga in the realm of software. My time investment value would be 10-100+ times the value of and proceeds.

@tommywright

Quote:

So where did the name "Workbench" go? When I worked at an Amiga shop in the late 80's early 90's, we always called it Workbench... i.e. Amiga Workbench 3.1 was the last Amiga OS I remember using.

Workbench is just the name of the desktop/window manager on the Amiga, same as explorer on Windows or Finder on OS X, Ambient on MorphOS etc.

I think the name "AmigaOS" (all one work) was probably used around the time Apple renamed System to MacOS, same as old Amigas became known as "Classic Amigas" like "Classic Macs" did, we seem to borrow a lot of terminology from the Apple world.

@linnar

Quote:

linnar wrote: @_Steve_ Totally wrong and unfair treatment by the exec! AW has improved a lot recently. Why ruin it?

Really? Try taking an objective approach and read over eXec's posts from the last while. He's made his point again and again, and again. People get tired having to sift through the same tunnel-visioned opinions all the time, just to read the genuine posts in the thread. Maybe the more reasonable people can have a few days of relative peace with more coherent threads which aren't full of blind ranting. *That* would be a nice improvement to AW...

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

@Daedalus

Quote:

Really? Try taking an objective approach and read over eXec's posts from the last while. He's made his point again and again, and again. People get tired having to sift through the same tunnel-visioned opinions all the time, just to read the genuine posts in the thread. Maybe the more reasonable people can have a few days of relative peace with more coherent threads which aren't full of blind ranting. *That* would be a nice improvement to AW...

Don't single out eXec, there are plenty of others that have been posting in the same manner who think they represent the OS4 community.

I see Leo's post as a olive branch, do with it as you wish.

_________________
Dammy

@Wildstar128

While cost/power argument is effective, in practice I&I dont see much of the horses in use. In fact I&I observe that average joes PC use of multimedia center and communication center takes about single core 1GHz CPU and 0,5GB RAM if OS is properly optimized. Few cores, gigs of RAM, faster HDD very little improve Win performance and OS never grows optimized. XP SP3 used on config beyond its dreams - X2 2GB still can have BSODS, extreme swapping etc.

So point is that tech circles are made for consumerism and R&D (example is Microsoft making Windows less compatibile with Windows to sell new apps of other users) not because of real demand.

There is no x86 AmigaOS so until full port done like with MacOSX or Rosetta Stone PPC software emulation, PPC is Amiga world.

x86 can only be another Windows machine. Nothing less, nothing more.

There are only few operating systems left, and its honour to use one named AmigaOS even if it uses "old" "outdated" hardware. Its efficient OS that takes max out of it, and if we pay extra for the hardware, we will not change it every year like today Commodore x64 will be junk in two years.

Its not mainly against the product - rebrand and sell it, like nobody complains on Amiga Android tablets, its about faking Commodore USA is Commodore internatiional and that there was no OS after OS 3.x as well as this x86 Amigism against PPC.

You should really sell it to the PC newbies that anyway buy a computer in Wall O Mart. Here it doesnt pull the horses. Have your own forum. Discuss in love what you all love. But dont boss us around here.

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

I read an account somewhere(I think it may have been on AmigaHistory) that Commodore marketing switched the Workbench name to Amiga OS shortly after Apple changed their System to MacOS as a play on the Macintosh name. Entirely logical. Apologies for going off topic. What we were we talking about again? Oh yes...our demise. Have fun.

Last edited by BigBentheAussie on 12-May-2011 at 01:58 PM.
Last edited by BigBentheAussie on 12-May-2011 at 01:55 PM.

_________________
Leo Nigro, CTO Commodore USA, LLC
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of C= USA.
Commodore/AMIGA "Beautiful, High-Performance, Home Computers for Creativity and Entertainment."

@Wildstar128

Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: Will Hyperion and A-EON Technology get the volume up enough to be price competitive. How many would be sold? Is it sufficient for Commodore USA to be a business. How sustainable is 200 individuals? Take some thought about it from a business standpoint.

No!

You don't get it. Hyperions business is their problem, not ours.

I want X1000. Not because of Hyperions business plans.

I will not buy a cusa product simply because they, or anybody else, sells a lot of product. What
the heck kind of hobby or enthusiasm is based on the number of units sold? That's just silly.
If that is the criteria for your enthusiasm then you should buy nothing but wintels.

@BigBentheAussie

Quote:

What we were we talking about again?

People were talking about something? Silly me. I thought the whole thread was just a dueling banjos blog. Heh.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*