@Bosanac

Are you saying Geert Wilders far right rhetoric is rooted in deep insecurity and self-loathing? Could be.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@geen_naam

Quote:

Amiga NGs where created to run AmigaOS4.1

Is that a fact? Let's see. Teron systems. Preexisting evaluation hardware, ran Linux first. X1000 Ran Linux first. Also, you're saying it was created with a 64-bit capable, multi core CPU in order to run a 32-bit, single core OS? And what was Xorro for?

The fair to say the only OS that has ever ran properly on the x1000 hardware is Linux.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@geen_naam

Quote:

Racist entered the chat. Trolling is fun. Fundamentalisme is fine. But racism is where I draw a line. This is even lower than Moobunny. Goodbye

A Dutchman waving the white flag. Never saw that coming at all. Famous for not being cowards the Dutch are.

Oh hang on…

@Karlos

Quote:

Are you saying Geert Wilders far right rhetoric is rooted in deep insecurity and self-loathing? Could be.

He identifies as Dutch. Transracials are natives too you bigot!

@geen_naam

Quote:

Because who doesn't want to be Dutch

Anyone who can get to live in an Anglo country.

@cdimauro

Quote:

It's too late: it was perfectly legit to disable/enable the multitasking and even the interrupts.

I don't know why they dragged it along 20 years ago. Then 10 years ago or so wonder how to work around it. They needed a new API.

Quote:

Plus, most of the software is now available only in binary form, so it can't be patched.

That would go for 68K as well as PPC and OS4.

Quote:

Amiga, as a platform, is well defined and we've to take it as it is.

It was. Since it never was able to become anything different. I do recall reading about talks Amiga magazines had about what an Amiga was. And if different hardware with different chips would still be an Amiga. We know Commodore were planning this but we'll never know the result. Would an Amiga computer that wasn't an Amiga as we knew it be accepted as an Amiga in a new Amiga generation? If the history post Commodore is anything to go then it would suggest that no it would not be accepted, it must boot 880K floppies on a 68K CPU and have planar graphics. Commodore fans would not have bought into the latest Amiga generation, because it wasn't a real Amiga despite the awesome specs, and demand they bring back the Colt so they can buy a real Commdore PC.

Apple fans wouldn't think like this about what makes a Mac. By the same token a PPC, Intel and Arm Macs are not real Macs. The only real Mac is a 68K and that's final.

These days however, with hardware not what it was, or lasting like it did. Nor manufactured like it was. A name has become a label. With less concentration under the hood. And more brand recognition. This goes for whitegoods, silvergoods, mowers, cars and computers. Had the Amiga survived with an awesome replacement it likely would have ended up as a PC now without special chips any more. Oh no I used that PC term. But, it would have been a fun ride, such is computer life.

Quote:

If you want something more then it's better to define another platform, even greatly inspired to Amiga, but which will be different and running different software.

I wonder what Commodore would have called the Amiga follow up? Amiga C65?

After some years I have my own name. I'm thinking the AmigaOne could have been called an Amigos. But not as a plural, referring to one machine. The Amigos would be inspired by the Amiga, similar in idea, but also different. The Amigos would reflect how it is like the Amiga but focuses more on the OS. AmigaOS. Thus, it's symbolised in the name, it's like Amiga but instead designed to run AmigaOS. Like how the last Amigas had RTG and other expansions that out a focus on AmigaOS. It is between worlds. This continues the way of the last Amiga by being made in the image of Amiga and running AmigaOS. Thus, it is called, the Amigos.

Quote:

It's RISC-V, not RISC-IV.

I don't know why I kept doing that. Lol. I would have uses StarTrek movies as an excuse, being in my head, but there is both IV and V there as well.

Quote:

POWER has no competitor because it's another dying horse, like PowerPC: it has absolutely no appealing point / features compared to the other CPUs, besides a software library and support which are coming since some decades.

A few years ago it was still relevant or still existed. A software library won't last with a CPU redesign, unless it's more stable than PPC, which his plagued with incompatibility. The latest Debian and Ubuntu do how ever still support it in PPC64intEL mode.

I've heard of a large software base as a reason to still use CP/M today. Which apparently has a million programs. Well, a million old programs in black and white is a million reasons why I'm not interested. Being a rather visual person when it came to computers, since my first micro computers has colour graphics, and I had no idea what a terminal was something like CP/M looked old and quaint to me. I recall reading this article, about how exciting it would be to run CP/M programs on my Commodore C16. I'm like what? No it wouldn't! Why would I want to some old boring looking programs with no colour on my computer with 121 colours? Are you nuts! As a C16 user we have had no software, and I literally had no productivity software, but we weren't t that desperate!

Quote:

By masking the data which isn't used (and should be left untouched).

I imagine so but it still looks fiddly. It would also need to be strictly ASM. Well, 68K is the same really that way, since it needs to be atomic on 68K as well and ASM will do that.

Quote:

It's not only about Forbid/Permit and Disable/Enable: it's about ANY code which is touching their specific counters which should be intercepted and treated accordingly.

I'm not sure what they've done about that. 68K code can touch the Exec count. But, on the PPC side, it still needs to be atomic or it's not threadsafe so to speak.

Quote:

Which means: FORGET IT! It's too hard work because there's simply too much software which did it (and it was LEGIT!).

Right now they are working on ways to reimplement the old mechanisms. I don't know how. I can think of a few ways.

1. Defer a Forbid lock, put task in wait queue, then process all in next task switch interrupt.
2. Trigger a Cause and run code in soft interrupt, which is higher than task and lower than hard interrupt.
3. Given a Forbid should execute quickly, and if a task still has quantum it would have executed in the quantum, simply let it do its work and switch it out after the lock.

Of course, these are not without flaws. Such as it would need to be known where lock code starts and ends. But it seems to me the best place would be inside an interrupt where it needs to do housekeeping. Of course the cores then need to operate in parallel without conflict. And the main problem is to avoid cores holding each other up.

Quote:

Wrong: the last P4s were 64 bits.

So they were. I would expected such a major change to end up as new model. Of course it didn't last long since they would adopt AMD64.

Quote:

What's consistent with the Amiga o.s. is that it was written by geeks which made what for them were local optimal choices for solving a specific problem. And with the hurry to finish the work ASAP because of the deadline.

Sorry I meant *inconsistent* with BYTE in Forbid count and WORD in library count.

Quote:

This lead to so many bad design decisions, unfortunately.

It is. I look at other OS like Linux, inspired by Unix, and wonder how it ended up on top. I mean, the terminal looks olds fashioned and the API is full of lower case functions as are commands. I know I'm only looking surface deep but the Amiga looks so much neater with Capitals used in function names and commands. Unfortunately it also needed to be neat underneath and expandable.

Quote:

Guess why the Amiga o.s. was so lightweight: it's because it completely lacked any protection / abstraction. Do you need something? Do it! Everything is public and you can do whatever you want (well, there were some guidelines, but that's very little stuff compared to the "openess" of the platform).

And, ironically, it was designed to have memory protection and be more like Unix with similar path structure. But instead we got Tripos. Or Tripe some would say. I find it hard to imagine as Tripos became the DOS layer and Exec was still the kernel layer. But protection would need to be built into the kernel. That said I do like how AmigaDOS turned out. It has it's quirks. But internally it looks like a hack, using a node name to point to a DOS packet or something. No wonder it went wrong!

Quote:

And not only that: Reymond's blog is simply a mine full of wonderful things to discover!

That I've yet to see.

@Hypex

An Amiga is whatever the owners of the Amiga trademark say it is. That’s it.

edit:

https://github.com/davidgiven/cpm65 Enjoy! 😊

Last edited by Bosanac on 08-Dec-2023 at 03:14 PM.

@cdimauro

Quote:

History does NOT rely on the definitions of anyone: if there are FACTs which allow to determine precise definitions, then we have the definitions and we should use them.

Ah, that was in the good old times of the 19.th/20th century historiography, when facts were paramount and their interpretation served some big story. Now stories are fractured, facts secondary and everybody and their dog has their own interpretations and definitions. How I miss those good times!

@geen_naam

Quote:

You agree that AmigaOS4 is AmigaOS.

I agree with this.

Quote:

And only machines where the OS was specifically made for is a real amiga.

I don't agree with this.

Amiga OS4 runs on Amiga hardware, e.g. A3000, A4000, A1200 provided there is a PPC accelerator fitted. It also runs on non-Amiga hardware, e.g. AmigaOne, X1000, etc.

Whether that hardware was built to run the OS itself, is irrelevant. All it means is that you have a purpose-built compatible machine that can run Amiga OS. The Draco was doing that way before anyone had even thought to put a binary incompatible CPU into the equation.

Is the Draco an Amiga? No. It's a compatible. Does that mean it's not awesome? No.

Quote:

- The AmigaOS4 for the X1000 runs on no machine other then the AmigaONE X1000. It's kernel is specifically made for the X1000. So the X1000 is an amiga and not an amiga compatible

Incorrect. See above.

The X1000 runs Linux, ran Linux before the OS4 kernel was ever booted on it and Linux is still the only OS that actually runs the hardware to its full potential (addressable memory, SMP). This is because, except for the CPU, it is a reasonably standard hardware configuration made from off the shelf PC components.

Quote:

- The AmigaOS4 for the X5000 runs on no machine other then the AmigaONE x5000. It's kernel is specifically made for the X5000. So the X5000 is an amiga and not an amiga compatible

Incorrect. See above.

The X5000 runs Linux, ran Linux before the OS4 kernel was ever booted on it and Linux is still the only OS that actually runs the hardware to its full potential (addressable memory, SMP). This is because, except for the CPU, it is a reasonably standard hardware configuration made from off the shelf PC components.

Quote:

- The AmigaOS4 for the A1222 runs on no machine other then the AmigaONE A1222. It's kernel is specifically made for the A1222. So the A1222 is an amiga and not an amiga compatible

Incorrect. See above.

The chances are that the A1222 will run Linux before OS4 is ever booted on it and that Linux will be the only OS that actually runs the hardware to its full potential (addressable memory, SMP). This is because, except for the CPU, it will be a reasonably standard hardware configuration made from off the shelf PC components.

The A1222 deserves a special mention for also not being fully binary compatible with the preceding NG machines by virtue of using an incompatible FPU. The least compatible... compatible.

Going back your point:

Quote:

...only machines where the OS was specifically made for is a real amiga

The examples you give are of machines intended to run OS4, which existed before they did, so it's invalid to claim the "OS was specifically made for them". It wasn't. The kernel was tuned.

The only machines that run Amiga OS while simultaneously predating the 4.x iteration are, to nobody's surprise, Amiga. The A3000, A4000 and A1200.

Last edited by Karlos on 08-Dec-2023 at 04:58 PM.
Last edited by Karlos on 08-Dec-2023 at 04:43 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

Hypex Quote:

It was. Since it never was able to become anything different. I do recall reading about talks Amiga magazines had about what an Amiga was. And if different hardware with different chips would still be an Amiga. We know Commodore were planning this but we'll never know the result. Would an Amiga computer that wasn't an Amiga as we knew it be accepted as an Amiga in a new Amiga generation? If the history post Commodore is anything to go then it would suggest that no it would not be accepted, it must boot 880K floppies on a 68K CPU and have planar graphics. Commodore fans would not have bought into the latest Amiga generation, because it wasn't a real Amiga despite the awesome specs, and demand they bring back the Colt so they can buy a real Commdore PC.

An Amiga is whatever the owner of the Amiga trademark says it is. The definition of an Amiga in the Hardware reference Manual is what it was at the date it was published according to the Amiga trademark owner which made it valid. AmigaOne hardware is not Amiga hardware but "AmigaOne" hardware. Amiga Inc. deliberately withheld full "Amiga" branding and the original contract/license was restrictive of the use of "AmigaOne", "AmigaOS" and the Boing Ball. The contract/license was aggressively renegotiated when Amiga Inc. was under financial distress at the time of Pentti Kouri's death resulting in very favorable terms for Hyperion who's majority shareholder lawyer wrote the contract. Amiga branding was still not allowed and one of the few remaining license restrictions was that IP ownership could not be challenged. The people who really need to avoid calling an AmigaOne or other AmigaOS 4 hardware an Amiga are the employees of businesses that license Amiga IP with a no challenge of ownership clause. It looks like there has been some questionable marketing already that could be argued as a challenge of ownership.

THEA500 Mini has shown that a 68k CPU with 880kiB floppy is not necessary to be accepted as Amiga compatible anyway. Supporting .adf and .iso formats is a good start although an option for a retro I/O board would appeal to hardcore retro Amiga users. The emulation of the 68k CPU+chipset, lack of the AmigaOS and lack of Amiga branding is cringe worthy but eye candy and a reasonable price made up enough to be accepted by hundreds of thousands of Amiga users. There is a lot of room for improvement but THEA500 Mini showed the way.

Hypex Quote:

Apple fans wouldn't think like this about what makes a Mac. By the same token a PPC, Intel and Arm Macs are not real Macs. The only real Mac is a 68K and that's final.

New Macs are very different and barely if at all compatible with the old Macs but Apple holds the trademark allowing the branding of their choice. MacOS or Mac OS is almost completely different from original to now. Apple has the naming privileges as owner. They could use MacOS on non-Mac hardware and that hardware would only be a Mac if they named it a Mac. They tend to use other branding like iOS, iPadOS, tvOS and watchOS but all these different OSs have similarities, share modules and run on ARM today. It's nice to have a modular OS that scales to a small footprint. They could call that Apple Anywhere or Apple Everywhere in contrast to the Amiga Nowhere and AmigaNOne in Amiga Neverland.

Bosanac Quote:

An Amiga is whatever the owners of the Amiga trademark say it is. That’s it.

Beat me to it.

A PC is whatever the owners of the PC trademark say it is.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

https://www.quora.com/Is-PC-a-copyrighted-term

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

@kolla

Well that's nobody because PC isn't trademarked. I believe IBM tried in the early days, but it was a generic initialism in common use even then.

Since the conversation has moved on to trademarks, the Amiga is what the trademark owners decided it at the time it was in production (the aforementioned machines designed and built by Commodore). No PPC/NG group has ever held the Amiga trademark, so hardware vendors in those areas definitely don't get to decide what an Amiga is.

I find the "brand" definition about as appealing as the "identity politics" definition, but the above are still facts.

Last edited by Karlos on 08-Dec-2023 at 07:24 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

kolla Quote:

A PC is whatever the owners of the PC trademark say it is.

IBM doesn't hold it as even the IBM-PC trademark is abandoned.

https://trademarks.justia.com/745/20/ibm-pc-74520581.html

Couldn't it be argued that IBM-PC is synonymous with "PC" and thus the trademark owner should have control over "PC" and "Personal Computer" too? Is Hyperion filing for the trademark now that I pointed this out?

It's worth noting that Commodore was considering the Windows NT kernel for the proposed PA RISC Hombre generation machines.

As the then trademark holders, Commodore would have been able to tell you the Amiga was a PA-RISC based machine running Windows NT (though in principle it could just have been the kernel with a different shell), with no backwards compatibility at all. There was the notion of a single-chip 68K/AGA implementation for that purpose.

I can imagine how well some people would take that.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Hypex

Quote:

The RAM. Well I do recall there were things like GVP RAM and special zip RAM. Depending on board. This was obviously the hardware setup of the RAM. My DKB1240 in my A1200, had the first RAM chips I installed in an Amiga, and it took standard 72 pin simms. The hardest part of buying this RAM, only since I bought it second hand at a swap meet, was convincing the guy I only needed one. Because PC needed two at once to work and he really didn't want to sell lone. Lol.

Yeh, but exceptions was expensive.

If the A500 did use sims, it won’t have helped me, as had AGNUS, so it can’t address it anyway, need upgrade to FAT AGNUS to get additional 512kb of slow memory, as that only possible on A500+ model, it slow mem because memory is mapped to custom chip, but can’t be used by OCS, so again need a ECS chipset to make use of additional chip memory. Using WB with only 512kb of chip mem was painful, even with additional, 512kb fast memory in the trap door.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 09-Dec-2023 at 10:19 AM.

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

Karlos Quote:

It's worth noting that Commodore was considering the Windows NT kernel for the proposed PA RISC Hombre generation machines. As the then trademark holders, Commodore would have been able to tell you the Amiga was a PA-RISC based machine running Windows NT (though in principle it could just have been the kernel with a different shell), with no backwards compatibility at all. There was the notion of a single-chip 68K/AGA implementation for that purpose.

The Amiga 3000UX looks like it boots into Unix by default but it has an AmigaOS partition.

Amiga 3000UX - dual booting Amix (Amiga Unix) and AmigaOS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSg3A4KQ6uA

Unix boot time is 2 minutes and 10 seconds while the AmigaOS boot time is 10 seconds. Unix side displays several Amiga texts while booting.

The Amiga 3000UX is an Amiga with Unix as default. The trademark owner can do that although radical renaming can backfire and not be well received by customers. The Amiga 3000UX is tasteful and almost like advertising the Amiga. Commodore should have made a Mac compatible Amiga like this too.

Thank y’all. So with noone having any official saying on what a PC is, a PC can also be an Amiga. Btw, current Hyperion OS3 series says in EULA that the OS is "legal" to run on any computer for which there some time in history existed a legal variant of AmigaOS. Which essentially means *ANY* computer. So then all computers are also Amiga.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@thread

Woah, that escalated quickly.

Usually I come back the next day, and at most there's a new page in a thread.
@Karlos must have been in good humor to entertain an obvious troll past the ppcamiga1 threshold of interaction.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@agami

That's Karlos Van NG to you. I await my Dutch citizenship and identity documents any day now.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...