@wawa

Well, I was not think about that angel of it, but yes the hardware is not that important, clearly the hardware is lot different. However, in my option postmodern can also apply to classic system with upgrades. I find this a fascinating part of Amiga, how new standards and hardware can be taken advantage of by "Old or postmodern operating systems". What art can does well is illustrate things that is hard to explain, that building to me, how things transients from old to new, even that building will at something talked about as a building of its time.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

its of course difficult not to spot that the idea, the investors of the building you googled wanted to have illustrated is, how something "transients from old to new". architecture, belonging to applied arts, needs frequently to subordinate to what comissioner may have in mind, whether it is clever or not. apart of that i doubt art is really handy to "explain" anything, in terms of simple analogies, especially matters as contentually trivial as progress of computer technology.

in case dissussed here, imho a photo like here would be much more fitting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypore#/media/File:Fungi_in_Borneo.jpg

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I understand your point of view, but see above: you already have a way to identify your new toy (AmigaOne) from the old one (Amiga). Why don't simply use it? Because AmigaOne is not comprehensive term: there are Pegasos II and numerous SAM machines - not in AmigaOne cathegory. So "Amiga NG" is appropriate term for entire post-classic platform (you see, I used "classic"! ).

AmigaOne was a project which defined some specs for the upcoming machines and board, before becoming an (exclusive) trademark: you can continue to use the same term, and everybody will understand what are you referring too.

Aside that, it's interesting to notice that OS4 doesn't require any Amiga or AmigaOne machine to run: how is it possible? Maybe because what's left is... only the o.s.?
Quote:

Quote: you not even have the legal right to call them Amiga; He may call them whatever he wants.

I've written "legal" right.

Personally, you can do whatever you want, even call an IContain Android tablet... Amiga.
Quote:

Quote: they don't resemble at all the Amiga architecture (nothing custom: they are PCs with a PowerPC processor instead and... with something from Intel inside!!!) and philosophy (no o.s. which is "ad-hoc" for the hardware were it runs) Why it should resemble technology that failed in test of time? (Again, it hurts to write this).

I don't see any failure for that.

The custom chipset was the primary successful feature of the Amiga. The problem is that Commodore slept and didn't give a good successor for it, in time for the (aggressively) competing market. The marketing guys were and are responsible for failure here.

The secondary successful feature was the o.s., which was written to make good use of the underlying hardware, with a lot of APIs to cover its features. The problem here is that engineers made a lot of bad design choices that prevented its modernizations.

To recap: custom hardware and/or ad-hoc o.s. don't mean necessarily a bad thing.

@Arnie

Quote:

Arnie wrote: @thread I fail to understand why people are getting so hung up about the word classic. I don't believe anyone using the word is relabelling the individual computers, they are not saying classic Amiga 500 instead of Amiga 500. The word classic is being used to define an era in the all important Amiga history I.E. the Commodore/Escom/Gateway years. The word retro could be used instead but I think classic has a nicer ring to it. Classic is used in many other walks of life, cars, film, bikes, music - the list goes on but what you don't hear is a constant bickering about it. If an owner of a new Porsche 911 went up the an owner of the original and said that's a nice classic car, I'm sure the owner of the original wouldn't get offended.

Even PowerPCs are classic from this point of view, as Olaf suggested. Classic Amiga and Classic AmigaOne?

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @cdimauro Quote: And, of course, no "Classic" labeling. Ok, then I wont to be the first I will label the 8086, 80286 and 80386 chips classic chips. The Athlon64 chips I think I will label postmodern.

It's the first time which I see the "Classic" label for processors. Usually you just name them, even if we talk about MOS 6502, Zilog Z80, etc. That's my personal and professional experience, which I share with some other professionals. But you might had a different experience.

Anyway, we were talking about PCs, mounting such processors. Have you ever heard of a "Classic PC"? I don't.
Quote:

This is a classic painting. This is postmodern art.

Naaaa. What a bad example. So if someone paints something with the same Monnalisa style, you call such new opera a "Classic"?

@NutsAboutAmiga: you also have OS4 which runs on a Pegasos board. Not a "Classic" neither an AmigaOne. How do you call it?

EDIT. More evil: how do you call a Teron board?

Last edited by cdimauro on 15-Aug-2015 at 05:44 PM.

@cdimauro,

Amiga OS4+ on PPC CPU.

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @NutsAboutAmiga: you also have OS4 which runs on a Pegasos board. Not a "Classic" neither an AmigaOne. How do you call it? EDIT. More evil: how do you call a Teron board?

@cdimauro

Quote:

AmigaOne was a project which defined some specs for the upcoming machines and board, before becoming an (exclusive) trademark: you can continue to use the same term, and everybody will understand what are you referring too.

No, you memory fails here. Blessing of Amiga.Inc was always needed for AmigaOne name. I think you mean "Zico", but that is certainly not something you would link to current "Amiga NG" platform(s).

Quote:

Aside that, it's interesting to notice that OS4 doesn't require any Amiga or AmigaOne machine to run: how is it possible? Maybe because what's left is... only the o.s.?

I see history is not your field of study... never heard about DraCo?

Quote:

Personally, you can do whatever you want, even call an IContain Android tablet... Amiga.

I do.

Quote:

The custom chipset was the primary successful feature of the Amiga.

And its biggest burden. Adding new features and maintaining backwards compatibility became real nightmare.

Quote:

The problem here is that engineers made a lot of bad design choices that prevented its modernizations.

It was (obviously) most viable part of Amiga design as it lives up to this day (unlike chipset concept).

@cdimauro

Quote:

Even PowerPCs are classic from this point of view, as Olaf suggested. Classic Amiga and Classic AmigaOne?

As there are several generations of AmigaOne hardware (A1-SE/XE/Micro, A1-500/X1000, A1-X5000), some may call original AmigaOne "classic".

I fail to see you point here as "classic" is used for distinction of old/original and new Amiga platforms. This wouldn´t work in your example.

This topic is a "classic" example of Amiga user bickering.

_________________
X1000 with 2GB memory & OS4.1FE

@pavlor

from technical point of view NG is classic too today

@Arnie

Quote:

I fail to understand why people are getting so hung up about the word classic. I don't believe anyone using the word is relabelling the individual computers, they are not saying classic Amiga 500 instead of Amiga 500. The word classic is being used to define an era in the all important Amiga history I.E. the Commodore/Escom/Gateway years. The word retro could be used instead but I think classic has a nicer ring to it. Classic is used in many other walks of life, cars, film, bikes, music - the list goes on but what you don't hear is a constant bickering about it. If an owner of a new Porsche 911 went up the an owner of the original and said that's a nice classic car, I'm sure the owner of the original wouldn't get offended.

+1
Of course no one says "I'm gonna use my Classic Amiga 500 now". That's just stupid. An Amiga 500 is an Amiga 500. Period. But it is part of the Classic collection of Amigas, in relation to the NG collection (AmigaOne, Sam, Pegasos).

_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes)
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Even PowerPCs are classic from this point of view, as Olaf suggested. Classic Amiga and Classic AmigaOne?

I think you misunderstood the use of the term "Classic". It is used when there is a successor in the same line, but which is still substantially different. There is no substantially different successor to PowerPC (that isn't compatible etc.), so the Classic term does not apply, even if it's old. That's why Commodore64 also have no Classic label, because there is no clear successor. There is only Commodore64.

AmigaOS however, has lived on in new (sort of) Amigas (AmigaOne, Sam, etc.), so the original ("real") Amigas got the Classic label to tell the systems apart.

Also note that when Amiga1200 and 4000 came out, the A1000/2000/500 did not get the label Classic, because it was still the same line of computers. AmigaOne, Sam, Pegasos is a new line with but the same OS and same sort of purpose, therefore getting the NG label (while the old ones implicitly get the Classic term).

_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes)
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.

@Deniil715

+1

but don't bother he doesn't want to understand.

_________________
nox's in the house!

People, people, people.

As we all know the next generation hardware that is being developed now, with the X1000 as a starting point, is not classic due to its continued development. It's more like 'Classy'.

_________________
Tinkering with computers.

@QuikSanz: perfect!

Quote:

QuikSanz wrote: @cdimauro, Amiga OS4+ on PPC CPU. Quote: cdimauro wrote: @NutsAboutAmiga: you also have OS4 which runs on a Pegasos board. Not a "Classic" neither an AmigaOne. How do you call it? EDIT. More evil: how do you call a Teron board?

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: AmigaOne was a project which defined some specs for the upcoming machines and board, before becoming an (exclusive) trademark: you can continue to use the same term, and everybody will understand what are you referring too. No, you memory fails here. Blessing of Amiga.Inc was always needed for AmigaOne name. I think you mean "Zico", but that is certainly not something you would link to current "Amiga NG" platform(s).

That's normal, pavlor, because of the "Amiga" trademark, which is owned by Amiga Inc..
Quote:

Quote: Aside that, it's interesting to notice that OS4 doesn't require any Amiga or AmigaOne machine to run: how is it possible? Maybe because what's left is... only the o.s.? I see history is not your field of study... never heard about DraCo?

Of course, and that proves my statement, since it's a machine which wasn't an Amiga (no legal name neither it had the Amiga chipset), but it was able to run a (internally) patched Amiga o.s. 3. on an RTG hardware platform.

So, what's left with DraCo? The o.s., as I already stated.

Thanks for the perfect assist.
Quote:

Quote: Personally, you can do whatever you want, even call an IContain Android tablet... Amiga. I do.

I know, I know. It was a joke.
Quote:

Quote: The custom chipset was the primary successful feature of the Amiga. And its biggest burden. Adding new features and maintaining backwards compatibility became real nightmare.

That's not true. Please, take a look at the AAA specs and how it worked. It was ECS compatible, and that part was "virtualized" (as I also suggested from long time for some "NeoAmiga" project). Many modern features were then added, on top of that.

As you know, I had some experience in this field, with the TiNA project. You can still find my writings on amigacoding.de, were basically I've revised every hardware part of the Amiga chipset, in a more scalable and modernized way.

The only burden of such solutions is regarding the badly written code of some lazy lamers which haven't strictly followed the Commodore's guidelines for the direct hardware access. But that's not a real problem, since the new chipset should be only compatible with such guidelines, ignoring the craps of such idiots. BTW, what doesn't work can make use of solutions like WHDLoad.
Quote:

Quote: The problem here is that engineers made a lot of bad design choices that prevented its modernizations. It was (obviously) most viable part of Amiga design as it lives up to this day (unlike chipset concept).

That's absolutely normal, since the Amiga o.s. doesn't implement modern features, and it's really a tiny o.s.. The DraCo that you cited is a perfect example of how easy it was to patch it and make it run on a completely new and totally different "chipset".

However, such simple, but also very bad, design represents also it's biggest defect, as we know.

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Even PowerPCs are classic from this point of view, as Olaf suggested. Classic Amiga and Classic AmigaOne? As there are several generations of AmigaOne hardware (A1-SE/XE/Micro, A1-500/X1000, A1-X5000), some may call original AmigaOne "classic".

How do you call the Teron boards?
Quote:

I fail to see you point here as "classic" is used for distinction of old/original and new Amiga platforms. This wouldn´t work in your example.

In that part we talked about "vintage processors": the PowerPCs.

@Deniil715

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Even PowerPCs are classic from this point of view, as Olaf suggested. Classic Amiga and Classic AmigaOne? I think you misunderstood the use of the term "Classic". It is used when there is a successor in the same line, but which is still substantially different. There is no substantially different successor to PowerPC (that isn't compatible etc.), so the Classic term does not apply, even if it's old. That's why Commodore64 also have no Classic label, because there is no clear successor. There is only Commodore64.

Commodore USA sold a new Commodore64, and that's a clear successor. So the old one should be labeled "Classic Commodore 64".
Quote:

AmigaOS however, has lived on in new (sort of) Amigas (AmigaOne, Sam, etc.), so the original ("real") Amigas got the Classic label to tell the systems apart. Also note that when Amiga1200 and 4000 came out, the A1000/2000/500 did not get the label Classic, because it was still the same line of computers. AmigaOne, Sam, Pegasos is a new line with but the same OS and same sort of purpose, therefore getting the NG label (while the old ones implicitly get the Classic term).

Form this point of view, and according to what I've said above, Commodore USA presented also a new Amiga, which should be considered a clear successor of such machines. Right?

It remains to be seen how to call the AmigaOne machines, and others where OS4 runs. I like QuikSanz's solution: "Amiga OS4+ on PPC CPU".

Or we can talk about "OS4-enabled machine/PC".

That's because, and as I already stated, the only thing which is left is the o.s..

@Signal

Quote:

Signal wrote: People, people, people. As we all know the next generation hardware that is being developed now, with the X1000 as a starting point, is not classic due to its continued development. It's more like 'Classy'.

It has a processor which isn't produced from several years, so it's legitimate to enter the vintage museum.

@cdimauro

Quote:

So, what's left with DraCo? The o.s., as I already stated.

Your statement concerned OS4, I demonstrated this process happened long ago - just after the fall of Commodore. Which of course proves my point - AmigaOS was even by then (1994/1995) only still viable part of Amiga technology.

Quote:

That's not true. Please, take a look at the AAA specs and how it worked. It was ECS compatible

But not AA compatible... which again proves my point about backwards compatibility.

Quote:

As you know, I had some experience in this field, with the TiNA project.

Great promises, miserable failure. Next.

Quote:

However, such simple, but also very bad, design represents also it's biggest defect, as we know.

Sure, bad design for 2000+ era, but certainly not for 80s or 90s. In 1994, it could be still great basis for future AmigaOS (with proper developement).

Quote:

How do you call the Teron boards?

Illegitimate ("bastard") brothers?

Quote:

In that part we talked about "vintage processors": the PowerPCs.

"Vintage processors" makes much more sense. However, you used term "classic"...