@Rob

Quote:

Rob wrote: Quote: No product branded "Amiga OS" today runs native on Amiga. But Workbench does. What about 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9 or do you mean available to buy today?

Yes, today was indeed what I meant by "today". No new H&P 3.5 or 3.9 will ever be produced, the license was revoked a long time ago AFAIK. The only product I'm aware of using the "AmigaOS" brand today, is the OS4 published by Hyperion.

So the original topic of the thread say: "Why Amiga OS on none Amiga Hardware?"

The answer is of course: "Because the current (only!) AmigaOS simply can not run on real Amiga hardware, it never could, running on non-Amiga hardware is all it can do, and this was the original purpose and ambition from the very beginning of this particular operating system"

AmigaOS is for AmigaOne computers (and PowerUP cards and Pegasos2 motherboards), and AmigaOne IS NOT Amiga, not name-wise, not trademark-wise, not tech-wise, not "in-spirit"-wise, not in an way.

The OS available for real Amiga computers today is called Workbench, and it comes in many versions, including stand-alone slightly updated versions of 1.3 and 2.1, a 3.1 version with a few significant updates but still true to the original, and last but not least Workbench 3.X (if you want you could as well read that as "3.10", for this is what it is in practice) that is pretty much everything the gone-since-long "AmigaOS 3.9" once was, but more.

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: As pavlor linked, Cloanto's summary should end the name debate.

Let's hope so. And there is really no "debate", things are already the way they are, and things won't change because you or Pavlor makes some post in this forum! It's not really open for discussion! There are just some plain, easy-enough to comprehend facts that's open for everyone to see, that Pavlor (and a few others) fail completely to comprehend! That's all!

But OK, let's take a look at the document Pavlor linked to.

While recently updated, that document is actually very old. AFAICT it has changed some during the years. IIRC it comes from back when Cloanto first registered the Workbench trade mark back in 2006. The news about the trade mark registration for Workbench caused some discussion across several Amiga related web forums back then, in which a few Cloanto participated for a while IIRC. I see that page as a try to collect all Cloanto's motives and argumentations into one place, that could then be referenced to. And if you remember back then from their argumentation in forums, as well as what was on that page, you will remember that the purpose was actually to contradict the myth that some people back then, and now Pavlor, (and you?), and others try to uphold: "it was ALWAYS Amiga OS". Because it wasn't.

But the point isn't really about history. That's also why I deleted your quotes instead of replying to them; they were irrelevant. The only interesting part is the present, the current situation! So all the references to "TRIPOS", "AmigaDOS" and whatever in that document -- completely irrelevant in this discussion!

Here is the only important part from "pavlor's" page:

"One of the many unique points of the Amiga Forever project is its consistent use of the name "Workbench" for the operating system, which as such has become a Cloanto "trademark". Neither "Amiga OS" (with a space between "Amiga" and "OS") nor "AmigaOS" (without spaces) are used in Amiga Forever for this purpose.

Cloanto's use of the "Workbench" name for the operating system also helps avoid confusion with projects like AmigaOS 4.0, as Amiga Forever focuses entirely on "Classic" Amiga systems."

@TRIPOS

Quote:

Wrong again, the A4000 running the 680x0 Kickstart/Workbench needs an Amiga compatible 68k CPU in order to boot, a PowerUP card is not at all required.

CPU card is required...

Did you know OS4 wouldn´t boot on A1200/3000/4000 without 68k CPU too?

Quote:

It becomes more obvious for every post you make!

I share your feeling.

@TRIPOS

Quote:

No new H&P 3.5 or 3.9 will ever be produced

Supply is still good.

Quote:

the license was revoked a long time ago AFAIK.

By words of Bill McEwen:
Amiga considers this agreement terminated, but Haage & Partner may not

Quote:

The only product I'm aware of using the "AmigaOS" brand today, is the OS4 published by Hyperion.

Right, only new product.

Quote:

AmigaOS simply can not run on real Amiga hardware

I admire your persistence on this "statement".

Quote:

AmigaOne IS NOT Amiga

To quote again Bill McEwen:
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. (2000)

AmigaOne - The Newest Amigas based on the revolutionary Amiga Digital Environment. (2001)

The AmigaOne is the first new Amiga specified product in over six years. AmigaOne will run AmigaOS4 when it becomes available. (2002)



Quote:

Workbench 3.X (if you want you could as well read that as "3.10", for this is what it is in practice) that is pretty much everything the gone-since-long "AmigaOS 3.9" once was, but more.

Where is AmiDock?!

Last edited by pavlor on 18-Aug-2015 at 12:09 PM.

@TRIPOS

>Well once more, today the OS situation is like this:

Yes.
Cloanto has renamed their Amiga OS to workbench for a good reason.

>4) AmigaOS 4, for AmigaOne and PowerUP systems, published by Hyperion

+Pegasos2

>And completely Off Topic.

Perhaps I missed the topic in the first place.

(thought that someone was still thinking that Workbench is the 68k Amiga OS)

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@TRIPOS

Quote:

But OK, let's take a look at the document Pavlor linked to.

Do you realize that document explains usage of AmigaOS / Amiga OS name?

Quote:

the myth that some people back then, and now Pavlor, (and you?), and others try to uphold: "it was ALWAYS Amiga OS". Because it wasn't.

So, Andy Finkel, Dave Haynie et co tried to uphold "myth" back in the 80s? I´m glad in their company.

Last edited by pavlor on 18-Aug-2015 at 07:10 PM.
Last edited by pavlor on 18-Aug-2015 at 12:15 PM.

Amiga system was flexible as it was possible:
-to use co-procesors, like paula and PPC nicely from the Amiga OS
-to use multiple GPUs, audio cards at the same time, nicely from Amiga OS
-it was even possible to use co processors in weird ways, like blitter for audio mixing, CPU instead blitter
-then even PPC instead of 68k as the main processor


(then Amigans did DirectX for Windows to enable fast Amiga OS in WinUAE)

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@TRIPOS

Quote:

AmigaOne IS NOT Amiga

You seem to missing a basic search function.

BTW, UBoot, as part of the AmigaOne board, reads RDB, which is Amiga.

So I disagree with you there. To me the AmigaOne is Amiga but the AmigaOne is not an Amiga.

Quote:

The OS available for real Amiga computers today is called Workbench

Today? Don't you mean yesterday? Anyway that's inaccurate. Workbench is simply the desktop. It isn't the whole OS. There are lots of system files in AmigaOS that are not part of Workbench. Especially where the package includes ROMs that is more than a Workbench, that is an AmigaOS release, whatever they called it.

Last edited by Hypex on 19-Aug-2015 at 03:49 AM.
Last edited by Hypex on 18-Aug-2015 at 06:15 PM.

@TRIPOS

You wrong with your summery here.

Commodore may not have initially used the phase AmigaOS for early models such as the A500 and A2000, at least I haven't found it yet in my manuals.
The phase AmigaOS does appear in the Amiga Hard Drive manual that comes with the A4000, and AMIGA OS 3.1 is on the front cover of the ARexx, DOS and Workbench manuals.
More importantly none of the manuals I have call the Amiga's operating system Workbench.

In the glossary of the A500 and A2000 manuals Workbench is defined as - A tool you use to get and manipulate the facilities of the Amiga.
The A4000 manual changes this to - The Amiga's icon-based, graphical user interface.

Cloanto are the only people to call the Amiga's operating system Workbench.

The truth of the matter is the Commodore never had a default name for the operating system. They appeared neither to have ever called it Workbench or Amiga OS, although it is evidenced that it would have become officially named Amiga OS by Commodore had they survived a little longer.

The 1.3 packaging simply calls it Software Enhancer, and gives greater precedence to AmigaDos than it does to Workbench.



The 2.1 release refers to itself as Release 2.1 Enhancer with no mention of any of the OS components such as AmigaDOS or Workbench on the outer packaging.



Id assume that the Workbench name came into popular use in the Amiga press and userbase is because the user booted from the Workbench disk and the Workbench manual explained how to use the OS.

Cloanto use the Workbench brand for the maket and sale of the OS because they don't have the rights to use the Amiga OS brand name and it aslo avoids any possible confusionwith later versions. It is also a brand name that users have long associated with the OS.

To say that the OS has always been called Workbench is just as much a revisionism as to say that it has always been called Amiga OS. The "Workbench" argument is driven by an emotional need to distance later product lines from those released during the Commodore Era while the "Amiga OS" argument is driven by an emotional need to strengthen the links between the Commodore Era and later products lines, it is largely reactionory against the former argument.

Fact is that Amiga OS has been the default name for the OS since Escom's Amiga Technologies officially adopted the name during their tenure.

Amiga OS is now an umbrella for all versions of the operating system but doesn't take away from the fact that it is also popularly known as Workench.

Be happy to use whichever name you feel most comfortable with and try to refrain from getting into pointless arguments about it.

@Rob

+1

No point quoting, I agree with every word.

_________________
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:

Rob wrote: ...Be happy to use whichever name you feel most comfortable with and try to refrain from getting into pointless arguments about it.

+1, except I think it's a moot point about the 'pointless arguments' for this thread

_________________
____________________________
c64-2sids, A1000, A1200T-060@50(finally working!),A4000-CSMKIII
! My Master Miggies- Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
mancave-ramblings
X1000 I BELIEVE

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @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.

Once you cited DraCo, the statement concerned the Amiga o.s. in general, and the ability to run it without an "Amiga" hardware.

I've to say that in the long run/term, I agree with you: the o.s. is the only viable part, after the Commodore demise. But let me contextualize and clarify.

DraCo was the action of a private company to have some machine where its Amiga RTG application(s?) can continue to run. It was easier here, because of the RTG basis: no Amiga chipset needed, and since 68K processors are discrete components, everything worked fine.

But this doesn't mean that the o.s. was the only viable part of Commodore. Not yet.

In fact, there were plans to produce new hardware. At IPISA'94 in Milan, I personally asked Petro why ESCOM decided to drop AAA, since it was almost complete. He replied that AAA wasn't competitive anymore with PCs, so they were evaluating a better (more competitive, of course) solution.

That wasn't a single episode: you should know that Commodore heirs tried other times to have a newer platform, with both new hardware and new software (NOT based on the Amiga o.s.).

AFTER several tries (and YEARS) it became clear that such dream wasn't possible, so the last tentative was to use a PC + PowerPC CPU (so: goodbye new hardware platform) and just the old Amiga o.s. ported to it. That's what we saw and is still here.
Quote:

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.

AAA wasn't AGA/AA compatible by design, not because it wasn't possible. As I already stated, virtualizing the old chipset registers allowed AAA to emulate ECS, and there's no technical reason to extended it to AGA. Again, you can take a look at my writings on amigacoding.de regarding that part.

In fact, that was just a Commodore decision, and that's why AGA hardware details weren't published / publicly available. It was well known that AGA was NOT the foundation of the new chipset.
Quote:

Quote: As you know, I had some experience in this field, with the TiNA project. Great promises, miserable failure. Next.

To fail you at least should have some product.

Anyway, a not even existing product doesn't obliterate my experience in that field. But if you think differently, you can take my writings (see above) and let me know where I've failed/made mistakes.
Quote:

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).

It was bad designed from the beginning: that's why, after 30 years, the o.s. is still crippled with the same issues.

The o.s. was fast and responsive, nothing to say about that. But that's a DIFFERENT thing.
Quote:

Quote: How do you call the Teron boards? Illegitimate ("bastard") brothers?

I think that such term can be applied only to their "twins" that came later, the ones relabeled as AmigaOne.

I better talk of that at the end.
Quote:

Quote: In that part we talked about "vintage processors": the PowerPCs. "Vintage processors" makes much more sense. However, you used term "classic"...

Vintage is even worse than classic.
Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Commodore USA sold a new Commodore64, and that's a clear successor. So the old one should be labeled "Classic Commodore 64". Should be, if business of CommodoreUSA was at least as successful as AmigaOne project and not horrible disaster it became. Quote: 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? Without doubt! However, it became dead branch. Comparison with AmigaOne is interesting - AmigaOne is without doubt most successful Amiga project since 1994.

Nobody talked about the successfulness as a measure of legitimation of a product.

The point is quite clear: if Commodore USA's Commodore 64 and Commodore Amiga are legally entitled to be called with such terms, then they are and must be called as legitimate successors of the respective machines. That's a boolean thing: either it's true for false, FACTs at the hand.

If this is true, this means two things. First, the (now) old machines should be called as "Classics", according to the definition that you, guys, presented.

Second, it means that AmigaOnes weren't really legitimate successors of Amiga, since we have new machines which have the right to be called as Amigas, whereas we know that the same cannot apply to AmigaOnes (which are different brands, albeit based on the same trademark).

But the most important thing is that we saw that AmigaOS4 didn't asked for an Amiga or an AmigaOne machine to run.
The Teron boards are a clear example: they were ALREADY EXISTING boards which were took and just relabeled as AmigaOne. They were NOT designed to run OS4: it was OS4 that was ported to them, AFTER such rebranding.
Another example is represented by the Pegasos boards, which were pre-existing to OS4. In fact, it was ported AFTER some years to such boards, which NEVER acquired the AmigaOne brand.
And finally we can cite the SAM boards, which had NO AmigaOne brand, but AFTER some years AND and agreement (with Hyperion, I think), "magically" acquired the AmigaONE 500 label.

So, it's absolutely evident that OS4 was ported and runs on machines which aren't AmigaOne neither Amigas. OS4, which is the ONLY thing which was left in the post-Commodore era as you also pointed out, is ONLY the o.s.. And it does NOT require an AmigaOne or an Amiga to run, as it was proved.

We cannot even call such machines as "OS4-enabled", because some of them were already pre-existing to such o.s..

In general, and in conclusion, we can only talk about a list of machines were OS4 can run: no Amiga machines (which were the Commodore USA ones: the only legitimate successors), and no Amiga (as platform) heritage. Just the old o.s. ported to some PowerPC machines.

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: As pavlor linked, Cloanto's summary should end the name debate. "So it comes that at Cloanto we have both original "AmigaDOS" documentation from 1985 and 1986 stating that "AmigaDOS is a multi-processing operating system designed for the Amiga", and written developer's documentation by Commodore saying that "AmigaDOS" should not be used to refer to the name of the Amiga operating system." "The name "Workbench" was originally not meant to express the concept of an "operating system" as in "OS" or "DOS". Neither Commodore-Amiga nor any of its successors ever used the word "Workbench" to refer to an operating system. " **************** Some people used AmigaDOS when they meant Amiga operating system and some used "Workbench" because that's written on the floppy and WB tittle bar. Some people (like one of my work mates) think that Amiga did not have OS at all. I got HDD equipped Amiga in 1989, perhaps that's why I think Amiga OS was not unclear to me ever.

We already discussed it, and I've cited that AmigaDOS was reported as the o.s. of Amiga 3000 (LATE 1990), which clearly deny what said, whatever Cloanto can say.

@cdimauro

Quote:

But this doesn't mean that the o.s. was the only viable part of Commodore. Not yet.

These were only ideas, not even in prototype stage (unlike AAA).

Quote:

As I already stated, virtualizing the old chipset registers allowed AAA to emulate ECS, and there's no technical reason to extended it to AGA.

This is highly theoretical discussion as AAA was not ready even in 1994 when AA compatibility would be crucial.

Quote:

Anyway, a not even existing product doesn't obliterate my experience in that field.

Big words, no deeds. Next.

Quote:

It was bad designed from the beginning: that's why, after 30 years, the o.s. is still crippled with the same issues.

The OS was designed for 68000 and 256/512 kB RAM. I think it was really good design for this purpose.

Quote:

Vintage is even worse than classic.

Why? I like that term...

Quote:

That's a boolean thing: either it's true for false, FACTs at the hand.

You "logic" is flawed. You may have numerous successors with similar legitimity - it is like family (brothers, half-brothers and adopted children).

Quote:

Second, it means that AmigaOnes weren't really legitimate successors of Amiga, since we have new machines which have the right to be called as Amigas, whereas we know that the same cannot apply to AmigaOnes

Why? As AmigaOne name was choosen for Amiga successor, I don´t see any problem there. And for your information, we don´t have new machines which have the right to be called as Amigas, line of CommodoreUSA is extinct.

Quote:

But the most important thing is that we saw that AmigaOS4 didn't asked for an Amiga or an AmigaOne machine to run.

Remember, that was original intention of AmigaOne platform: hardware with common parts, not another Amiga chipset dependent machine. So Teron may become AmigaOne (and Pegasos would be another AmigaOne, but bPlan/Genesi/MorphOS did choose other patch).

Usage of AmigaOne name after 2009 Settlement Agreement follows this original intention - several manufacturers design/sell boards for AmigaOS and get "blessing" in form of AmigaOne name.

Quote:

no Amiga machines (which were the Commodore USA ones: the only legitimate successors)

As I pointed above, CommodoreUSA was not only legitimate successor...

@cdimauro

Quote:

We already discussed it,

Oh no, not again!

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @TRIPOS Quote: Wrong again, the A4000 running the 680x0 Kickstart/Workbench needs an Amiga compatible 68k CPU in order to boot, a PowerUP card is not at all required. CPU card is required...

What's needed is a 68k CPU, not a PPC CPU, and of course this must be mounted to a card!

A PowerUP card is not in any way needed by ANY Amiga to be operated or for ANY Amiga to boot (as you claimed), and if it's there, the only part needed/used by the Amiga is the 68k CPU since the PPC is alien and can not be used native by the Amiga.

Quote:

Did you know OS4 wouldn´t boot on A1200/3000/4000 without 68k CPU too?

Of course I do, and shall I explain to you why? It's closely connected to what I wrote above!


Quote:

Quote: No new H&P 3.5 or 3.9 will ever be produced Supply is still good.

You can fins NOS C64 and A1200 computers from time to time, but of course this doesn't mean that they are in production today! Nobody is developing/publishing AmigaOS 3.5 and AmigaOS 3.9 today. The only product that goes by the name "AmigaOS" today is Hyperion's OS4. They have an exclusive license to use this name. Nobody else can use it. I fail to see how this is so difficult for you to understand, it's a mystery!


Quote:

Do you realize that document explains usage of AmigaOS / Amiga OS name? So, Andy Finkel, Dave Haynie et co tried to uphold "myth" back in the 80s? I´m glad in their company.

Hmm, are you trolling me here? Because surely nobody could seriously fail so miserably in separating the current from the past and grasping the basic concepts I lay out before you?

Just in case you aren't, I'll try one more time:

Cloanto owns the copyright to everything published by the Commodore/Amiga corporations up to Commodore's bankruptcy, including ALL versions of the operaitng system for Amiga, meaning v1.0-3.1, and also v3.X (3.5/"~3.9+"). The name of this, no matter version, is Workbench, nothing else. Workbench, Workbench, Workbench! The OS explicitly CAN NOT be called "AmigaOS" since this is reserved for Hyperion's PPC OS venture, so it has to be something else. And Workbench is a protected trade mark registered by Cloanto.

You have several times linked to a document published by Cloanto regarding the name. In case your memory is as short as it seems to be, here is what this document said:

"One of the many unique points of the Amiga Forever project is its consistent use of the name "Workbench" for the operating system, which as such has become a Cloanto "trademark". Neither "Amiga OS" (with a space between "Amiga" and "OS") nor "AmigaOS" (without spaces) are used in Amiga Forever for this purpose.

Cloanto's use of the "Workbench" name for the operating system also helps avoid confusion with projects like AmigaOS 4.0, as Amiga Forever focuses entirely on "Classic" Amiga systems."

@TRIPOS

Quote:

What's needed is a 68k CPU, not a PPC CPU, and of course this must be mounted to a card!

PowerUP card has both 68k and PowerPC CPUs.

Quote:

Of course I do

Doesn´t seem so.

Quote:

Cloanto owns the copyright to everything published by the Commodore/Amiga corporations up to Commodore's bankruptcy, including ALL versions of the operaitng system for Amiga, meaning v1.0-3.1, and also v3.X

Correct. However, their usage of OS source code is restricted...

Quote:

You have several times linked to a document published by Cloanto regarding the name.

Did you read entire article? Of course not, what do I think.


Still waiting for answer, where is AmiDock in WB3.X...

@TRIPOS

"can not run on real Amiga hardware, it never could, running on non-Amiga hardware is all it can do"

Still have to disagree. AmigaOS4 runs on real Amiga HW if there is PPC CPU.
(Most likely it would run also without PPC if 68k is put to emulate PPC. )

My A4000 system uses non CBM era CPU (68060) and ATI display chip. Motherboard provides some I/O and electricity.

((+there is also cyberpatcher that "JIT" CBM era 68k apps to post CBM era, otherwise some code would run in emulation))

Do not dare to call it non-Amiga.

>AmigaOne IS NOT Amiga, not name-wise, not trademark-wise, not tech-wise, not "in-spirit"-wise, not in an way.

It runs Amiga operating system, Workbench, AmigaDOS, all of them natively. Just like my A4000. Only faster. So THAT WAY it is an Amiga.

ONLY some HW banging apps from 1985...early90's need emulator. Just like my A4000 need emulation or tricks to run some SW from y1985...1990.

Some of my Amigas: A600, A4000+Phase5CPU&GPUcards, SAM440, MorphMini. After they have booted up, you know they are Amigas (only A600 is in CBM case).

(one day I will grow to think emulators to be Amigas, not just yet. Last time I put AROS to a x86 HW it almost morphed to become Amiga, almost. Have to retry.)


+++
" PPC is alien and can not be used native by the Amiga."

PPC is no more alien to 68k code than Paula or some other co-processor. PPC is weird as co-processor only the way it can eliminate the need of 68k.




((still no-one is doing SW layer that implements HW accelerated AGA emulation for NG systems???))

Last edited by KimmoK on 19-Aug-2015 at 12:12 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 19-Aug-2015 at 12:12 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 19-Aug-2015 at 12:07 PM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @TRIPOS Quote: Cloanto owns the copyright to everything published by the Commodore/Amiga corporations up to Commodore's bankruptcy, including ALL versions of the operaitng system for Amiga, meaning v1.0-3.1, and also v3.X Correct. However, their usage of OS source code is restricted...

Now you are speculating wildly and letting your imagination run away with you. They are the owner of the copyright, you should read up on what this means. The fact that they have already released updated versions speaks for itself.