@Gunnar

Quote:

Gunnar wrote: @agami Can you help me understand what the "Amiga" part of it will be?

The same part as those which in Windows 11 are a continuation of Windows 3.x, and similarly as those which in macOS 14 are a continuation of System 7.x.
Like I said, we’re dealing with a fictional OS, so we can’t be super specific. You’ll have to use your imagination.

Earlier in this topic, the pro camp argued that while some of the Hardware found in the upper tier of AmigaOS 4 HW, such as multicore 64-bit CPU and PCIe GPU are ostensibly “NG�, the operating systems (AmigaOS 4, MorphOS, and AROS ABIv0) are not NG. Just like any Linux, Windows, or MacOS OS versions for single-core 32-bit CPU is also not NG.

Quote:

When I today compare Linux and Amiga OS, then I can very clearly see two very different ideals.

Because there is no actual Amiga NG OS, we find ourselves comparing the present with the past.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying things from the past, and even modernizing them to some respectful degree, but it is not right to compare Amiga OS 3.x et al to computing platforms available today.
Mainly because we don’t know how the Amiga OS might have evolved over the decades if it had continuation as the other mainstream personal computing operating systems have had.

Quote:

Linux - security with lots of abstractions and forbidding many things by design. Amiga - the opposite. Less secure but lots of coding freedom and slim by design. So which one do you want?

I believe a balance can be struck between security and freedom, but there is no way to have early ‘90s levels of openness with 2020s levels of security.

Quote:

Or do you want Linux with Amiga icons?

I most certainly do not want that. While I am a fan of open source and architectures, I do not like most things about Linux’s architecture.

Last edited by agami on 21-Mar-2024 at 02:47 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: @agami Since the Amiga is now a hobby system and may never again reach millions of sales or sell more than Windows or macOS is abandoning its speed, elegance and lightweight design really necessarily?

I love you to bits, but Amiga is not a hobby system.

Sorry for getting pedantic on you, but one can enjoy retro computing as a hobby, which is different from a contemporary hobby system such as any SBC with an embedded OS or Linux. Or even LEGO Mindstorms.

Quote:

The Vampire V4 project really shows how relaunching a computer system with realistic goals should be done. Amiga does not have to be like Linux, Windows or macOS to succeed. A few hundred thousand sales would be nice in the Amiga market. Then people could enjoy their hobby more and developers might be able to make a little chicken scratch for a change. And it would be nice if the fighting for little crumbs in this market would end.

While I admire and support what the Apollo Team have done with 080 + SAGA based boards and standalone systems, they have yet to reach the “few hundred thousand� number you’ve indicated could make a potential developer’s discretionary time a little worth while.

Unfortunately, in today’s day and age a few hundred thousand is not going to cut it, unless they’re all active and semi-active users. As with most things it’s more about quality than quantity, so in reality one would need an install base of about 1M to have few hundred thousand active and semi-active users.

I think the stuff that @Gunnar and his team are working on has the potential to one day be the foundation of a new hobby system, and if I can I will contribute toward that goal, but we are not there today.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Again, what's not clear to you of what I've said before? I KNOW IT! And, on top of that, you should also CAREFULLY read AND understand what people write. When I clarified it, I reported also this: it's all about who owns the Amiga's IPs & brands. If the owner sells a toaster marketed as Amiga and I buy it, then I can say that I've an Amiga. This PLUS the definition in the Hardware Manual are, and should be, enough to clarify and classify what's an "Amiga". Finally clear now? Amiga Anywhere and AmigaDE had Amiga's name and it flopped hard.

Irrelevant, according to the CONTEXT of the discussion on that part.
Quote:

I'm NOT into supporting a product that attempts to fix Microsoft's lack of CPU abstraction layer with their Windows CE-based handhelds.

What you support or not is irrelevant as well.
Quote:

Windows CE on various RISC ISA families flopped like Windows NT non-x86 editions.

Windows CE was a success even on RISC families.

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @matthey, @Gunnar, @cdimauro I guess I should've made my statement a little clearer: As I was kind of staying on topic and talking about a "fictional" Amiga OS which is actually NG, which not only supports modern hardware systems and peripherals, but also has a modern architecture for usability and security; it would no longer be the lightweight Amiga OS 3.x or its facsimile AROS 68k. No free lunch, guys.

NG was/isn't modern, and a fictional Amiga OS which want to address some important issues wouldn't be an Amiga OS.

@agami

Quote:

The same part as those which in Windows 11 are a continuation of Windows 3.x, and similarly as those which in macOS 14 are a continuation of System 7.x.

I didn't know macOS and OSX had much in common with System 7. System 7 was dumped after OS9 for OSX which is completely different but sold to the same market, With Windows its easy to see a continuation including the CPU it was running on.

Quote:

Earlier in this topic, the pro camp argued that while some of the Hardware found in the upper tier of AmigaOS 4 HW, such as multicore 64-bit CPU and PCIe GPU are ostensibly “NG�, the operating systems (AmigaOS 4, MorphOS, and AROS ABIv0) are not NG. Just like any Linux, Windows, or MacOS OS versions for single-core 32-bit CPU is also not NG.

Well, if the upper tier is also limited to 16x PCIe, DDR3 and USB2, that wouldn't be classified as NG if I understand what NG means here.

But, is the meaning of NG here restricted to only being fully modern, comparable with modern OS?

This is the impression I get and I though I see why I don't think such high standards should be measured against AmigaOS. For example, using AmigaOS3.9 on my A1200, compared to OS4.0 on my XE and OS4.1 on my X1000 are worlds apart. Even taking the OS it is definitely a NG OS compared to what it was built from. Some things need more moving forward like Workbench but OS4 against OS3 is definitely an NG leap. I think it's a misunderstanding of "NG" to compare it with Windows 11 x64 on a Ryzen and claim it's not NG against it which looks ridiculous. Obviously NG refers to generations of AmigaOS and not the rest of world. What would be LG? Last generation. Amiga 68k and AmigaOS3 obviously are the LG in this NG context. AmigaOS4 could be considered CG. Current generation. However AmigaOS4 could also be called SG. Second generation. Because they do refer Exec as just that. ExecSG.

There we go. Throw off he NG label of confusion. The AmigaOne and AmigaOS4 is the SG!

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @agami Quote: The same part as those which in Windows 11 are a continuation of Windows 3.x, and similarly as those which in macOS 14 are a continuation of System 7.x. I didn't know macOS and OSX had much in common with System 7. System 7 was dumped after OS9 for OSX which is completely different but sold to the same market,

Yes. OS X had different APIs, but it supported also the old ones and "classic" applications ran on a single cooperative process.
Quote:

With Windows its easy to see a continuation including the CPU it was running on.

Exactly and it's impressive.

Some years ago I saw a video of a PC with Windows 1.0 running a Win16 application (I don't recall now which one) which was able to run up to Windows Vista, by subsequently upgrading the OS up to that version. It was unbelievable, but... that's the result of a designing an OS with proper abstractions & APIs.
Quote:

Quote: Earlier in this topic, the pro camp argued that while some of the Hardware found in the upper tier of AmigaOS 4 HW, such as multicore 64-bit CPU and PCIe GPU are ostensibly “NG�, the operating systems (AmigaOS 4, MorphOS, and AROS ABIv0) are not NG. Just like any Linux, Windows, or MacOS OS versions for single-core 32-bit CPU is also not NG. Well, if the upper tier is also limited to 16x PCIe, DDR3 and USB2, that wouldn't be classified as NG if I understand what NG means here. But, is the meaning of NG here restricted to only being fully modern, comparable with modern OS?

The question was all about the OS (which, of course, should be baked by proper hardware: you don't get 64-bit without a CPU which supports it, as well as SMP without multiple cores or, at least, hardware threads).
Quote:

This is the impression I get and I though I see why I don't think such high standards should be measured against AmigaOS. For example, using AmigaOS3.9 on my A1200, compared to OS4.0 on my XE and OS4.1 on my X1000 are worlds apart. Even taking the OS it is definitely a NG OS compared to what it was built from. Some things need more moving forward like Workbench but OS4 against OS3 is definitely an NG leap. I think it's a misunderstanding of "NG" to compare it with Windows 11 x64 on a Ryzen and claim it's not NG against it which looks ridiculous. Obviously NG refers to generations of AmigaOS and not the rest of world. What would be LG? Last generation. Amiga 68k and AmigaOS3 obviously are the LG in this NG context. AmigaOS4 could be considered CG. Current generation. However AmigaOS4 could also be called SG. Second generation. Because they do refer Exec as just that. ExecSG. There we go. Throw off he NG label of confusion. The AmigaOne and AmigaOS4 is the SG!

See my article: it's all about the FEATURES / PROPERTIES which are at the foundation of the OS.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Irrelevant, according to the CONTEXT of the discussion on that part.

The statement "If the owner sells a toaster marketed as Amiga and I buy it, then I can say that I've an Amiga" is a proven BULLSHIT!


Quote:

What you support or not is irrelevant as well.

The mainstream market agreed with me. Go bankrupt.

Quote:

Windows CE was a success even on RISC families.

Fact: Windows CE wasn't an enduring success when Google Android killed Microsoft's phone OS business.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@Hypex

[quote]AmigaOS4 could be considered CG. Current generation. However AmigaOS4 could also be called SG. Second generation. Because they do refer Exec as just that. ExecSG.[/quote

It is good.
Let's rename NG to SG.
And everyone will be happy.

Last edited by ppcamiga1 on 15-Apr-2024 at 03:57 PM.

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

It is good. Let's rename NG to SG. And everyone will be happy.

+1

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@ppcamiga1

No, let's just ignore that it ever happened like the rest of the world!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Irrelevant, according to the CONTEXT of the discussion on that part. The statement "If the owner sells a toaster marketed as Amiga and I buy it, then I can say that I've an Amiga" is a proven BULLSHIT!

Specify: FOR YOU! And only for you because you've no clue about what are IPs and how the law works for them.

So, my statement is absolutely, perfectly valid because that's how it works in the REAL world!
Quote:

Quote: What you support or not is irrelevant as well. The mainstream market agreed with me. Go bankrupt.

And... WHO CARES?!?
Quote:

Quote: Windows CE was a success even on RISC families. Fact: Windows CE wasn't an enduring success when Google Android killed Microsoft's phone OS business.

Fact: Symbian wasn't an enduring success when Google Android killed Nokia's phone OS business.

Guess what: it was THE (THE!) OS for mobile devices, and especially for mobile phones, of the best valued and know company working on this market.

Guess what: it was running on a RISC family (the most known one on this market).

Guess what: you still don't know of what you're talking about...

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote: @Hypex Quote: AmigaOS4 could be considered CG. Current generation. However AmigaOS4 could also be called SG. Second generation. Because they do refer Exec as just that. ExecSG. It is good. Let's rename NG to SG. And everyone will be happy.

It doesn't work, since:

Next(SOMETHING) == SOMETHING + 1.
Second(SOMETHING) == First(SOMETHING) + 1.

Which, by an elementary logic syllogism, means: Next Generation == Second Generation.

And since there's no NG (the thesis of my article), then there's no SG as well.

Again, by elementary logic.

Last edited by cdimauro on 16-Apr-2024 at 04:28 AM.

They could just rename it Amiga Discovery or Amiga Strange New Worlds!

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Specify: FOR YOU! And only for you because you've no clue about what are IPs and how the law works for them. So, my statement is absolutely, perfectly valid because that's how it works in the REAL world!

Specify: FOR YOU!

In the real world, unrelated Amiga DE is dead.

Quote:

Fact: Symbian wasn't an enduring success when Google Android killed Nokia's phone OS business.

You have a timeline and ecosystem problem.

The so-called "Symbian OS" doesn't guarantee the applications are cross-vendor compatible due to differences in user interface middleware despite using the same CPU. There are three user interface middleware for Symbian OS i.e. Nokia/Samsung/LG's S60, Motorola/Sony Ericsson UIQ, MOAP (for Fujitsu, Sharp). Applications for these different interfaces were NOT compatible with each other. There are three middleware ecosystems for the fragmented "Symbian OS". The S60 was created by Nokia.

On June 24, 2008, Symbian was purchased by Nokia. Nokia attempted to unify user interface middleware under Nokia's S60 self-interest.

On September 23, 2008, Android was introduced. Android 1.5 Cupcake was released in April 2009.


The Symbian Foundation disintegrated in late 2010.
------
Stephen Elop was appointed the CEO of Nokia in September 2010, and on 11 February 2011, he announced a partnership with Microsoft that would see Nokia adopt Windows Phone as its primary smartphone platform.

Nokia's CEO Stephen Elop killed Symbian with the Microsoft partnership with Windows Phone 1st Direction. Symbian had 31 percent of the market share in Q4 2010 and it collapsed after Nokia's and Microsoft's partnership.

During Elop's tenure, Nokia's stock price dropped 62%, Nokia's mobile phone market share was halved, its smartphone market share fell from 33% to 3%, and the company suffered a cumulative €4.9 billion loss.

Elop and Microsoft planned for Nokia to keep its double-digit market share and replace Symbian S60 with Windows Mobile. This Microsoft -Nokia plan was killed by Google's Android.

BlackBerry and Nokia are among those unable to capitalize on the touch smartphone market.

Last edited by Hammer on 16-Apr-2024 at 03:33 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Apr-2024 at 03:31 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Apr-2024 at 03:22 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Specify: FOR YOU! And only for you because you've no clue about what are IPs and how the law works for them. So, my statement is absolutely, perfectly valid because that's how it works in the REAL world! Specify: FOR YOU! In the real world, unrelated Amiga DE is dead.

Sure, and... I accept it.

Whereas you still do NOT understand that the OWER or an IP can do WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH IT! Even if this brings him to the dead.
Quote:

Quote: Fact: Symbian wasn't an enduring success when Google Android killed Nokia's phone OS business. You have a timeline and ecosystem problem. The so-called "Symbian OS" doesn't guarantee the applications are cross-vendor compatible due to differences in user interface middleware despite using the same CPU. There are three user interface middleware for Symbian OS i.e. Nokia/Samsung/LG's S60, Motorola/Sony Ericsson UIQ, MOAP (for Fujitsu, Sharp). Applications for these different interfaces were NOT compatible with each other. There are three middleware ecosystems for the fragmented "Symbian OS". The S60 was created by Nokia. On June 24, 2008, Symbian was purchased by Nokia. Nokia attempted to unify user interface middleware under Nokia's S60 self-interest. On September 23, 2008, Android was introduced. Android 1.5 Cupcake was released in April 2009. The Symbian Foundation disintegrated in late 2010. ------ Stephen Elop was appointed the CEO of Nokia in September 2010, and on 11 February 2011, he announced a partnership with Microsoft that would see Nokia adopt Windows Phone as its primary smartphone platform. Nokia's CEO Stephen Elop killed Symbian with the Microsoft partnership with Windows Phone 1st Direction. Symbian had 31 percent of the market share in Q4 2010 and it collapsed after Nokia's and Microsoft's partnership. During Elop's tenure, Nokia's stock price dropped 62%, Nokia's mobile phone market share was halved, its smartphone market share fell from 33% to 3%, and the company suffered a cumulative €4.9 billion loss. Elop and Microsoft planned for Nokia to keep its double-digit market share and replace Symbian S60 with Windows Mobile. This Microsoft -Nokia plan was killed by Google's Android. BlackBerry and Nokia are among those unable to capitalize on the touch smartphone market.

The usual Hammer's PADDING.

And the usual non-sense answer, because you did NOT get my elementary joke.

Since I don't explain such things even to my kids, I don't see why I've to continue wasting my time trying to do it to someone which is supposed to has grown much more. Mother nature was really a bad stepmother...

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @agami I didn't know macOS and OSX had much in common with System 7...

The statement is not quantitative.
In terms of what Amiga OS things from the '90s would still be present in some hypothetical true Amiga OS NG in the 2020's, qualitatively we can look to operating systems that have survived that specific time-span, and what of their '90s incarnations is still there today, however much there might be.

Quote:

But, is the meaning of NG here restricted to only being fully modern, comparable with modern OS?

I think the key is not to focus on the N part. The G is the defining factor.
MacOS 8 was the next thing after System 7.6.1. A major update, new branding, elimination of clone licenses, but it was not a Generational leap on the previous.
MacOS 8.5 dropped 68k support, and was also not a Generational leap.
For Apple, that happened when they made a clear departure from one way of thinking about their OS, to a new way of thinking with Mac OS X.

For Windows things are little bit more blurry because of their high focus on backward compatibility, but Windows 95 was a major shift away from the 16-bit monotasking Win 3.x.
Windows XP abandoned the 9x stream and consolidated the desktop SKU together with Workstation and Server SKUs using NT Kernel + HAL. With Windows XP there was also MP support and a 64-bit edition.
After XP, it's a bit harder to see a generational leap in Windows, just like it's harder to see generational leaps in macOS since the maturation of OS X. Apple has worked hard to make the transitions from PowerPC to Intel to Apple silicon, trouble free.

While MorphOS, AmigaOS 4, and AROS all do some nice things to make an Amiga-like experience run on newer and faster hardware, to enable developers to deploy somewhat contemporary apps for their respective user communities, I don't see the Generational leap.
Beyond the porting to PowerPC and x86, laudable efforts in themselves especially given the circumstances, I don't see much of the "departure from the old and the embracing of the new" philosophy.

Quote:

There we go. Throw off he NG label of confusion. The AmigaOne and AmigaOS4 is the SG!

With this I can be on board. I think the follow-ons from Amiga OS 3.x could be collectively referred to as SG takes on the original.

Last edited by agami on 17-Apr-2024 at 01:50 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@agami

so it's decided it is SG
thats' ok for me

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @ppcamiga1 Quote: ppcamiga1 wrote: It is good. Let's rename NG to SG. And everyone will be happy. It doesn't work, since: Next(SOMETHING) == SOMETHING + 1. Second(SOMETHING) == First(SOMETHING) + 1. Which, by an elementary logic syllogism, means: Next Generation == Second Generation. And since there's no NG (the thesis of my article), then there's no SG as well. Again, by elementary logic.

Yeah, I can't see what's the difference either... Shouldn't there be a generation leap with the SG term too, and according to certain opinions there hasn't been such a leap. In the current situation SG == NG (for those who use either of these terms) until something else appears (which might be even unlikely to happen ever). And as I suggested earlier, if we keep using NG (or SG), the next big thing would probably be called as 3rd generation to distinguish it from the original NG. Just like with game consoles or processor families etc.

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: I think the key is not to focus on the N part. The G is the defining factor. ... While MorphOS, AmigaOS 4, and AROS all do some nice things to make an Amiga-like experience run on newer and faster hardware, to enable developers to deploy somewhat contemporary apps for their respective user communities, I don't see the Generational leap. Quote: There we go. Throw off he NG label of confusion. The AmigaOne and AmigaOS4 is the SG! With this I can be on board. I think the follow-ons from Amiga OS 3.x could be collectively referred to as SG takes on the original.

G or not G???

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

@jPV

Quote:

jPV wrote: Yeah, I can't see what's the difference either...

Perhaps it's an English thing:

Semantically or syntactically, N is the quantifier and G is the qualifier when used collectively as an adjective. Purely from this stand point NG is only different to SG as it is applied to Any G+1 where SG only applies to 1st G + 1.

From a cultural and colloquial aspect, in the English language the term "Next" can often hold higher value than just being the one that follows. E.g. The phrase The Next Big Thing wouldn't have the same ring to it if it was the Second Big Thing, or Nth Big Thing. When used in this way the "Next" can conjure up associations with the Unknown and X.

_________________
All the way, with 68k