Retro Activity: MorphOS 1.0 170
An anonymous reader submites: "You can read it from their development page if you like to get the word from the horses mouth. 'The current version is 1.0. Feedback welcome.' Hey, if you can't revive a dead horse, whip it some more, yeah?" All the better to run programs on their "old Commodore(TM) A1000, A500, A2000, A1200, A3000(T) and A4000(T) systems as efficiently as possible." Everyone has different uses for time.
it's morphing time!! (Score:1, Funny)
Uh (Score:1, Interesting)
Just FYI.
Great Day! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great Day! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great Day! (Score:3, Interesting)
OS/2 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OS/2 (Score:1)
Re:OS/2 (Score:2, Funny)
Anonymous Cowards aren't dead, they just smell that way!
Re:Great Day! (Score:2)
It's freaking weird to see the OS/2 window decoration on an error message in amber on an ATM though! Especially when you know it's the kind of ATM that normally looks like a telnet connection (characters only).
--
Daniel
Re:Great Day! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Great Day! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's also quite common to see in Point-of-Sale environments, where the same vendor seems to be providing software for both NT or OS/2. I believe Schnucks supermarkets in IL were still running it, though I could be wrong; look for telltale UI widgets next time you buy milk.
*I should note that, not unlike *NIX with XFree86, OS/2 has certain memory requirements that must be met before it'll fly. It came before its time; on a K6-2 with 128MB RAM, it flew with memory 80% free, but by then, it was too late, and NT- an even bigger ball of bloat, being at heart a reimplimentation of OS/2's C sources in C++- was reborn as Win2k about 4 years later.
Re:Great Day! (Score:1)
Hehehe, I happily ran OS/2 2.1 on a 386/16 with 8MB of RAM, and a 200MB hard drive (IBM PS/2 of course, it was technically below the minimum specs for OS/2 even. Hell, it was originally a 286, with a 386 upgrade card in it!!!)
Re:Great Day! (Score:3, Informative)
NT is not written in C++, it is mostly C (with some assembly, obviously). It is also not a reimplementation of OS/2. As a matter of fact, it looks a helluva lot more like VMS than OS/2. Sure, the kernel and executive both handle objects, but not in the C++ sense. They are really just C structs that the kernel and executive keep track of and make sure don't leak (all get freed when an application terminates, if the app forgot to free them itself).
Re:Great Day! (Score:3, Informative)
It is based on OS/2 code though. Breifly and somewhat inaccurately - the history goes that IBM and Microsoft were originally jointly developing OS/2 as a next-generation graphical multitasking OS for the PC. I believe version 1.0 of OS/2 was actually called "Microsoft OS/2", but it didn't get much notice. Microsoft and IBM had a falling out - they split up, each retaining the rights to re-use the existing OS/2 code, but only IBM keeping the actual OS/2 name. From at least OS/2 1.3 onwards it was all IBM.
Microsoft used the OS/2 kernel to base NT off of. As late as NT4, and quite likely still in 2k and XP, if you search the binaries in winnt\system32\.... you can still find OS2 error messages embedded deep in some DLLs - so apparently the code is still in use to this day.
I might, just for the record - that IBM released OS/2 2.1 (which had a Win95-level GUI and better-than-NT true protection and multitasking, and Win3.1 application compatibility) before Microsoft ever released Win95 or the first commercial NT. But Microsoft actually beat this released product into the ground with FUD about the upcoming offerings. Sure enough well down the road they did eventually release 95 with a decent GUI, and NT with a half-decent kernel. But at the time of OS/2 2.1, all they had to compete with was Win 3.1.
I migh also add it took until NT4 years later for Microsoft to put a 95-style GUI into their NT kernel, and it took until the recent release of XP before an NT system was considered good enough for home/desktop use to replace the 95 line of products. OS/2 was always a good desktop OS.
Re:Great Day! (Score:1)
I was under the impression that Microsoft was only developing the PM (Presentation Manager) GUI layer for OS/2 and didn't work on the OS/2 kernel or have rights to use it. The development agreement alowed Microsoft to reuse the PM code it developed for IBM so they hooked that up as front end for dos as the first incarnation of 'Windows'.
Agreed that OS/2 should have beat Windows 3.1 into the ground, but unfortunately, throwing millions of dollars into an agressive marketing campaign for an inferior product while using loads of FUD on your competitors does work.
Re:Great Day! (Score:2)
I only started using OS/2 in the 2.1 days, everything I know about 1.x is what I've read or heard somewhere. I'm pretty sure 1.0 had no GUI at all, and perhaps 1.3 had a very basic GUI similar to Windows 2.x/3.x. It wasn't until OS/2 2.x that they had a real PM as everyone came to know it (Win95-level GUI).
I don't have any references on Microsoft having rights to the early kernels offhand, but I bet I can dredge up something or other, I'll reply back here in hopefully not too long
Re:Great Day! (Score:2)
"Vijay Mukhi's The 'C' Odyssey OS/2 & PM - Into Infinite Worlds"
Tech Publications Pte Ltd
First Edition 1992
10, Jalan Besar, #B1-39 Sim Lim Tower, Singapore 0820
ISBN 981-214-012-3
Appears to hav emostly been written in 1990, with a final chapter called "Perspectives 1991", but actually published in '92.
Pg 1, Prologue, 4th paragraph:
"This gap that DOS's eventual demise is going to be filled by is none other than OS/2. The brainchild of Microsoft and IBM. And with backing like that can it go wrong?"
Pg 340, Section 2, 5th paragraph:
"... The PM is a combination of a protection mode multi-tasking OS with the application architecture and user interface of Microsoft Windows, plus a powerful graphics system from IBM. It is this graphics system from IBM that makes the PM far more sophisticated and cleaner than Windows.
Pg 341, 1st paragraph:
"A hard fact: The PM requires machines that are based on the INTEL 80286 and upwards microprocessors. And it comes with OS/2 version 1.1 and above. Besides, it requires at least 4MB of RAM"
"Microsoft Os/2 Programmer's Reference"
Microsoft Press
Sep 1, 1990
ISBN 1556153457
http://www.neonatology.org/rgd.cv.html
Curricu
Invited Lectures, Symposia, and Workshops
"LMI Forth for Microsoft OS/2," presented at the 1987 Rochester Forth Conference, June 12, 1987.
http://www.quasarbbs.net/pido2/home/gamba/ADVOS
Appears to be the full text of a book called "Advanced OS/2 Programming" by Microsoft Press, written by the sam Ray Duncan as the above CV link. ISBN 1556150458.
First paragraph of Intro:
"Operating System/2, Microsoft's protected mode operating system for
80286-based and 80386-based microcomputers, provides programmers with a
powerful new platform for application design. It also challenges them to
assimilate a body of technical information whose size is unprecedented in
the microcomputer world. The reference manuals for OS/2 and its extensions
(such as the Presentation Manager and LAN Manager) already fill several
shelves only a year after the system was first released and the
Microsoft or IBM Programmer's Toolkit, along with the necessary
development tools and libraries, can devour a sizable fixed disk."
First paragraph of chapter one:
OS/2 is the Microsoft multitasking, virtual memory, single-user operating
system for personal computers based on the Intel 80286 and 80386
microprocessors. It is the first software product to be brought to market
as a result of the Joint Development Agreement signed by IBM and Microsoft
in August 1985.
Shortly down from that, there's a text/graphical table that makes mention of both "MS OS/2 1.0" and "MS OS/2 1.1".
http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html
Ver
Re:Great Day! (Score:2)
Re:Great Day! (Score:2)
2) CICS client
3) Fairly low memory requirements.
4) ????
5) Prof... oh wait, hang on...
Re:Great Day! (Score:2)
2.) OS/2 Warp is not dead. It's called eCommStation now, remember?
Re:Great Day! (Score:1)
Roger! Okay, I'll grab one about VMS. [levitte.org] Then can we call it teh day?
Re:Great Day! (Score:1)
Re:Great Day! (Score:2)
OS/2 Isnt gone yet anyway (Score:1)
Re:Great Day! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm speechless (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be so open-minded your brains will fall out.
Its not for C64 (Score:5, Informative)
From the website:
"Under the Quark kernel a PowerPC(TM) native reimplementation of the OS we know from the Commodore(TM) A1000, A500, A2000, A1200, A3000(T) and A4000(T) systems runs as a mixture of a virtual emulation and a driver. We call this OS driver from now on the A-Box."
Re:Its not for C64 (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it does run on Amigas with PowerPC CPUs too.
http://www.morphos.de/support.php3 [morphos.de]
Platform: Pegasos, A4000(T), A3000(T), A1200
Re:Its not for C64 (Score:3, Funny)
Last time i checked, no programs run on Amiga. Some walk, but most crawl.
-Q
Re:Its not for C64 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its not for C64 (Score:1)
Re:Its not for C64 (Score:1)
Why pay for something that is already free?
WinGimp [wingimp.org]
Where? (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, the site says that the purpose of MorphOS is to run Amiga programs FREE OF the old Amiga hardware.
Re:Where? (Score:1)
Re:Where? (Score:5, Informative)
Morphos screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1897 [osnews.com]
Interesting.. (Score:2, Insightful)
So all these ancient Commodore systems are growing in popularity but *BSD is dying, eh?
Try again.... (Score:2, Informative)
It also is competing with Amiga OS 4.0 which will run on the same accelerated Amiga's AND the new Amiga One.
Re:Try again.... (Score:1)
Re:Try again.... (Score:2, Informative)
No, there isn't. There will be no more Amigas, instead future versions of AmigaOS will run on third party hardware (and on Amigas with PPC accelerators). Mai Logic's Teron CX [mai.com] POP motherboard is one such piece of hardware, although AmigaOS will only be allowed to run on this board when it's renamed "AmigaOne G3SE" and distributed by Eyetech Ltd. [eyetech.co.uk]. Hardware must be licensed, provide a hardware-license verification mechanism (known as "anti-piracy measures" in the marketing waffle) and be sold by a licensed distributor in order to be allowed to run AmigaOS, and AmigaOS will only be available bundled with such hardware.
This hardware licensing scheme was designed by Amiga Inc. with "consultation" from Eyetech, and it's hardly surprising that Eyetech is the only hardware distributor that has acquired such a license.
There was once upon a time going to be newly designed, proprietary Amiga hardware, back when Eyetech was a "hardware partner" of Amiga Inc. These "AmigaOne 1200/4000" boards never appeared, and instead third party hardware is to be used (although the advantages of getting rid of "Amiga" hardware are negated with this compulsory licensing madness).
Read more about it here [8bit.co.uk].
Re:Try again.... (Score:1)
Eyetech is the only currently licensed distributor of "Amiga-licensed" hardware. Elbox (makers of a PPC accelerator for old Amigas, which is not yet finished and it'll not be a new computer) have "been in discussions" about a license. That was in June, no licensing has been announced yet. Matay are now distributing the Pegasos and MorphOS - not likely that they'll apply for one of these license jokes.
Get it? And please learn what the term FUD means.
It's unfortunate that outdated crap is allowed to keep spreading misinformation on the amiga.com site, if they won't update it they should at least delete all the old nonsense about "Zico", an OS based on AmigaDE/intent, "AmigaOne 1200/4000" and so on and so on and so on...
> AmigaONE as the only AMIGA is pure BS!!!
True. Thank heavens. Noone will make any "Amigas", no matter how much some people think that (pretending to) try to sell trademark license restrictions to third party hardware distributors and wishing really really hard will change that.
Re:Try again.... (Score:1)
Apple PPC's? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple PPC's? (Score:1)
For starters, they're fundamentally different architectures. On top of that, one of the things that made the Amiga so great was the multitude of co-processors it had which were -essential- to it working like an Amiga; if the new OS didn't rely on them it'd be relatively useless.
Re:Apple PPC's? (Score:2, Informative)
For starters, they're fundamentally different architectures.
What the article fails to mention is that MorphOS will be shipped on (together with Yellow Dog Linux) an in-house designed POP-based OpenFirmware-equipped motherboard called Pegasos [bplan-gmbh.de]. While different from a New World PowerMac, it's not "fundamentally different architectures". This board already runs OSX with Mac-On-Linux. MorphOS on (reasonably modern) Mac hardware is quite likely, though not in its initial release.
Re:Apple PPC's? (Score:1)
However if I could run MorphOS on a TiPB, oh the possibilities....
Re:Apple PPC's? (Score:1)
Q: Will MorphOS support any other hardware?
A: MorphOS is open to any new platform or hardware. To have support it requires complete specs of the hardware to port the low level hardware code.
Q: Will MorphOS run on Apple Hardware?
A: Not at the moment but it's looked at. Don't expect real information about this until end of 2002.
I for one, would love this! All Amiga-classics running semi-native on my Mac. Cool
Re:Apple PPC's? (Score:1)
Those were some fun chips!
Lets see..... (Score:4, Funny)
MorphOS (Score:5, Informative)
This motherboard also comes with a version of linux for PPC. Besides that MorphOS will also run on Amigas equiped with a PPC cpu and rumour goes a PowerMac version could be released one day.
Re:MorphOS (Score:1, Interesting)
I cannot go into all the details here and now, but let me give one example.
AmigaOS does linking at compile time, and not at runtime. Its libraries work with a jumptable - fixed offsets in the table contain the jumps to specific functions, and the compiler selects the right offset during compilation (rather than during loading/linking as on UNIX). This is not particularly better or worse, simply different. I don't really want to fight a flamewar here, there isn't much of a point to that.
Amiga 'devices' (floppydrives, harddisks, the shell, the network, serial, basically _anything_ that does IO in some way) are simply libraries with a pre-defined set of functions in the jumptable. In C++ terms, they are objects, derived from a pure-virtual baseclass. This is what allows the OS to load devices at runtime - it simply loads it as a library, adds it to the device list and pretends it is a 'generic device that can do IO'.
Now this mechanism relies heavily on the AmigaOS way of doing libraries, and was effectively lost when Ralph fucked it up. I am sure he has hacked in some sort of support to 'emulate' it, but what makes AmigaOS special is not the fact that you can somehow fuck around with it to 'emulate' stuff, nor its feature set, nor its API, but its sheer _elegance_.
Any OS that wants to be its spiritual successor must seek to achieve that elegance, and if it cannot then it has nothing to do with it.
As for the PPC boards in legacy Amiga's: they are a pile of shit. Sure, doing something CPU-intensive on the PPC is reasonably quick. Mine can even run Quake, without a 3D card no less. But the PPC only runs a simplistic scheduler, and the real OS still runs on the 68K, and as soon as you want to do communication of any kind between the PPC and the 68K you have to flush caches on both CPU's. Whoosh - that was the sound of your performance dropping to C64-like levels.
These days I mostly use Linux and some legacy OS for gaming support, but I am still hoping one day we will see an OS as elegant as AmigaOS (neither Linux nor the legacy OS are particularly elegant). I kinda like QNX, but it has not much of a software base so there isn't much point to running it...
Intended hardware. (Score:5, Informative)
MorphOS is intended for the POP-compliant Pegasos [bplan-gmbh.de] PowerPC board from bPlan. Note that while a Realtek PHYceiver is listed, that's just the PHY; the ethernet controller itself is a Via Rhine derivative embedded in the southbridge. Pictures here. [bplan-gmbh.de] It can also run on classic Amigas with appropriate PowerPC accellerators; NetBSD is also being readied for the bPlan hardware.
AmigaOS 4 [amiga.com] is the 'name [amiga.com]-brand' product, being produced under contract by Germany's Hyperion Software [hyperion-software.com]. It's intended for Eyetech's AmigaOne G3SE and XE [eyetech.co.uk] products, and Elbox's SharkPPC [elbox.com] accellerator in classic hardware with suitable PCI busboards. Hardware dongling of the AmigaOne (with respect to AmigaOS; Linux and *BSD will run unhindered), and continuing intellectual-property disputes may or may not effect the chances of OS4 support for the Pegasos.
All three new PowerPC boards use MAI's PowerPC chipsets [mai.com], also seen on the Linux-friendly Barbie [penguinppc.org].
Nor should we forget 'AmigaDE' or 'Amiga-Anywhere,' a crossplatform system based on Tao's Intent [withintent.biz] runtime + media libs, which is really quite cool even if they've just redesigned their site opaquely. the CEO of Gentoo provides a good writeup here [ibm.com].
Intended hardware - Addendum. (Score:1)
The CommodoreOne actually integrates some features similar to the original Amiga, showing what a single hobbyist can accomplish in this day and age. Then again, perhaps times haven't changed much, since we all know who was the real brains behind the Lorraine...
Rest in peace, Mitchy... and you too, Jay.
Re:Intended hardware. (Score:1)
I'm going to buy the AmigaOne-XE and AmigaOS 4.0
Re:Intended hardware. (Score:1)
try http://www.aros.org for an open source implementation of AOS3.1 for 680x0, x86, PPC etc..
recent builds can be downloaded from here http://www.ahsodit.com/aros/index.html
most of AOS functionality is there. a Workbench replacement is currently in development
most system friendly amiga apps only require a recompile..
NBIAR
bplan pictures schmictures (Score:1)
Truly the Classic Amiga legacy: user wanted it, user was willing to pay the extra bucks, user still couldn't have it.
Unfortunately... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2, Funny)
Different uses of time. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, some like to play with old innovative OS:es, some like to play with old rebuild monolithic Unix:es, trying to use slow X servers as desktop enviroments.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader, trying figuring out which one of those two options I find more attractive.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news Microsoft is suing MorphOS in 47 states and in federal court for copyright infringement. A company spokeman said, "This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on Microsoft's patents and copyrights. We are committed to protecting consumers worldwide from themselves. MorphOS's blatant attacks on innovation in the industry will not be tolerated."
Slashdotted... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slashdotted... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdotted... (Score:2)
Re:Slashdotted... (Score:1)
If you think that's cool, remember the time someone posted a link to a webserver running on a Commodore 64 [cc65.org]. That thing just kept serving stuff for a while at an acceptable rate. Yeah, not all night long, but for an amazingly long time. I think what brought it to halt was the link to the CGI script =)
Atari 800 - better (Score:1, Flamebait)
(Hell, as long as we're reliving the past, let's *really* relive the past - you're either pro-Atari or pro-Commode-dore)
Re:Atari 800 - better (Score:1)
Well, I guess we know which one you are...
--
Mike Smith ( C-64 RAWKS D00D!!!
Re:Atari 800 - better (Score:2)
I could probably still find the rotting hulks in a closet somewhere.
Re:Atari 800 - better (Score:2)
Mod parent up? (Score:1, Interesting)
Atari's direct competition to the Amiga was the ST, which evolved into something comparable to the Mac, but was a pretty large ripoff in its first incarnations, featuring none of the coprocessing and wait-state outsmarting that made the Amiga grand.* It made a niche for itself as a musician's machine, given the built-in MIDI interface, but it featured no grand synthesis hardware itself- just the good ol' serial port that MIDI is, which could be added to any machine of the day for about $50.
The first ST also beat the Amiga in resolution, but only on Atari's proprietary displays, which had a different aspect ratio than most CRTs of the time. The decision to leave the Amiga at 640x200NI was a sad one, and made by Commodore management to keep the displays cheap and RAM usage down (remember, the first machines had to hold all of Kickstart, the OS, and program code in the stock 256k; this was quickly remedied in the 500 and 2000, when the 'memory crisis' of those days had eased somewhat, but the damage was done architecturally, and Commodore actually designed another chip just to deinterlace the output- Amber, found in the 3000, and trickled back to the 2000 in the official delacer card.)
So, at best, you could call the machines a tossup. The Atari had its two strong points, but remember, it was no faster than an original Mac, and no more able to multitask. The Amiga, in contrast, was a speed demon, its 68k mostly freed to execute program code, with the copper around to assist. With the first multitasking OS on a consumer machine, you could actually do two things at once, like listen to MODs on the Gary chip's multivoice audio output while you BBSed.
A sidenote: Why the hideous blue, orange and white default everyone remembers from Workbench 1.x? The Amiga crew hauled in the most broken television sets they could find, back when they still thought they'd be using them for display, and determined it was the highest-contrast scheme. Woz made a similar decision in going green on the Apple II- green phosphors were the last to die on your average color TV, and who was going to buy an expensive new set just to tinker with a computer?
Not true... (Score:1)
Also, while the Amigas custom chip arrangement meant that the CPU was usually freer to do more processing, the A500 was 7.14 Mhz to the STs 8 Mhz due to the memory addressing scheme (I think).
Of course, the Amiga rocked and still does.
Re:Mod parent up? (Score:2)
The Amiga A1000 was the greatest PC of it's time (Score:4, Insightful)
--CTH
Why is this modded up??? (Score:2)
Also, don't blame Amiga's failure on the marketplace, Commodore screwed things up badly time after time. Shifting of market focus, failure to deliver, low quality components (high return rate for substantial amounts of time), economical extravaganzas, do I need to go on?
And if you think that average corporate offices should have chosen Amigas instead of PCs or Macs, then you obviously don't understand the corporate needs of the 80's. What the hell would an office computer do with advanced graphics, advanced sound, flickery colorscreens (either interlace or way to expensive monitors), an immature platform with a seriously buggy OS and hardly any software support (we're talking about A1000, right?)??? Not to speak about the dependence the company would get on one single, small supplier.
Sure, I also regret how things turned out, but put the blame on those who deserves it. As far as I see it Atari Mega STs would have fit the corporate desktop much better (more user friendly GUI, cheaper hardware and a rock solid B/W screen), but I don't blame them for not choosing that either. Atari also screwed up a lot and was also a too small single supplier.
Re:Why is this modded up??? (Score:2)
As opposed to Microsoft, which not only was a small supplier and had inferior technology? Microsoft was clearly a poor and irrational choice for companies. In fact, the technically and economically sensible thing for corporations in the 1980s would have been to deploy thin X-based clients and UNIX servers. PCs and Macs were, and still are, a waste of money and an IT nightmare in any corporate environment.
However, I suppose it is good that all that wasted money has driven hardware costs way down so that the people who really need it now can get $1000 supercomputers on their desks. It's kind of silly that the beancounters at various businesses didn't figure it out; the same people wasting 90% of their IT budget on junk would have screamed bloody murder if their taxes had gone up by as much as 1% to support R&D in information technologies. Go figure.
Re:Why is this modded up??? (Score:1)
Re:And don't forget... (Score:2)
They made the opposite mistake with the A500 in the UK. They pushed it as a business machine for about two years, allowing the 520ST to consolidate its early foothold. If they'd properly set out to compete directly for the home gaming/productivity market, they could have killed the ST in two years and owned UK home computing for half a decade. But hey, they didn't, so who knows how that might have worked out.
Re:And don't forget... (Score:1)
1. It could not boot from a Hard Disk
2. You could not put in an internal HardDisk
3. Could not had more memory buy just adding chips.
4. Borland failed to come out with Turbo Pascal for it like they prommised.
5. Printing sucked on the early versions of the OS.
6. The flickering screen.
I loved the Amiga and it should have been a bigger hit than it was. The 2000 fixed a lot of these issues but not all. The 3000 did but by then it was too late.
Re:And don't forget... (Score:1)
I'm not sure which list to put this on; the good or bad list. I can add:
7. Microsoft succeeded in releasing AmigaBASIC, but never updated it to work on a CPU later than the 68000.
Re:What is its license? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is its license? (Score:1)
I can't believe I explained the exact nature of MorphOS to both of you and neither of you remembered it
Re:What is its license? (Score:1)
It's Over Man (Score:2, Interesting)
I know what it's like when a loved one passes away. How it feels to find that you most loved piece of hardware has passed away. For 7 years my only computer was my trusty old Amiga 500. Even when CBM went up in flames I still went out and imported a A3000 from Canida. So I feel your pain.
It's time to let go man. Just drop it and walk away, don't look back. I said, don't look back.
If you still believe you must have all the benfits of the Amiga, get your self a nice linux box. Shoot, a nice Mac will help go through the loss.
Trust me, it's for the best
Re:It's Over Man (Score:2)
Linux certainly is a nice OS. But no matter how nice an OS you install, crappy hardware remains crappy. Where is the computer that will allow Linux to implement removable media handling like AmigaOS had? Where is the computer capable of perfect syncronisation between screen updates, screen refreshes, and sound? Where is the computer capable of moving pictures on the screen smoothly by just changing a few registers instead of copying it all to the new location? And where is the computer with the two nice mouse controllers like in my Amiga?
Re:It's Over Man (Score:1)
Yeah, But can I get Duke Nukem Forever for it? (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, But can I get Duke Nukem Forever for it? (Score:2)
Thanks a lot buddy! *grmbl*
there are some games (Score:1)
All your Boing are belong to us, NOT! (Score:4, Informative)
Unless this is an Amiga Inc. story, It shouldnt run with the Amiga Boing Ball Logo (i.e. The Origional 1985, 8 x 8 checker pattern).
MorphOS has a great logo: so thier stories should use the propper butterfly. Its a really nice logo too... . . . .
It's not the same without the Amiga (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, the Amiga made using computers fun. It wasn't *what* you were doing, but *how* you were doing it (except for those ^#@! guru's) Now that Windows has taken over virtually everything, computers have become just a tool for getting work done, and it's become too routine. Linux and to an extent, MacOS X, have captured a lot of the spirit of the Amiga, and features that I had on my Amiga years ago are starting to make their return (I missed my CLI on my desktop machine!). Yet, it just isn't the same.
Off topic, SASG [sasg.com] still appears to be active. Looking at some of the MUI screenshots, it's interesting to see how similar parts of MacOS X are - back in 1995!
Re:It's not the same without the Amiga (Score:1)
Re:It's not the same without the Amiga (Score:2)
I replaced the cia's, but that really didn't fix anything. I bought an upgrade chipset, but they were out of dmac 4's - so I have a buster and a ramsey sitting in a box somewhere just waiting.
I heard that nmos chips - the kind of chips every amiga used minus the A1200 and the A4000 degrade after a certian amount of years. Certianly seems the case. Then again the A3000 was a HOT computer - I melted more then one set of rubber feet off the bottom.
Re:Sue, Sue, Sue (Score:1)
Re:Sue, Sue, Sue (Score:1)
Re:A600 (Score:1)