Well, I do want to add that even 'hardware' solutions such as FPGA are not necessarily better than UAE.
It depends on how things are implemented.
Are the chips emulated at the transistor level?
Or is the system emulated as a whole, at a higher level of abstraction? If the latter, it is no better than UAE really, because you basically 'render a frame ahead' and then take a snapshot of the system state to display a frame of video and render a frame of audio. With such an approach you are always one frame behind, which will never give you the true Amiga hardware experience by definition.

Fascinating as FPGAs are, and I do consider them worthy replacements for most now OOP silicon, they are not the 'same thing' as real hardware. Yes, they are not 'emulation' per se but that doesn't make them authentic.

red_avatar wrote:

I found a deal on eBay that isn't too bad:

https://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/Commodore-Amiga- … msAAOSw8yxca9Ge

What are your thoughts? Gotek and Kickstart switch seem very handy mods to have and it's in pretty good condition including the mouse. Not too yellowed either. I love the small 3D printed display that shows the disk name.

Price is nothing great IMHO (some 20-30e more from what you would pay to assemble it yourself)
As a setup it's fine but loading from gotek will get old pretty fast. Maybe you don't mind though.

BloodyCactus wrote:

I don't know about you, but Vampires are more authentic than UAE, and just as much an Amiga than the Draco systems are.

What makes you think its more 'authentic'? both are just written in software, compiled to binary and executed on a host controller.

Neither of them is an Amiga.

I don't think you actually know what FPGA is. FPGA is a chip, in were you re-arrange the internals, in order to recreate or create a chip, cpu or anything like that. Basically it is a chip were you "program" the hardware level, instead of making the actual chip it self. As an example, then it is used by corporations to make test versions of what will be the finished hardware. It is hardware creation, not software. And FAR, FAR from emulation. That is a completely different aproach. Look at it like the difference between virtalization and real hardware.

BloodyCactus wrote:

MorphOS are not real Amiga eighter. It is an AmigaOS-like operating system. Calling MorphOS for AmigaOS is like calling Linux a Unix system.

🤣. Your correct, Linux it not "genuine Unix(tm)". You've defeated your own argument. What is vampire? Not an Amiga!

Linux is NOT Unix. They look the same on the surface, yet they are NOT. They are two different way different kernals. The Vampire IS an Amiga. Just because it was not made by Commodore, does not make it lesser of an Amiga. Remember. The AmigaONE is still an Amiga. By this path and line of thought you have, then anything NOT made by IBM, is NOT a "PC"? (just to use a way different platform as an example) Is that how simple you think? I bet it is not, yet that is how you put it.

BloodyCactus wrote:

EDIT:
And what about AmigaONE-x500, AmigaONE-x1000, AmigaONE-500, Sam460cr and Sam460ex... Are they not Amiga's?

Hell no they are not Amiga's. It really shows your ignorance to what an Amiga IS.

Yes they are. Modern Amiga has nothing to do with the hardware, and yes it does to an extend, as the x5000 motherboard have custom hardware on it. I will let that "ignorance" stand. Please look the hardware up. Modern Amiga is more about the Operating system than custom hardware. There are now talks about moving the Amiga to ARM.

BloodyCactus wrote:

your an idiot. You cant ignore half of what makes an Amiga, an Amiga (its custom hardware) and say, oh that does not count. Ami […]
Show full quote

If it is designed to run AmigaOS, then it is an Amiga, never mind the OCS, ECS and AGA chipset's. The Amiga have moved on.

your an idiot. You cant ignore half of what makes an Amiga, an Amiga (its custom hardware) and say, oh that does not count. Amiga is its custom hardware and its OS, released by Commodore. If parts of those are missing, its not an Amiga.

Phoenix, GBA1000, Alice+, they are Amigas, just not "genuine Amiga" since not released by Commodore but all commodore hardware inside. They are clones. (Phoenix had permission from Commodore and bought CSG chips directly from them).

Whats not Amiga? Minimig, FPGArcade, Mist/Mister, Vampire V4, mac mini g4 running morphos, aros on raspberry pi, WarpOS, AmigaDE, OS4.0+4.1 are not real AmigaOS etc.

And you are the one that decides this? Again. Please dive into what is based on what. I can only repeat my self again. FPGA and emulation are two way different technologies. First up. MorphOS looks like AmigaOS. Under the hood, it is NOT AmigaOS.

- RaspberryPI:
Amiga hardware are emulated, in order to run AmigaOS (emulation)

- MiniMIG:
I have not really dived into that, so I can not comment.

- Vampire V2 and V4:
They are recreation of the OCS, ECS and AGA chipset's. A V2 will take over nearly all the machine, and the V2 with AGA core, running on a 2000. will make you run it as if it was a genuine CD32 or 1200. Because the AGA chipset have been recreated on a hardware level, using FPGA technology.

- Aros:
That is like Haiku and MorphOS. A completely different Operating system, than what they are supposed to look like. Aros are binary compatible with some AmigaOS software. Yet it is made from scratch, just like Haiku, and are in no way near the real deal. The source code for AmigaOS are an extremely closed code. And it is extremely well guarded. Just ask anyone that have anything to do, with the source code of AmigaOS.

BloodyCactus wrote:

You cant ignore half of what makes an Amiga, an Amiga (its custom hardware) and say, oh that does not count. Amiga is its custom hardware and its OS, released by Commodore. If parts of those are missing, its not an Amiga.

Let me address this specifically....
It is true that Commodore released some if not most of the classic Amiga's. I say "classic" because it is the original platform. Though it is not that simple to just say "Released by Commodore". Well. You can read it as they rebadged something, that they did not create, and that is true about OCS. And to some extend the ECS. Not the AGA. Well... The AGA is based on the former chipsets, and are to an extend compatible.

As you might or might not know (I have no clue as to how much you read), then Commodore bought out the original Amiga right before Atari's nose. They in other words aquired the Amiga and OCS chipset. That makes Commodore NOT the inventor of the Amiga OCS Chipset. I say OCS, because back then, there were only Amiga chipset, because, well, it was what there were. (Hence Original Chip Set)

Jay Miner, the inventor of the Amiga (and all his staff), got to work for Commodore and he continued working on the Ranger chipset. This is so not ECS chipset. So by your logic, the ECS and AGA chipset is not even a real Amiga. Because Jay Miner did not make them. Or did he? Because you know, the ECS is mostly based on the OCS and the AGA is loosly based on the OCS and ECS chipset's So is the Ranger not a more true Amiga? I think it is the same as with the Hombre chipset. Something that Dave Haynie worked on right up to the day when Commodore closed down. He even worked on the AAA chipset. Yet they are not Amiga's by your logic. Because Commodore did not release them.

This brings me down to. What is an Amiga? To most people, it is not specific hardware and specific software going hand in hand. And to some extend it is. It is what you can natively run the AmigaOS on. Vampire, Draco, AmigaONE and so forth. They ARE real Amiga's. Saying that it is only the computers released by Commodore that are Amiga's, is like saying that the Escom a1200 and a4000 are not Amiga's. Because, they had the AGA chipset's, yet not released by Commodore.

So they can not be Amiga's, can they. Not released by Commodore!

I might not be the brightest programmer, but I am not an idiot.

appiah4 wrote:

Fascinating as FPGAs are, and I do consider them worthy replacements for most now OOP silicon, they are not the 'same thing' as real hardware. Yes, they are not 'emulation' per se but that doesn't make them authentic.

Yes. They are in the middle and between Original old chips and Emulation. I will argue that they are more close to the original chips. As the internals of the FPGA chip, have been re arranged to be a complete AGA Chipset on a single chip. A bit like the system-on-a-chip version of OCS, ECS or AGA chipset. Yes... A SOC version of the original chipsets in other words.

brostenen wrote:

This brings me down to. What is an Amiga? To most people, it is not specific hardware and specific software going hand in hand. And to some extend it is. It is what you can natively run the AmigaOS on. Vampire, Draco, AmigaONE and so forth.

That's exactly the point: "What you can natively run the AmigaOS on" is an arbitrary measure. It is PC mentality, I'd say. In the PC world, generally if it ran MS-DOS, it also had compatible hardware, and could run most if not all DOS software. But DOS was an open OS and the PC was an open architecture, built from off-the-shelf parts.

Amiga is not like that. Running AmigaOS is no guarantee that you can run Amiga software. In fact, a lot of software, especially games, bypass the OS altogether, and just boot directly off floppy. They access the hardware directly, so you need hardware compatibility. And since unlike the PC-world, Commodore was the only one to ever build Amiga-compatible chips, de facto, the only Amigas that can run this software natively are the ones built by Commodore.

So I'm pretty sure to most people (at least the ones who actually owned and used the original Commodore Amigas in the 80s and 90s, such as myself), it is very much specific hardware and specific software going hand in hand. AmigaOS itself wasn't a very big factor in that, at least for me personally. I mainly used it for games and demoscene activities. This stuff mostly bypassed the OS altogether.

I guess "OS-mentality" is PC or perhaps Linux mentality. Focusing on the OS, where the OS is a tool, a means to an end. What an end-user really wants is to run applications, not an OS. At least in the case of the Amiga, the OS is not necessarily required to run applications.

In fact, I see the same with present-day Windows. Sure, there are ARM-versions of Windows. But just because I can "run the OS" doesn't mean they're very useful. I can only run applications if they have been recompiled for ARM. And I know from personal experience that many applications can't even be recompiled to ARM at all, because they use libraries that are only available for the x86 version of Windows. For that very reason I am currently rewriting an application at work from Windows/DirectX to linux/OpenGL. That is about as much work as reworking it for Windows-based ARM, while porting it to linux/OpenGL opens up the application to a lot more devices.

Scali wrote:

That's exactly the point: "What you can natively run the AmigaOS on" is an arbitrary measure. It is PC mentality, I'd say. In th […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote:

This brings me down to. What is an Amiga? To most people, it is not specific hardware and specific software going hand in hand. And to some extend it is. It is what you can natively run the AmigaOS on. Vampire, Draco, AmigaONE and so forth.

That's exactly the point: "What you can natively run the AmigaOS on" is an arbitrary measure. It is PC mentality, I'd say. In the PC world, generally if it ran MS-DOS, it also had compatible hardware, and could run most if not all DOS software. But DOS was an open OS and the PC was an open architecture, built from off-the-shelf parts.

Amiga is not like that. Running AmigaOS is no guarantee that you can run Amiga software. In fact, a lot of software, especially games, bypass the OS altogether, and just boot directly off floppy. They access the hardware directly, so you need hardware compatibility. And since unlike the PC-world, Commodore was the only one to ever build Amiga-compatible chips, de facto, the only Amigas that can run this software natively are the ones built by Commodore.

So I'm pretty sure to most people (at least the ones who actually owned and used the original Commodore Amigas in the 80s and 90s, such as myself), it is very much specific hardware and specific software going hand in hand. AmigaOS itself wasn't a very big factor in that, at least for me personally. I mainly used it for games and demoscene activities. This stuff mostly bypassed the OS altogether.

I guess "OS-mentality" is PC or perhaps Linux mentality. Focusing on the OS, where the OS is a tool, a means to an end. What an end-user really wants is to run applications, not an OS. At least in the case of the Amiga, the OS is not necessarily required to run applications.

In fact, I see the same with present-day Windows. Sure, there are ARM-versions of Windows. But just because I can "run the OS" doesn't mean they're very useful. I can only run applications if they have been recompiled for ARM. And I know from personal experience that many applications can't even be recompiled to ARM at all, because they use libraries that are only available for the x86 version of Windows. For that very reason I am currently rewriting an application at work from Windows/DirectX to linux/OpenGL. That is about as much work as reworking it for Windows-based ARM, while porting it to linux/OpenGL opens up the application to a lot more devices.

There are still the modern AmigaOS 4.x machines. They are real Amiga's as well. They are build specifically for AmigaOS 4.x. Just because they contain more off the shelf parts than actual custom hardware, does not make them lesser of an Amiga. In fact, they are true Amiga's. They are just a modern version of the Amiga platform. That is what I am going at in that case you are bringing up. In the Amiga community, there are a term called "classic Amiga's" which are the definition on the Amiga's that were build around the old custom chipsets. And then there are the modern Amiga's. That is those PPC based AmigaOS 4.x machines. And still they are true Amiga's, because they are build for the AmigaOS 4.x specifically. Sure they can run Linux and Unix, and that was what people ran on them, during the creation of AmigaOS 4.x, because it was no fun running a beta version of an OS. I only brought up the PC example. Because modern machines have not that much in common with the original IBM version. You know what I am talking about. Masked versus non-masked IRQ/DMA's and so much more that have been replaced of technology since the early 1980's. Like putting a Voodoo3-PCI in a P-II is still as genuine a PC, as putting a Voodoo3-PCI inside a tower'ised a1200 is an Amiga. In fact, a V3-PCI in a 1200, does not use the Alice chip for video output. It is still an Amiga, just not a stock Amiga.

All I pointed out, is that the Amiga platform have moved on with new technology, just as any other computing platform that you can still buy. And you need to look at it, and say if it is a classic Amiga or modern Amiga. Amiga is not OCS, ECS and AGA chipset's alone. Just like a Mac or PC is not what they were released as originally.

brostenen wrote:

There are still the modern AmigaOS 4.x machines. They are real Amiga's as well.

Depends on your definition of "real Amiga", doesn't it?
If by "real Amiga" you mean "There is a random company that bought the Amiga and AmigaOS trademarks and slaps it on their products", then yes, you're right.
I'm not sure if everyone would subscribe to that definition though. I don't, for one. To me, a "real Amiga" is a computer like the computer I owned in the early 90s.

brostenen wrote:

They are just a modern version of the Amiga platform.

Again, by whose definition?
What defined the "Amiga platform" for me, back in the day, the reason I bought and used an Amiga, has basically nothing to do with these current machines. Which is why I don't own one, and never even considered getting one. Even though I am still very much an Amiga-fan at heart, and actually still code on Amiga from time to time.

brostenen wrote:

Because modern machines have not that much in common with the original IBM version.

This is where your analogy is extremely flawed.
See, modern PCs still have a lot of compatibility at the hardware level. Obviously there's still the x86 CPUs. I can still connect a (USB) floppy drive to my modern PC, and boot an actual copy of the original DOS. Then I can actually run original software from the 80s and 90s, because my modern video card still is compatible at the BIOS and register level with the VGA standard from the 80s.

Modern Amigas are far less compatible than modern PCs are. They don't even have a 68k-compatible CPU on board, for starters. Which precludes running actual code from the Amiga's heyday. And then we're not even getting into Agnus, Denise, Paula and Gary.

brostenen wrote:

All I pointed out, is that the Amiga platform have moved on with new technology

I'm pointing out that it's just some 'random' people who bought the rights to the Amiga name, and basically do what they feel like. I do not feel any connection at all, and actually think they shouldn't use the Amiga name for their products. It does not do justice to the legacy of Jay Miner and his team, if you ask me.
Just like Windows, MacOS and linux, the modern 'Amiga' is basically some random OS on commodity hardware. For me, the hardware was what made the Amiga unique. Its custom chipset could do things that no other platform could.
You could argue that it is not realistic in today's world to still expect a fully unique platform like that. But then I argue that you shouldn't bother calling it an Amiga either then. Just leave the Amiga and its legacy at peace. It was great fun while it lasted. We don't need to keep the name alive with completely unrelated hardware that doesn't even appeal to the original users.

I don't see the point of the current "Amigas"... They're basically just generic machines. If I use linux or Windows, I can get more powerful hardware for the same money, and have access to far more software. So why would I want to use an "Amiga"?

Well....
I have thrown the question out on an Amiga forum. The Amiga community will know and provide that answer for us.

https://forum.amiga.org/index.php?topic=73984.0

brostenen wrote:

I have thrown the question out on an Amiga forum. The Amiga community will know and provide that answer for us.

Depends on what kind of "Amiga" the forum focuses on, does it not?
Since this forum is linked to A-EON, I can guess what the answer to that is...

I guess you missed the point of the previous discussion, which is that you can't speak of "the Amiga community", because it is fragmented, since people cannot agree on what an Amiga is and what it isn't, or what such a community's focus is or should be.

In the demoscene we solved it by basically having three classes:
1) Amiga OCS/ECS
2) Amiga AGA (includes 68k accelerators)
3) Amiga PPC (either AGA machines with PPC accelerators or 'modern' PPC-based machines)

How does CommodoreOS (Linux) running on an "Amiga Mini" (x64) fit into this nomenclature?

Amiga died with Commodore (CBM) and the last 'true' Amiga was the 4000T. RiP

I'm really not sure that it's so clear cut.. You have to distinguish between Amiga as a brand, Amiga as an architecture and Amiga as a design philosophy.

Amiga as a brand certainly lives on. Amiga as a design philosophy is mostly dead. Amiga as an X68000 architecture is dead and gone.

Think of it like Macintosh. Is an iMac today still a Macintosh PC? It's complicated.

I would like to reiterate my position, at this point. I think FPGAs are, even though not technically emulation, as the programmer does not have the means to 100% accurately program the chip to the original silicon (even in which case there is the chance of human error), can at best be considered accurate clones of the original hardware and nothing more.

That said, I am genuinely fond of things like the Mist and hope to have one some day.

spiroyster wrote:

Amiga died with Commodore (CBM) and the last 'true' Amiga was the 4000T. RiP

Well... technically ESCOM continued building Amigas for a while after it bought Commodore.

Scali wrote:

Depends on your definition of "real Amiga", doesn't it? If by "real Amiga" you mean "There is a random company that bought the A […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote:

There are still the modern AmigaOS 4.x machines. They are real Amiga's as well.

Depends on your definition of "real Amiga", doesn't it?
If by "real Amiga" you mean "There is a random company that bought the Amiga and AmigaOS trademarks and slaps it on their products", then yes, you're right.
I'm not sure if everyone would subscribe to that definition though. I don't, for one. To me, a "real Amiga" is a computer like the computer I owned in the early 90s.

brostenen wrote:

They are just a modern version of the Amiga platform.

Again, by whose definition?
What defined the "Amiga platform" for me, back in the day, the reason I bought and used an Amiga, has basically nothing to do with these current machines. Which is why I don't own one, and never even considered getting one. Even though I am still very much an Amiga-fan at heart, and actually still code on Amiga from time to time.

brostenen wrote:

Because modern machines have not that much in common with the original IBM version.

This is where your analogy is extremely flawed.
See, modern PCs still have a lot of compatibility at the hardware level. Obviously there's still the x86 CPUs. I can still connect a (USB) floppy drive to my modern PC, and boot an actual copy of the original DOS. Then I can actually run original software from the 80s and 90s, because my modern video card still is compatible at the BIOS and register level with the VGA standard from the 80s.

Modern Amigas are far less compatible than modern PCs are. They don't even have a 68k-compatible CPU on board, for starters. Which precludes running actual code from the Amiga's heyday. And then we're not even getting into Agnus, Denise, Paula and Gary.

brostenen wrote:

All I pointed out, is that the Amiga platform have moved on with new technology

I'm pointing out that it's just some 'random' people who bought the rights to the Amiga name, and basically do what they feel like. I do not feel any connection at all, and actually think they shouldn't use the Amiga name for their products. It does not do justice to the legacy of Jay Miner and his team, if you ask me.
Just like Windows, MacOS and linux, the modern 'Amiga' is basically some random OS on commodity hardware. For me, the hardware was what made the Amiga unique. Its custom chipset could do things that no other platform could.
You could argue that it is not realistic in today's world to still expect a fully unique platform like that. But then I argue that you shouldn't bother calling it an Amiga either then. Just leave the Amiga and its legacy at peace. It was great fun while it lasted. We don't need to keep the name alive with completely unrelated hardware that doesn't even appeal to the original users.

I don't see the point of the current "Amigas"... They're basically just generic machines. If I use linux or Windows, I can get more powerful hardware for the same money, and have access to far more software. So why would I want to use an "Amiga"?

If we are going back to the extremest narrow view on what an Amiga is. Then the only real Amiga that were ever sold, was the Amiga-1000. Those random indeviduals that bought the name was Commodore in this perspective. All they did, was to rebadge the Amiga and later sell it as the Amiga-1000, after they did the 500 and 2000. They even messed with the Kickstart 1.2 versus 1.3 (nobody today remembers the headaches that the upgrade gave back then) I only vaguely remember it being loosly spoken about in the Amiga club. I was like 12 or 13 at that time, so memories are a bit rusty. And yeah... The Ranger prototype was the last Amiga to be worked on, in this perspective too.

You see...
All them upgrades that Commodore did, made it less an Amiga as it was designed as in the first place. Exactly like those random guys, buying the platform and releasing a new AmigaOS version to run on it. Yes. They are not Commodore, yet it is still an Amiga, just not a Commodore Amiga.

Scali wrote:

In the demoscene we solved it by basically having three classes: 1) Amiga OCS/ECS 2) Amiga AGA (includes 68k accelerators) 3) Am […]
Show full quote

In the demoscene we solved it by basically having three classes:
1) Amiga OCS/ECS
2) Amiga AGA (includes 68k accelerators)
3) Amiga PPC (either AGA machines with PPC accelerators or 'modern' PPC-based machines)

Exactly like PC Demo scene. Exactly what I am saying. The Amiga as a platform, is devided into different types. Classic, PPC and sub classes. Never the less, an Escom Amiga 1200 with Mediator bridge board (PCI), in a tower, with PPC processor upgrade and Voodoo3-PCI and a Creative Sound Blaster PCI-128, running AmigaOS4. Are still an Amiga. Or my Amiga500 with TF-530 is still an Amiga.

brostenen wrote:

If we are going back to the extremest narrow view on what an Amiga is. Then the only real Amiga that were ever sold, was the Amiga-1000. Those random indeviduals that bought the name was Commodore in this perspective. All they did, was to rebadge the Amiga and later sell it as the Amiga-1000, after they did the 500 and 2000. They even messed with the Kickstart 1.2 versus 1.3 (nobody today remembers the headaches that the upgrade gave back then) I only vaguely remember it being loosly spoken about in the Amiga club. I was like 12 or 13 at that time, so memories are a bit rusty. And yeah... The Ranger prototype was the last Amiga to be worked on, in this perspective too.

You see...
All them upgrades that Commodore did, made it less an Amiga as it was designed as in the first place. Exactly like those random guys, buying the platform and releasing a new AmigaOS version to run on it. Yes. They are not Commodore, yet it is still an Amiga, just not a Commodore Amiga.

Now you're just being facetious.
The Amiga 500 and 2000 were built on the exact same technology as the Amiga 1000, and were virtually 100% compatible with software and hardware. In fact, the Amiga started booming when the Amiga 500 came to the market, because the Amiga 1000 was still an expensive niche-product. So arguably the Amiga 500 is the 'archetypal' Amiga, if you want to go that route.

Having said that, Commodore put in a lot of effort to make newer Amigas backward-compatible in terms of software and hardware. And aside from some minor glitches, which could generally be worked around, they achieved this goal quite well, and in doing so, upheld the original values of the Amiga design.

Not to mention the obvious fact that Commodore acquired the entire Hi-Toro/Amiga company, including all personnel, so the same people continued to work on the Amiga after Commodore took over.

Not sure why you're being so childish over this. But I'll give you something to think about. Here is one of the last blogs I did on the Amiga:
https://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/just … it-real-part-5/
https://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/just … -real-part-5-1/

Now, you can understand what makes an Amiga *for me*, because this is the kind of thing I like to do with an Amiga. And obviously this requires a 68k CPU and a chipset that is fully compatible with the original Agnus, Denise, Paula and Gary.
All Amigas that Commodore and ESCOM ever made, fit those requirements. Nothing else does.

brostenen wrote:

Exactly like PC Demo scene. Exactly what I am saying. The Amiga as a platform, is devided into different types. Classic, PPC and sub classes. Never the less, an Escom Amiga 1200 with Mediator bridge board (PCI), in a tower, with PPC processor upgrade and Voodoo3-PCI, running AmigaOS4. Are still an Amiga. Or my Amiga500 with TF-530 is still an Amiga.

I never said they weren't, because they still have a 68k and a compatible chipset on board.
But when you pull it to PPC-based machines or even x86-based ones, which have no link to 68k or the original hardware, but 'run (some random port of some) AmigaOS', that is a bridge too far for me.

I can appreciate various types of Amiga demos.
The OCS/ECS ones because like the Commodore 64, they target a fixed, well-known target, and just push the boundaries ever further.
The AGA ones, because the extra hardware capabilities and accelerator boards allow for far more interesting effects.
And even the PPC ones, even ones with 3d accelerators, just to show how far an Amiga can be pushed (Planet Potion is one of my favourite demos of all time).

But once you reach the point of "It's just generic C/C++ code that just uses generic OpenGL, and I happened to compile it for a PPC running AmigaOS, even though I could have just as easily compiled the exact same code on an ARM, x86, Windows, linux, MacOS or whatever", then I fail to see the "Amiga" in that.

Scali wrote:

Now you're just being facetious.

I know. I did it in the upmost extreme way, of telling that Amiga is more than just what Commodore released. I was still speaking out of the statement provided earlier, that anything Amiga, not released by Commodore, is not an Amiga at all. If you look up, then you will see that my rambling is based on what bloody cactus stated. You know... And yes. I keep on rambling, when I see someone stating something that is not true. It is like. If IBM invented the PC with one goal and design filosophy in mind, and now we are not even using BIOS any more. Then that can not be considered a PC anymore. So I still stand by my point, that an AmigaONE-x5000 are just as much an Amiga, as these are PC's. Remember. IBM had a firm grip on their BIOS and did not want anyone to copy or other wise clone it. Software wise, then we are not using Dos any more eighter. Dos is dead, BIOS is dead, just as m68k and AmigaOS-M68k is dead. The platforms have evolved.

Scali wrote:

spiroyster wrote:

Amiga died with Commodore (CBM) and the last 'true' Amiga was the 4000T. RiP

Well... technically ESCOM continued building Amigas for a while after it bought Commodore.

I'll allow it... And the 'Walker' of course. 😀

appiah4 wrote:

Amiga as an X68000 architecture is dead and gone.

The X68000 was a computer by Sharp? Do you mean just '68K' as in the motorola 68K?

brostenen wrote:

when I see someone stating something that is not true.

Correction: something you disagree with.
There is no absolute truth of what an Amiga is or isn't. I just said what an Amiga is *for me*. It is something different to you, and I can accept that. But I can argue why my stance is what it is. I don't see you doing the same. I see you going for all sorts of fallacies.

brostenen wrote:

It is like. If IBM invented the PC with one goal and design filosophy in mind, and now we are not even using BIOS any more. Then that can not be considered a PC anymore.

Anything that can't run 8088 MPH isn't a PC. Everyone knows that.