Why can't we have a computer like Amiga?

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Never was a Mac fan, but Steve Jobs was probably the last guy on Earth who ran business that way.
Look at the retina screen in iPhone4. Was that an off the shelf component?
Jobs didnt say, yea get me whatever screen thats available.. No, he thought that all screens you could buy were crap and wanted something that would compare to paper print... so he sent the specs and asked "I want a 300dpi screen... Can you produce this screen for me? if you can Ill buy 10 million of them". That kind of stuff is driving the mainstream market forward.

Yeah, won't work for a new Amiga though, think about it...

"Can you produce this screen for me? if you can Ill buy 10 of them"

Originally Posted by Jope

68000, the design of the Amiga began in 1983 and The A1000 was available in 1985...
I agree, not available on day 1, but let's not stretch the dates needlessly.

ok i know there were higher spec Amigas, i was comparing the most popular models, but i hope you get my point.

mistake number one when people talk about what some imaginary "new" amiga should be like, to imagine that it will be something amazingly powerful, when the Amiga was never really that, but it was the combination of a sort-of console-like approach applied to a home computer with a multitasking OS... something half-way between the two that gave us the advantages of both.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

The point was, even if someone would build a great new "amiga-esque" computer, who would it be for? And how would you get ppl that dont really need anything better than they already have to use it... Times have changed.. its hard to make an impact these days.. unlike 1985...

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

mistake number one when people talk about what some imaginary "new" amiga should be like, to imagine that it will be something amazingly powerful, when the Amiga was never really that, but it was the combination of a sort-of console-like approach applied to a home computer with a multitasking OS... something half-way between the two that gave us the advantages of both.

Yes! Again, rose-tinted glasses in full spec. And that was an approach that back then worked and was probably unique (*cough cough* X68000 *cough*), but has no place in today's world. Arcade games don't exist anymore. Consoles are basically very alike home computers regarding tech and games, actually, computers many times surpass the consoles. As said before, things have changed!!

The fact is people should let the Amiga die and stop trying to zombify it back into this era and hoping it will be a mindblowing experience. Computing has just changed so much. Not even us, who grew up with these machines, have the same notion of computing, so there is possible no probable way to surprise any of us in the level the Amigas, Ataris or C64s of their time did.
Also remember: we were very young and easy to wow and awe, too. As you age, you become a grumpy old naysayer

[golem]

Originally Posted by Akira

As you age, you become a grumpy old naysayer

Yes. Grumpy old naysayer here too.

On to rose-tinted glasses; I sometimes think the previous generations obsession with steam engines is a bit like ours with the Amiga. Steam was dirty, slow and dangerous yet it is romanticised to be much better than the diesel engines that replaced it.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by guybrush

Did the programmers got worst with the increase of speed?

Well... i see this everyday in my work - there are few lines of products - two of them use modern SoC and one a bit older (i mean 400MHz so anyway faster than fastest Amiga).
All those 3 products use different software technologies (i mean API's, different Linux versions etc) but they are very similar in terms of customer target.
! platform use a bit outdated (400MHz) STM SoC, second platform fancy crap from Intel (called Groveland) and third modern SoC from Broadcom - (some people already knows what kind of products im describing).
So imagine 3 different HW and 3 different SW teams, imagine also now that slowest HW have best feel and look within same GUI (all 3 products looks same from customer perspective), side to this slowest HW have very limited RAM (less than 256MB where other 2 SoC use 1GB of RAM)...

So if you asking me if this mean that developers get worst i would answer definitely yes - i blame lack of experience, lack of knowledge as i believe you may be even PhD on some area and on other area you will fail - Amiga have this luck to be designed by people with passion but also with knowledge - personally i believe that with modern HW people just relay on compilers instead creating fast and optimized code and i can even understand this - they just earning money and they think about going fast as possible to home... No passion...
I have lot strange discussion such as difference between debug and regular build - most of developers believe that debug is same as non debug and activating debug doesn't disturb anything...
Sometimes i giveup... and thats why we cant have decent computer with decent OS (with whole respect to Linux i think this is not good universal OS that can be used from large supercomputer clusters to small embedded system - it simple don't downscale well...).

[Mrs Beanbag]

i have encountered this, it's not that they don't care that the code is slow, it's more that they don't seem to have any concept of just how much computing power even a mobile device has these days. i was on a project a couple of years ago, and the client was complaining that something was getting very slow, the original programmer just said "well, that's just how it is, it's only a tablet" or words to that effect...

so the boss put me on that case, and i don't like to blow my own trumpet but, it's fast now.

people don't understand how much power computers have these days. they also don't understand algorithmic complexity, and how it matters *more* as computers get better, not less. as the size of data sets increases roughly in proportion to the size of the memory. if the CPU speed doubles, and the memory size doubles, and the dataset doubles, your algorithm had better be O(n log n) at worst or you're in trouble matey.

i have worked for a well-known manufacturer of FPGAs and the attitude there wasn't any better.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Akira

Computing has just changed so much.

It's not like that all. Computing hasn't changed one bit. It's all just more of the same. Computers today are the same as computers from the 80's. They simply have faster CPUs, better graphics, more RAM, better sound and more storage space. More of the same, and nothing that's actually new.

[Mrs Beanbag]

in hardware terms, yes... but in terms of how computers are used, it's vastly different now. multi-processing, networking, security, the cloud...

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by Thorham

It's not like that all. Computing hasn't changed one bit.

I see what you did there
I meant home computing, and it did change. What you do and expect from a home computer for home use it's totally not the same as 20+ years ago. Probably also in business, as Beanbag says, the way we use and how much we use them has changed a lot.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

multi-processing, networking, security, the cloud...

Only the cloud is new. The others are just more wide spread.

Originally Posted by Akira

I see what you did there

That pun wasn't intended

Originally Posted by Akira

Probably also in business, as Beanbag says, the way we use and how much we use them has changed a lot.

It's become more extensive because computers are more widespread now. People still play games, use word processors, spreadsheets, databases, etc. Those uses are still the same. It's more that things have been added to the list of common computer uses than that it's all that different.

In essence it's all exactly the same: People using microcomputers to run the software they want to run. In that sense there may never be anything truly new in computer land.

[quarkx]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Only the cloud is new. The others are just more wide spread.

Hate to say it but the "Cloud" is a "new" twist on the old "off site back-up" speial they have been touting for years. It also brings back main frames and dumb terminals. Since day one, no company wanted anyone to actually have a hard drive, God forbid YOU store something in your computer... But I am OT.

You also have to remember that no big company actually designs and builds computers these days. They assemble parts and sell them for as big as a profit margin they can get away with. Even Apple MIGHT design a case for there stuff, but they are going to intel and getting the cheapest deal they can on off the shelf processors, Motherboards and now GPU's.

The Unfortunate truth is the Amiga could never be built in this day and age. To expensive and risk for any company to innovate- unless they are building very small numbers or if you have a cheap build unit like the pie. Just do a search- Companies tried to bring out project boards like the Pie and failed miserly because the corporate mentality, dictated that these devices should have a $50-$100 price point in order to be profitable. They could not believe that the pie will always sell because of the low price point. (both ASUS and MSI tried and failed)

[kolla]

The only viable thing Amiga has to offer in the modern world of computing, is the user experience of the OS - graphical interface built into the core of the OS, with screens, windows, gadgets, mouse pointer etc.

I would love to see a modern approach to the AmigaOS - essencially, if anyone was to build an operating system for today, around the same philosophy and ideas that the original Amiga team had - what would it look like? For one, throw out Tripos and replace it with something more akin to CAOS (ie, more "unix like").

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

i have encountered this, it's not that they don't care that the code is slow, it's more that they don't seem to have any concept of just how much computing power even a mobile device has these days. i was on a project a couple of years ago, and the client was complaining that something was getting very slow, the original programmer just said "well, that's just how it is, it's only a tablet" or words to that effect...

so the boss put me on that case, and i don't like to blow my own trumpet but, it's fast now.

Once again - i think they don't care as they have no reference - I enjoy this example [ Show youtube player ] - this shows what im talking about - modern developers (even those with closely undescribed PhD) lost knowledge about simple yet efficient and useful algorithms...

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

people don't understand how much power computers have these days. they also don't understand algorithmic complexity, and how it matters *more* as computers get better, not less. as the size of data sets increases roughly in proportion to the size of the memory. if the CPU speed doubles, and the memory size doubles, and the dataset doubles, your algorithm had better be O(n log n) at worst or you're in trouble matey.

i have worked for a well-known manufacturer of FPGAs and the attitude there wasn't any better.

Yes, complexity growing but not wisely - it unwise, spaghetti chaotic style of growing code - there is no pressure on efficiency and that's why smartphones need to be recharged at least once per 12hr...
Most of things you listed (security, networking etc) existed (albeit slightly different way) even in late 70's.
How this possible that over 100 people providing less efficient code than 10 people even in case that they providing code for HW whic is somwhere between 8 - 12 times faster...?

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Once again - i think they don't care as they have no reference - I enjoy this example [ Show youtube player ] - this shows what im talking about - modern developers (even those with closely undescribed PhD) lost knowledge about simple yet efficient and useful algorithms...

i think they do care... they just don't know any better. because yes, they have no reference. the slowest thing they ever coded for ran at 1GHz and had 256Mb of RAM so the idea that that is a lot is completely lost on them, if you said you could get their code to run on a 10MHz CPU with only 256Kb of RAM they'd think you were being funny.

Yes, complexity growing but not wisely - it unwise, spaghetti chaotic style of growing code

i'm not talking about code complexity (although sometimes that is also a problem), but algorithmic complexity. This is taught about in computer science courses and in any good book on the subject but it somehow doesn't seem to sink in.

For example if you write a bubble sort, that will be fine if you are sorting maybe 10 or so elements, but if your dataset grows to a million elements it's going to be slow, no matter how much you optimise it. Because it will still be a bubble sort, and a bubble sort has complexity of O(n^2), in other words when the size of the problem doubles it takes four times as long to run. So if your memory size doubles, and your CPU speed doubles, your program is going to be half as fast. This is what happens in the real world. And i have seen people using O(n^2) algorithms, in fact one time i refactored what was i think even an O(n^3) algorithm (i didn't do a proper analysis, it was bad anyway). In the end i got it down to linear time complexity but people were too sceptical that it would actually produce the same result.

there is no pressure on efficiency and that's why smartphones need to be recharged at least once per 12hr...

That is because of 5-inch colour touchscreens.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

i think they do care... they just don't know any better. because yes, they have no reference. the slowest thing they ever coded for ran at 1GHz and had 256Mb of RAM so the idea that that is a lot is completely lost on them, if you said you could get their code to run on a 10MHz CPU with only 256Kb of RAM they'd think you were being funny.

Nope - trust me - they have no background (as i've talk with them - they have no clue for example about video or audio), don't understand implications for doing this or this (why trying to change content of screen more than framerate of video? - this is simple thing - check VSync before, don't go over VSync), side to this they have no knowledge about standards.
I believe that nowadays most of code is created in different way and management can be blamed (unrealistic time planning) only partially.
Worse - we as a customers accepting this as unavoidable cost of progress... there is general acceptance for low quality code... soon this will be low quality of everything - services, health care etc...

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

i'm not talking about code complexity (although sometimes that is also a problem), but algorithmic complexity. This is taught about in computer science courses and in any good book on the subject but it somehow doesn't seem to sink in.

For example if you write a bubble sort, that will be fine if you are sorting maybe 10 or so elements, but if your dataset grows to a million elements it's going to be slow, no matter how much you optimise it. Because it will still be a bubble sort, and a bubble sort has complexity of O(n^2), in other words when the size of the problem doubles it takes four times as long to run. So if your memory size doubles, and your CPU speed doubles, your program is going to be half as fast. This is what happens in the real world. And i have seen people using O(n^2) algorithms, in fact one time i refactored what was i think even an O(n^3) algorithm (i didn't do a proper analysis, it was bad anyway). In the end i got it down to linear time complexity but people were too sceptical that it would actually produce the same result.

I agree but this is area where selecting algorithm better suited to do work or changing architecture that speedup everything must be done - you can't ignore physics and believe that compiler in some magical way will clean this mess.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

That is because of 5-inch colour touchscreens.

Nope... there is more than this... but this is another topic - still technology suffer from some limitations that make some things impractical...

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Nope - trust me - they have no background

You seem to be disagreeing with me but i'm not sure exactly what i said that you are disagreeing with.

Worse - we as a customers accepting this as unavoidable cost of progress... there is general acceptance for low quality code... soon this will be low quality of everything - services, health care etc...

There is already low quality of everything. Furniture from IKEA that drops to bits, in fact it is killing children because it falls over on them so they give you a bracket to screw it to the wall. I wish this were a joke. I don't want to have to screw my furniture to the wall, that's insane.

Clothes as well, a few wears and it's good for nothing, the stitching is coming out after day 1. We have quantity over quality consumerism.

I agree but this is area where selecting algorithm better suited to do work or changing architecture that speedup everything must be done - you can't ignore physics and believe that compiler in some magical way will clean this mess.

Absolutely... i also see a lot of "cargo cult programming", someone learnt that a particular design pattern or strategy is good and so they just do it for no reason.

Nope... there is more than this... but this is another topic - still technology suffer from some limitations that make some things impractical...

There is more than that, i'm sure... why a phone needs a quad core CPU i don't know... but i do know that my old Nokia had a monochrome screen that i could read just in ambient light, it didn't even need a backlight during the daytime, unlike the modern phone which you can't even see if it is too bright outside.

All of the emphasis is on the superficial. But there exist low-power screen technologies, like E-ink. I would buy a phone with some kind of E-ink screen, if i were to buy a phone. Battery life is probably the thing i would care about the most. But i suppose, it is not something you can really show off to people.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

You seem to be disagreeing with me but i'm not sure exactly what i said that you are disagreeing with.

I disagree with you that lack of background is not main problem (at least this how i understand you) - in our times we learned how to use resources efficiently, it was necessary to use algorithms smart way - drawing circles exploiting symmetry so only 1/4 need to be calculated, or how to copy efficiently data from one area to another or how to output data trough serial or even how to perform calculation without FPU.
Currently everyone don't even bother - just suing API, LIB or something similar and ... have no clue how things are done internally...
Example:
I have smart guys with multiple years programming experience, they coded complex financial application ,databases for very well known software company, they claim that their software works years and years without problem and i believe this can be true, then they trying to do something else... and they capturing PAL (25/50Hz) video with NTSC (30/60Hz) framerate... for me this is clear - you can be good in complex applications for banks but you fail in trivial thing like capture video for further processing...

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

There is already low quality of everything. Furniture from IKEA that drops to bits, in fact it is killing children because it falls over on them so they give you a bracket to screw it to the wall. I wish this were a joke. I don't want to have to screw my furniture to the wall, that's insane.

Clothes as well, a few wears and it's good for nothing, the stitching is coming out after day 1. We have quantity over quality consumerism.

I agree this is why i hate IKEA and that's why i always consider to build furniture by my own... ridiculous... well not if see problem...

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Absolutely... i also see a lot of "cargo cult programming", someone learnt that a particular design pattern or strategy is good and so they just do it for no reason.


There is more than that, i'm sure... why a phone needs a quad core CPU i don't know... but i do know that my old Nokia had a monochrome screen that i could read just in ambient light, it didn't even need a backlight during the daytime, unlike the modern phone which you can't even see if it is too bright outside.

All of the emphasis is on the superficial. But there exist low-power screen technologies, like E-ink. I would buy a phone with some kind of E-ink screen, if i were to buy a phone. Battery life is probably the thing i would care about the most. But i suppose, it is not something you can really show off to people.

Well... there is few things that can be improved - but... but this is not important - i see frequently people with insanity in eyes... they searching for some power source to charge smartphone... and we ending on this level of madness that people during meetings instead focusing on serious topic using smartphones for Candy crusher?
But let ends this complains - for me Amiga was first serious experience with professional video processing - this experience biased my professional life and that's why Amiga is for me something more than just personal computer...

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by pandy71

I disagree with you that lack of background is not main problem (at least this how i understand you) - in our times we learned how to use resources efficiently

please go back and read what i wrote again, because i never contradicted you on this.

i only disagreed with you when you said they don't care. i say it is because they just don't know any better. they never had to work with limited resources so they have no appreciation of the power of the resources that they have.

I have nothing against building my own furniture. but i don't want to build crap, ugly furniture. If i could save some money buying a flatpack made out of solid wood with proper dovetail joints, i would do that. but low-grade MDF held together with wobbly little clips? don't waste my afternoon.

Just got myself a sewing machine.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by kolla

The only viable thing Amiga has to offer in the modern world of computing, is the user experience of the OS - graphical interface built into the core of the OS, with screens, windows, gadgets, mouse pointer etc.

I would love to see a modern approach to the AmigaOS - essencially, if anyone was to build an operating system for today, around the same philosophy and ideas that the original Amiga team had - what would it look like? For one, through out Tripos and replace it with something more akin to CAOS (ie, more "unix like").

I wonder how close you could get with a Amiga-lookalike Linux distro

[Mrs Beanbag]

http://xwinman.org/amiwm.php

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

http://xwinman.org/amiwm.php

Have you tried it?
Seems it hasn't been touched for 5 years, btw...
I think a lot more could be done with a proper (all out) Linux distro that builds something new on top of the kernel rather than just a x window manager?