@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @umisef 512 bytes per block, I remember recovering floppy disk on Amiga 500

The RDB is defined for other block sizes, too.

Quote:

anyway, I figured it out by just looking at raw data, it's not precisely rocket science. my RDB code is part of Basilsik II.

There is a difference between handling a particular RDB (or, more generally, RDBs generated by particular (finite set of) programs), and generic RDB handling. The latter needs to be based on the specification, with added allowances for popular specification-violating programs (in which case, tolerant behaviour compatible with scsi.device's tolerant behaviour is called for)

For example, the RDB can be anywhere in the first 16 (IIRC) blocks. It can link any number of filesystems, all of which need to be loaded by the friggin' hard disk driver. I seem to recall that partition definitions weren't without some "unexpected flexibility", either, although details are lost to the fogs of memory.

@cdimauro

Sorry for belated reply, I was outside internet for few days.

Quote:

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

What great new chipset you have in mind here?

Quote:

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

I see your historical knowledge is almost as good as my technical experience.

Quote:

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.

This only confirms my point: was not ready and was not AA compatible...

Quote:

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

Can I take this as another excuse for your "words without deeds"?

Quote:

You've written a sentence, and I gave you a correct reply.

Yes?

Quote:

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.

Argumentum ad hominem? From you, this is an honor.

Quote:

Brothers in different licenseS: Amiga and AmigaOne.

From the same "mother"...

Quote:

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

Or TiNa.

Quote:

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.

At last something substantial we can discuss. SAM460 is motherboard, A1-500 complete system from A-Cube. I see nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

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

Again, I don´t see any problem in it - such situation is there at least since Draco (we discussed this few pages ago, so we are going in circles ). You may have Amiga branded computers or motherboards-alone for your own configuration. I still struggle to get your point there (not a surprise...).

Quote:

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...

Amiga.Inc and/or Cloanto may have other opinion.

Quote:

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

That is logical by your definition of "Amiga".

Quote:

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.

As I was referring directly to YOUR facts, I take it you assumed my facts as yours. I see great progress in you.

Quote:

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

Wise move.


@others

This thread moves so fast, it will be hard for me to adapt again to its pace. My post is probably out of current context of this thread, but I think it is unpolite to not answer post pointed to me, even post from cdimauro.

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @cdimauro Quote: UBoot is GPLed, so I expect that the changed sources will be made available, to let other users build it on their own. Sure, the changes, except for the OS4 booting stuff.

If it's part of UBoot, it should be release due to the GPL license, which is viral as you should know (and that's why I do NOT like it).
Quote:

Quote: Why not? Linux, for example, supports the FFS. It does. But Linux isn't a firmware. Except in a router where it's loaded by the bootloader. Does EFI know what RDB is? My point was a firmware, BIOS, EFI, or whatever being able to read RDB itself.

My point is that UBoot can be used to boot Linux, instead of OS4, because Linux has support for Amiga filesystems (SFS too, if I remember correctly).

@broadblues

Quote:

broadblues wrote: @cdimauro They have different ModeIDs for each card.

OK, now everything makes sense. Thanks for the info!

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Sorry for belated reply, I was outside internet for few days.

No need to sorry: it's normal.
Quote:

Quote: And the Walker was just a graphic concept made by an artist, I suppose... What great new chipset you have in mind here?

Nothing: it was just a prototype.

But it seems there was a prototype with some custom hardware, the Amiga MCC.
Quote:

Quote: I've absolutely no problem accepting it, since your lack of technical knowledge makes not possible to find them, a priori. I see your historical knowledge is almost as good as my technical experience.

That's a Red Herring fallacy, pavlor.

As I already stated, you're unable to even understand my technical writings, so the only thing that it's left to use is trying to distract from them, changing the argument.
Quote:

Quote: 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. This only confirms my point: was not ready

I already stated that it wasn't ready. In that specific part, I only replied regarding your statement about possible design changes, which weren't likely due to the much advanced status of the chipset.
Quote:

and was not AA compatible...

As I already reported, that was by INTENTION, since the only officially published hardware details were from OCS or ECS chipset.

Unless you can report the same for the AGA chipset, the Commodore decision was correct.
Quote:

Quote: You can find the results at amigacoding.de albeit your problem is that you're unable to understand them. Can I take this as another excuse for your "words without deeds"?

I produced deeds, since my task was to design the new architecture and provide technical writings about how it should have been worked.

In fact, I'm NOT a VHDL or Verilog coder neither I'm a electrical or electronic engineer.

You should know that, when working at a project, different peoples have different roles. That was mine: describe how the new hardware should have worked. As I already stated, you can find all my writings at amigacoding.de , which cover ALL aspects of the hardware.

If you have something to say against them, you're free to take some writings and show were I was wrong.
Quote:

Quote: You've written a sentence, and I gave you a correct reply. Yes?

Yes.
Quote:

Quote: 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. Argumentum ad hominem? From you, this is an honor.

There's no logical fallacy: I exactly reported your behavior. You're unable to understand my technical writings, so you prefer the completely change argument, starting joking instead of give a correct reply to the give, precise, argument.

That's what usually happens with you.

But you can prove that I'm wrong, by clearly showing why my Macitosh answer wasn't correct, eh! I can't wait.
Quote:

Quote: Brothers in different licenseS: Amiga and AmigaOne. From the same "mother"...

Which means nothing.
Quote:

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

Sure. One of the many failings. Or not even a failing: vaporware was more correct.
Quote:

Quote: 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. At last something substantial we can discuss. SAM460 is motherboard, A1-500 complete system from A-Cube. I see nothing wrong with that.

The thing is simple: you have new systems that can be used to run OS4, but which have NO AmigaOne sticker...
Quote:

Quote: See above: even after that, there are still machines WITHOUT the AmigaOne label, which are sold and can run OS4. Again, I don´t see any problem in it - such situation is there at least since Draco (we discussed this few pages ago, so we are going in circles ). You may have Amiga branded computers or motherboards-alone for your own configuration. I still struggle to get your point there (not a surprise...).

See above. The thing is quite simple, and basically I was agreeing with you: what is left is only the o.s., which can run on a machine which isn't an Amiga an not even an AmigaOne.
Quote:

Quote: 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... Amiga.Inc and/or Cloanto may have other opinion.

Sure. Everybody here has an OWN opinion. Facts are different, however, and you can show me a machine which runs Amiga Forever and can be sold as an "Amiga".
Quote:

Quote: Well, I don't see any other Amiga machine after the one from Commodore USA. That is logical by your definition of "Amiga".

No, it was also your definition: what LEGALLY can be called as Amiga. Have you changed your mind in the meanwhile?
Quote:

Quote: 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. As I was referring directly to YOUR facts, I take it you assumed my facts as yours. I see great progress in you.

Well, you denied the presence of facts, and since I've reported ones, it's clear that you were referring to yours.

But if you think that mine weren't facts, well, you can show it. Jokes aren't allowed, of course.
Quote:

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

Thanks. Maybe some other people can follow.

@cdimauro

Quote:

But it seems there was a prototype with some custom hardware, the Amiga MCC.

It is really hard not to smile when reading this. There is no verification any hardware was even in design stage. Concept case designs is all what left of this Amiga NG project.

Quote:

As I already stated, you're unable to even understand my technical writings

Your posting above about Amiga MMC confirms my statement about your historical knowledge. As our current talk is mainly about Amiga history, deficiencies in this field seriously hinder reasonable discussion. Not this is any problem for either of us.

Quote:

I already stated that it wasn't ready. In that specific part, I only replied regarding your statement about possible design changes, which weren't likely due to the much advanced status of the chipset.

Thanks for confirmation.

Quote:

As I already reported, that was by INTENTION

Correct.

Quote:

Unless you can report the same for the AGA chipset, the Commodore decision was correct.

Losing immediate 2+ years of compatibility would be suicidal for Commodore. Such decision was sensible for 1992 release, but would be great burden in 1994+.

Quote:

If you have something to say against them, you're free to take some writings and show were I was wrong.

I still remember your great words when TiNa was first announced. Such ambitions, such self-confidence. When I voiced my concerns (which come true...), you used the very same arguments like now... Today, I see you still there in this forum boasting about your "knowledge" and "experience". Amusing.

TiNa was story of failure, but it seems you didn´t learn your lesson.

Quote:

Which means nothing.

I thought we should hold mothers in higher esteem.

Quote:

The thing is simple: you have new systems that can be used to run OS4, but which have NO AmigaOne sticker...

And your point?

Quote:

See above. The thing is quite simple, and basically I was agreeing with you: what is left is only the o.s., which can run on a machine which isn't an Amiga an not even an AmigaOne.

And this is bad?
Still can´t get your point.

Quote:

Sure. Everybody here has an OWN opinion. Facts are different, however, and you can show me a machine which runs Amiga Forever and can be sold as an "Amiga".

Opinion of Cloanto and Amiga.Inc is paramount in this regard. But yes, you know better...

Quote:

No, it was also your definition: what LEGALLY can be called as Amiga. Have you changed your mind in the meanwhile?

I have no problem calling AmigaOne Amiga (like Bill McEwen himself did). As of marketing of AmigaOne computers, this is concern of respective parties (Amiga.Inc, Hyperion) based on clear legal background: 2009 Settlement Agreement, which explicitly mentions what Amiga brands can be used by whom. As I consider AmigaOne Amiga brand and all products bearing Amiga brand as Amiga, and pointing to Amiga.Inc using this very same logic with AmigaOS in its dispute with Cloanto, I don´t see any problem there.

Quote:

Well, you denied the presence of facts, and since I've reported ones, it's clear that you were referring to yours.

My memory could be broken, but I certainly used "your facts" in post 348.

Quote:

you can show it

Walls of text we both write here aren´t enough?

Quote:

Jokes aren't allowed, of course.

Hard is life without fun...

@pavlor

Quote:

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).

Sorry. Late to your enthralling discussion (evil grin)

Quote:

The AmigaOne is a licenced zico specification which uses PPC explicitly for the purposes of running the AmigaOS4 family of products. Amiga has never said AmigaOS4 would run on x86 flavour or any other flavour zico devices. Just to make it clear. fleecy moss cto Amiga Inc.

Source:Amigaone newsgroup

#6

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

@number6

Quote:

Sorry. Late to your enthralling discussion (evil grin)

Thanks for taking part.


At that time, they still dreamed about AmigaDE, OS4 should be only stop-gap solution for Amiga community. As usual, nothing more of their plans became reality.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: But it seems there was a prototype with some custom hardware, the Amiga MCC. It is really hard not to smile when reading this. There is no verification any hardware was even in design stage. Concept case designs is all what left of this Amiga NG project.

So, no prototype?
Quote:

Quote: As I already stated, you're unable to even understand my technical writings Your posting above about Amiga MMC confirms my statement about your historical knowledge. As our current talk is mainly about Amiga history, deficiencies in this field seriously hinder reasonable discussion. Not this is any problem for either of us.

I see that you like a lot logical fallacies, replying to completely different things when the argument was another one.

Technical stuff? Not pavlor domain... Fallacies and jokes are better, right?
Quote:

Quote: Unless you can report the same for the AGA chipset, the Commodore decision was correct. Losing immediate 2+ years of compatibility would be suicidal for Commodore. Such decision was sensible for 1992 release, but would be great burden in 1994+.

First, that's a completely different thing.

Second, how much AGA machines were sold? Compared to OCS and ECS, of course.

Third, the AGA software which uses the o.s. can work without problems.
Quote:

Quote: If you have something to say against them, you're free to take some writings and show were I was wrong. I still remember your great words when TiNa was first announced. Such ambitions, such self-confidence. When I voiced my concerns (which come true...), you used the very same arguments like now... Today, I see you still there in this forum boasting about your "knowledge" and "experience". Amusing. TiNa was story of failure, but it seems you didn´t learn your lesson.

Again, you like a lot logical fallacies, trying to change the argument of the discussion, because you're not able to reply otherwise.

My technical writings are there, and were evaluated by "peers" which are expert on that field.

That has nothing to do with the success or failure of TiNA. Logic at hand. But we know that logic is not your friend, and you prefer fallacies, instead...
Quote:

Quote: Which means nothing. I thought we should hold mothers in higher esteem.

You talk to a Sicilian.

Nevertheless, it doesn't change the things.
Quote:

Quote: The thing is simple: you have new systems that can be used to run OS4, but which have NO AmigaOne sticker... And your point?

Only the o.s. is left, as I stated.
Quote:

Quote: See above. The thing is quite simple, and basically I was agreeing with you: what is left is only the o.s., which can run on a machine which isn't an Amiga an not even an AmigaOne. And this is bad? Still can´t get your point.

See above. The point is that only the o.s. is left, and machines on which it runs means nothing.
Quote:

Quote: Sure. Everybody here has an OWN opinion. Facts are different, however, and you can show me a machine which runs Amiga Forever and can be sold as an "Amiga". Opinion of Cloanto and Amiga.Inc is paramount in this regard. But yes, you know better...

I think lawyers know even better how is the situation.
Quote:

Quote: No, it was also your definition: what LEGALLY can be called as Amiga. Have you changed your mind in the meanwhile? I have no problem calling AmigaOne Amiga (like Bill McEwen himself did). As of marketing of AmigaOne computers, this is concern of respective parties (Amiga.Inc, Hyperion) based on clear legal background: 2009 Settlement Agreement, which explicitly mentions what Amiga brands can be used by whom. As I consider AmigaOne Amiga brand and all products bearing Amiga brand as Amiga, and pointing to Amiga.Inc using this very same logic with AmigaOS in its dispute with Cloanto, I don´t see any problem there.

Now you fall back to your personal feelings, which is quite different from the LEGAL terms.
Quote:

Quote: Well, you denied the presence of facts, and since I've reported ones, it's clear that you were referring to yours. My memory could be broken, but I certainly used "your facts" in post 348.

Sorry, I've not time to very them now. My family is waiting me: ubi major, minor cessat.
Quote:

Quote: you can show it Walls of text we both write here aren´t enough?

I prefer... ehr... facts.
Quote:

Quote: Jokes aren't allowed, of course. Hard is life without fun...

The problem is when correct answers are missing, and you use only jokes... and logical fallacies.

@umisef

Quote:

Hyperion (who distributed the updated binaries) was unwilling to provide the sources/toolchain.

There was also a UBoot 1.1.4 IIRC that escaped. It was a WIP with things like splash screen bitmap support but was abandoned and never saw an official release.

Quote:

Which brings up the question what license grants Hyperion the right to distributed the U-Boot authors' code.

This is interesting because Hyperion is known for it's lawyers. Or one at least has been associated with Hyperion in popular use.

Quote:

Hmmm, can U-Boot handle just a limited number of file systems, or can one include filesystem code hooked from the RDB and have U-Boot use that code?

It depends on the boot method. Inside UBoot it is called Linux Boot or Amiga Multiboot. AFAIK, by itself UBoot doesn't use a filesystem but will load a UBoot runable ELF or a UBoot boot image suitable for loading kernel and ramdisk.

The exception to this is the Amiga Multiboot method which scans for an RDB and then the answer can be yes because boota or the FLB will load boot code from the RDB (called A1 booter) than can read filesystems. Usually this is the SLB which can read FFS2 or SFS as well as Ext2/3 for Linux. Codewise, it's just another UBoot executable. The Parthenope project AKA ub2lb is a good example of this. I use a modified form of this as a bootblock on my A1 Linux CD boot images to present a boot menu from an autoboot CD.

@Hypex

Quote:

There was also a UBoot 1.1.4 IIRC that escaped. It was a WIP with things like splash screen bitmap support but was abandoned and never saw an official release.

Chronologically there was also V1.2 escaping first.

Source

#6

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

@cdimauro

Quote:

If it's part of UBoot, it should be release due to the GPL license, which is viral as you should know (and that's why I do NOT like it).

Yes, it would be good to see it released.

We also saw a previous link about Hans-Joerg not liking the dongle idea and myself complaining about buggy CD booting in the same thread. That heated up for a while.

As a comparison, the Pegasos can also now boot OS4, which has no dongle code. But at the same time the amigaboot.of bootloader doesn't like any other OS and makes it hard to multiboot. Compared to SLB supporting OS4 and Linux it comes across as slighly racist.

Quote:

My point is that UBoot can be used to boot Linux, instead of OS4, because Linux has support for Amiga filesystems (SFS too, if I remember correctly).

Yes I saw your point. I was just keeping to the original subject of firmware with "Amiga" code to read an RDB.

Regarding SFS I read of a filesystem but failed to install it on my X1000 Linux. Forget why. Either no deb pkg or no compatible source.

@cdimauro

Quote:

So, no prototype?

Nothing I know about.

Quote:

jokes are better, right?

Do you know better answer to nonesense?

Quote:

Second, how much AGA machines were sold? Compared to OCS and ECS, of course.

Quote:

Third, the AGA software which uses the o.s. can work without problems.

This would left 2(+) years library of games behind (what AGA games work on RTG?). Main domain of Amiga was video games market, lack of compatibility wouldn´t help mediocre chipset like AAA in 1994(+).

Quote:

My technical writings are there, and were evaluated by "peers" which are expert on that field.

Again, too many words, too few deeds...

Quote:

That has nothing to do with the success or failure of TiNA.

This very reason of my argument. I question your judgment, I question your compentence.

Quote:

You talk to a Sicilian.

Ah, good to know.

Quote:

Nevertheless, it doesn't change the things.

That AmigaOne and Amiga Mini are relatives? Then we both agree.

Quote:

Only the o.s. is left, as I stated.

From original Amiga, without doubt.

Quote:

See above. The point is that only the o.s. is left, and machines on which it runs means nothing.

Then we (again!) aren´t in mutual disagreement. AmigaOS - thanks to HAL etc. - can run both on Amiga branded and other hardware. I see this as great improvement of AmigaOS 4 - no more chipset and 68k dependency.

Quote:

I think lawyers know even better how is the situation.

Lawyers know whom they serve. My original statement ("Opinion of Cloanto and Amiga.Inc is paramount in this regard") stays valid. Of course, Bill McEwen may pay lawyers to deprive him of any remaining Amiga rights, but (I hope) even he wouldn´t do such madness.

Quote:

Now you fall back to your personal feelings, which is quite different from the LEGAL terms.

Read again...

Quote:

Sorry, I've not time to very them now. My family is waiting me: ubi major, minor cessat.

Then don´t waste your time with me! (only joking of course)

Quote:

I prefer... ehr... facts.

Well, yes "facts".

Quote:

The problem is when correct answers are missing, and you use only jokes... and logical fallacies.

Maybe you should look from another angle?

Adversus solem ne loquitor

@umisef

Quote:

There is a difference between handling a particular RDB (or, more generally, RDBs generated by particular (finite set of) programs), and generic RDB handling. The latter needs to be based on the specification, with added allowances for popular specification-violating programs (in which case, tolerant behaviour compatible with scsi.device's tolerant behaviour is called for)

I only need it to compliant with media toolbox, yes I do scan for a RDB block, (if I remember correct). I only need to read a RDB (to find partition to dump my mac partition on it), thank god (if he exist), I don't need to make a RDB. To make RDB I need to know to probe for disk geometry and so on, I have no clues about that (I think, or maybe I do ), I only use what the RDB provided.

That same is true for UBOOT, it only needs to know where to look for SLB2. (sure there might be code in SLB2 that check CRC or something, to prevent it from work on systems that do not have correct UBOOT, I don't know), even so SLB2 is not big, its simple to reverse engineer, for some one with the skills, then again the protection code might be in the kickstart.

In any case, RDB partition table is supported by Linux kernel as well, there are lots of open source code to look at.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 24-Aug-2015 at 06:40 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 24-Aug-2015 at 06:39 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 24-Aug-2015 at 06:21 PM.

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

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @cdimauro Quote: If it's part of UBoot, it should be release due to the GPL license, which is viral as you should know (and that's why I do NOT like it). Yes, it would be good to see it released.

The thing here is that it has to, according to the license. If some legal from the FSF is made aware of that, something very bad can happen.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: jokes are better, right? Do you know better answer to nonesense?

Absolutely. I think it's normal, since you're not able to understand that technical stuff, so that's the only way that you have to "reply"...
Quote:

Quote: Second, how much AGA machines were sold? Compared to OCS and ECS, of course. Quote: Third, the AGA software which uses the o.s. can work without problems. This would left 2(+) years library of games behind (what AGA games work on RTG?). Main domain of Amiga was video games market, lack of compatibility wouldn´t help mediocre chipset like AAA in 1994(+).

If needed, a conversion from AAA to AA would have been easy.
Quote:

Quote: My technical writings are there, and were evaluated by "peers" which are expert on that field. Again, too many words, too few deeds...

What's not clear to you is that my technical writings ("words") ARE the deeds that you are talking about.

But the problem is, as usual, the same: since you don't understand them, they are "words" for you.

That's why you continue to make jokes: it's a the only reply that you can do here.
Quote:

Quote: That has nothing to do with the success or failure of TiNA. This very reason of my argument. I question your judgment, I question your compentence.

Well, in that case you can PROVE it. The writings are at amigacoding.de , and you can show me that they are a fruit of incompetence, right?

The "thesis" that I'm not competent is your, so the burden of proof is your, as logic states.

Citing the failure of TiNA as a "proof" is another logical fallacy, as usual: Poisoning the well. But we know that you're so much used to love them...
Quote:

Quote: Nevertheless, it doesn't change the things. That AmigaOne and Amiga Mini are relatives? Then we both agree.

Only by legal trademarks.
Quote:

Quote: See above. The point is that only the o.s. is left, and machines on which it runs means nothing. Then we (again!) aren´t in mutual disagreement. AmigaOS - thanks to HAL etc. - can run both on Amiga branded and other hardware. I see this as great improvement of AmigaOS 4 - no more chipset and 68k dependency.

That's not fully true, since OS4 needs some 68K code, because it wasn't fully ported to PowerPC.
Quote:

Quote: I think lawyers know even better how is the situation. Lawyers know whom they serve. My original statement ("Opinion of Cloanto and Amiga.Inc is paramount in this regard") stays valid. Of course, Bill McEwen may pay lawyers to deprive him of any remaining Amiga rights, but (I hope) even he wouldn´t do such madness.

It's not McEwan, but the infamous Agreement that creates problems. That's why Commodore USA wasn't able to use AROS as its o.s. AND use the Amiga term.
Quote:

Quote: Now you fall back to your personal feelings, which is quite different from the LEGAL terms. Read again...

I did it.
Quote:

Quote: Sorry, I've not time to very them now. My family is waiting me: ubi major, minor cessat. Then don´t waste your time with me! (only joking of course)

We saw some nice movies, thanks. And now I've to shutdown the PC because the kid has to sleep...
Quote:

Quote: I prefer... ehr... facts. Well, yes "facts".

Exactly. Until someone stops to do the clown and prove that they are not.
Quote:

Quote: The problem is when correct answers are missing, and you use only jokes... and logical fallacies. Maybe you should look from another angle? Adversus solem ne loquitor

You're right: I'm asking too much...

@cdimauro

Quote:

Absolutely. I think it's normal, since you're not able to understand that technical stuff, so that's the only way that you have to "reply"...

By your higher command, I started learning "technical stuff", maybe it is good time for you to learn some Amiga history. After all, that is what we discuss here, not "technical stuff".

Quote:

If needed, a conversion from AAA to AA would have been easy.

Easy in what time frame? Even 1 year more is too much...

Quote:

That's why you continue to make jokes: it's a the only reply that you can do here.

It is only reply worth of your "deeds".

Quote:

Citing the failure of TiNA as a "proof" is another logical fallacy

After such failure, you still boast your competence? Thanks for confirming my point.

Quote:

Only by legal trademarks.

I feel, it was really hard for you to admit their relationship.

Quote:

That's not fully true, since OS4 needs some 68K code, because it wasn't fully ported to PowerPC.

I don´t think any AmigaOne has 68k CPU. To be more serious, ARexx is only crucial component not ported to PowerPC (legal reasons). There are other like Cirrus drivers or IconEdit, but these are hardly important.

Quote:

It's not McEwan, but the infamous Agreement that creates problems. That's why Commodore USA wasn't able to use AROS as its o.s. AND use the Amiga term.

True.

Quote:

I did it.

Try harder.

Quote:

And now I've to shutdown the PC because the kid has to sleep...

Good night from fellow troll!

Quote:

Exactly. Until someone stops to do the clown and prove that they are not.

Evading reply? Hey, that´s my job!

Quote:

You're right: I'm asking too much...

I share your feeling...

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Absolutely. I think it's normal, since you're not able to understand that technical stuff, so that's the only way that you have to "reply"... By your higher command, I started learning "technical stuff", maybe it is good time for you to learn some Amiga history. After all, that is what we discuss here, not "technical stuff".

We discussed also of technical stuff here. If you haven't recognized that, well, what you've learned, if you've learned something, didn't help you.

Regarding me, I've some knowledge of the Amiga history. I fill the gaps when I encounter them.

But you cannot use the same method with technical stuff, because you need a technical background first.
Quote:

Quote: If needed, a conversion from AAA to AA would have been easy. Easy in what time frame? Even 1 year more is too much...

Converting from AAA to AA isn't that easy, not even spending 10 years. But maybe your acquired technical knowledge can help to clarify how. I'm quite interested to see the explanation.

Converting from AA to AAA, instead, is fairly simple if had the chance to directly program the hardware, because AA was a very bad patch over ECS, whereas AAA is a piece of cake to program. Only some days would have required for a quick port (only have the game running under AAA hardware).

But that wasn't possible, because new Commodore's guidelines clearly stated that the only way to access to the new AAA hardware features would have been through the o.s. (using version 4.0 and its RTG APIs). So, no direct access and using the o.s. was mandatory. Something that you cannot do in some days, but some weeks were required with the same goal as above (only have the game running under AAA: no new graphic/audio/features).

However the only problem that I see here is regarding the sprite multiplexing over a raster line technique that was used by some games. AFAIK this was NOT allowed anymore with AAA, so for emulating the same staff some different reorganization of the graphic engine would have required.
Quote:

Quote: That's why you continue to make jokes: it's a the only reply that you can do here. It is only reply worth of your "deeds".

That's your problem, not mine. You cannot confute my writings with "not worth do to it". Again, logic requires proofs, not just empty words...
Quote:

Quote: Citing the failure of TiNA as a "proof" is another logical fallacy After such failure, you still boast your competence? Thanks for confirming my point.

The only thing which I see, again, is your logical fallacies and your complete ineptitude to give a proper reply to my writings.

But, as you already stated, you're learning some technical stuff, albeit there's no single fruit seen 'til now...
Quote:

Quote: Only by legal trademarks. I feel, it was really hard for you to admit their relationship.

I never had problems with legal stuff.
Quote:

Quote: That's not fully true, since OS4 needs some 68K code, because it wasn't fully ported to PowerPC. I don´t think any AmigaOne has 68k CPU.

In fact, I never talked of a 68K CPU. I only talked about 68K CODE...
Quote:

To be more serious, ARexx is only crucial component not ported to PowerPC (legal reasons).

Other Amiga-like o.ses had no such legal constraints, because there's nothing legal here, except rewriting the software.
Quote:

There are other like Cirrus drivers or IconEdit, but these are hardly important.

There's some other stuff left, but I don't remember now.
Quote:

Quote: I did it. Try harder.

Again. I see a mixture of legal and your personal ideas there. Guess what part I don't like and don't agree...

@cdimauro

Quote:

Regarding me, I've some knowledge of the Amiga history. I fill the gaps when I encounter them.

Still much to learn...

Quote:

But you cannot use the same method with technical stuff, because you need a technical background first.

Not, if you have capable enough advisors... As "history stuff" has always priority over "technical stuff" in our discussions, I wonder who of us need learn more.

Quote:

Only some days would have required for a quick port (only have the game running under AAA hardware).

Sorry for my limited "technology knowledge", but you mean software developers would port AA titles to AAA, not direct hardware support like in AA (for OCS/ECS)?

Quote:

That's your problem, not mine. You cannot confute my writings with "not worth do to it". Again, logic requires proofs, not just empty words...

Quote:

The only thing which I see, again, is your logical fallacies and your complete ineptitude to give a proper reply to my writings.

I admire your vigorous defense, but this only deepens scope of your failure. When someone uses his "technological background" as argument for failed design and few years later the same man uses the very same argument again, he can´t be taken seriously.

Quote:

In fact, I never talked of a 68K CPU. I only talked about 68K CODE...

Well, in my original post (393) I talked about 68k CPU, so we both basically agree here.

Quote:

Other Amiga-like o.ses had no such legal constraints, because there's nothing legal here, except rewriting the software.

How do you think ARexx works in MorphOS?

Quote:

There's some other stuff left, but I don't remember now.

As I wrote, these are hardly important.

Quote:

Again. I see a mixture of legal and your personal ideas there. Guess what part I don't like and don't agree...

Exactly, that is what I feel reading your statements. Our positions seem to be more close than ever.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Regarding me, I've some knowledge of the Amiga history. I fill the gaps when I encounter them. Still much to learn...

No problem.
Quote:

Quote: But you cannot use the same method with technical stuff, because you need a technical background first. Not, if you have capable enough advisors...

From what you've written 'til now, maybe it's better that you find some others...
Quote:

As "history stuff" has always priority over "technical stuff" in our discussions, I wonder who of us need learn more.

Don't mix oranges and apples: they are different things, and has to be treated differently.
Quote:

Quote: Only some days would have required for a quick port (only have the game running under AAA hardware). Sorry for my limited "technology knowledge", but you mean software developers would port AA titles to AAA, not direct hardware support like in AA (for OCS/ECS)?

I clearly stated which context it was:

"if had the chance to directly program the hardware"

Which wasn't the case, since Commodore didn't allowed it, except for the ECS registers set.
Quote:

Quote: That's your problem, not mine. You cannot confute my writings with "not worth do to it". Again, logic requires proofs, not just empty words... Quote: The only thing which I see, again, is your logical fallacies and your complete ineptitude to give a proper reply to my writings. I admire your vigorous defense, but this only deepens scope of your failure.

It's from several posts that I'm waiting you for showing such failure. Don't disappoint me now...
Quote:

When someone uses his "technological background" as argument for failed design

First, I talked about my technical WRITINGS. Of course, I have a technical background (I also coded Amiga games, BTW), but that's a different thing.

Second, can you show my where I failed with my design? But with technical facts: empty words aren't a "proof".
Quote:

and few years later the same man uses the very same argument again, he can´t be taken seriously.

I'm more than happy to see how did you connected the two things, and where I've put my technical background as a proof of anything.

So, please: QUOTE me and SHOW me everything. Otherwise I've to say that you're a liar...
Quote:

Quote: Other Amiga-like o.ses had no such legal constraints, because there's nothing legal here, except rewriting the software. How do you think ARexx works in MorphOS?

I don't know MorphOS, but AROS has nothing of that (it would have worked only for AROS/68K).

Anyway, it changes nothing: AREXX can be rewritten.