@TRIPOS
Quote:

No I'm not wrong. Commodore never ever sold a product called "AmigaOS". Escom was the first who legally and officially started selling "AmigaOS" products. Never said that nobody never called it "AmigaOS" or used the term "AmigaOS" in writing or whatever, this isn't even relevant the slightest. Please keep focused to what you read. The first "AmigaOS" product ever released, was by Escom, and this was after the original Commodore/Amiga died. Not that it matters to this topic, but let's keep facts straight, shouldn't we?

Ok now that I've located my Amiga OS 3.1 box I can confirm you are correct. It all appeared officially Commodore until I found the small print at the bottom of the box.

Quote:

It's a fact that Cloanto sells updated versions of the OS. Apart from every single version (from 1.0 and onwards) they sell v1.3 and 2.1 (very minor updates) and v3.1 (a few rather significant updates, though still true to the origial). Under what product name should they sell this? "AmigaOS"?

Technically yes, but I can understand why they have chosen Workbench to save confusion with AmigaOS 4.X as its the next best thing and is a name Commodore used for part of the operating system but not the whole operating system which never really had a name.


In answer to the title question though I don't understand why you don't recognise AmigaOS 4.1 for the original Commodore Amiga 4000. Yes it might be PPC only once booted but if the PPC card in this case was not plugged in to an A4000 then it would not work. So the A4000 is needed to run this version of AmigaOS therefore there is AmigaOS on Amiga hardware even for all those who are in denial of the Amigaones.

@pavlor

Quote:

As you may remember, we went through this before... with your own participation.

if only once... still there are people who insist, amiga was released with operating system trademarked as amigaOS from the very beginning, and that it is this os that has constituted amiga from the very start, because this is what they think is left to them today.

Last edited by wawa on 19-Aug-2015 at 06:56 PM.

@wawa

Quote:

amiga was released with operating system trademarked as amigaOS from the very beginning

Which is of course nonesense. Sure, it was commonly used term (and favourite of OS developers), but not marketing term until 3.1.

@TRIPOS

Quote:

Never said that nobody never called it "AmigaOS" or used the term "AmigaOS" in writing or whatever, this isn't even relevant the slightest.

people might have referred to "amiga os" as in "the operating system of amiga as a whole" but this entity has not ever been named, as there wasnt apparently any necessity to do that. it has no relevance to what is here being argued about, namely "amigaos" or "amiga os" being a distinct product name or trademark. amigas have simply always been released with the appropriate firmware. after the product has died, third party contributors or buy off companies have delivered minor updates in order to cash up, even though they couldnt deliver the product itself anymore. this is where something like "amigaos" had to be invented as a separate product. otherwise customers might treat it simply as a third party set of patches and contributions, they might not be willing to pay for.

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

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @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).

Strange. In this thread someone talked about prototypes after the Commodore demise, and now it seems that no one existed...
Quote:

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.

This is NOT theoretical: registers virtualization is a TECHNICAL solution, which was used by AAA, and greatly discussed on amigacoding.de. As I stated before, if you find some issues, you're free to join the forum and PROVE them. Talk is cheap, but I prefer FACTs, as you know.

Regarding AAA, AFAIK the first stepping (A0) was available before Commodore went in bankrupt, and Dave Hayne was working to a motherboard for testing it. So, yes, it wasn't ready, but in a good status.
Quote:

Quote: Anyway, a not even existing product doesn't obliterate my experience in that field. Big words, no deeds. Next.

Several engineers already read and talked about my writings on the above forum. Since you're entrenching yourself behind empty words, it's quite evident that you're not even able to understand my technical FACTs...
Quote:

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.

The Macintosh required even much less (128KB), but had similar issues. I don't call both them good design only because of the lower memory requirement.

Exposing o.s. structures and publicly sharing all memory between applications is a bad design, whatever a user (not a coder) can think about. But if you have a new thesis regarding a consolidate argument in the o.s. literature, you can propose it and TECHNICALLY show it.
Quote:

Quote: Vintage is even worse than classic. Why? I like that term...

Me to. That's why I used it.
Quote:

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).

Well, you should know that brothers share the same (sur)name, and even adopted ones. Half-brothers at least share half-DNA. I fail to see the common, legal, heritage between a Commodore USA's Amiga and an AmigaOne rebranded Teron board...
Quote:

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.

Plans changed a lot in the post-Commodore era, as you know. In fact, we had no new hardware and not even new o.s.: what's left is a PC+PowerPC and a porting of the old Amiga o.s. for it.
Quote:

And for your information, we don´t have new machines which have the right to be called as Amigas, line of CommodoreUSA is extinct.

Only because the founder died. But he had the time to give to the world brand and branded new Amigas.
Quote:

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).

That was only after a sequence of pumped announces, which ended on a much lower compromise.
Quote:

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.

I already reported that the SAM machines "got" the AmigaONE 500 brand, well after such agreement.

That's because OS4 does NOT require a computer with such brand, as the history clearly proved. OS4 is simply what was left from the original platform: the o.s.. No machines anymore, and a machine cannot magically become an "Amiga" only because the o.s. runs on it.

Otherwise even DraCo has to be considered an Amiga, a PC with Amithlon, and a PC with (Win)UAE too...
Quote:

Quote: no Amiga machines (which were the Commodore USA ones: the only legitimate successors) As I pointed above, CommodoreUSA was not only legitimate successor...

Well, it's the only MACHINE which is and can be called Amiga...
Quote:

Quote: pavlor wrote: @cdimauro [quote]We already discussed it, Oh no, not again!

I know: we discussed A LOT of the naming argument, in another thread, and reporting several FACTs. But "strangely" the revisionism spirit continue to float around.

BTW, coherency is not your strong point:

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @noXLar He knows very well, how old term AmigaOS is (I found references in 1986 usenet discussion by Andy Finkel himself!). I wonder, why he so insists on so untenable "statements".

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: Amiga system was flexible as it was possible: -to use co-procesors, like paula and PPC nicely from the Amiga OS

Not nicely: the o.s. only supported its custom hardware.
Quote:

-to use multiple GPUs, audio cards at the same time, nicely from Amiga OS

Same as above. And BTW is it possible to support multiple monitors?
Quote:

-it was even possible to use co processors in weird ways, like blitter for audio mixing, CPU instead blitter

The Blitter has no logic to mix audio, and if you have to simulate the addition (which is required for mixing samples; even without saturation logical) it ends on a so much work to do, that it's much slower than even a simple 7Mhz 68000.

The CPU can emulate the Blitter, but an old and slow CPU will not reach the same speed.
Quote:

-then even PPC instead of 68k as the main processor

In such case, you're running a completely new o.s..
Quote:

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

So they love Windows now.

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @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.

UBoot is an open source support, so RDB support was added by some Amiga. But this does NOT make an UBoot machine an Amiga, otherwise even a PC can be named as Amiga.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Strange. In this thread someone talked about prototypes after the Commodore demise, and now it seems that no one existed...

AAA is only new Commodore chipset in prototype stage I know. Hombre went no further than concept design.

Quote:

Talk is cheap, but I prefer FACTs, as you know.

You know, facts is not something I would search in your writings...

Only fact we have: in 1994, AAA was not ready and was not AA compatible. Dreaming now about possible design changes is waste of time. However, it is your time.

Quote:

Since you're entrenching yourself behind empty words, it's quite evident that you're not even able to understand my technical FACTs...

And result? Nothing. As of your "facts", see my answer above. Next.

Quote:

The Macintosh required even much less (128KB), but had similar issues. I don't call both them good design only because of the lower memory requirement.

Comparing "MacOS" and AmigaOS this way? Well, that speaks about your "competence".

Quote:

I fail to see the common, legal, heritage between a Commodore USA's Amiga and an AmigaOne rebranded Teron board...

Amiga license from the very same source? That makes them "relatives".

Quote:

Only because the founder died. But he had the time to give to the world brand and branded new Amigas.

At least he fulfilled some of his promises, unlike others.

Quote:

I already reported that the SAM machines "got" the AmigaONE 500 brand, well after such agreement.

Which is obvious...

Quote:

That's because OS4 does NOT require a computer with such brand, as the history clearly proved.

Of course, that is very outcome of said Settlement Agreement.

Quote:

OS4 is simply what was left from the original platform: the o.s..

Correct!

Quote:

No machines anymore, and a machine cannot magically become an "Amiga" only because the o.s. runs on it.

Ah, now I see difference in our opinions: the very definition of "Amiga". For me, it is anything with Amiga brand, your definition seems to be far more restricting.

Quote:

Otherwise even DraCo has to be considered an Amiga, a PC with Amithlon, and a PC with (Win)UAE too...

As for my definition above, Amiga Forever is valid licensed Amiga brand.

Quote:

Well, it's the only MACHINE which is and can be called Amiga...

Small correction: which was. It is not produced anymore. Unlike others, I was never hater of CommodoreUSA. They even managed to join again Commodore and Amiga brands!

Quote:

I know: we discussed A LOT of the naming argument, in another thread, and reporting several FACTs.

Yes, I remember your "facts". Quite amusing to hear about it from you again...

Quote:

coherency is not your strong point:

Expert opinion?

@cdimauro

>>-to use co-procesors, like paula and PPC nicely from the Amiga OS
>Not nicely: the o.s. only supported its custom hardware.

I reconsider if I should have said: "Amiga OS did not stop people from using..."

It's anyway nicer than what other OS did at the time.

+
with Aos, if a card did not have driver in it's autoconfig ROM, you just had to drag driver file to a folder & doubleclick or reboot.
Harder to drag & drop or plug & play with MSDOS of that era.
+
adding dsp to decode audio needed just a file in a folder
etc..

>>-to use multiple GPUs, audio cards at the same time, nicely from Amiga OS
>Same as above.

There have been amiga audio station with 4...7 sunries industries multichannel audio cards. Worked fully in sync with paula + housefull of MIDI HW.
(at the time CBM died, so the audio station was scrapped)

>And BTW is it possible to support multiple monitors?

WB can not be spread to more monitors. Different screen per monitor works.
It needs tricks to tell the OS not to blank "inactive screen".

Initially, in late 80's, it was normal that only some application(s) did their output via some selected GPU card(s).

3 cards + AGA has been the max amount of display outputs I have seen myself on a big box 68k Amiga.

(Perhaps not having RTG natively in OS was an advantage in this rare example.)
When third party GFX cards and drivers do not collide, one can have many displays.

>>...blitter for audio mixing...
>...that it's much slower than ...

I do not remember details. It was a leading demogroup programmer that once told about it. IIRC, they did also 0,9Mbit/s transfer via serial port on A500. Insane guys.

>>-then even PPC instead of 68k as the main processor
>In such case, you're running a completely new o.s..

If an OS is "just" recompiled to another CPU, it becomes a new OS?
If one codeline of an OS is changed and then recompiled, is it a new OS?
AOS2.1 did break some AOS1.3 compatibility. Is that a good example of new o.s?

>>(then Amigans did DirectX for Windows to enable fast Amiga OS in WinUAE)
>So they love Windows now.

No. More than DirectX is needed to make a good OS, just my opinion, you have yours.

But perhaps windows only needs kernel+desktop+++++++ to be replaced to do some Amiga look & feel.


about DirectX ....

We have been talking many times about reimplementing AGA in SW, so that it's effects can be generated by using some modern fast CPU or via HW acceleration using modern GPU.
Perhaps DirectX is closer to that than CGX in MorphOS or P96 in AmigaOS4?

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

@pavlor

whatever was used on marketing or manuals people started software from workbench after booting amiga. OS was not so important because amiga was unique because of hardware. Familiar (if you look at old magazines) are Kickstart, Workbench and the names of the different amiga models. That might have changed with PPC later without real unique hardware but it was certainly the case until 1994 (the timeframe when most users left the platform)

@OlafS25

IMO, to see the greatness of the OS one needed to upgrade the HW.
With two disk drives and 1Mb RAM one started to suspect there's more to explore...
With 3Mb and a hard drive ... 10 year timewarp in computer usability.

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

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Strange. In this thread someone talked about prototypes after the Commodore demise, and now it seems that no one existed... AAA is only new Commodore chipset in prototype stage I know. Hombre went no further than concept design.

And the Walker was just a graphic concept made by an artist, I suppose...
Quote:

Quote: Talk is cheap, but I prefer FACTs, as you know. You know, facts is not something I would search in your writings...

I've absolutely no problem accepting it, since your lack of technical knowledge makes not possible to find them, a priori.
Quote:

Only fact we have: in 1994, AAA was not ready and was not AA compatible. Dreaming now about possible design changes is waste of time. However, it is your time.

The AAA first silicon wasn't a dream, and you don't change a chipset design from night to day. In fact, it was in the testing phase.
Quote:

Quote: Since you're entrenching yourself behind empty words, it's quite evident that you're not even able to understand my technical FACTs... And result? Nothing. As of your "facts", see my answer above. Next.

You can find the results at amigacoding.de albeit your problem is that you're unable to understand them.
Quote:

Quote: The Macintosh required even much less (128KB), but had similar issues. I don't call both them good design only because of the lower memory requirement. Comparing "MacOS" and AmigaOS this way? Well, that speaks about your "competence".

You've written a sentence, and I gave you a correct reply. If you don't like it, well, I don't care, since it's quite clear that you prefer to hide yourself with childish jokes when you aren't able to continue the discussion due to an evident lack of (technical) knowledge.
Quote:

Quote: I fail to see the common, legal, heritage between a Commodore USA's Amiga and an AmigaOne rebranded Teron board... Amiga license from the very same source? That makes them "relatives".

Brothers in different licenseS: Amiga and AmigaOne.
Quote:

Quote: Only because the founder died. But he had the time to give to the world brand and branded new Amigas. At least he fulfilled some of his promises, unlike others.

Sure: many users are still waiting for the announced PowerPC laptop...
Quote:

Quote: I already reported that the SAM machines "got" the AmigaONE 500 brand, well after such agreement. Which is obvious...

No, since even after the agreement you had and have SAMs and SAMs + AmigaOne500 stickers. In fact, the previously sold SAMs didn't magically became AmigaONE 500 after the agreement. AND SAMs boards are still sold without such label.
Quote:

Quote: That's because OS4 does NOT require a computer with such brand, as the history clearly proved. Of course, that is very outcome of said Settlement Agreement.

See above: even after that, there are still machines WITHOUT the AmigaOne label, which are sold and can run OS4.
Quote:

Quote: No machines anymore, and a machine cannot magically become an "Amiga" only because the o.s. runs on it. Ah, now I see difference in our opinions: the very definition of "Amiga". For me, it is anything with Amiga brand, your definition seems to be far more restricting.

No, at least here we are aligned: Amiga is what it has the LEGAL right to be called using that trademark.
Quote:

Quote: Otherwise even DraCo has to be considered an Amiga, a PC with Amithlon, and a PC with (Win)UAE too... As for my definition above, Amiga Forever is valid licensed Amiga brand.

Same for me, but a PC using the Amiga Forever package doesn't become an Amiga, exactly like an PC + PowerPC on which runs OS4...
Quote:

Quote: Well, it's the only MACHINE which is and can be called Amiga... Small correction: which was. It is not produced anymore. Unlike others, I was never hater of CommodoreUSA. They even managed to join again Commodore and Amiga brands!

Well, I don't see any other Amiga machine after the one from Commodore USA.
Quote:

Quote: I know: we discussed A LOT of the naming argument, in another thread, and reporting several FACTs. Yes, I remember your "facts". Quite amusing to hear about it from you again...

I was referring to all facts that were reported on such thread. So, now I've acquired that what you reported cannot be classified as FACT.
Quote:

Quote: coherency is not your strong point: Expert opinion?

Absolutely. I don't complain about past discussions about an argument, AND then repeatedly continue, even reporting some facts ooops, sorry, not facts: just ideas, as you confirmed that in the previous discussion you didn't reported facts.

In fact, I stopped questioning regarding the name of the o.s., since the previous discussion exausted the argument.

But you can continue to do it, even after your:

"Oh no, not again!"

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: @cdimauro >>-to use co-procesors, like paula and PPC nicely from the Amiga OS >Not nicely: the o.s. only supported its custom hardware. I reconsider if I should have said: "Amiga OS did not stop people from using..." It's anyway nicer than what other OS did at the time.

The o.s. didn't gave support to other audio chips. In fact, you needed ad-hoc applications for custom sound cards.
Quote:

+ with Aos, if a card did not have driver in it's autoconfig ROM, you just had to drag driver file to a folder & doubleclick or reboot. Harder to drag & drop or plug & play with MSDOS of that era. +

Sure: that was a great advantage. It took time for PCs to have a similar feature, with the PCI standard.
Quote:

adding dsp to decode audio needed just a file in a folder etc..

Like for audio, you required ad-hoc applications to use such DSP, since the o.s. had not even knowledge about it.
Quote:

>>-to use multiple GPUs, audio cards at the same time, nicely from Amiga OS >Same as above. There have been amiga audio station with 4...7 sunries industries multichannel audio cards. Worked fully in sync with paula + housefull of MIDI HW. (at the time CBM died, so the audio station was scrapped)

See above: with dedicated applications.
Quote:

>And BTW is it possible to support multiple monitors? WB can not be spread to more monitors. Different screen per monitor works. It needs tricks to tell the OS not to blank "inactive screen".

AFAIK the Amiga o.s. supported only one View at the time.
Quote:

Initially, in late 80's, it was normal that only some application(s) did their output via some selected GPU card(s).

An application doesn't need to select a GPU for its output. Even because a GPU can have several outputs. Or you can have external cards too (through USB, Firewire, or Thunderbolt).
Quote:

3 cards + AGA has been the max amount of display outputs I have seen myself on a big box 68k Amiga.

Can you use all of them at the same time?
Quote:

(Perhaps not having RTG natively in OS was an advantage in this rare example.) When third party GFX cards and drivers do not collide, one can have many displays.

At the same time?

Anyway, autoconfig should solve conflicts, right?
Quote:

>>...blitter for audio mixing... >...that it's much slower than ... I do not remember details. It was a leading demogroup programmer that once told about it. IIRC, they did also 0,9Mbit/s transfer via serial port on A500. Insane guys.

Even for using the Blitter for such purpose.

The problem here is that if you want to mix multiple samples on one channel, you don't need only to "merge" samples, but you've to take care of the frequency of each sample, and "scale" it properly to the frequency chosen for the channel.

That's something that the Blitter cannot do it, in no way.

I know it because for USA Racing (never released) I was working to an 8 channels mod player, so I had to solve such problems (albeit there were some glitches on the current mixing routine, which produced some "pops"; I know the root cause and how to fix it, but the project was dropped and I'd no interest on continuing it).
Quote:

>>-then even PPC instead of 68k as the main processor >In such case, you're running a completely new o.s.. If an OS is "just" recompiled to another CPU, it becomes a new OS? If one codeline of an OS is changed and then recompiled, is it a new OS?

No, I was just saying that when you use the PowerPC as your main processor, basically you have a new system, since the old (68K based) is turned off.
Quote:

AOS2.1 did break some AOS1.3 compatibility. Is that a good example of new o.s?

Ehm... no. Since it wasn't a problem of the new o.s., but of the badly written applications which had dependency against the 1.3 version.
Quote:

>>(then Amigans did DirectX for Windows to enable fast Amiga OS in WinUAE) >So they love Windows now. No. More than DirectX is needed to make a good OS, just my opinion, you have yours.

I haven't talked about good oses, but only of "love".
Quote:

But perhaps windows only needs kernel+desktop+++++++ to be replaced to do some Amiga look & feel.

Only a desktop replacement is needed.
Quote:

about DirectX .... We have been talking many times about reimplementing AGA in SW, so that it's effects can be generated by using some modern fast CPU or via HW acceleration using modern GPU.

That only works on the CPU side, if you want an accurate emulation.

A planar-to-chunky conversion of the Amiga screen can be offloaded to a GPU, but an Amiga View (look at the capital letter) isn't made only of bitplanes: you need to emulate Copper, sprites, and even the CPU can write on the custom registers altering the behavior of the display.
Quote:

Perhaps DirectX is closer to that than CGX in MorphOS or P96 in AmigaOS4?

No, they are all similar.

@cdimauro

-I know it because for USA Racing (never released) I was working to an 8 channels mod player, so I had to solve such problems (albeit there were some glitches on the current mixing routine, which produced some "pops"; I know the root cause and how to fix it, but the project was dropped and I'd no interest on continuing it).-

i wonder what destroyed development motivation?

_________________
nox's in the house!

@noXLar: when I and my graphic artist left the company, we had little time to invest on the project, because I decided to continue with the university, and he started a new company (doing some other stuff). After some months I had to do the civil service (military or civil service was mandatory in Italy, at the time), so I was completely blocked for around 13 months. When I went back it was the middle of '97, and the Amiga market was substantially gone. So we lost interest on continuing the project and we decided to drop it, instead of trying a port to the PC (which required A LOT of rework too), and completely leave the videogame field.

Last but not least, after some month the video section of my Amiga 1200 stopped working at all (no video output was available), and that put the stone on my (real) Amiga experience after 10 years...

@cdimauro

okay, understand.. too bad it wasn't released.

_________________
nox's in the house!

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Leo Quote: Actually Village Tronic was selling Amiga 3.1 Roms + Disks and was already calling it "Amiga OS 3.1" in march 1995, a few months before Escom bought Commodore. Correct. However, some dispute legality of this release.

Well, some dispute legality of MorphOS, and I am sure that some dispute legality of OS4 too. The simple point is that it was never legally challanged. Anyhow, it was the legality that was disputed, not the name.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@noXLar

Quote:

noXLar wrote: @cdimauro okay, understand.. too bad it wasn't released.

Another reason was that it required A LOT of work for the graphic artist. Consider that a single track was a virtual (tile mapped) screen made of 8192x65536 pixels, using a set of 640 32x32 tiles (with 32 colors). That's even if the target was a "normal" Amiga 500 (with 1MB of memory).

The idea was to create an incredibly vast gaming area. But, in the end, it resulted in a big failure due to the enormous (human) resources needed to complete it.

@cdimauro

>adding dsp to decode audio needed just a file in a folder etc..
>Like for audio, you required ad-hoc applications to use such DSP, since the o.s. had not even knowledge about it.

IIRC, all mpega.library supporting apps were able to USE the DSP without knowing it. So OS provided library system.

>>There have been amiga audio station with 4...7 sunries industries multichannel audio cards. Worked fully in sync with paula + housefull of MIDI HW.
(at the time CBM died, so the audio station was scrapped)
>See above: with dedicated applications

All audio applications that supported retargetable audio/MIDI & asyncio.library.

>>Initially, in late 80's, it was normal that only some application(s) did their output via some selected GPU card(s).
>An application doesn't need to select a GPU for its output. ...

But in late 80's (or y1990) the situation was like I said. To use accelerated 24bit graphics you used special applications for dual monitor output on Amiga.

>>3 cards + AGA has been the max amount of display outputs I have seen myself on a big box 68k Amiga.
>Can you use all of them at the same time?

Yes.
One example with three monitors: http://saku.bbs.fi/lehti/online/uusi/ajankohtaiset/kuvat/20v_vk09_3piv.jpg

>>We have been talking many times about reimplementing AGA in SW, so that it's effects can be generated by using some modern fast CPU or via HW acceleration using modern GPU.
>That only works on the CPU side, if you want an accurate emulation.

I would want the effects not accurate emulation. ((actually I'm not THAT interested in old AGA, JanusUAE way is pretty OK))

(if CPU+chipset is not inside one emulator, like UAE, it's not accurate anyways)


UPDATE:
This is the maximum of GPUs spotted on an 68k Amiga:
CV64+CV643D+Picasso IV+Retina+CVPPC + AGA
"All in a big tower with 7 Zorro 3."
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7475&forum=11

Last edited by KimmoK on 21-Aug-2015 at 10:09 AM.

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

@cdimauro

Quote:

the video section of my Amiga 1200 stopped working at all

A real Amigan would have repaired it

That time reparations were possible, at least in Rome.

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1