Slashdot Mirror


How Icaros Desktop Brings the Amiga Experience To x86 PCs

angry tapir writes "Icaros Desktop is an effort to build a modern Amiga-compatible operating system to standard x86 hardware. It's a distribution built atop AROS, which is an open source effort to create a system compatible at the API level with the AmigaOS 3.x series. I recently had a chat to the creator of Icaros, Paolo Besser, about the creation of the OS and why Amiga continues to inspire people today."

131 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Deadest horse by glrotate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Evar!

  2. x86 denial by pointyhat · · Score: 1

    Well in 20 years, we'll have x86 denial syndrome instead (of Amiga Denial Syndrome that is).

    1. Re:x86 denial by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      Well in 20 years, we'll have x86 denial syndrome instead (of Amiga Denial Syndrome that is).

      I deny that

  3. 68k games by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can I seamlessly run Amiga games written for the 68000 on it? This would require emulation, but it's been done before.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:68k games by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with games is the copper. Emulators tend to be "best effort", which is often faster than you need, but not locked to cycles. This might work fine for the blitter running as a separate emulation process, but the copper wears a different fur. A "standard" emulator won't do it - you need a special m68k+copper emulator. that can do things in step no matter what the execution speed is.

      This is likely a good part of the reason why some games and demos just won't work with UAE and other efforts.

    2. Re:68k games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Take it from someone who used to program Copper every day in the early 90's: It's not exactly a miraculous superchip that is hard to emulate. Games are usually pretty easy, the Amiga demos are harder to emulate 100% thanks to various copper effects.

      Sure, Amiga architecture was way different from PC, but these days PCs are so powerful they can emulate 68000+Blitter+Copper easily. I'm pretty sure UAE has this covered pretty damn well by now.

    3. Re:68k games by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take it from someone who used to program Copper every day in the early 90's: It's not exactly a miraculous superchip that is hard to emulate.

      No, the copper isn't, but what the copper triggers, when is somewhat harder.
      You don't have a lock to scanline in an emulator. For the display effects, you need to emulate every scanline separately and generate a complete image as it would have looked at the end. No biggie when you have fast enough hardware.

      However - and here lies the devil - the copper isn't just used for display effects but can also control a bunch of other hardware registers. (Including audio, where waiting until the end before presenting results won't do what you want - a simple example being creating a 100 or 120 Hz tone by doing two equally spaced copper moves per frame. And the CPU.)
      And you can even modify the copper list while it is running, triggered from either the CPU or the copper through a copper-scheduled blit, or both. Then it becomes a small headache to get things done in the right order at the right time.

      Getting some of it right is trivial. Getting all of it right is not.

    4. Re:68k games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is in the works, more or less. Getting AROS to run on 68k was the first step towards seamless integration of emulated applications, which is WIP at the moment. Games can be run through an emulator, but the emulator itself will be bolted in eventually so you don't see any difference between emulated and native games.

      Ooh, my captcha is "grandpa." Give me my Amiga back, consarnit!

    5. Re:68k games by paolobesser · · Score: 2

      Yep. Games already run on AROS without any Amiga licensed ROM. Just fire up UAE with AROS' own KickStart, and games should run wihout any major issue. We are now working on Jenus-UAE and AROS M68K to completely replace AmigaOS 3.x files, and run old workbench applications (like Wordworth, PageStream, ImageFX etcetera) in a coherent environment. Just think about Windows 7's XP mode, or any OS running VirtualBox or VMware with desktop integration. We can't do otherwise, since classic Amigas had completely different hardware and processor architecture than modern PCs.

  4. Re:First Post by pipatron · · Score: 5, Funny

    The x86 architecture is actually still used a lot on the desktop and server market, but I understand what you mean. It's pretty dead in the tablets and cellphone market, the largest market for processors.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  5. Why not use a Linux distribution? by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder why they wouldn't use a Linux distribution for this project.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I recall from the Amiga back then (a friend had one), and what I have seen here so far, this "Amiga Experience" is all about the GUI, not so much about the underlying tech. Which is no matter what totally different than on the original Amiga for the simple fact that we have so different hardware nowadays. Hard drives, more memory, USB, optical drives, WiFi, you name it. It wasn't there back then, and is standard now.

    Already there are themes to make Gnome or KDE look and behave exactly like OS-X, or Mac Classic, or Windows XP or whatever. They can be themed so thoroughly, using different window managers probably even more possibilities, that I'd say this is the way to go.

    Take a Linux distro, e.g. Ubuntu, as base, and build your own customisation on it. There are plenty of derivative distros that do it just like that. Ubuntu being a derivative itself. And presto you have the Amiga Experience, with all it's quirks, with all the underlying goodness of modern hardware support etc.

    Or am I really missing something here?

    1. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because they don't want to use Linux? And, yes, it is also about the kernel, filesystem, etc. according to the Amiga snobs.

    2. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, according to the cult of the Amiga, you can't replicate the fluidity and responsiveness of Amiga with Linux. Amiga was about the hardware and software. The hardware was quirky, cool, and cutting edge. To use an Amiga in its day was like a trip to the future. Plus it didn't have any memory protection, so a single goof in a program would kill the entire system sadly you can't do that with just a gui in linux. At least not without creating your gui in the kernel.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

      Also, if you had finished the whole summary you'd notice how they want API compatibility with AmigaOS which you don't get from Linux or by changing the GUI.

    4. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's exactly what they did. Icarus Desktop is a distribution of AROS, in a prepackaged VM image to make it easy to use. AROS is similar to WINE, in that it can run programs within a hosting OS. It also has native ports, but those progress slowly on the hardware support side.

    5. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by idontgno · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah. What we need is a Linux kernel module that traps userland segmentation faults and throws a kernel panic. XD

      I love all my Amigas; I fought on the epic frontlines of the Amiga versus Atari BBS flamewars before most of you were an ache in your daddys' groins. I carried the Boing Ball flag into harm's way too many times to count. But the true Amiga experience, as depicted by connoisseurs, requires abandonment of such niceties as memory protection and process isolation.

      The hardcore nostalgics forget that the Amiga didn't have memory protection first because the hardware wasn't routinely available, and more importantly because the seamless memory map allowed all of RAM to be a huge playground for the CPU and custom co-processors to accomplish amazing things at less than 8 Mhz. Also, the kernel was blazing fast because there was no meaningful context transition from userland to kernel; everything was memory-pointer based, and all memory was directly mapped and non-virtual.

      Therefore, it was also fragile. But that was an acceptable cost for blazing speed and jaw-dropping media performance at a time that MS-DOS machines were single-tasking, playing beeps and boops through a 2" speaker in the system case. and displaying EGA-level graphics.

      So, let's not wax too nostalgic. True nostalgists wouldn't want this any more than an intelligent car collector will settle for a kit car body, even if it's on a more powerful and capable chassis than the original 1950s Ferrari (for instance).

      Amiga enthusiasts who are curious or interested in one evolutionary path of the old OS might want to see this.

      Other than that, I can't imagine this being a very popular product.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Because it's an operating system?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Ironically, Linux is the perfect example of "API compatibility". It shares that with Unix. You could even make libamiga not dependent with x86 so it would run on things like Sparc, and PPC, and Raspberry PI.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I fought on the epic frontlines of the Amiga versus Atari BBS flamewars before most of you were an ache in your daddys' groins.

      Most perhaps, but not all. Some of us here on slashdot actually wrote the BBS software that the flamewars went on.

    9. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 2

      I love all my Amigas

      I'd imagine your Amigos are jealous.

    10. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by uradu · · Score: 1

      Well said! I was with you in those trenches of Amiga fanboihood in the late 80s, preaching Amiga religion to anybody who would listen and hating on those who wouldn't. Let's face it, it was the only "modern" consumer OS at the time, with proper preemptive multitasking and coprocessing subsystems and a proper driver system for external hardware and message queues. Plus it had a very powerful UNIX style CLI with advanced scripting beyond anything outside of UNIX, a power user's wet dream. And you could open as many shells as you wanted and run simultaneous scripts. So yeah, it didn't have memory protection, but hey :) Oh, and until AmigaOS 2.0 with its Motif look the GUI looked like total shite, like something a bunch of Crayola wielding preschoolers came up with. I still loved that A500 with all my heart though, wouldn't have switched to a PC for anything. I still had the ROM Kernel Manuals sitting around until recently, pounds and pounds of them. Ah, the memories...

    11. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Linux is the perfect example of API compatibility with AmigaOS? Huh?

    12. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      They want it most lkely so software developers doesn't need to rewrite any code written against the APIs. It makes it more likely you ony need to recompile not rewrite.

    13. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more with what you said. The Amiga was a breeding ground for technologies and programmers. For its day it had it all. Altough I was more of a "Hardware reference" guy, I still remember my first copperbars, spinning cube or a screen full of bobs in glorious 50fps like it was yesterday. But it was a short trip, the OS or hardware never evolved much inside Commodore. A lot of what made it great was third party. And when Commodore went bust the tech was already outdated, and really no way to fix things without starting over, something that never was going to happen. The speed and UI of the Amiga much came from the fact that it was a hack, a very polished prototype for things to come. Great memories indeed, and that's where I like to keep it.

    14. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by equex · · Score: 1

      Yeah AREXX and the CLI was great. My favourite command was ASSIGN.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    15. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      At the time, dos, macos, early versions of windows, atari tos etc also didn't have memory protection...AmigaOS was still a better os on similar spec hardware.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    16. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And the legacy lives on in some respects... When i interview someone, if they started out on the amiga they are in 99% of cases much better at the job than someone who started out on windows... I put this down to a system that encouraged you to learn about it, vs a system that discourages you and makes you fearful of breaking things (dont look at this dir, it contains system files and you might break something!).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    17. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by uradu · · Score: 1

      And gamers, don't forget gamers! Because in the 80s the Amiga wasn't just an awesome development platform but also by far the best gaming platform. No telling how many of today's avid gaming Gen-Xers started on the Amiga. For me it was the other way around though--I got to the Amiga because of the games and flash and it dragged me tooth and nails into the programming world, making my future career all but inevitable. I will confess that before getting the Amiga I was actually seriously in love with the Atari ST because it LOOKED like a more polished product with its crisp monochrome screen and no-nonsense and clean GUI, plus of course that built-in MIDI interface that beckoned to a budding musician. But after endless pouring over magazine articles and learning more about the technology behind the two platforms the choice was clear. While both the ST and the Mac (which I sure as heck couldn't afford anyway) had more polished UIs, their underlying OSs were quite primitive compared to the Amiga. Few non-technical people realized just what a quantum leap that OS was. It really took until Windows 95 and its new 32-bit code base (disregarding its legacy 16-bit support crap) for a mainstream OS to replicate what the Amiga had since 1985. The Mac only got there with OS X. What's most amazing though is that the original Amiga 1000 did all that with a paltry 256K of RAM. It's fascinating to look under the covers and see the memory efficient design of the ROM, with much of the OS executing in place in ROM, the shared linked-list based data structures that were used for anything from memory maps to sprites to sound maps. You could so easily see the various subsystems independently at work when the OS went belly-up with a Guru Meditation while the sprites still merrily moved across the screen and the sound still played (provided those data structures hadn't been trashed). Oh, and who can forget the Amiga tracker scene of the day, with all those cool MODs? Anyone remember the Axel F one? Fire off some of those for your friends and they'd be all gobsmacked--wow, a computer can do THAT?!

    18. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by dammy · · Score: 2

      AROS team didn't want to use Linux (although the AROS Developers use Linux to develope AROS), but Commodore USA is using Mint called CommodoreOS Vision (currently in Beta) for their new Commodore Amigas: http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_OS_Vision.aspx

    19. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Wayne Bell? ;)

      ~S

    20. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Nah, I was around long before Wayne Bell. By the time he hit the scene, I was already out.

    21. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by uradu · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, in terms of the GUI the Mac was better thought out and more flexible. Frankly I preferred its look and feel to the Amiga until 2.0 arrived. I also remember its movable memory architecture where each memory access happened relative to a dynamic offset that the OS could change at any point, which allowed it to move chunks of memory around as it saw fit without upsetting their owner apps. I'm not really sure the actual design of the OS had has much to do with the success of the Mac though as did the marketing machine behind it. Commodore was self destructive in every way imaginable, they couldn't recognize a good thing if it bit them in the ass. They could have easily taken the Mac OS and turned it into the same failure as the Amiga if given the chance. We loved the Amiga despite Commodore, while many people love the Mac because of Apple. It was a great machine for its time, the Linux of the day for us renegades back then. But when the writing was on the wall that it was going nowhere, around 1992, I swallowed my pride and bought a PC. While Windows 3.1 did suck majorly, with Windows 95 it became good enough to where one could finally concentrate on the apps rather than fight the OS. Nowadays it seems the OS is becoming less and less relevant with so much moving online. I routinely swap between Windows and Ubuntu, and may even give the Hackintosh a go. But this new wannabe Amiga? Nah...

    22. Re:Why not use a Linux distribution? by paolobesser · · Score: 1

      "Specifically, I'm thinking of the design and feature-richness of Apple's GUI toolkit. It was way ahead of every other mass market GUI design in the 1980s, even things like GEM (the GUI Atari used). ... in the short and medium term, the architecture was sheer wizardry which permitted Apple to cram a dramatically better GUI than Amiga into fewer resources. (just 64K ROM and 128K RAM in the original Macintosh)" Sorry, having used both Amiga and Mac in the late '80s, I have to disagree here. Call them personal tastes, but I felt the 1-button interface of the Mac quite bulky, if compared to full right-menu 2-buttons paradygm of the Amiga. Both AmigaOS (pardon, Workbench, at the time) and MacOS had their examples of wizardry - after all, hardware resources were scarce at the time - but in the end the Amiga was the platform which got the most of them. The evidence is the *fact* that Amiga could emulate the Mac and even run its software full speed, while the contrary was not possible at all. There were many advantages with Amigas: public, draggable screens for instance (I saw that latest version of MacOS X has something similar... good thing to see, 25 years after), the ability to choose what files had a icon and what hadn't, the ability to switch without issues from a graphical to a shell-driven way of doing things... The Mac always gave me the feeling that it could somehow "understand" what I would have liked to do, and it was really amazing, but it also gave me the sensation that all my possibile actions were previously decided by Apple, and that I couldn't hack very much about them. The Amiga, on the other hand, was the total freedom of expression. Great times, the Eighties...

  6. Re:First Post by drdaz · · Score: 1

    I've got a feeling the AC was saying that Amiga OS is 'only used by hobbyists in lala land'...

  7. Re:Good luck. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hardly. Ten years ago, maybe.

    I have to say this project upsets me.

    Why? Because if it had been completed fifteen years ago, it'd have been something I'd (and millions of other Amiga enthusiasts) would have been able to jump on, and over time it would have grown. The issues with Exec's lack of MMU support would have been, as time progressed, dealt with in an evolutionary way (I have no idea what the solution would have been, but I'm pretty sure it would have come about.) And so the platform would have lived on.

    Unfortunately it wasn't completed then, and the mindshare has moved to GNU/Linux. The problems with AmigaOS back in 1994 are still present in AROS. There's no easy way to fix the issues any more, because the people interested aren't tight knit and large enough to actually agree upon a way forward.

    Which is NOT, absolutely NOT, to diss the efforts of the AROS crew. What they've produced is impressive, and anyone who thinks all operating systems should either be POSIX or Windows based should, absolutely should, download this and play with it.

    What upsets me is that I can't, any longer, jump on something so wonderful. There's no point.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was a superb machine (arguably the best personal computer) in the 80s and early 90s, but its now 2012 and things have moved on. Why are people still intent on trying to resurrect it like some festering computer zombie? Its making a mockery of the Amiga name and of the time and effort the original designers put into its HARDWARE - because it was the hardware rather than the OS which really made it what it was.

    1. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, it was the OS. The OS was fantastic. I'd have been much more comfortable jumping to ix86 back in the mid 1990s if AmigaOS had been available then.

      The hardware was fantastic in 1985. In 1990, it was OK but looking a little odd. By the time AGA finally rolled out, there were serious concerns amongst many in the Amiga community that the Amiga hardware was already way behind the PC and Mac. And, of course, infamously, it was about that time that Carmack made it clear that Doom would never be ported to the Amiga due to hardware concerns, despite it running on the lowest end PCs of that era.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 2

      No, it was the OS. The OS was fantastic. I'd have been much more comfortable jumping to ix86 back in the mid 1990s if AmigaOS had been available then.

      IBM peeled off some Amiga developers to work on the Workplace Shell for OS/2 2.x and later. That OS also had some enthusiasts (and still has a few).

      --
      N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    3. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Not being familiar with the Amiga OS at all, could you explain what made it so good? Is there anything about it that is better than what we have today?

      --
      Love sees no species.
    4. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Hatta · · Score: 1

      it was about that time that Carmack made it clear that Doom would never be ported to the Amiga due to hardware concerns

      Apparently, Carmack was wrong. It won't run on an Amiga 500, but the A500 was 6 years old at that point. The Amiga 1200 was current at the time Doom was released. And you can obviously run Doom on it now.

      What Carmack really meant was that it wasn't worth the effort to port Doom to the Amiga hardware.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Well, kinda. The Amiga 500 was 6 years old, but the 500 and 600 were the most popular brands of Amiga ever made and there were tens of millions of them. The 1200 was sold towards the end of Commodore's life and didn't sell at anything like the same rate.

      Could the 1200 run Doom? Well, yeah, just about, but that wasn't what Carmack was getting at. He was looking forward, saying "Look, mainstream Amigas have this bitplane architecture. It's nice, and flexible, but when it comes to 3D games, it's just never going to pan out. Sorry." Unbelievable levels of assembly-level optimization would be needed to get Doom to work at an acceptable framerate on a 1200, and as for a popular model of Amiga, forget it. What would that say about Carmack's next big project?

      Commodore knew it was a problem at the time too, and the CD32 actually had a bizarre hardware hack thing in it that would copy data in a chunky forward optimally to a planer format so the CPU didn't have to do that work, but...

      The point I'm making is that the Amiga, in the early nineties, just wasn't something you bought for the hardware. It was nice hardware, but you could get better, and what's more, if you knew where the industry was heading (in terms of hardware requirements to support the software that was coming), the Amiga architecture was on its last legs.

      Commodore knew that. Actually, they knew that in the late eighties, but various projects to fix it were either cancelled (AAA) or came too late (Hombre - which arguably was an attempt to create a post Amiga system, rather than a next generation Amiga.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by pipatron · · Score: 2

      I use Amiga OS almost every day. Technically, Linux have almost every capability that Amiga OS have.

      I write "almost" because the Amiga OS is more or less a true "microkernel", so you could replace most everything in the system live. Normally you don't do this though, and it's pretty insignificant.

      What it excelled at during the days was that it had true multitasking with a fast message passing functionality, and it took something like 5-10 years until other desktop operating systems had that (windows, macos, atari etc). In combination with hardware that could have different resolution and colours on different parts of the screen it meant that you could easily work with multiple programs at once without anything being sluggish.

      All of this is easily done today, and I don't see the point of running Amiga OS on an x86 except for the "because I can"-reason. I use my Amiga because it has cool hardware and I like to code for it.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    7. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by uhuru_meditation · · Score: 2

      Apart from multitasking, lots of colors, very small kernel and speed, hundreds of smart and cool features, graphical beatifications, smarmy and small programs - it was always safe to turn off or turn on computer by - pressing on/off button - without waiting for the shutdown crap. It booted in few seconds - well below 10. It had 4 channel stereo sound. There was an ecosystem of add-on cards, pushing it way beyond anything out there. Apart from all that - in the very early 90's the only animated thing on a PC was green blinking cursor, while Amiga run video productions and myriad of graphical editing and manipulation imaging programs. Do I have to mention games? TV connectivity, composite video, RGB video and various simultaneous display and video overlay possibilities. All that at max speeds of 50 MHz - mind you. So ..not really better, but different.

    8. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      Over time, there probably isn't a lot that's better than what we have today, beyond efficiency and a look and feel that I just felt comfortable with - which itself is somewhat subjective... hey, take a look here: http://home.datacomm.ch/mrupp/TAWS/WB.html

      At the time however, these were considered radical:

      - Pre-emptive multitasking
      - A shell that was half way between Command.com and Bourne. Had some very nice user friendly aspects, such as named parameters and a shared command line parsing system.
      - The file system supported mixed case, long, filenames.
      - An automatically-managed multiple desktop system. Larger apps would have their own desktops. Each could be a different screen mode if necessary (important in the days when there was a resolution/colour tradeoff)

      Everything was patchable and extendable. Utilities were encouraged to intercept standard library calls for all kinda of stuff. The file system had some extremely nice features such as an assignments system that allowed you to assign symbolic names to directories - you didn't have drive letters or a single file system, but something more partitionable. From Workbench 2.0 onwards it had an extremely pleasant look and feel (older versions, not so much.)

      It's hard really to describe how radical and better it was at the time to anything else mainstream. Unfortunately, it became obsolete the moment MMU support (and other security features) became important, which is to say, as soon as the Internet proper came on the scene.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Not being familiar with the Amiga OS at all, could you explain what made it so good?

      It had extremely efficient and lightweight pre-emptive multitasking, such that multiple programs could run simultaneously and respond to the user very quickly even on very modest hardware (e.g. 7MHz 68000 CPU, 512KB RAM).

      The downside of that was that there was no memory protection -- all programs ran in the same memory space. While that made efficient data sharing trivial (any program could just get a pointer to any system data it needed to access, and read it), it also made things very insecure -- one buggy program could (and often did) crash the entire OS.

      Is there anything about it that is better than what we have today?

      For today's users, no. Given today's vastly more powerful hardware, modern OS's do a better job of meeting the user's needs, especially in the aspects of stability and security. (OTOH if you for some reason needed an embedded OS to run a snappy GUI on a very lightweight CPU, AmigaOS wouldn't be a bad way to go, if it had the appropriate hardware support)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    10. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Doom used planar display mode on x86, so it was NOT a problem. In fact, it allowed several important optimizations.

      The first Doom-based game to use true 'flat' 13h mode was Hexen.

    11. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by anss123 · · Score: 1

      The Amiga 1200 was current at the time Doom was released. And you can obviously run Doom on it now.

      Running Doom on a stock Amiga 1200 would be a painful experience. If it's upgraded with a 030 CPU and 4MB memory is another matter, but there wasn't many of those. You could also run Doom on an upgraded Amiga 500, as there were 030 upgrade cards for them too.

      But I strongly doubt a stock A1200 would be anything but epically slow on Doom. First you need to run it straight from a floppy drive, as most owners didn't have a hard drive. Then you'd have to squeeze the game into half the memory, and that memory is quite slow as it was used by both the chip-set and the CPU (On the stock Amiga 1200 Commodore had in their infinite wisdom neglected to add fast ram). And even with fast ram the CPU itself is a good bit slower than a 386, which only ran Doom okayish as it was.

    12. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by toejam13 · · Score: 2

      At the time, the Amiga had a very good blend of processor, graphics and audio performance tied together with a multitasking OS (rare at the time) for a reasonable price. But the OS was admired because it had a very small footprint and was very fast. It was also easy to use.

      The only major benefit you'd get out of it today is that it is incredibly lightweight. But that is because it uses a very simple memory management subsystem. There are a lot of benefits of using a more complex memory subsystem, which is why the one used by the Amiga has been abandoned outside of all but the most basic embedded systems.

      One feature that would have been nice to bring to a modern OS was the datatype system. It was essentially a universal codec subsystem that could handle not only the different encoding systems (codecs), but the containers as well. And it wasn't limited to video - it could also handle audio, text and images. The closest thing Windows has today is the ffdshow codec package for the DirectShow subsystem.

    13. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Not being familiar with the Amiga OS at all, could you explain what made it so good? Is there anything about it that is better than what we have today?

      It had the same power as Windows98 or MacOs 10.0, but back in 1985. It had preemptive tasking, near-photographic level images/videos, and near-CD quality sound. So in other words in 1985 it was over a decade ahead in technology (and now it's about a decade behind). There's really no reason to use AmigaOS today, except to experiment with a different system..... same reason I downloaded Puppy Linux. Just for fun.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    14. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Nutria · · Score: 2

      The downside of that was that there was no memory protection

      Replacing a non-protected OS with a protected version while retaining app compatibility is impossible. That's why Apple had to ditch the original Mac code base and replace it with OSX.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    15. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      BTW, quote from Dave Haynie (who posts here occasionally. Originally a C64 engineer but moved on to the Amiga group and later chipset design work):

      And while ads might have helped, additional interfacing with Marketing might not have done much in those days. Amiga engineers were better in touch with the buyers than Marketing. Because most of us WERE the target market - we were making our own new toy, within the financial limits accorded.

      That's what's missing from modern computing.

      Ubuntu is about cornering the desktop and tablet market.

      Mac OS X / iOS is about "user experience" and purity.

      Windows is about controlling the market and adding the features users are demanding.

      Android is about keeping mobile devices open.

      Who's sitting down any more and saying "The computer we're going to build is the one I want to use"?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by toejam13 · · Score: 1

      The point I'm making is that the Amiga, in the early nineties, just wasn't something you bought for the hardware

      Yes and no. The Amiga 3000 and Amiga 4000 were the cheapest 68040 workstations at the time. Amiga Unix (System V Release 4) and NetBSD could be loaded onto them, making them more cost effective than anything from Sun.

      The problem was that the rest of the system was suffering. The Enhanced Chipset (ECS) was little more than an incremental upgrade of the Original Chipset (OCS). It should have looked more like the Advanced Architecture (AA/AGA) that came out in '92.

      Commodore was just never able to smoothly move their architectures forward. They had the same problem back in the 8-bit days. But with the Amiga, it sounds as if they'd start designing a new chipset only to backtrack and then release some quick fix as a stop-gap. I'm curious if they were bad at estimating fabrication and support chip costs or if they were bad at coming up with a target price and sticking with it. I mean, near the end you had AAA then AA/AGA then AA+ and lastly Hombre. Sounds very chaotic.

    17. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No. It isn't. They would just need to virtualize every non-protected app so that they had their own memory space.

    18. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The one thing that Amiga had that still isn't in modern OSes is DataTypes. On the Amiga, if a new graphics format came out, a new DataType could be written, and every well written application on your system would instantly be able to use the new format. It was like device drivers for data.

    19. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      They didn't as if the OS was better, but if there was anything about it that was better. I would say that DataTypes was an awesome feature that is still not in modern OSes, and we would all be better off if it was.

    20. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      To be fair it wasn't Windows98 that the Amiga matched. It was closer to Windows95, and even then it was a little behind. The day before Windows95 came out, the Amiga was well ahead of it's peers. The day Win95 hit the streets, it was a little behind. Of course, at the end of the day, I am quibbling over whether Amiga was 10 years ahead or 13 years ahead of the rest of the industry.

    21. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      There's a hell of a lot of Amiga stuff that relies upon tasks all seeing a single, unified, memory image. IPC for example. And even stuff like drawing graphics is done in an environment in which processes assume they'll be able to address the screen directly.

      Now, before you go "But that's OK, because you can just..." and then explain the obvious solutions, yeah, I know. The problem here is that I've yet to hear solutions that do not fundamentally result in an OS that has no resemblance to the original, an OS that loses just about everything that made it interesting to begin with.

      Which is what sucks about the situation. Pretty much the only way I can think of to implement security in a unified memory model OS, short of having the world's most complex MMU, would be to use managed code. Yeah. I don't like that idea either. And that wouldn't add security to older apps.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    22. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by antdude · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that fans released an Amiga port based on DOOM's source code. It seems to run well too.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    23. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm curious if they were bad at estimating fabrication and support chip costs or if they were bad at coming up with a target price and sticking with it. I mean, near the end you had AAA then AA/AGA then AA+ and lastly Hombre. Sounds very chaotic.

      Neither. From the Interview with Dave Haynie I linked to earlier, this gives some insight into the day to day problems the Amiga team had to deal with.

      How to you feel about the A4000 in relation to the A3000? It's allways felt like a rushed system to me, which is the reason I never got one. AGA didn't do much for me wich was another reason not to get that A3000+

      AA was a good solution for what it did, it just wasn't enough to satisfy most people by that time. But hey, it did get finished, and that's an achievement in itself.

      There's an A4000 story, which I'll relate. The story begins in 1991, when Sydnes took over as VP of Engineering. I was working on the _real_ A3000+, the first prototype of which was the first AA machine ever, back when we called it "Pandora". This machine was using mainly A3000 parts (I planned to revise it to the '040 bus once the AA stuff had been proven - custom chip lead times are many times that of gate arrays; we had the in-house gate arrays at the time that be turned over in about a month), though it had the AGA, and an AT&T DSP3210 subsystem. This would have delivered 16-bit audio I/O, software modem, number crunching 5x-10x faster than a 68040, etc. Not too shabby.

      Ok, so Sydnes some in, and his first mission is to destroy the appearance that the former administration (Henri Ruben and Jeff Porter) were as organized and far along as they were. So he cancels all products, and turns the A3000+ into just a development system for programmers (Jeff Porter is able to keep the DSP development alive, I'm able to kludge two working DSP systems even with the DSP control logic, in one of the new custom chips, flawed).

      Somewhere down the road, Sydnes and Ali, or perhaps their pet chimpanzee for all I know, decide they need a new computer, something more mid-level. Rather than revive the "A1000+", which was Joe Augenbraun's project to build an $800 AA-based, 25MHz entry-level machine for April 2002 release, he gets Greg Berlin to build a scaled-down A3000. This is dubbed the A1000jr (Sydnes claim to fame at IBM was that he was the manager in charge of the PCjr, the greatest failure in IBM PC history), and is basically an A3000 with 68EC020, two Zorro II slots, and ECS.

      Now, this is ready to go in April. You have to understand Commodore's working to know what happened here, but basically, C= was run like a cellular company. Each cell did it's thing, and ran fairly independently of the parent (CIL, Commodore International Limited). This is why every company did marketing differently; different independent marketing companies. So now, to get their product, each marketing company places orders, and C= fills them as best as they can. But guess what absolutely no one ordered. If you said the "A1000jr" (real name as Amiga 2400 or something like that), you win the LBM Effigy, to be burned later. Nope, no one wanted a stripped down A3000 without AA graphics (or SCSI, or flickerfixer, or Zorro III, etc).

      So now Sydnes is in a panic. So he calls on Greg again (Greg's a good guy, one my oldest friends, just not in the best situation then) to start up the next thing, the A4000. Fast. This command came in May, they wanted to ship in September. So Greg takes the A2400 design, drops in the AA stuff from my A3000+ design, gets me in to fix it to run Zorro III, etc. Sydnes mandates IDE (ATA-1, I think is all you get), so that's done, poorly, with a PAL (you couldn't do good ATA in a cheap programmable part back then; you can today), so goodbye SCSI. Anyway, no joy, but there's an A4000.

      The '040 board, too, was a left over. Scott Schaeffer was our '040 expert (I had been the CPU guy, but had too mu

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    24. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by toejam13 · · Score: 1

      Running Doom on a stock Amiga 1200 would be a painful experience

      I agree. There was just too much overhead doing chunky to planar conversion. Even with the CD32 and its Akiko chip where you could do the conversion in hardware, the results were mediocre at best.

      The question is, what was the choke point? The MC68EC020/14, the Akiko or the AGA chipset? Would the stock 020/14 have been enough if AGA included an 8-bit chunky mode, or would an 020/20 or 030/16 been needed?

    25. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I've tried to find some evidence for this on the net and I can't find a damned thing. It contradicts pretty much everything that was said at the time, said since, and, for that matter, makes any sense. If Doom used a planar mode, then frankly, the question arises why even use the algorithm they did?

      Do you have a citation?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    26. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by anss123 · · Score: 1

      The c2p stuff wasn't too much of an overhead, the big perf. killer is simple lack of memory bandwidth. The game would have to be scaled down to 64 colors at the very least, as 256 colors used up pretty much all the bandwidth. Add 4 MB of fast ram and the AGA (or ECS) chipset is free to consume all the membandwidth it needs without hurting CPU performance.

      As far as CPU goes, any 020 is likely too slow (unless there's lots and lots of room for optimization in the Doom engine). A 16MHz 030 is better, but is still slower than the 25MHz minimum requirement of PC Doom (a 030 and a 386 is roughly equivalent clock for clock). So if you get it running it means playing in a tiny low rez window, playable I suppose but hardly a joyful experience.

      A quick YouTube search shows doom running well enough on 040 Amigas, while even 50MHz 030s seem to be struggling with choppy slow frame rates. IOW the choice point is likely the CPU, as even the ECS chipset manages a convincing enough version of Doom (colors are naturally reduced there)

    27. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by peppepz · · Score: 1

      despite it running on the lowest end PCs of that era.

      It required a 386 with 4 MB of RAM, and ran miserably slow on such a machine. In fact, I reckon that Doom marks the starting point of that era during which PC games became closer to tech demos rather than something funny to play; and to be properly played, they required a computer that costed twice the amount one could afford, and which would be worth one quarter of that price after a couple of months.

    28. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by zardozo · · Score: 1

      It was a superb machine (arguably the best personal computer) in the 80s and early 90s, but its now 2012 and things have moved on. Why are people still intent on trying to resurrect it like some festering computer zombie? Its making a mockery of the Amiga name and of the time and effort the original designers put into its HARDWARE - because it was the hardware rather than the OS which really made it what it was.

      it was the OS and the HARDWARE!! the two made the whole greater than the sum of it's parts. no oher OS/hardware combo before or since has ever come close to that kind of synergy. The OS is still more intuituve and user friendly than anything else out there. with Amiga you could just plug your sound card in(if you even needed one) and your audio software of choice could use it. with Linux you have to deal with the trioka of terror known as ALSA, PULSE, JACK and god only knows what else. there always some tweaking & confgging to be done especially with usb audio stuf. thankfully you can go online and get answers but inux is still pretty much for power usrs and hobbyists. It is way to unwieldy in it's complexity because it was designed from the start by geeks for geeks and noone else untill 10 or so years ago. and yes by god we had the right to laugh at the pc and mac users of the day. i fell sorry for those that didn't experience the amiga.

    29. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It was slow even with an 030, it was just about playable on a 68040, and the only amiga to come with a 68040 by default was the A4000... Also the default 68040 card in the A4000 was quite slow, the one i played it on was significantly faster than a stock A4000.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    30. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by toejam13 · · Score: 1

      The problem C= had with producing the chipsets, etc, was almost 100% politics.

      I see two surprising things. First, that the board of directors would have allowed Sydnes to kill the A3000+ project without anything else in the pipeline. Second, that Commodore was so seriously decentralized. For a company as small as Commodore, you'd think that board of directors would have been more involved in calling the shots.

      I'm NOT surprised by the price constraints with the A4000. Commodore was never able to shake Tramiel's mantra of "for the masses, not the classes". It is rather sad that we didn't have an A3000p-derived 68040 AGA system. It would have still been significantly cheaper than the [68040 equipped] Mac Quadra 700, Mac Quadra 900 or the [SuperSparc equipped] SparcStation S10. They could still have had the A1200 to match the Macintosh LC. Too bad they didn't include an EC020/20 option in addition to the EC020/14.

    31. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that's interesting.

      Very surprised by it actually, pretty much everyone insisted at the time it was the lack of chunky graphics! I'm guessing that it probably was, but Carmack saw it was worthwhile to do the work for the PC given the PC's marketshare.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    32. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by toejam13 · · Score: 1

      As far as CPU goes, any 020 is likely too slow ... a 16MHz 030 is better, but is still slower than the 25MHz minimum requirement of PC Doom

      True, but I don't see Commodore releasing a 68EC030/25 as their entry level processor in 1992. Even over at Apple where Gassée was busy pushing high-end systems, they still released the Mac LC with only a 68020/16.

      I guess a good question to ask is how much more would it cost to have produced an A1200 with a 68EC030/16 versus a 68EC020/16. More expensive chip and socket, an extra eight memory bus lines on the motherboard and so on. Also, would they have run it at its native 16MHz like in the A3000 or a NTSC colorsync multiple of 14.32MHz.

    33. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by anss123 · · Score: 1

      With the Amiga 1200 being such a low cost system, adding a 030 in 1992 was perhaps not a realistic option. But Doom was released in December 1993, and Commodore could perhaps have had a cheap 030 machine ready for early 1994 with a decent port of Doom.

      However, by that time Commodore was bankrupt.

      If you're going to get Doom on the Amiga I think you need to go back as far as 1986. C= was in financial difficulties back then, and the Amiga was yet to become a runaway success, and therefore they didn't invest as much in Amiga development as they could have. With some focus they would have had ECS ready by 1987, AGA by 1989 and been more competitive against VGA and SVGA.

      However they're still faced with the problem that the 68k is on its way out. 486 PCs will be cheaper than 040 Amigas, no way around that, and a CPU rendered Doom needs the grunt of a 040 to look truly impressive.

      If C= is going to have a low cost system that can run Doom they'll probably need to make a 3D accelerating chipset. The Atari Jaguar ran Doom despite having just a 68K CPU, so it's certainly possible. Imagine C= and Amiga being on the forefront of 3D gaming =)

    34. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      DataTypes survive in a limited context; audio and video codecs do much the same thing.

    35. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      True. It is pretty sad that they are still handled in such a limited fashion.

    36. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by uhuru_meditation · · Score: 1

      Back in the early 90s PCs were already running windows 3.0, or OS/2, there was NT by 93, and by the mid 90s there were tons of free *nix clones running graphical interfaces on said PCs.

      Comparing Windows 3.0 to Amiga is like comparing Commodore 64 to Silicon Graphic. WinNT? That was the crappiest thing ever to run though chip's veins. Mind you that one of the first ever commercials for PC was a fat guy carrying huge box while his wife answers: "Why PC? To shop, of course!" Amiga commercial was featuring Buzz Aldrin and dewds who flew to the Moon, Andy Warhol and tons of other interesting ppl. That was the difference and it shows where are we today - still same old crappy dominance of retarded tech, run and produced by seriously demented characters acting as software managers "making the decisions"..

      One thing that has never ceased to amuse me is the capacity for self-delusion of the Amiga community.

      This can only write really sad computer user with no computing history, probably owning "all Apple" things ever produced and a gaming PC. Coding VB or C# for a sad living, most likely. Self-delusion was just a wish that others get educated and knowledgeable in software and hardware at the time by keeping and pushing Amiga to a real mainstream, or even better analogy - the one can compare (and understand) today - Amiga was Google while PC and Apple were Bing way back then.

    37. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      Not being familiar with the Amiga OS at all, could you explain what made it so good?

      It was a bit like having a Pentium machine running Windows 95, with hardware-accelerated video and sound, but it was elegant and---probably most importantly---it was released 10 years earlier. It also happened to be able to be synchronized to an incoming NTSC/PAL signal, so it gave you a lot of interesting video production features an order of magnitude cheaper than the alternatives.

      Imagine what it would be like if you had an iPad when the original BlackBerry was first released. That's what it was like to have an Amiga back then.

    38. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by toejam13 · · Score: 1

      Commodore could perhaps have had a cheap 030 machine ready for early 1994 with a decent port of Doom

      Maybe. But Commodore had entered a joint venture with HP to use PA-7100 processors by that point. Entry level machines might have used a PA-7100/33 rather than a MC68030/25.

      If you're going to get Doom on the Amiga I think you need to go back as far as 1986

      I think you need to go back a few more years than that. Commodore might have done better had their board of directors ousted Tramel and his sons earlier than they did. Tramel's business strategy of selling deeply discounted low-end computers kept it out of the much more lucrative business computer market. It also resulted in a number of home computers that had no market. An earlier ouster might have also prevented him from spinning up Atari after Warner dumped it, lessening the fragmentation of the home market with the Atari ST.

      I mean, imagine if Commodore had released the Commodore 900 in 1982 instead of the CBM-II series. Things might have been very, very different.

    39. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Windows 3.1 required a 286 with 1 MB of RAM. Full disclosure: I had exactly that and wasn't happy for not being able to play Doom.

    40. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      This can only write really sad computer user with no computing history, probably owning "all Apple" things ever produced and a gaming PC.
      Coding VB or C# for a sad living, most likely.

      Self-delusion was just a wish that others get educated and knowledgeable in software and hardware at the time by keeping and pushing Amiga to a real mainstream, or even better analogy - the one can compare (and understand) today - Amiga was Google while PC and Apple were Bing way back then.

      how stupid. just reminds me how amiga fanbois were like apple fanbois of today. totally delusional, by the time we on pc were playing uw the game was over for amiga. pc was the android of the day back then, do anything you want, attach what you want.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    41. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If I'm reading http://fly.srk.fer.hr/GDM/articles/vgamodex/vgamx1.html correctly, then this isn't quite true.

      Each byte of each plane apparently represents four pixels, with two bits of each byte going into each pixel. So four planes gives you 256 colours (8 bits per pixel.)

      Which is kinda ugly, but no more, I guess, than a lot of 1980s computer graphics technologies.

      Unfortunately it also adds to the reasons why just because Carmack worked on a planar version of Doom for the PC doesn't mean his decision to ignore the Amiga was entirely inexplicable. Leaving aside the market share, and the fact I assume to get this to run at any speed, it would have to have been done in assembler (which would be different for the PC and Amiga), code that manipulates double-bit planes is going to be slightly different to that that manipulates single bit planes, and will probably be around twice as fast.

      If the Amiga had a chunky mode, I suspect it would have been a no-brainer to port Doom. It would have worked on more models, and only the interactions with the API would have had to be recoded. Oh well.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    42. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That's a great argument in 1990. In 2012, where every computer is connected to every other computer in this great big network we call "The Internet", and people often need to download software from the Internet... not so much.

      This, incidentally, is what Java and other managed code environments, are/were trying to solve, and would probably work great if it wasn't for inevitable unpredictable stutters caused by garbage collection.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    43. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Hexen used flat display mode (the famous 13h mode). It's not a big change, actually.

      The biggest advantage of planar mode was page flipping - Doom could compose image on backbuffer and then just flip it with the foreground buffer. In contrast, 13h mode doesn't support page flipping and Hexen had to do actual memcpy to copy image from the backbuffer. That required more powerful hardware.

    44. Re:FFS let the Amiga rest in please by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      Agreed, add 'fast RAM' to the A1200 and Doom away. There was a Doom-alike on the Amiga called Gloom, complete with motion sickness.

      I recall Mac emulation on the A1200 with an after-market 68030 and RAM expansion card. It performed fine in 256 colours, whereas Amiga OS itself would choke. Going easy on the chip RAM bandwidth more than made up for the overheads of the chunky-to-planar conversion and the loss of hardware acceleration (the blitter).

  9. Re:Good luck. by toejam13 · · Score: 2

    Ten years ago I might have agreed. Today with every major desktop OS running on x86 or x86-64, not so much. Besides, people are more interested in the Amiga experience as opposed to the underlying hardware. This goes double since the majority of PPC systems in the post-Commodore world have been something of an expensive joke.

  10. Still inspires? It doesn't. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Informative

    >> why Amiga continues to inspire people today

    Um...not really. I owned two Amiga machines and worked on two different Video Toaster rigs. Fun at the time, but I'm very, very happy that the Amiga's best features (graphics, sound and text-to-speech) went mainstream. I haven't plugged in any of my old systems in more than five years.

    Let it rest - RIP.

  11. Re:First Post by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hobbyists are more then enough to justify it. If they get a kick out ouf playing with AmigaOS then good for them. Some people play games, some people read, some people waterski, and some people enjoy playing with old tech. Not sure why people get so butthurt over what other people do with their free time.

  12. Re:Good luck. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Amiga's moved-on anyway. OS 3 is obsolete, replaced by OS 4.0 and 4.1. Running version 3 today would be like running a Mac with OS9.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  13. Re:Good luck. by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just take a gander at this thread from 3 mnths ago.

    BeOs didn't succeed with x86. Some developers said that those who has originally used BeOs started to use window/Linux and stopped to support original BeOs apps because everythig was easier with Windows/Linux.

    Custom hardware is good choise, there woun't be any benefits to go x86/x64

    Custom hardware makes Amiga special and force people who has it to use it. (Yes I know there is linux distro for ppc)

    OS4 needs to remain PPC.

    No valid reason for OS4 to go to commodity hardware. The market isn't there - niche OS's are free/open source on commodity hardware, Hyperion would have no business model.

    It's be just another offshoot hobby OS that could once make a meager earning on the PPC side that is now on commodity HW where there's a plethora of free OS'es for every niche market. Another OS I'd have to run an emulation layer on to run legacy software. Why should I run OS4 x86 vs. AROS, vs. UAE/Amikit/Amithlon?

    and those are just select quotes from the first 2 pages. The snobs still exist.

  14. Re:Good luck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. You see, even the most snobby of snobs is well aware that the only viable CPU architectures right now are ix86 and ARM. 68K is dead outside of the low power (in every sense) embedded world; and PowerPC is a WTF.

    Ten years ago, like I said, you might have found a hold out, clinging perhaps to PowerPC as a possible 68k successor, but today? Nope. The CPU wars are over.

  15. Why the animosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why the animosity to Amiga enthusiasts? Im willing to bet that a significant portion of Linux users on Slashdot were once Amiga users and for various reasons moved on - maybe like myself - a reluctant windows user in the late 90's before discovering Linux and dumping windows for good eventually! Initially Linux - for me reminded in many ways of Amiga OS which is why it was so easy for me to fall in love with it.

    Although Linux will for the moment remain my primary OS I've been keeping an eye on AROS. Over the years and as of late the system is becoming really polished with different distro's including one for 68k that can be run on classic hardware - as well as a port currently underway for the Raspberry PI. So you will see that this is not just about running AmigaOS on x86 but creating an OS that eventually will run across different processor architectures. There is also a very interesting Aros / Linux hybrid which opens up the world of linux applications to use inside AROS ... Aeros / Broadway X .

    How quickly we forget that Linus Torvalds was scratching an itch to build a minix clone for x86 which has led to the incredibly widespread and varied use we see today. So to AROS which started albiet more recently than Torvalds effort which has similar but humble beginnings.

    AROS and the work that has been done are enabling things like replacement , royalty free Kickstart's that can be used with emulation software - free of the chains of licensing. Its open source nature will ensure that the operating system can be free and modified by all.

    I for one applaud the efforts that have gone into the project particularly since they have so few active developers. (Anyone interested should probably dig in)

    1. Re:Why the animosity? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > Why the animosity to Amiga enthusiasts?

      There's plenty of people here that will screech and point at anyone they think isn't part of the herd.

      I suspect that's not the old 68K users acting like pod people here.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Why the animosity? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because back in the early nineties, we were obnoxious.

      I'm not kidding. We'd bring in the Amiga into every discussion. How it was the best computer in the world. How you suck for having a PC or Mac. How Bill Gates sucks because he won't support our wonderful computer system.

      We were basically the early nineties equivalent of Apple fanbois. Except worse, if you can imagine such a thing.

      And I suspect there are a few Team Amigans out there who are still like that. The rest of us are old farts who post to threads like this and reminise, which makes us easy pickings both for trolls, and people who just didn't like us back in 1992.

      That's not all of it of course. There's also always the MBA-who-thinks-he's-a-geek type who, on hearing someone has created a 6502 entirely out of discrete soldered together transistors, or out of Lego, posts here demanding to know WHY ANYONE WOULD MAKE A 6502 in 2012?!! And they're posting here thinking "Amiga?! But why would we want anything other than {"Linux"/Windows 8/Mac OS X}"

      That's why. My advice. Ignore it. Enjoy the fact geeks are doing geeky things. And try the OS if you have a chance, you might find a use for it, and you'll certainly learn something from it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Why the animosity? by Picass0 · · Score: 1

      >> "Because back in the early nineties, we were obnoxious....I'm not kidding. We'd bring in the Amiga into every discussion. How it was the best computer in the world. How you suck for having a PC or Mac. How Bill Gates sucks because he won't support our wonderful computer system. "

      Very true. I was an Atari ST guy. Man, you guys pissed me off so much. And what REALLY sucked was I knew deep down the Amiga was the better machine. I carried a stupid torch for Atari that looking back was completely unjustified. The Amiga could do things that the Atari "will do soon". And that "soon" eventually defined the whole experience of owning an ST. One empty promise after another. It was always an experience in "good, but it will soon be better than Amiga". And it never happened. Jack Tramiel and his idiot son ran the company into the ground.

      By the time I purchased my next computer ('92) I went with a 486. Every once in a while I would look at the ST collecting dust in the closet and consider just how stupid the whole thing had been.

    4. Re:Why the animosity? by paolobesser · · Score: 1

      "Because back in the early nineties, we were obnoxious." Yes. Sure to be the owners of the best machine around, and totally unwilling/unable to see world around us started spinning at a faster rate. I stopped using Amiga machines in 1995, but still missed AmigaOS habits and responsiveness for the years to come. That's why I joined the AROS project really soon: because having a port of AmigaOS to PC was my dream and AROS' open source nature would have provided some warrantees that other commercial alternatives couldn't. We needed a lot of years to have an acceptable degree of reliability, stability and features. But now we are at a good point of the walk. Funningly enough, if we took so long to get here, it's due mainly to the low acceptance of the project in the Amiga community. The same obnoxious people who survived to Commodore death and the first step of Amiga Inc' odyssey just couldn't accept the idea of an Amiga environment running on the x86 platform and started bashing us every way they could. Most of them just preferred to believe in little companies that repeatedly announced new products, new features and new Amigas that never came to reality. While BeOS survivors re-organized themselves and helped as they could the Haiku project, making it a promising alternative niche OS, Amiga fanactics just dreamed for ages about new incledible PPC machines and new amazing releases of AmigaOS 4.x. The end result is AmigaOS 4.x running on the X1000, a netbook-like grunt PPC machine which costs 10 times a good netbook. AROS would have been far more advanced, if only Amigans would have understood its importance for the survival of the platform - or, at least, its philosophy. But blaming people for what's been is not my cup of tea. I am just happy I can now provide a funny OS for people's spare time. Maybe an amusing geek's toy, but that's OK to me. If you like Icaros, download and use it, otherwise don't. It's free, after all. kind regards p.bes

  16. Re:Good luck. by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    Nope, look at my post below from an Amiga thread from 3 months ago for 3 seperate people in the first 2 pages decrying AmigaOS on x86 and how PPC hardware makes it 'special'.

  17. Re:Good luck. by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    The Amiga wasn't PowerPC based. It was a popular upgrade, and some of the companies that called themselves "Amiga" after Commodore's downfall produced machines they called "Amigas" with PowerPCs, but those machines were basic PREP (or whatever the term is), not resembling the Amiga range in any shape or form. The only connection was the operating system.

    What you have here are PowerPC snobs, not Amiga snobs.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  18. ex-Amiga fan by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    I used to be a die hard Amiga fan and I still dip into the scene every now and again to see what's going on.

    They seem to have a fairly decent browser in the form of a Firefox port called Timberwolf, but it's quite sad to see the amount of effort they have to through just to watch a video on YouTube.

    Likewise, USB support is still quite lacking (I'm not even sure they have USB2 support yet), and most of the software is just ports of Linux software (Blender etc.)

    It's interesting to see what's going on, but it'll only ever be a hobby. Some of them still seem to think the Amiga will take over the world one day.

    1. Re:ex-Amiga fan by LoadWB · · Score: 2

      I'm running USB2 in my 4000D with OS3.9. With this, I have a multi-card reader, 10/100 Ethernet adapter, and wireless keyboard and mouse. It can also handle USB wireless adapters and I connect USB flash drives and hard drives frequently. Not bad for a dead system. And, yes, it's a hobby and it's fun. I can't explain it any more than anyone can explain why it's fun to tinker with old cars, planes, stamps, etc.

    2. Re:ex-Amiga fan by BigSes · · Score: 1

      I posted this above, but you seem like another in-the-loop Amiga fan to ask, so I am reposting below:

      For the collector / new to Amiga market, what would you recommend? I want to get a complete Amiga system, for gaming exclusively, but I always get tripped up in the model numbers (500, 1200, 3000, etc). Just something new to toy around with for a few months and add to my collection of gaming equipment. I had a Commodore 64 since it was released in the "C" format, and still have all of my equipment and software, but I was so jealous of the back-of-the-box screenshots for Amiga titles (we really couldn't afford an Amiga when they were new). I'd love to experience that first-hand, especially from some of the better houses such as Cinemaware. I'm just completely unsure what model to invest in.

    3. Re:ex-Amiga fan by LoadWB · · Score: 1

      You'll probably get a few different answers, but IMO if you want to experience the Amiga gaming platform on a real Amiga machine, you'll want to start with an Amiga 1200. It's AGA (the last generation Amiga video chipset,) 2MB Chip RAM, hard drive capable, and a PCMCIA port. There are a fair number of AGA games which will run on this setup stock. Pair it with an inexpensive 68030 accelerator and you can play older games which require the older chipsets using WHDLoad (http://whdload.de). As well, you can install a CF card on-the-cheap and have a low-power, low-noise hard drive-like system with PLENTY of storage space. (http://alan2.rateliff.us/a1200flash). Mind you, vendors like AmigaKit (http://amigakit.com) have all-in-one packages ready to go.

      I encourage you to check out the various Amiga forums, starting with Amiga.org (http://amiga.org) and the English Amiga Board (http://eab.abime.net).

      Good luck and welcome aboard!

    4. Re:ex-Amiga fan by BigSes · · Score: 1

      Sweet man, thanks for the links! I'll check those out when I get out of work.

  19. Re:Good luck. by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    Only the second person mentioned PPC. The first guy was just saying you should have to have 'custom hardware' because otherwise AmigaOS is no longer 'special'.

  20. AROS on Raspberry Pi by snowball21 · · Score: 2

    Pascal Papara's Broadway AROS project has been brought to the Raspberry Pi by Stephen Jones. There's also an ARM6 hosted version of the AROS project available.

  21. Re:First Post by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 1

    Not sure why people get so butthurt over what other people do with their free time.

    Amen! This is an incredibly common reflex, found in all walks of life, and in relation to almost any area of human behaviour imaginable.

  22. Re:First Post by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Informative

    They were referring to AmigaOS not x86.

    Did you feel a little breeze in your hair? Yeah, that was the comment going over your head. He intentionally switched them up for effect.

  23. Re:Good luck. by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    Sorry, I thought you were quoting one comment.

    That said, it still doesn't really say what you're suggesting. What the first and third comment are saying is that they think the best computer would be combination of AmigaOS and custom hardware. They think AmigaOS should be created for this custom computer.

    Now, you'll note a few things. One is that that doesn't specify a CPU. The other is that pretty much rules out the crappy "Let's combine the reference-architecture PowerPC motherboards with AmigaOS" "Amigas" that have been pouring out of companies that have called themselves "Amiga" in the last few years. Because those reference architecture PCI-supporting PowerPC motherboards aren't exactly custom computers either.

    I can certainly relate to someone wanting the owners of the Amiga IP to come out with a revolutionary new computer, unlike anything out today. Because that's what we got in 1985. However, I think there's a world of difference between saying that, and saying "Also - it has to have some outdated, crappy, CPU that nobody uses any more". You'd put an ix86-64 in a modern Amiga for exactly the same reason as they put a 68000 in the original Amiga 1000 - it's a powerful, commodity, CPU, the best CPU you can get for the price.

    I'd be enormously surprised if the first and third poster didn't agree with that.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  24. Woohoo! by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

    Another undead "Amiga". Hooray...

    --
    Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
  25. Re:Good luck. by toejam13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    3 seperate people in the first 2 pages decrying AmigaOS on x86 and how PPC hardware makes it 'special'.

    An 8-core POWER7 processor is special. Most everything these days from the PowerPC series is not.

    Had Commodore actually released a PPC based Amiga themselves, then there might have been a real connection between the PPC and the Amiga. But Commodore folded before they could transition off of the 680x0. So all we have are a few third party PPC processor cards and a couple hobbyist companies tinkering with it after it fell from mainstream status.

    To me, I think a lot of people had wishful thinking of what could have been had Commodore followed Apple down the PPC rabbit hole. That is why they're so hung up on it. But for most people, the Amiga died when it was a 680x0 machine running 3.x.

  26. I seem to recall the last time by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Funny

    something was named Icarus, it went down in flames.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  27. Re:Good luck. by toejam13 · · Score: 1

    Define "custom hardware". Not even the game consoles really use specialty custom hardware anymore, and they were the last class of home systems to really do so. Now they just use tweaked versions of commodity hardware. These days, you have to look at big iron and mainframe systems to really find custom in-house designed hardware.

    I'm not saying that it couldn't be done, but it really wouldn't be worth the cost. Heck, look at AMD who just licensed an ARM core so that they can get the Trusted Computing subsystem into their x86-64 processors. It was simply cheaper to license something else.

  28. Re:Good luck. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    I completely agree with you. I was just saying that "custom hardware" is what the posters quoted were advocating, not "I HATE IX86!!?!"

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  29. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a bird! It's a plane! No, just the joke you didn't get.

  30. Re:Good luck. by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    You mean other than the 3rd quote explicitly stating AmingaOS4 has no reason to go on commodity hardware and the first one saying there are no benefits to x86/x64? You seem to be trying to reinterpret their clear statements to try to claim they are saying the opposite of heir own words.

  31. AmigaOS 4.1 by tracius01 · · Score: 1

    you all know that if you buy a modern MB with a PowerPC in it you can run the true AmigaOS http://www.amigaos.net/

    1. Re:AmigaOS 4.1 by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Modern? I don't think any of the hardware available to run amigaos qualifies as modern... It seems the fastest they have is a 1.8ghz dual core from pa-semi, who got bought by apple and are no longer developing powerpc processors.

      It also seems to be very expensive both for the hardware and the os.

      AROS/Icaros on the other hand is available for free, and runs on hardware that most people already have. It's easy for anyone to try, and risk free.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  32. Re:Good luck. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not all operating systems need to be, nor should be, multiuser, memory/resource protected, desktop publishing Goliaths. The OS I work on in my spare time is single user, no permissions, no memory protection simple piece of usefulness. I use it to run diagnostics and fix problems and I am proud of how well it does that. I believe your view of what a "useful OS" should be is skewed.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  33. Re:Still inspires? It doesn't. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    I think the weight of "people are inventing entire operating systems built in the manner of AmigaOS" outweighs your "I never turn on my video toasters any more."

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  34. Amiga was about the tech (to some) by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I recall from the Amiga back then (a friend had one), and what I have seen here so far, this "Amiga Experience" is all about the GUI, not so much about the underlying tech.

    Everyone had a different idea of what the "Amiga Experience" was, because the machine was so striking in so many different ways.

    I don't remember talking to many people who thought Intuition and Workbench (the GUI) were all that special (right-button fixed-position menus, and "screens" being the only "cool" Amiga-exclusive GUI features that I can think of off the top of my head), but OTOH in the mid-1980s there weren't that many GUI competitors, so I guess it's not far-fetched that at least some people thought that was special.

    To some people, it was just the games. The Amiga had its day in the sun where it was, for a brief period, the game machine. When that day ended, those people moved on.

    To me, it was all about the tech. And even within the tech, there were at least two camps and lots of people with a mix of membership in both. The custom chips were excellent -- by mid/late 1980s standards (by 1996 I had installed a graphics card and by 2000 the case was truly stuffed to the gills with replacements for nearly everything on the mobo, every Z3 slot filled and some cards with other weirdo connectors which connected to other sub-cards!).

    Exec was excellent (if you ignored the issue of memory protection) and simple, and I still sometimes wish on Linux I could "nice" processes with absolute priorities. (But it doesn't matter as much, these days.)

    Even AmigaDOS (!) (when's the last time you heard that part of the system praised?) had some very nice things about it, or easily added onto it. Linux finally got equivalent ramdisk tech with 2.4 but I still don't see a pipe device as awesome and convenient as APIPE. ;-) Linux finally got diverse filesystems (on of my favorite things about it) and has pulled ahead by a huge margin (I'll admit that; Linux is now the world leader in this regard) but Amiga people were plugging in, and playing with, and benchmarking different ones, years before anyone ever heard of Hans Reiser. When x86 people were working around fdisk partitioning, Amiga people had RDB -- equivalent tech is just now hitting becoming widely deployed with GPT. Some of its features seem very dubious by today's standards (I can't explain to anyone in 2012 why they would want "assigns" and not sound like a moron) but compared to AmigaDOS' comtemporaries .. oh, those people knew why someone would want a feature like that, and envied the Amiga even if they had to do it in secret.

    The Amiga was plenty loved for its tech. Maybe by different people for different reasons, but the techlove was there, and I think critical to Amiga lingering after Commodore's death, for as long as it did.

    One thing, though. For all the Amiga tech we don't have today, we still get by. Some of it got improved on (FFS seems so quaint now), some of it got the need for it bypassed by either new paradigms or brute force (you don't need copper lists, or to tell APIPE how much memory to use for its queue, or decent partitioning system when you have LVM), some of it is now seen as a bad idea (e.g. reading the the code which implements a filesystem, from the inserted media), and whatever we all still lack today, is mitigated by the other advantages of being the mainstream (e.g. Core i5 for $200 instead of a Cyberstorm 060 for $1000). The tech was damn fine, but it's still 1980s tech that we're talking about. It still impressed in the 1990s, but mainly because the 1990s were a semi-dark age.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Amiga was about the tech (to some) by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      What was special about the amiga gui, was the way it was extremely responsive and fully multitasking, competing systems of the time usually couldn't multitask very well if at all, and were generally very sluggish even on considerably faster hardware.
      This is also why the amiga stuck around for quite a while, although the hardware was getting dated the user experience took longer to seem slower than the underlying hardware would have suggested.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Amiga was about the tech (to some) by amorsen · · Score: 1

      I still sometimes wish on Linux I could "nice" processes with absolute priorities

      You can, you just need to use the realtime priorities instead. However, you need privileges to do so because it is trivial to crash Linux that way. Just like it was trivial to crash AmigaOS that way, of course.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Amiga was about the tech (to some) by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Good answer; I'm glad someone remembered and stepped in there.

      How ironic that I've forgotten. I happen to be going through some Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 migration drama, and the loss of aufs and trying to make the seeming-inferior overlayfs do the same job, ought to have put the value of additive assigns in the forefront of my mind. I wouldn't have tolerated this crap 15 years ago, because on the Amiga it all Just Worked. Meanwhile, some very smart people are still struggling with just what is the right way to do a union filesystem on Linux.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:Amiga was about the tech (to some) by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      Hardly cutting edge... Windows has had 'libraries' for *years*.

  35. Re:Good luck. by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Incidentally, by some accounts Commodore were working with HP to transition to the PA-RISC processor and had no plans to use PPC... Had they not folded, they most likely would have moved to HPPA, later moved to IA64 and would probably be in the process of moving again.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  36. Re:Good luck. by Bert64 · · Score: 2

    Those quote are hilarious...

    BeOs didn't succeed with x86. Some developers said that those who has originally used BeOs started to use window/Linux and stopped to support original BeOs apps because everythig was easier with Windows/Linux.

    Nor did it succeed on PPC.

    No valid reason for OS4 to go to commodity hardware. The market isn't there - niche OS's are free/open source on commodity hardware, Hyperion would have no business model.

    There is no market for a niche OS targeting hobbyists. Niche OS are free or open source and run on widely available hardware because that's the only way any of them has a hope of attracting a user base. Lots of people have old/spare hardware they would play with a new OS on, but very few would buy expensive hardware just to try an expensive os.

    That's how myself and many others first experienced linux. In fact, my first experience of both linux and netbsd was installing them on an amiga since that's the hardware i had available at the time.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  37. Re:Good luck. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    If you go and look at the context of those kinds of comments you will find that 'Custom' hardware means one of two things to the Amiga community as a group. 1) The custom audio/video coprocessors that were produced by Commodore. Generally referred to as the "custom chipset". 2) PowerPC motherboards.

  38. Re:Good luck. by toejam13 · · Score: 1

    Yes, with the Hombre system that they were co-designing with HP.

  39. Re:Good luck. by turgid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Had they not folded, they most likely would have moved to HPPA, later moved to IA64 and would probably be in the process of moving again.

    The few remaining polar bears are very thankful that IA64 didn't gain momentum...

  40. Re:Still inspires? It doesn't. by BigSes · · Score: 1

    For the collector / new to Amiga market, what would you recommend? I want to get a complete Amiga system, for gaming exclusively, but I always get tripped up in the model numbers (500, 1200, 3000, etc). Just something new to toy around with for a few months and add to my collection of gaming equipment. I had a Commodore 64 since it was released in the "C" format, and still have all of my equipment and software, but I was so jealous of the back-of-the-box screenshots for Amiga titles (we really couldn't afford an Amiga when they were new). I'd love to experience that first-hand, especially from some of the better houses such as Cinemaware. I'm just completely unsure what model to invest in.

  41. Like sailing the Atlantic in the Santa Maria by gelfling · · Score: 1

    The good old timey feeling of the late Renaissance

  42. UAE by DrYak · · Score: 1

    According to the article, Icaros plays nicely with a variant of UAE.
    UAE provide the emulation and Motorola-to-Intel JIT.
    While Icaros provide the Amiga OS API (thus, for example, the clip board is shared between x86 and motorola applications).

    The screen shots also feature windows with amiga games running in them.

    Now, it's another question how perfect this UAE+Icaros stack is for games and demos using bat-shit crazy copper effect running self-modifying code monstruosity triggered by in-sync CPU event ....

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  43. Re:Good luck. by paolobesser · · Score: 1

    "What upsets me is that I can't, any longer, jump on something so wonderful. There's no point." Why? The AROS community enjoys spending some of its spare time on this.

  44. Re:Still inspires? It doesn't. by BigSes · · Score: 1

    >> I want to get a complete Amiga system, for gaming exclusively, but I always get tripped up in the model numbers (500, 1200, 3000, etc).

    I'd get BOTH a 500 and the 1200; both of these are CPU-under-the-keyboard models, but the 1200 has the built-in HD (120MB or so). Try to run your games on the 1200 first, but in my experience, you'll need the original 500 for a few of them. (The 3000 series and what-not are separate tower/keyboard affairs.)

    Damn, I wish you didn't post AC, I was going to ask if I can use one monitor for both or if they use different monitors. Sorry if I seem uninformed on Amiga, its new to me in almost every sense.

  45. link to the project by paolobesser · · Score: 1

    Maybe someone would like to download Icaros Desktop and see what actually is. Here's the link to the project page. Thanks to all visitors, http://www.icarosdesktop.org