@pavlor

Hmmmm.

By that logic all Amiga hardware is an Amiga, including the famous 1200 baud modem.

AmigaOne brand is not the Amiga brand,. The two are legally (and in terms of brand recognition) entirely distinct - something your own appreciation of the Amiga Mini et al illustrates perfectly.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Boot_WB Quote: From my own reading, my understanding is that Phase 5 introduced PowerPC cards and support independently of any work done by Commodore/AT, mainly due to the lack of any progress/roadmap beyond announcements. There was nearly one year limbo between AT bancruptcy and new Gateway 2000 policy. Phase5 started its PowerUP project in AT times - AT even announced Phase5 will provide PowerPC upgrade for older Amiga models.

AT announced a PowerPC OS on a PowerPC platform (at that time), with phase 5 accelerators as a stopgap to allow a migration for existing users.
They never delivered the platform or the OS, and as far as I am aware (open to correction here) the PowerUP solution, from concept to product, was Phase5's baby - with the noted exception of 'making an announcement'. :)

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

By that logic all Amiga hardware is an Amiga, including the famous 1200 baud modem.

Legally, all products with Amiga name are Amiga. Or do you have other than legal definition?

Quote:

AmigaOne brand is not the Amiga brand

Amiga brand in sense brand created by holder of Amiga name rights.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

They never delivered the platform or the OS

If under "they" you mean Amiga Technologies, this company went bankrupt in 1996.

If you mean several succeeding Amiga parent companies, then the platform and the OS were delivered in 2002/2004.

@pavlor

So the two mice and an A520 modulator in my drawer counts as 3 Amigas?

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

So the two mice and an A520 modulator in my drawer counts as 3 Amigas?

If your mices have distinct Amiga brand name, then yes, you have three Amiga products. What else should count?

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Boot_WB Quote: They never delivered the platform or the OS If under "they" you mean Amiga Technologies, this company went bankrupt in 1996. If you mean several succeeding Amiga parent companies, then the platform and the OS were delivered in 2002/2004.

Ie the announced project was cancelled (not put on hold, not pending finding a suitable hardware oartner - canned) in 1996.

Eyetech AmigaOne/Hyperion's AmigaOS4 project was conceived in 2001 (edit: conceived 2000, contracted 2001), and delivered Mid 2002/December 2006, unless you count developer prereleases as 'delivering'.

... In any sense contributing nothing to PowerUP development and delivery (and updates).

I find your revisionism... Disturbing. :)

Last edited by Boot_WB on 12-Aug-2015 at 06:19 PM.
Last edited by Boot_WB on 12-Aug-2015 at 06:17 PM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

Ie the announced project was cancelled (not put on hold, not pending finding a suitable hardware oartner - canned) in 1996.

Depends on point of view: basic goals of "Power Amiga" and "AmigaOne/OS4" are the same: new hardware based on PowerPC CPU with PowerPC native AmigaOS.

Quote:

I find your revisionism... Disturbing. :)

Revisionism? Is there some canon version of this part of Amiga history?

Duplicate.. Damned tablet thingy.

Last edited by Boot_WB on 12-Aug-2015 at 06:26 PM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Boot_WB Quote: Ie the announced project was cancelled (not put on hold, not pending finding a suitable hardware oartner - canned) in 1996. Depends on point of view: basic goals of "Power Amiga" and "AmigaOne/OS4" are the same: new hardware based on PowerPC CPU with PowerPC native AmigaOS. Quote: I find your revisionism... Disturbing. :) Revisionism? Is there some canon version of this part of Amiga history?

To say that a completely different hardware platform announced by a new company, six years after the previous company folded is a fulfilment of the original announcement (that's just the time from bankruptcy > new announcement, delivery would be 2 more years (hardware) and 6 years for the OS) appears to be revisionism. Sorry for the unavoidably harsh description. :)

(must submit post... Tablet battery about to die...)

Last edited by Boot_WB on 12-Aug-2015 at 06:37 PM.

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

@Boot_WB

Quote:

To say that a completely different hardware platform announced by a new company, six years after the previous company folded is a fulfilment of the original announcement

Yes!

Quote:

(must submit post... Tablet battery about to die...)

I have high ground there (posting from PC...).

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: (posting from PC...).

Amiga Mini? :D

_________________
Troll - n., A disenfranchised former potential customer who remains interested enough to stay informed and express critical opinions.
opp., the vast majority who voted silently with their feet.

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: @LimoU.Sin and all What a silly "war". "Why Amiga OS on none Amiga Hardware?" - What does that mean, really? To me there seems to be three categories of Amiga people: * The originals: Those who only care about what Amiga was and they are not interested in anything else than what is now known as Classic Amiga. * The front-liners: Those who always want and need the latest, most upgrades, newest software etc. This is the AmigaOne/Sam/OS4/MOS/AROS users. They left the Classic early because it was not powerful enough and did not run the latest version of AmigaOS (OS4, or MOS, ...). * Then there is the third strange group: The front-line should be classic group: This group ONLY think Classic Amiga is real Amiga, but they still want faster hardware and run the latest software. This is contradictive and paradoxal. This thread (and a few others) are about the third group, or "wish" if you like.

So you excluded other amigans, like me, which like Amiga and one of the post-Amiga o.ses (AROS).
Quote:

What is Amiga? - To group 1 it is the Classic Amiga range by C= with 68k CPU and OS up to 3.1 (maybe 3.9).

OK, so it excluded my Amiga 2000 and 1200, which aren't Classic Amigas, but simply Amigas.
Quote:

- To group 2 it is all Amigas (I'm in this group) which range from the original C= Amiga to the X1000, some also include MorphOS and AROS in this group. Myself I would call myself an Amiga user if I was using for example Pegasos/MOS, but I would personally probably not call the machine itself an Amiga.

No problem: there was no Amiga machine sold other than Commodore or Escom.
Quote:

- To group 3 it is Classic Amiga by C=, but they would like to have the latest version of the OS and a new faster machine, but since what we have now is not "Amiga" to them, they refuse for various reasons.

Since there was no "Classic" Amigas, but only Amigas, it's fine.
Quote:

Group 3 is strange. They find Classic to slow and useless for modern computing (of course), but they refuse to upgrade to what is currently available. They end up with no Amiga (old or new) and just complain instead.

I find it normal, since Classic Amigas aren't Amigas.
Quote:

Group 3 complains that custom chips are not made in-house but instead bought from specialized third-party companies (AMD/Creative/VIA/whoever makes USB/whoever makes all other chips on the motherboards). "It should all have been made by Commodore and soldered onto the motherboard." Problems is: Today this is impossible because custom chips today are a million times more complex than 30 years ago. (Moores law: Double power every 18 month for 30 years = 1 million.) Only specialized companies are able to make them.

Moore's law doesn't talk about doubling (processing) power every 18 months (18-24, in reality; and in the last period the rate seems that went to 30 months), but only about doubling the transistor count.
Quote:

So if Commodore would still be alive today, we would have used off-the-shelf parts anyway. Commodore would have made us the X1000, but probably a bit more custom with a bit more coherent product line from 1995 until now

If I recall correctly, Dave Hayne already said, time ago, that probably Commodore's Amiga would have used normal PC components.
Quote:

Already back in the '80s, '90s Commodore and the "valid" expansion companies used off-the-shelf parts and standards: SCSI, IDE, ATAPI, SD-RAM, 3.5" floppy (although the controller had a track buffer instead of sector buffer), USB, PCMCIA. So I just cannot see the problem with new Amigas (AmigaOne/Sam/etc.) cannot be called Amigas as well, just a new generation using more 3rd-party standards like PCI/PCIe opening up for more options of graphics, sound, etc. Of course, the 68k CPU line was dead so a switch was absolutely necessary and PPC was chosen since it was already present in some accelerators (and we hate Intel/x86 of course ).

Well, many of the things that you reported come from the company that you hate: Intel. How can you live with it?
Quote:

So of course the X1000 was made for AmigaOS. It leaves room for AmigaOS to expand (become multi-core, 64-bit, use more memory etc). Besides, there are no high-end 32-bit single-core CPUs on the market today, because that is not high-end. We get 64-bit and multi-core in the package whether we like it or not.

Actually you got no 64-bit neither multi-core support. Regarding the first, you'll never use it. For the second, you may get an AMP solution.

@Deniil715

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @cdimauro "Thorham correctly reported an example: using the Copper. Even the o.s. has standard and perfectly legal APIs to setup and handle copperlists, which of course directly access the chipset registers. What happens with RTG cards here?" The simplest thing to do, is detect what the screen mode supports and disable the code that is not supported by video mode. "I don't think that you have an emulator which can minic the Copper." Instead of mimic the copper it be better to take advantage of best features, Warp3D or something like that. If you have 32bit video mode, you can use color key to make the color transparent, this allows you to render on top of rainbow bitmap. On modern graphics card you keep the rainbow bitmap in video memory, so this pretty quick, operation on the GPU. If you have 8bit chunky format just pick solid color instead.

As Thorham correctly reported, it means writing two different versions of the software: OCS/ECS/AGA and RTG are too much different.

And most of the Amiga machines aren't so much powerful, or even enabled, to be used as RTG.

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: @cdimauro >Anyway, she bought PASemi AND Intrinsity for her upcoming mobile chip, Wasn't Intrinsity the company that going to develop new PPC chips with AMCC?

Not exactly. AMCC was developing the new PowerPC chip (Titan? Something like that), whereas Intrinsity was specialized in circuits optimization that would have allowed to reach higher frequencies.
Quote:

>so there was no reason to continue to develop projects based on that ISA. For apple right, but by killing PA Semi AND AMCC new chip they greatly slowed down PPC.

Well, AMCC decided to go for ARMs...
Quote:

>And on 2006 the PA6T was NOT superior to other PowerPC chips. Don'ty be silly, it was. It was years ahead in multicore and had built in (DUAL!)memory and PCIe controllers etc... for less W than G4 CPU. Simply superior. Freescale AMP design from y2012 was the first that was on the level pf y2006/2007 PA6T in design.

So, please, can you report some benchmark which compares this supercool PA6T with some G4 and/or G5?

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: @me SPAMMINK to you This must be 100% out of topic, but I love to re-read what R&D department had in mind already in 1991...1992: http://www.thule.no/haynie/research/acutiatr/docs/acu1.pdf 68k based but a lot of other superb stuff, like: "The Acutiator system supports various alternate processors. The example shown locates two alternate processors on the host module, but it's possible to have such devices on the AMI bus just as easily. In some cases the host module can make such devices easier to add, while the AMI bus makes the modularization of such devices easier."

Multicore isn't compatible with the Amiga o.s., unless in AMP configuration.

Anyway, this product was never released, so why we should care about it?

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Then they changed plans several times, as you should know. Amiga Technologies went bankrupt. This changed their plans.

So, was Amiga Technologies the only one entitled to define a plan? I mean: in the post-Commodore history.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Boot_WB Quote: From my own reading, my understanding is that Phase 5 introduced PowerPC cards and support independently of any work done by Commodore/AT, mainly due to the lack of any progress/roadmap beyond announcements. There was nearly one year limbo between AT bancruptcy and new Gateway 2000 policy. Phase5 started its PowerUP project in AT times - AT even announced Phase5 will provide PowerPC upgrade for older Amiga models. Quote: Whilst I appreciate the logic of your position generally, in this case I fail to see how you make the leap from saying that the AmigaOnes are branded by Amiga (your previous position), to saying (as you now seem to be doing) that they _are_ Amigas. It is with great pleasure that we are able to announce the first new Amiga hardware in over 6 years. The AmigaOne, our first consumer product, will be targeted at the desktop and workstation market. October 21, 2000, Melbourne, Australia, Amiga announces the AmigaOne AmigaOne history is interesting. At this time it was "Amiga" product (and marketed so on Amiga.com). However, as Amiga.Inc itself didn´t produce any hardware, AmigaOne became Amiga brand licensed to other companies - originaly as platform for AmigaDE, later for AmigaOS 4. After 2009 Settlement Agreement connection to Amiga.Inc became even more blurred: Amiga.Inc is still legal source of "AmigaOne" brand, but lost all control over it. Today, "AmigaOne" is Amiga brand, or better narrowly defined subset of Amiga brand.

Then why such machines aren't called "Amiga"?

@cdimauro

Quote:

So, was Amiga Technologies the only one entitled to define a plan? I mean: in the post-Commodore history.

That is job of (numerous...) Amiga parent companies.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Boot_WB Quote: By that logic all Amiga hardware is an Amiga, including the famous 1200 baud modem. Legally, all products with Amiga name are Amiga. Or do you have other than legal definition?

Then why don't use the Amiga name as is? It's an Amiga.
Quote:

Quote: AmigaOne brand is not the Amiga brand Amiga brand in sense brand created by holder of Amiga name rights.

Was created by Commodore as a proper trademark. Like AmigaDOS. But no AmigaOne trademark was created.