AmigaOS 3.1.4 withdrawn from market after Amiga

[plasmab]

Hmmm. The closest thing I saw to AmigaOS around then was Beos. I loved it. It died partially because it was closed source. Lesson right there.

[kolla]

Funny, I have a BeBox right here in my office, someone decided to give me as wedding gift last month, lol

Today BeOS in the form of Haiku, is open source and better than ever

[ptyerman]

BeOS was an excellent OS. I still have a old PIII system with it installed and still use it from time to time.
It should have been the modern successor to AmigaOS, it was so similar and anyone used to the Amiga would have felt right at home.

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by kolla

You gave the impression the other day that you knew something about this, but could not tell due to whatever... so what was that about?

In another thread I mentioned A-EON's plans to bring their new Enhancer Software ReAction classes to OS3 (as announced at http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-...-00014-EN.html ), that must be what you are thinking of.

Whereas what I am referring to in this thread is the official ReAction classes that are included in AmigaOS 3.5/3.9/4.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Minuous

In another thread I mentioned A-EON's plans to bring their new Enhancer Software ReAction classes to OS3 (as announced at http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-...-00014-EN.html ), that must be what you are thinking of.

Whereas what I am referring to in this thread is the official ReAction classes that are included in AmigaOS 3.5/3.9/4.

I was referring to this:
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=18

Well, I can't say too much at the moment for contractual reasons, but I can assure you that ReAction is under continued development.

[Minuous]

@kolla:

Yes, that was a reference to the A-EON classes. At the time I wasn't aware that a public announcement had been made, thus the mysterious phrasing.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by plasmab

Hmmm. The closest thing I saw to AmigaOS around then was Beos. I loved it. It died partially because it was closed source. Lesson right there.

we have aros, which is open. and amiga belongs to its target platforms, along with as much backwards binary compatibility to all the existing kickstarts as possible. so i think we can consider this lesson learned. at least by some..

[Locutus]

Originally Posted by kolla

Funny, I have a BeBox right here in my office, someone decided to give me as wedding gift last month

That's a gift that would almost tempt one into marriage :-D

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by plasmab

I don’t think it would have made sense to port AmigaOS to x86 in 1994.

Depends on the goal. If it was to continue selling overpriced niche hardware then no, moving to X86 didn't make sense.

By 1998 it was looking much more sensible... But it was too late for Amiga by then. Most people had moved to PC

It was too late well before then. The writing was on the wall in 1981, and by 1987 it was obvious which way things were going. By 1994 AmigaOS was dead.

I think there was a market for AmigaOS on PC around 1997-1998. Windows 98 sucked really bad, Windows 95 was a toy.

AmigaOS was a toy OS for a toy computer. Windows 98 was the culmination of 15 years of serious OS development.

From 2000-2005 I used Linux... I breathed a sigh when I didn’t have to manually install 200 dependencies to run an application. This is what’s still missing from AmigaOS.

Not sure what you are saying here, but both Windows and Linux suck wrt dependencies. Why would AmigaOS want to copy that?

Once Windows 2000/XP came along I think the market was diminishing for an alternative OS.

Diminishing? More like virtually non-existent.

[kolla]

Organise your decades already, lol

[malko]

While reading the Trifecta thread, seen this. A 3.4.1 for sell...

[plasmab]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Depends on the goal. If it was to continue selling overpriced niche hardware then no, moving to X86 didn't make sense.



It was too late well before then. The writing was on the wall in 1981, and by 1987 it was obvious which way things were going. By 1994 AmigaOS was dead.

Possibly. PC hardware got real cheap around 1998 though.

AmigaOS was a toy OS for a toy computer. Windows 98 was the culmination of 15 years of serious OS development.



Not sure what you are saying here, but both Windows and Linux suck wrt dependencies. Why would AmigaOS want to copy that?

.

Utterly disagree. I can install an application and everything it needs in seconds on Debian. Without having to worry about it. On AmigaOS I need to block out a weekend only to find it can’t be installed anyways. AmigaOS wastes my time. I want it to be more efficient.

Package management is a good thing. It takes manual tasks and automates them. Isn’t that what computers are for? Automating manual tasks?

I disagree about Windows 98. It was awful and abandoned for the NT line in Windows 2000. Unfortunately WIN32 survives to this day

[cloverskull]

I'm with plasmab here regarding dependency management.

Linux - package management resolves everything for you, with exceptions (naturally) but is an overwhelmingly positive experience on modern stable distros.
Windows - Yeah, sometimes you need to scour the web for a driver, but I've not run into any dependency issues on my Windows boxes in a very long time.
MacOS - Not mentioned yet, but there are zero dependency issues on these computers, because the hardware and software come from the same place. Hypothetically Amigas could operate this way.
Amiga - I need to use SnoopDOS to figure out what libraries are missing, manually, search Aminet, manually install the thing, it never updates unless I somehow search every library I have periodically on Aminet to see if a thing changed, and the number of conflicts I've run into with installed libraries or commodities is staggering.

[nobody]

When I started using Linux nothing was automated, there was nothing like apt and some times you even had to compile packages yourself. This apt thing happened at the last 10 years or so when Ubuntu started pumping in millions for improving Debian. Linux was a nightmare back in 2000, actually it was a hacker's OS, the only thing working was what you would get with your distribution.

[plasmab]

Originally Posted by cloverskull

I'm with plasmab here regarding dependency management.


Amiga - I need to use SnoopDOS to figure out what libraries are missing, manually, search Aminet, manually install the thing, it never updates unless I somehow search every library I have periodically on Aminet to see if a thing changed, and the number of conflicts I've run into with installed libraries or commodities is staggering.

Add on to this that every package has a different process for installing. A good whack of the lha files on Aminet are tarbombs that trash the folder they are unpacked in....

It’s the definition of misery.

[plasmab]

Originally Posted by nobody

When I started using Linux nothing was automated, there was nothing like apt and some times you even had to compile packages yourself. This apt thing happened at the last 10 years or so when Ubuntu started pumping in millions for improving Debian. Linux was a nightmare back in 2000, actually it was a hacker's OS, the only thing working was what you would get with your distribution.

Rubbish. I was using apt-get in 2001. And it wasn’t new then. Debian 2 had it.

Initial release of apt-get.. March 31st 1998. 20 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APT_(Debian)

[kolla]

I happily compile all Linux software and kernels myself, bonus is that I can then decide what to include or not, and build for any arch, also those not supported by any specific distro.

[Predseda]

I see some recent blasphemy in this thread...

[plasmab]

Originally Posted by kolla

I happily compile all Linux software and kernels myself, bonus is that I can then decide what to include or not, and build for any arch, also those not supported by any specific distro.

Urgh.. treating computers like pets rather than cattle.. no interest for me. I'd rather watch paint dry. I want to use them to do stuff.

[nobody]

Originally Posted by plasmab

Rubbish. I was using apt-get in 2001. And it wasn’t new then. Debian 2 had it.

Initial release of apt-get.. March 31st 1998. 20 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APT_(Debian)

Then you should tell us how you managed to install your debian in 1998 lol. Did it even have a graphical installer? I am asking because you seem like experienced Linux guy.