@number6

Quote:

conclude what you will.Seems exceptionally clear that someone was trying to gauge interest, no?Done in a similar way as Adam, through proper channels.

Yes I read that. Wasn't a long version at the start of this thread?

It does look like someone was trying to gauge interest. Sounding like an Apollo 440. The hardware Bill spoke about sondss exciting. Perhaps a competitor to the Eee PC? Running AmigaOS instead of Linux.

@Turrican3

Quote:

Understood now (but please be patient, remember I'm no native English speaker)

Oh, I can be patient, but I'm glad you told me. I was starting to blame myself!

Quote:

Well, to be honest I somehow respect Escom; IMHO it was the last IP owner who actually tried to build custom HW, in line with the Amiga legacy/philosophy. Hey, they even had Dave Haynie on-board. After that we have Jim Collas' dreams and then... well, McBill & Co. Bah!

Yes, good point. What I didn't like was the attitude I was hearing about in the retail Escom shoips with salespeople turning people off the Amigas and telling them to buy a PC.

Quote:

But talking about A1200's I can hardly blame them: at the time IIRC they just wanted to resume production of well known models, as soon as possible. I guess that if they wanted to improve something this would have taken more time.

Yes, true. I think the next point of call would have to get an AAA machine out the door. That and improove the A4000 with a reduced price. A "PC" without 31KHz Amiga output/VGA gfx/network card/HD floppy for $4000 bucks! Crazy!!

Quote:

Hmm, IIRC actually it wasn't Paula running at double speed: maximum sound playback frequency was simply tied to video in the Amiga architecture, so with a 31KHz mode like VGA you were able to play samples at double the speed of traditional PAL/NTSC 15KHz modes. Maybe this is not the most technical (and correct!) explanation of how things worked, but I have to clarify that this is what I remember having read many, many years ago in the documentation of a popular sound player (EaglePlayer or Delitracker I th

Yes, that makes sense now. I know what samples could go above 28KHz up to 56HKz.

Amiga video isn't exact either. My VGA monitor says my A1200 outputs 15.5KHz at 58.xHz IIRC.

@Hypex

Quote:

The hardware Bill spoke about sondss exciting.

I haven't the time to download and read the long doc you point to, so I don't know what hardware you refer to, sorry.

Upon re-reading the last page I think you may be confused.
There were "2" mac projects, not 1.

I commented on both.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 18-Jul-2008 at 06:06 PM.

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

@michalsc

Quote:

Some questions? ;)

Thanks for all the links. Still reading.

Okay now I see what it is all about. SystemV and the others SystemX's aren't about a specific single ABI for each CPU, it is an ABI version tailored for each CPU. So, although SystemV for x86 and PPC differ, they sill share the standard ABI for that CPU. So, this means, as long a code is generated to conform to the one ABI, the compiler can generate code specific to each CPU according to how it is defined in the ABI.

I guuess it's kind of how Linux can have x86 and PPC versions of apps. I think I made this more complicated than it sounds.

Quote:

huh?

GRUB: You know when it starts and says what it is doing, can you put in a custo boot message instead? I mean, so when a GRUBby floppy boots, it can cleat the screen and print "Welcome to AROS" or something.

Quote:

It does not follow slbv2. SLB is a closed source proprietary code and I know nothing about. Ub2lb uses it's own configuration file, called menu.lst, which follows the spec of GRUB menu file.

Okay.

Quote:

It even if you would write proper menu.lst file for ub2lb, it would not know what to do with OS4 kernel actually. Since I do not own OS4 I have no knowledge on loading OS4 and it's kmods. Of course, I would have nothing against adding OS4 load support.BTW. Even if ub2lb would be able to load OS4, it would fail immediately since the PPC4x0 family of processors is, in case of supervisor mode, incompatible with 604/G3/G4.

That's understandable.

Quote:

AmigaOne had a hardware issue. The ArticaS chip used there contains so called "floating buffer" inside. This part of chip is responsible for traffic maintenance between CPU, memory and PCI bus (including AGP). It should maximize the bandwidth. As a bonus, floating buffer was supposed to maintain the cache coherency. It was supposed to be smart enough to merge the "updates" coming from several devices which occur even within one line of cache (eg. cpu updating bytes 0-3 and PCI device updating bytes 4-7 of

Ah, yes, mentioned as iMemory fault recovery and Patented Floating Buffer. Sounds like it woukd have been good to put standard non-ECC non-reg dimms in memory slots but it didn't work as well as that.

Quote:

In case of AMCC440, the cache incoherency is a well known fact. Do not forget, that this chip is meant for embedded systems, where every spared microwatt of energy and every hundred transistors removed from CPU core do matter. Here, I just have to deal with it.

They just love to give you more work I think.

Quote:

Well, automatic update and flush of caches done in CPU core logic would be much much better of course. Well, it seems I can live with it, even if I need to do massive flushes and invalidate some bits of cache quite often.

Ouch! Well it gives Sam440 owners a better Amiga experience than just running Linux. I think your work would be appreciated. It's not like "you can play with Linux on the Sam 400 and EUAE for now until OS4 is released". That might not never happen. Well done.

@number6

Quote:

I haven't the time to download and read the long doc you point to, so I don't know what hardware you refer to, sorry.

The one in the link from your last reply! So you linked it without reading it? It only takes a couple of minutes or three.

Quote:

Upon re-reading the last page I think you may be confused. There were "2" mac projects, not 1. I commented on both.

I must be! I only saw mention of one Mac project someone wasn't wanting to share about at first. I also saw 405 and 440. Now, I don't know about the 405, it sounded like another CPU.

The 405 isn't a Mac thing? Apart from that I didn't see two Mac projects mentioned. For someone who hasn't read the long doc you surely know a lot about this! What was the other Mac project?

@Hypex

I'll quote post #s and hopefully that will clarify this for you.

#217 is a comment regarding the irc conference that yes...is part of the information available in the document in post#1 of this thread.
That is about Acube.

#213, which is somewhat of a restatement of #130, contains quotes from yet earlier posts on AW about ACK and -his- efforts with Mac.

source thread from 2006

These are 2 different things.

Since Adam has written publically both on AW and irc about this, I hardly need to read what someone claims in a legal document about whether Mac had been looked at prior to the Acube documentation. We already have that info. Hence my comment about not having to read the link in post#1.

More understandable or no?

Quote:

The one in the link from your last reply! So you linked it without reading it? It only takes a couple of minutes or three.

Heh! I'm on dialup, so no...it would take longer than that, due the need to get the doc before reading it.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 19-Jul-2008 at 01:22 PM.
Last edited by number6 on 19-Jul-2008 at 01:05 PM.
Last edited by number6 on 19-Jul-2008 at 01:05 PM.

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

@number6

Quote:

I'll quote post #s and hopefully that will clarify this for you.#217 is a comment regarding the irc conference that yes...is part of the information available in the document in post#1 of this thread.That is about Acube.#213, which is somewhat of a restatement of #130, contains quotes from yet earlier posts on AW about ACK and -his- efforts with Mac.source thread from 2006

Oh I see now what your getting at. I must have missed those ones about ACK.

Quote:

These are 2 different things.Since Adam has written publically both on AW and irc about this, I hardly need to read what someone claims in a legal document about whether Mac had been looked at prior to the Acube documentation. We already have that info. Hence my comment about not having to read the link in post#1.More understandable or no?

Yes, I understand now. Thankyou. NOW I'm up with the latest. Or oldest.

Quote:

Heh! I'm on dialup, so no...it would take longer than that, due the need to get the doc before reading it.

I was going to say then a couple of minutes to load and a a couple of minutes to read. But the file I am talking about, which you linked to me, is under 30K so should take you just over five seconds to load!

@All

Please forgive my ignorance(and reluctance to wade thru 12 pages of posts)

But how goes it?

Is moana working effectively on macmini(on proper rom versions of course)?

Thx in advance for the summary

- Dazza

_________________
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

I serve King Jesus.
What/who do you serve?

@Barana

Quote:

Please forgive my ignorance(and reluctance to wade thru 12 pages of posts)But how goes it?

Stuck with legal issues in court as usual. Summary? It looks like Amiga want OS4 and the source code so they can sell licenses and get it produced for different hardware.

Quote:

Is moana working effectively on macmini(on proper rom versions of course)?Thx in advance for the summary

Well I hear it is working but not entirely stable. It was getting there. It also looked like Amiga wanted to get it out but are "letting" Hyperion hold them up by not releasing the source code.

@Hypex

Quote:

It looks like Amiga want OS4 and the source code so they can sell licenses and get it produced for different hardware.

They've either said no to (AHT and Acube) or completely ignored everyone who has tried to get a license from them so far. I simply do not believe this is what Amiga wants. I dont' know what they do want, but Amiga Inc wanting to license and make money from AmigaOS, that really just sounds silly to me today.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@billt

Quote:

They've either said no to (AHT and Acube) or completely ignored everyone who has tried to get a license from them so far

TBH I did wonder if those IRC logs were fabricated.

Quote:

I simply do not believe this is what Amiga wants. I dont' know what they do want, but Amiga Inc wanting to license and make money from AmigaOS, that really just sounds silly to me today.

I can believe the "make money" part, even though it wouldn't be much right now. What I find hard to believe is the "Amiga Inc wanting to license... AmigaOS" part. To me right now it seems silly.

@Hypex

Quote:

It looks like Amiga want OS4 and the source code so they can sell licenses and get it produced for different hardware.

I don't know what Amiga is in business for, lets say for a sec its AA2, which even then seems iffy to me. But it hardly seems like they have plans to do anything with OS4 IMHO. Lets remember they claim OS 5 has been in development for years. They claim its much better than OSX. And beyond that they definately paint a public picture of AA2 being the future beyond traditional operationg systems. They claim they have sixty something employees in India, etc. Where are the sales and of what one must wonder to support these salaries? And one could not very easily take the ACK hardware announcements seriously given prior product claims that did not come to fuition. And with the Kent Arena deal blown, don't they still have a need for a live test-bed environment? Odd they haven't secured any other public venue isn't it? Troels even claims that they said they have a modern browser for OS4 that they are witholding, that must have taken a lot of man hours to make if really done. I suppose its possible they have a bunch of private contracting programming jobs and thats how they make their money, and in turn maybe they really have this globe-spanning enterprise, India, New Zeleand, Washington State, England, etc like they say. And in such a case they are greatly misunderstood by many. But does this seem like the most logical scenario? To me, no.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-Jul-2008 at 04:32 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 23-Jul-2008 at 04:31 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback



Right now I'd say it is easy for them to work on AA2 and OS5. Since it has no issues with 3rd parties. I don't see any stories about certain companies holding up development of AmigaAnywhere. For them OS4 would have to be a thorn in their side because they can't do anything with it. But the "Amiga" software you can buy for your multiple-choice Windows device grows on.

It would be easiest for Amiga and in their best interests an an IT company to simply forget about OS4 and concentrate on using the Amiga name with the thing they call OS5. But for some reason this game of OS4 goes on. Hardware. Software. By issuing it out to 3rd parties in the first place shows it wasn't in their main interest but to somehow make us "low hanging fruit" pickers happy.

And as ever it goes on. What I think should have been done is to get a company like Eyetech to organise the hardware with an Amiga mind. But to employ the OS4 team directly and not through Hyperion where it would end up in disaster. That or for Amiga to do as they did but just collect royalties or license fees from Hyperion for sales. And be able to freely license any hardware and company interested in OS4 and then like the software model say to Hyperion, "Got some new hardware for you to support." Amiga collects the license and when the hardware is released collect on the OS/hardware sales.

But, right now, with OS4 in limbo and Hyperion active on it, it will be a while still before Amiga's honestly is proven that they really wanted tot get OS4 and hardware out for us and other markets for them. Or they they were playing the run around and the Windows software on the Amiga site tells the whole story.

Last edited by Hypex on 26-Jul-2008 at 11:05 AM.

@All

Anything from merlancia is very questionable.

Quote:

http://merlancia.us/amiga-hyperion/35-5decmcewenexhibit5show_case_doc.pdf

_________________
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

I serve King Jesus.
What/who do you serve?

@fairlanefastback
Quote:

Where are the sales and of what one must wonder to support these salaries?

Who knows? Amiga Inc. is part of a conglomerate of companies. Right now, they could be seen perhaps as a R&D department for some investors. They might already have deals to bring software to cell phones, for instance (does anyone have a Windows CE cellphone with one of their apps?). If they plan a big thing, and funds are low, they have to proceed very slowly, and it might be that the investors don't care about the speed with which development takes place, only about the cost.

If you have some technology that might revolutionize the market in the future, one of the options is of course to keep it secret and work on it until the opportunity arrives.

In the cell phone market, they soon have to compete with Android (although developers seem to have some problem with Google there; recently, it has shown that Android is not as open as it was said to be and that some developers with NDAs received better versions of the SDK than the free developers).

Android (due to its GNU heritage) has the facilities to be used on many platforms. Windows CE is still considered too large for some cell phone manufacturers. Android makes use of the large library of GNU software, which could result in some interesting devices.

Sun tried to enter the device market with JavaOS and JINI, but has failed so far (with a portable Java OS). However, they were wildly successful with J2ME on cellphones and PDAs. With the open-sourcing of Java (OpenJava), the possibility is now there to create OSes which are written in Java.

OS 5, if what we know about it is true, could also be used as an alternative OS for cell phones and PDAs. What its true strengths are, we do not know, since there's no public specification list for OS 5. Probably, because AInc. fears reimplementation by competitors.

AA2 is comparable to J2ME in the sense that it provides a unified API for applications. As McEwen said in the AA2 FAQ on the website, this could come in handy later on when OS 5 becomes available.

The big battles for the embedded device market have not really begun yet ...

There's also an upcoming battle for the desktop. Linux has proven that it's possible to create an alternative OS and be successful with it, even outside corporate structures. Windows XP and Vista did and do scare away many Microsoft customers. And some are indeed looking for alternatives. The numbers may look insignificant when compared to the total number of Windows licenses worldwide, but the numbers are high enough to create new markets.

Last edited by voyager2007 on 26-Jul-2008 at 02:22 PM.
Last edited by voyager2007 on 26-Jul-2008 at 02:21 PM.
Last edited by voyager2007 on 26-Jul-2008 at 02:19 PM.