Next gen Amiga

[AdvanceFollow]

Originally Posted by malko

Don't forget that the <whatever>UAE we use is as sustainable as our old Amiga are... Somebody has to keep the development up and running on new "platforms" (CPU/OS/etc...). So will someone still maintain it in 5-10 years ?

As long as there are people who want to run Amiga emulation, someone will maintain it for whatever platform is "in" at that moment. It's open source software, so it's not dependent on any key person(s), like for example A-Eon or the MorphOS team are. It also gets faster all the time as the host platform evolves. For example on my current desktop system, it's about 160x the speed of a 25 MHz '040 according to SysInfo - so it's a 4 GHz 68040. That sounds pretty NG to me

Of course one day in the future, development will cease as nobody will be left who remembers what Amiga was, but I won't be around to worry then

[jediknight]

i would like a minimig with 1gb memory hd graphics say 1gb vram ,small as a raspberry pi.

[indigolemon]

Originally Posted by jediknight

i would like a minimig with 1gb memory hd graphics say 1gb vram ,small as a raspberry pi.

With lasers. It needs to have lasers.

[nexus]

i think a lot of this amiga has to be only its built in chipset or its not amiga is nonsense computers are built to be expanded as it should be on any design. what it comes with stock is just that a stock system with enough stuff to be usable for the market it was intended for adding any upgrades to that stock does not change it to not being a amiga anymore. the next gen stuff is a different story and gets in the gray area

[trixster]

Agreed. Even with upgrades it's still an Amiga, it can still run Amiga stuff but it can also do a whole lot more. That's the point of having an upgradable computer! Being able to add extra interesting stuff does not interfere with it's original purpose, it just makes it better.

[PortuguesePilot]

It's kind of hard to make sense of a comment that has no commas what so ever. But it seems to me that both nexus and trixster were saying that the so-called NG is an "evolution" of sorts. I fail to see how, honestly. The features that made the Amiga BE the Amiga (and not be an ST or an Archimedes or a PC) WAS the hardware. Was the specific nature of its hardware. Without it, the Amiga wasn't an Amiga. To deny that and to follow the OS route on hardware that is NOT compatible with what made the Amiga DOES NOT turn those computers into Amigas.

Much of what made the Amiga was the hardware and the games/programs that "banged it". A couple of CLI programs that run natively on a derivative OS doesn't make the computer that runs it an "Amiga". Some of those computers have no soul, much like a generic PC. If they're turned off and someone asks a bystander "what computer is this" they would unequivocally say "it's a PC" or "it's a Mac" but never, EVER "it's an Amiga". Because they aren't. Even with them turned on I'd argue that 99% of people would still call them PC/Macs and not Amigas. Heck, even I wouldn't call them Amigas, and I fully know what they are.

When your goal is to go the PPC, x86 or even x64 route for the sake of it alone, then you are going on a merger path to the Wintel/Apple machines that run the show. If what simply constitutes the Amiga is a mere OS, then the Amiga has failed. Might as well just embrace Wintels/Apples and stop pretending.

The original Amigas existed 'cos a team of people put together a couple of custom chips with an off-the-shelf CPU. It had two distinct versions (OCS/ECS and AGA) and saddly, had no continuation after 1994. The OS (Workbench) was just there... And most of the software that most people ran on their Amigas didn't even need the OS in the first place. Only by embracing that legacy (the whole thing, not just the OS) - from the base hardware - would the so-called NG Amigas actually BE Amigas. As they stand, they're little more than PCs/Macs running a derivative, obsolete, unneeded and underwhelming OS that - truth be told - stands as no competition to Windows or Mac OS X.

I LOVE the Amiga. Sometimes it seems that I love it to the death. I'll die loving it. But the Amiga has been dead since 1994. These computers - the so called NG, charming as they may be in their own right (and, as I said, I'm all for diversity) - are little more than mere posers.

I guess this is yet another one of those Amiga-related issues that simply will never see a community consensus.

[nexus]

whoa grammar police

what made the amiga was the fact that they included built in what most would charge a shit ton for with the ability to hack and expand to your pleasure and needs

hence why we have tons and tons of upgrades hacks and add-ons

[ajk]

They created their own graphics and audio chips because at that time off-the-shelf parts did not exist for what they wanted to achieve. But by the early 90s it was no longer feasible for Commodore to compete with specialized chip manufacturers. By the late 90s it would have been outright impossible.

Had Commodore survived, the technological path would definitely have resembled that of Apple's, with increasingly standard hardware components. It's not that Commodore particularly couldn't keep up with custom parts; no one else could either as we can see from the results today.

The operating system and all the software that ran on it was definitely a big part of the Amiga experience. Not everyone just played games or watched demos.

[donnie]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

It's kind of hard to make sense of a comment that has no commas what so ever. But it seems to me that both nexus and trixster were saying that the so-called NG is an "evolution" of sorts. I fail to see how, honestly. The features that made the Amiga BE the Amiga (and not be an ST or an Archimedes or a PC) WAS the hardware. Was the specific nature of its hardware. Without it, the Amiga wasn't an Amiga. To deny that and to follow the OS route on hardware that is NOT compatible with what made the Amiga DOES NOT turn those computers into Amigas.

Much of what made the Amiga was the hardware and the games/programs that "banged it". A couple of CLI programs that run natively on a derivative OS doesn't make the computer that runs it an "Amiga". Some of those computers have no soul, much like a generic PC. If they're turned off and someone asks a bystander "what computer is this" they would unequivocally say "it's a PC" or "it's a Mac" but never, EVER "it's an Amiga". Because they aren't. Even with them turned on I'd argue that 99% of people would still call them PC/Macs and not Amigas. Heck, even I wouldn't call them Amigas, and I fully know what they are.

When your goal is to go the PPC, x86 or even x64 route for the sake of it alone, then you are going on a merger path to the Wintel/Apple machines that run the show. If what simply constitutes the Amiga is a mere OS, then the Amiga has failed. Might as well just embrace Wintels/Apples and stop pretending.

The original Amigas existed 'cos a team of people put together a couple of custom chips with an off-the-shelf CPU. It had two distinct versions (OCS/ECS and AGA) and saddly, had no continuation after 1994. The OS (Workbench) was just there... And most of the software that most people ran on their Amigas didn't even need the OS in the first place. Only by embracing that legacy (the whole thing, not just the OS) - from the base hardware - would the so-called NG Amigas actually BE Amigas. As they stand, they're little more than PCs/Macs running a derivative, obsolete, unneeded and underwhelming OS that - truth be told - stands as no competition to Windows or Mac OS X.

I LOVE the Amiga. Sometimes it seems that I love it to the death. I'll die loving it. But the Amiga has been dead since 1994. These computers - the so called NG, charming as they may be in their own right (and, as I said, I'm all for diversity) - are little more than mere posers.

I guess this is yet another one of those Amiga-related issues that simply will never see a community consensus.

on point.

amiga is dead. Long live amiga.

amiga was an hardware standard. Not a software standard, not an os.

[AdvanceFollow]

Originally Posted by ajk

They created their own graphics and audio chips because at that time off-the-shelf parts did not exist for what they wanted to achieve. But by the early 90s it was no longer feasible for Commodore to compete with specialized chip manufacturers. By the late 90s it would have been outright impossible.

Had Commodore survived, the technological path would definitely have resembled that of Apple's, with increasingly standard hardware components. It's not that Commodore particularly couldn't keep up with custom parts; no one else could either as we can see from the results today.

The operating system and all the software that ran on it was definitely a big part of the Amiga experience. Not everyone just played games or watched demos.

Also, anyone who wanted to use an Amiga seriously beyond ~1995 would have purchased a graphics card. 24-bit, chunky graphics. A video chip from Cirrus Logic or S3, makers of PC video chips. No more Denise/Lisa. Also, if you were to install AmigaOS 4 on such a machine with a PPC accelerator, the 68k CPU is also bypassed. Is this no longer an Amiga?

[idrougge]

People who claim that the Amiga is a hardware platform and that the OS is unimportant is either a demo coder or a lamer.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by idrougge

People who claim that the Amiga is a hardware platform and that the OS is unimportant is either a demo coder or a lamer.

Or just, you know, people with a different opinion?

On a platform that is segmented like the Amiga is, there will undeniably be different notions of what it actually is to each one. This kind of thread only proves that.

[gulliver]

Originally Posted by Akira

Or just, you know, people with a different opinion?

On a platform that is segmented like the Amiga is, there will undeniably be different notions of what it actually is to each one. This kind of thread only proves that.

Whilst anyone can have their own opinions, there is absolutely no doubt that all CBM 68k machines that were called "Amiga" were, in fact, Amigas.

Everything else beyond that is just a stretch of the term for some sort of convenience or nostalgia factor, but not something factual by itself, and as such it is open for debate.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Akira

Or just, you know, people with a different opinion?

Lamers with opinions are still lamers. Probably the kind of lamers who got a PC as soon as their fathers gave them enough pocket money.

[nexus]

amiga is hardware and software created by engineers etc who wanted to build a machine to what they wanted a computer to be.
as the wants and needs changed so did the amiga just look at dave haynie as a example he was always trying to make it better and more expandable as the market/tech could allow at the time

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by idrougge

Lamers with opinions are still lamers. Probably the kind of lamers who got a PC as soon as their fathers gave them enough pocket money.

Sadly this is very true.

[Dunny]

Well, if you enjoy hitting the 68k and custom chips as part of your daily Amiga use then obviously the Amiga was the 68k CPU and the custom chips.

If you now pine for the way things were done in Workbench, or the simplicity of AMOS or Deluxe Paint then the OS and software was the Amiga for you.

Pick your poison.

[AdvanceFollow]

Originally Posted by Akira

Or just, you know, people with a different opinion?

On a platform that is segmented like the Amiga is, there will undeniably be different notions of what it actually is to each one. This kind of thread only proves that.

IMO, it depends on when you got into the Amiga, and what you personally define as Amiga.

I agree 100% with the last paragraph. If all you had "back in the day" was an A500, Amiga for you is Lemmings, SoTB and Lotus Turbo Challenge, and nothing more. After this, you bought a 486 or Pentium, and moved on into the PC world, which means that Amiga for you is forever associated with those games and the techniques they used (planar graphics, copper, blitter, sprites, etc.). Your concept of Amiga is locked into that time frame/era of 1987 - 1991.

If however you were one of the (crazy) people who stuck with the Amiga beyond ~1996-1997, it was all about extending the platform a 68040/60, or even a PPC CPU, RTG graphics, going online etc. Anything to keep the Amiga "spirit" alive, no matter how unorthodox (such as using an S3 or Cirrus Logic PC graphics chip in your Amiga).

Personally, I was somewhere in the middle. I got my first Amiga, an A1200, in late 1993, so I have no nostalgic connection with ECS or OCS as the glory days of the Amiga chipset were long gone, and I even thought of AGA as a temporary stop gap on the way to the modernization of the Amiga. All I wanted was for the Amiga platform to evolve, to keep up with contemporary Pentium/SVGA systems. Obviously, if you yourself got an A500 in 1987-1988 and then had already moved on to the 80486 in 1993, your view of the Amiga platform would be completely different than mine. In 1997, when I was still clinging to the Amiga as a having a future, you were probably already running Linux or Windows 98 on your Pentium.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by idrougge

People who claim that the Amiga is a hardware platform and that the OS is unimportant is either a demo coder or a lamer.

Never knew I was a lamer, thanks for that

The OS is indeed not important. An Amiga running 68k Linux or BSD is still an Amiga, the OS doesn't change what the machine is. Commodore called their machines Amigas, so that's what Amiga is: Hardware. If that makes me a lamer, then that's fine with me.

[trixster]

I think AdvanceFollow makes some very interesting points, and could well explain why people have different views.

The original designers of "the Amiga", and Commodore thereafter as custodian of "the Amiga", designed it to be upgradable both in terms of hardware and software. This expandability for me means it can go beyond the base hardware and still remain "an Amiga". But I agree that probably what everyone remembers as the Amiga were those early years, and as such anything afterwards (PPC, RTG, 68030+) doesnt really count as "Amiga".