Next gen Amiga

[Galahad/FLT]

Right, so whats the best method of next gen "Amiga" on the cheap?

Is it a PowerMac G5 or is it an Aros x86 solution?

Thoughts please.

[PortuguesePilot]

How can either be classed as "next gen" when the technology that lie beneath is already obsolete? Shouldn't we, as a whole, focus on bringing "Amiga" into the x64 technology? Or at least suit it for the ARM processors of the majority of smartphones?

Out of the two options you give, I dunno. I have a softspot for the G5, but the x86 is broader in its scope.

As it stands, though, I'll just stick to the legacy 68k Amigas. Maybe I'll upgrade to FPGA some day. The PowerPC/x86 hardware does not interest me for Amiga purposes. But that's just me...

[DDNI]

Do you want to run MorphOS AROS or AmigaOS4?

AROS cheapest - any old x86 machine. Least supported NG platform.
MorphOS - well supported runs on PPC macs
AmigaOS4 - try in WinUAE, it’s not a patch on real hw though. Real HW pricey.

[Retro1234]

Theres a version of Aros for Raspberry PI thats had some attention outside of Amiga.

Android TV and Pie are next gen for me anything running on these is the future.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

focus on bringing "Amiga" into the x64 technology?

aros abiv1 has public x64 target inclusive some sort of experimental multicore support:
http://aros.sourceforge.net/de/nightly1.php

As it stands, though, I'll just stick to the legacy 68k Amigas. Maybe I'll upgrade to FPGA some day. The PowerPC/x86 hardware does not interest me for Amiga purposes. But that's just me...

i have similar view on the matter.

[idrougge]

A G4 Mac Mini of the last model is a good choice.

[jPV]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Right, so whats the best method of next gen "Amiga" on the cheap?

Is it a PowerMac G5 or is it an Aros x86 solution?

Thoughts please.

PowerMac G5 is the best performing machine for MorphOS use, but it depends little what you want from your next gen experience.

First, MorphOS vs. AROS, if you want 68k binary compatibility then it's MorphOS, because it has integrated 68k emulator (Trance), for AROS you have to use UAE or recompile programs. For chipset banging programs it's UAE for both in any case, but for system friendly stuff (programs, libraries, commands, devices, datatypes, etc).

In other aspects I also think MorphOS is a more solid solution and advanced better. But AROS run on more mainstream HW, although PPC Macs for MorphOS are very cheap and relatively easy to find too.

From MorphOS machines, do you want classic Warp3D compatibility or is the newer TinyGL enough without that kind of classic 3D compatibility? Gfx cards you are likely to put on G5 machine don't have anymore backwards compatibility with Warp3D... although there are some Radeon 92xx cards which you probably could find with Mac BIOS, although it might be bit harder.

PowerMac G5 is if you want the best performance, Mac mini (preferrably 1.5GHz model with 64MB gfx mem) if you want small and energy efficient machine which doesn't take much space on the desk (and is probably the most compatible setup, but resolutions with modern displays is limited), or if you want a portable laptop, then some of the latest IBooks or Powerbooks (I'd recommend Powerbook G4/1.67GHz for that).

As you can guess, I find MorphOS solution more sexy than AROS, because I still value 68k binary compatibility pretty much. It's got better and better with native programs, but I still can't live without some real 68k programs to improve my system.

Check the MorphOS Library for more info about the operating system, its programs, compatible computer setups, etc. And official page for compatibility of gfx cards etc.

[jPV]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

How can either be classed as "next gen" when the technology that lie beneath is already obsolete? Shouldn't we, as a whole, focus on bringing "Amiga" into the x64 technology? Or at least suit it for the ARM processors of the majority of smartphones?

Well, it's the next generation from the 68k systems. So what's wrong with the name? And when this name became common (around end of 90s and early 00s), we had pretty competitive hardware too. Pegasos and AmigaOnes weren't that obsolete then. Pegasos 2, for example, was pretty fine and affordable for its time. PPC Macs, which are the most reasonable solutions nowadays, are massive step and generations ahead the old shaky 68k setups. Operating systems are also progressed much from AmigaOS 3.9 times and "next gen" refers more to OS than HW under it, and I just couldn't go back from MorphOS to 3.x systems for daily use anymore. So, do you have better suggestion for the "next gen" name? I think it's still quite justified.

[meynaf]

There is nothing "next gen" that values the old thing. Switch to another cpu family, and you lose the asm-friendly 68k. The whole thing then becomes much less lean-and-mean, needs more resources for the same thing, can't be software hacked in the same way, etc, i.e. it is no longer an amiga that's worth coding on. But maybe that's just me.

[jPV]

Originally Posted by meynaf

There is nothing "next gen" that values the old thing. Switch to another cpu family, and you lose the asm-friendly 68k. The whole thing then becomes much less lean-and-mean, needs more resources for the same thing, can't be software hacked in the same way, etc, i.e. it is no longer an amiga that's worth coding on. But maybe that's just me.

Why can't software be hacked in the same way? Why it needs more resources, at least noticeable amount? Anything 68k will fly compared to real 68k anyway. You can do 68k asm on others but AROS. All these NG opearting systems have 3.x compatible API too.

For example MorphOS is VERY lean-and-mean when you compare it to OSX or Linux on the same hardware. And it even runs on very modest hardware too, like on Efika (400MHz CPU with 128MB memory), you can imagine how fast it is on >1GHz machines, or even on 2.7GHz G5 machine

How can you say there is nothing that values the old thing? It's all based on old Amiga, from OS to all components and software bits, it's all inherited from Amiga, but taken to the next level.

[MigaTech]

That is what a lot of people say about BPPC. I own a BPPC 603e @ 240MHz 256MB but most think that when it is in PPC mode it is no longer an Amiga. It only counts when it is in 68040 @ 25MHz mode.

I am still a little unsure by all this not Amiga if it isn't 68K and original chipset. I supposed it is like factory standard against upgraded machines.

As for your Next Gen Amiga, why not use a G4 1.2GHz you could run quite a bit on that. There are lots of G4's almost being given away on eBay.

I own 3 Mac's, 2 G4's and 1 G3.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by jPV

Why can't software be hacked in the same way?

Because of very poor and very stupid asm language.

Originally Posted by jPV

Why it needs more resources, at least noticeable amount?

Because not written in asm, even partially. Less low level always equals bigger and slower.

Originally Posted by jPV

Anything 68k will fly compared to real 68k anyway. You can do 68k asm on others but AROS. All these NG opearting systems have 3.x compatible API too.

Can you take over the system and touch the hardware directly on these ?

Originally Posted by jPV

For example MorphOS is VERY lean-and-mean when you compare it to OSX or Linux on the same hardware. And it even runs on very modest hardware too, like on Efika (400MHz CPU with 128MB memory), you can imagine how fast it is on >1GHz machines, or even on 2.7GHz G5 machine

400Mhz and 128MB memory is actually HUGE.
Lean-and-mean is being able to run with 7mhz cpu and 512k ram.

Originally Posted by jPV

How can you say there is nothing that values the old thing? It's all based on old Amiga, from OS to all components and software bits, it's all inherited from Amiga, but taken into the next level.

They only get one third of amiga. They keep the API (which is actually the poorest thing of all 3), but trash the cpu and the hardware.

[AmigaEd]

Originally Posted by jPV

First, MorphOS vs. AROS, if you want 68k binary compatibility then it's MorphOS, because it has integrated 68k emulator (Trance), for AROS you have to use UAE or recompile programs. For chipset banging programs it's UAE for both in any case, but for system friendly stuff (programs, libraries, commands, devices, datatypes, etc).

I've never used and never actually seen MorphOS in use, but in what ways does the Trance emulator differ from UAE?

[DDNI]

Trance is like Petunia in AmigaOS4 it transparently emulates a 68k instruction set to allow AmigaOS4 to run system friendly 68k programs on the PPC OS. They don’t emulate any custom Amiga chips, so any 68k programs that require them must be run with UAE. RuninUAE makes this seamless on AmigaOS4. I’m sure there’s a MorphOS equivalent launcher.

I tried Morphos last week. It is nice, but feels slightly less Amiga than AmigaOS4.1. In truth though the similarities are so close, that having the two as distinct OSes is madness.

Time to bury the hatchet and join forces.

[PortuguesePilot]

I really look at this differently, it seems. For me, when you have to "emulate" the chipset, then it's no longer a real "Amiga". Oh, so the OS is inherited from the Amiga? Cool. But the machine it runs on is not an Amiga. Sorry. I know, the current PC's aren't XT compatible either, and they're still PCs, but talk about the huge gap in between and the evolution that was beneath it all. It went sort-of smoothly from XT to AT(x86) to x64, all with minor incompatibilities with the immediate predecessors. The jump from 68k to PPC or x86 (with MorphOS and AROS respectively) was much harder, more immediate and "broke" a lot more things. And - yes I'll admit it - I can still taste the bitterness in my mouth that was left with Commodore's demise. The whole Escom and Gateway ordeal and the apparent "curse" that fell upon the Amiga. I still remember that I wanted it to be a valid alternative to "Wintels" and Macs. I wanted the Amiga to live on but with full backwards compatibility. For it to happen, 68060 would have to been used on A4000s and the next-gen (real usage of the expression here, IMO) Amigas would have to have a custom chipset that incorporated - on hardware - full legacy 68k+OCS/ECS/AGA compatibility while moving forward to 3D Acceleration and Gigahertz processor speeds. What I mean was: my first multimedia PC - bought right after I knew the Amiga was dead - was a full-fledged i80486DX2@66MHz with a VESA SVGA graphic card, a Sound Blaster 16 sound card, a 6 button 15-pin joypad and a 15" CRT monitor. State-of-the-art for a home PC at the time. I could still run Rick Dangerous in it because it was 100% compatible with the previous two iterations of the PC-AT standards (namely the 286 and the 386). This is what we needed on the Amiga front. Sadly, it never happened. Commodore tried to go the console route before it went bust with an obsolete and under-performing console that would never stand a chance against a SEGA Saturn, much less the ubiquitous Sony Playstation (which was an absolute game changer). By the time (1996 and onwards) top-tier PCs were already equipped with 3Dfx cards... Remember those? The "Amiga" line could only have survived as a true-Amiga IF it had evolved as I (and many others like me, back then) wanted. But it was never meant to be.

Understand better why I said what I said above?

IMO: Amiga OS-derived running on PPC or x86 processors? Yeah, neat and all... but they're not Amigas. To me they just feel like a desperate attempt to keep something remotely linked to the Amiga floating aimlessly, and it was done at the wrong time and by the wrong means. Sorry.

[MigaTech]

@PortuguesePilot, So you do not agree that my Amiga in PPC mode is no longer an Amiga either?

Also, I remember the long wait back in the mid to late 90's for Amiga to return. When Escom released the A1200 and A4000T it felt awesome, unfortunately it didn't last! I hated the then PC owners constantly laughing at my allegiance to Amiga.

I never left Amiga's side but had bought my first PC platform in 1999, it was a P5 P133 Socket 7, if I remember rightly and I upgraded it to a P166 MMX later. <I think the P5 was the follow-on from your 486DX.

It was sad times and yes even then we all thought, the Amiga was cursed!

Back in the day of Amiga, we were all teenagers having a blast on computers from a time that would never come again! I guess this is just another reason, why we all love Amiga so much!

[Philyon]

Originally Posted by meynaf

There is nothing "next gen" that values the old thing. Switch to another cpu family, and you lose the asm-friendly 68k. The whole thing then becomes much less lean-and-mean, needs more resources for the same thing, can't be software hacked in the same way, etc, i.e. it is no longer an amiga that's worth coding on. But maybe that's just me.

Neighbor, I totally agree !

[ajk]

This has all been dealt with over the years ad infinitum. To some, like meynaf as an assembly coder, the Amiga is clearly tied to the 68k and custom chips. Others did not care what was underneath, it was the operating system and programs that mattered. Saying either one is correct is just an opinion

Galahad's question is hard to answer (as we see here) since there are several paths of "next generation". For MorphOS, the Macs are the way to go, for OS4 it's cheap to try in WinUAE but there isn't really an inexpensive hardware option, and for AROS most things will work (some driver limitations to consider).

[DDNI]

@ajk

Yeah this is a well worn discussion.
Sadly they always go the same way, with the same old names popping up to snipe...

NG isn’t Amiga
What constitutes an Amiga
My NG OS is more Amiga than yours

Etc etc

[PortuguesePilot]

Originally Posted by DDNI

@ajk

Yeah this is a well worn discussion.
Sadly they always go the same way, with the same old names popping up to snipe...

NG isn’t Amiga
What constitutes an Amiga
My NG OS is more Amiga than yours

Etc etc

This, in itself, proves my point. No-one ever argues that a 286 or a 386 or a 486 or a Pentium or a Dual Core (or the AMD equivalents) are Windows-based PCs. The simple fact that we discuss that MorphOSed Apples and AROSed PCs are or are not Amigas, tells us that there is not consensus regarding the matter. In all likelihood, they're NOT Amigas. They're Apples or generic-branded PCs running some sort of an AmigaOS-derived operating system that was complied to run some software but offers no 68k legacy hardware support, having to resort to emulation in order to run 68k/OCS/AGA-specific games/programs.

Wasn't "Amiga" the whole chipset+processor combination? Wasn't the chipset (OCS, ECS and AGA), specifically, which MADE the Amiga? Then if you take that out of the equation, how can you still call it an Amiga? Genuine question. I would really like to know your (and anyone else who considers NG to be "Amigas") answer to this.