> it was part of a document detailing the development of the Pegasos.

Then I think what you read there referred to the spring and summer 2001 talks about releasing MorphOS as AmigaOS 4, which was *before* BBRV entered the MorphOS scene, AFAIK.

> I have heard that directly from the man

Then this is either about a later attempt not known so far, or he participated in the known 2001 talks. Either way, this would be new info which wasn't public so far, AFAIK.

> Do you doubt it happened?

No, when he says it happened I'm inclined to believe it. I just wonder why he never mentioned it in public (or I missed it)?

> At one point most of these parties were still all talking to one another.

Yes, and to my knowledge, the talks between the MorphOS team and Amiga Inc. to have MorphOS released as "AmigaOS 4" ended in summer 2001.

> I'm as unlikely as you to follow that advice. ;-)

The difference is that I'm not complaining about this discussion happening here on MorphZone, you are :-) But of course you are free to keep participating in and by this help keeping alive a discussion which you say should stop.

> This contention was relatively normal with competing 68K platforms,
> but within the same community?

It's *because* the contenders and their respective followers stem from the same community.

> Make you one deal though, I'll let up a little on Mike and Cloanto

Sorry, not interested in any deal ;-)

> It is possible h/w designs refers to Adam Kowalczyk,
> better known perhaps as ACK.

It's not completely impossible, but in my opinion extremely unlikely that Amiga Inc. commissioned (i.e. paid for) ACK's 2005 Powervixxen LT, 2006 Powervixxen TL, 2007 "Entry Level" hardware design and/or 2007 "High-end" hardware design or purchased any of these designs (if really started let alone completed at all) at any point of time.

>>> There's this ongoing myth that you can just recompile code
>>> from one ISA to another.

>> That's not a myth but a fact, assuming the code is in a high-level language,
>> there's a compatible compiler for both ISAs and the ISAs can operate in the
>> same endianness, which is true for m68k and PPC.

> No, that is simply not true. I've ported software across platforms with the
> same ISA and had to overcome all sorts of architectural issues. Across
> ISAs on hardware that bears no resemblance to the original platform?

You are right. I forgot to include the assumption that the code to be recompiled must not be specific to (aka hardware-banging) components that are missing on the target hardware. You might remember that with the help of CGX and AHI, OS3.x runs on the Draco which lacks the Amiga chipset. Hyperion licensed P96 and AHI for OS4, both of which existed long before work on OS4 began, so they didn't have to invent anything new in this regard. Porting P96 to PPC was probably little more than just a recompile, and AHI was already successfully ported to PPC (PowerUP) before.

> Endian issues and available compatible C compilers are not an issue,
> but the fact that OS3.1 was not completely coded in C is.

Hyperion didn't use Commodore's ASM-ridden code but Olaf "Olsen" Barthel's cleaned-up and ported-to-C code that also is the basis of OS3.5, OS3.9 and OS3.1.4. Of course, some small low-level components remained in m68k ASM and had to be rewritten in PPC ASM for OS4, but this was expected. Problem was that Hyperion planned to somehow built OS4's low-level components upon WarpOS source code which turned out to be barely commented ASM hell and thus was scrapped, so had to be redone from scratch.
In summary, I share takemehomegrandma's opinion that regarding the original plan as outlined in the 2001 agreement, the targeted 6-month timeframe was not an unrealistic one.

> The higher end spec is somewhat similar to the X1000,
> but the Aeon system has slightly better specs.

The comparison was somewhat of a mixed bag (see comment #860).

> I've always wondered why our developers supported the Acube SAM460,
> when Acube was intimately linked with Hyperion and OS4.

You may want to re-read a MorphOS team member's statements:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=11037&start=205
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=6805&start=89

> Sure, some of the boards went to industrial use or Linux aplications.
> But the bulk went to OS4 users.

Yes, ACube's medium-term or long-term goal was always to sell mainly boards for industrial use, with the number of boards sold with OS4 representing as small a part as possible. Somehow this didn't work out for ACube.

> So the only reason we didn't support the X1000 was Ben Herman's
> direct involvement with the first iteration of Aeon?

This might have been the main reason back then. If you want to know for sure, you should ask your contacts within the MorphOS team :-)

>> I wasn't aware of anything except the two proposed motherboard designs.

> You were thinking of PowerVixxen and PowerVixxenTL.

I have a feeling the Powervixxens aren't what Jim was thinking of :-)

> AW search was given quite a speed boost during recent repairs. You can
> always type in a known nick and get all the information I mentioned above

Pity that entering a keyword is mandatory since the change.

> WE look bad when we attack other parts of the community.

Yes, however I don't think that reporting on and discussing about a lawsuit affecting "other parts of the community" constitutes an attack.

Quote:

Really, my mistake then, since Mark at one point mentioned his country of origin. I think he mentioned it due to my mistaken belief that he was of German origin. I stand corrected. Of course, he's a South African now.

OS4.2? Yeah, they'll probably use that number, but I doubt the feature list will be as extensive as previously claimed.

OS5? Who knows. The future of anything Amiga related is so unpredictable.

Mike might even win his lawsuit.

We might even see some development with the Power version of MorphOS after the X64 version is released.
Again, who knows.

I sure don't. I try to keep questions and inquiries to a minimum. Over the last few years I've come to enjoy these 'Surprise! We're introducing this moments.

As to the 68K market in general, you guys always were a little standoffish.
That Tut image looked great. But it was hard to sell a multi-media system to a 68K user that just wanted to run multiple terminals with text programs.

As I was using VGA during the period you all were using AGA, and we were using a more secure micro kernel OS, I have to admit that I mainly regarded the Amiga and the Atari ST as machine geared to gamers that could also be used for general computing.
It wasn't the Amiga that influenced me to encourage my boss to adopt a GUI, it was a Windows 3.0 beta from IBM.

And as I've said, I was never that impressed with MOS.

But the Amiga does feature my favorite ISA of all time.
And it obviously influenced the X86 MPC initiative (which Tandy and other PC producers embraced).

One thing that we all do have in common. We got our asses handed to us, but a late comer to multi-media that eventually gained a larger market share.

I still feel a little sore every time I use an X64 system, but then they have steadily improved.

Thanks for the correction. I wouldn't want to offend Mark by making a statement that was that incorrect.
I'm really fond of the guy (as well as the other developers I've communicated with).
All good people, but Mark is kind of a hero of mine.

He's done a lot of heavy lifting over the last few years (not to disparage the contributions of everyone else).

Maybe I should explore Cloanto's background a little more, but right now I'm just judging the likely outcomes based on the existing legal documentation and trying to remain objective.

There seems to be a lot of overwrought sentiment being posted here. Many of you still holding some fairly old statements about the legality of MorphOS, that he hasn't repeated in years.
He's also never challenged us.

And ask yourself. Do you really think Ralph and Frank didn't see OS3.1 source code before MorphOS was created?
Sure, the framework of the 3.1 API is fully documented, and MorphOS contains no OS3.1 code.
But by current standards, it wasn't exactly a clean environment.

What I, as a more generalized hobbyist am baffled by is how this situation has remained so litigious 35 years after the OS was released.

It's like Microsoft pursuing people still using MS-DOS or Windows 3.1.
Although I'll admit I have thought about buying a copy of ArcaOS.

Sorry, I'm rambling.
My main point, stated much earlier on, is I never want to offend Mark (or Frank or Michal).
Graphics hardware has always held a special place in my attention.
Going right back to the little bit if code I wrote for the ET4000, to the first accelerated cards (which were pretty unimpressive), to today's powerhouse designs.

To all, take care.
Post what you will.
I'll try to minimize posting my opinions, if not STFU myself.

Oh, btw, Bill was also apparently made inquiries into Amiga DE.

Don't know if he's mentioned that either.

But one thing is obvious, he is one of those people you mentioned that has become frustrated with anything Amiga related.

He really did consider that three e5500/e6500 systems we ended up outlining, but I can't help but feel that he just didn't want to reenter this market, move back to PPC after moving to ARM or deal with the personal attacks or melodramaanymore.

Quote:

Funny, that was also my first complaint. heh.

btw, I don't believe the earlier info about ACK (Livewire) was on AW. You should be able to read the stories on the other notations I made with some obvious keyword input.

New PowerPC Products for the Amiga 1200

#6

Did any of this stuff actually reach production?

All 100% vapor-ware (not even DPaint schematics ;) ).

Quote:

Nothing that I've been posting about reached production stage, no.

Actually most of this appears on a thread that Red is well acquainted with.

Help compile giant list of Amiga hardware vapor

In desperate need of updating, but frankly we all became numb just thinking about that prospect.

#6

Sadly it isn't limited to Amiga. Yesterday I saw a Commodore 64 thread on AmigaWorld hijacked by a Hausser-style "Don't buy this, it's based on crappy Linux, wait for this REAL hardware!!!" nonsense. And like Hausser's preferred vapor, it's unlikely most of it would ever reach any of scale production.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Amiga and Commodore fanboys never get to reboot their retro scene while other systems (like Sinclair and Amstrad) do, because they're a bunch of intolerant unlikeable assholes who don't deserve shit?

Quote:

It's a valid point. We even shot down Coldfire, an the Atari community moved forward a built a Coldfire based board.
Since the source code out to be available for 3.1.4, a Coldfire port is entirely possible, what code couldn't be recompile could be run via 68K emulation at speeds at least competitive with our best hardware.

But, we do have several FPGA, not just the Vampire.
And some of those can run several different cores.

PPC is still hobbling along, but the introduction of a P1022 board will, at least in my opinion, weaken rather than strengthen that option.

WE still have the option of supporting late 2005 G5 PowerMacs and G5 iMacs.

And there is always Power9, if we want full legacy compatibility, or the promised X64 fork, which could keep our price of entry low.

OS4 itself is relatively inexpensive (MorphOS. While quite affordable, is slightly more expensive.
But then, my Quad G5 cost about half what Tabor is projected to cost and would perform better in many areas (especially memory bandwidth) than an X5000.

> OS4.2? Yeah, they'll probably use that number, but I doubt
> the feature list will be as extensive as previously claimed.

If even Hyperion's own technical director shares your doubt, then what can possibly go wrong? ;-)

> Do you really think Ralph and Frank didn't see OS3.1 source code
> before MorphOS was created?

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7824&forum=3&start=1 (3rd link) :-)

> Bill was also apparently made inquiries into Amiga DE.
> Don't know if he's mentioned that either.

Yes, see our discussion in comments #170 to #175.

> Yesterday I saw a Commodore 64 thread on AmigaWorld hijacked by a [...]
> "Don't buy this, it's based on crappy Linux, wait for this REAL hardware!!!"
> nonsense. [...] it's unlikely most of it would ever reach any of scale production.

One of the two alternatives he proposed is already for sale so wouldn't require waiting.

> [...] Commodore fanboys never get to reboot their retro scene [...] because
> they're a bunch of intolerant unlikeable assholes who don't deserve shit

Better don't let redrumloa (see comment #481) read this ;-P

Quote:

I've got popcorn. I could use a drink!
And Andreas has brought up Dave's second hand BS supposedly from Andy Finkle.
I doubt anything from AmigaOS wad incorporated into MorphOS...but, did anyone have a chance to view AmigaOS source code?
To me, that seems quite likely.

Oh, and Andreas is probably right about not inflaming the sentiments of the Commodore fanatics.

I think the argument that this could degenerate into an unbelievable gordian knot of litigious BS is valid. And OS4 might end up an unrecoverable asset.

> We even shot down Coldfire

Shot down? The Elbox Dragon was real and demonstrated in public in 2006 reaching 68030 level performance with OS3.

> Since the source code out to be available for 3.1.4,
> a Coldfire port is entirely possible

Possible maybe, but idiotic. Hyperion offer OS4.1 for PPC and OS3.1.4 for m68k. What would be the target group and point of OS3.1.4 additionally compiled for ColdFire?

> what code couldn't be recompile could be run via 68K emulation
> at speeds at least competitive with our best hardware.

What does "our best hardware" mean? 68060? 68080?

> there is always [...] the promised X64 fork

The MorphOS team might object to this wording ;-)

> OS4 itself is relatively inexpensive (MorphOS [...] is slightly more expensive.

Slightly? For most hardware, MorphOS is 2.7 times as expensive as OS4.

> Quad G5 [...] would perform better in many areas (especially memory bandwidth)
> than an X5000.

Actually, it performs better than the X5000 in all areas except integer performance.

> Andreas has brought up Dave's second hand BS supposedly from Andy Finkle.

Actually, I did not.

> did anyone have a chance to view AmigaOS source code?

You mean before it started circulating (again) 3½ years ago? If yes, see comment #1027.

Thanks certainly looked like a reference about McEwen and Haynie's unsupported statements, how am I misreading that?

And Coldfire? It's only real advantage is an extremely low price. And if was going to pick something that I might code on with anything other than C or Python...I'd pick the CPU that was more similar to the 68K ISA.
Look, the Atari community didn't have a problem adopting a change that required recompilation or 68K JIT.

And the planned forking of MorphOS to the X64 ISA...if it wasn't for high level coding that would be such an alien environment.

OS3.1 source code floating around before broad dissemination in 2016?
Seems likely.

Oh, and that 68080 designation just bugs me. You mean the 68K based FPGA design?
Look, Signetics already screwed up the 68070 designation, so now the hobbyists are going to simply assume the next logically number in that sequence? OK. Whatever.

Quote:
<cough>Complete and utter bullshit.</cough>

Quote:
At the very least, it sure would be nice if people stopped posting wild baseless accusations and presenting them as facts.

Given that - as graciously pointed out to us lowly MorphZone visitors - you have an undergraduate degree in business, attended at least one legal course, and even know and have talked to attorneys in person, I have to assume you are familiar with the term "libel."

> certainly looked like a reference about McEwen and Haynie's
> unsupported statements

There were no such statements by McEwen, at least not in public.

> how am I misreading that?

By ignoring the "3rd link" part of my answer. That 3rd link is about something that happened in 1997, so before MorphOS development even started

> Coldfire? It's only real advantage is an extremely low price.

I don't consider 40 to 50 USD (depending on order quantity) for a 266 MHz V4e (as used on the FireBee) "an extremely low price" when only 15 USD more can get you an e5500 with 4 times the clock rate and the same requirement for recompilation and emulation.

> if was going to pick something that I might code on with anything other than
> C or Python...I'd pick the CPU that was more similar to the 68K ISA.

There are hundreds more high-level languages than just C and Python, for none of which the programmer has to care about the CPU's ISA. It's really just ASM where the ISA counts from programmer's view.

> the Atari community didn't have a problem adopting a change that required
> recompilation or 68K JIT.

Neither had those members of the Amiga community who adopted OS4 or MorphOS. I really don't get the alleged advantage of ColdFire over PPC in this regard. And as with the number of PPC adopters among the Amiga community, the Atari community is orders of magnitude larger than the small number of its members who purchased a FireBee.

> OS3.1 source code floating around before broad dissemination in 2016?
> Seems likely.

When Petro Tyschtschenko was in charge during the 2nd half of the 1990s, he was reported handing out the 3.1 source code left, right and center, or so they say ;-)

> that 68080 designation just bugs me. You mean the 68K based FPGA design?

Yes, I mean the Apollo core when I write "68080". This was part of a yet unanswered question as to the meaning of an ambiguous wording you used ("our best hardware").

> Signetics already screwed up the 68070 designation, so now the hobbyists
> are going to simply assume the next logically number in that sequence?

Even worse, the 68080 forebears were called the N68050 and N68070 during NatAmi times :-)

Quote:

Even if it were true (and it's not - Commodore worked with Phase5, not handed them source), it's a bit like saying "The developers of Fallout 4 might have seen bits of the original Doom 1993 source, therefore Fallout 4 is pirated".

Which is also quite on the irony scale given that the lawsuit here being discussed is about Hyperion very definitely using AmigaOS source directly to produce an illegal derivative.