Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th May 2013 13:03 UTC, submitted by Jacek Piszczek
Morphos "The MorphOS development team is proud to announce the public release of MorphOS 3.2, which introduces support for Power Mac G5 workstations, iBook G4 laptops and additional PowerBook G4 models. The 3.2 release also has a strong focus on improved network support with a completely new and improved NetStack core as well as support for wireless networks. In addition, there are several new network-related tools such as VNC client, a Remote Desktop Client and a tool showing detailed network statistics as well as many other fixes and improvements."
Thread beginning with comment 563283
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by jockm on Fri 31st May 2013 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

I understand that the price tag is a little steep


Oh yes.

And the different prices may seem a bit random.


Not random, but based on a strategy (capability based pricing) that normally only applies to enterprise systems, not consumer grade. Nor do they do anything to justify why there are these price differences.

I think at least if the price would be below 100 EUR for all systems that would sound much better.


Even at 99 EUR it is still more expensive than Windows 8 (just for comparison), and if far less capable. It might run well on that hardware, but to the best of my knowledge it still doesn't have WiFi support (and I would love to be proved wrong). And that is dealbreaker for 20XX (pick almost any year in the last decade and that statement is still true).


And getting rid of PowerPC is the major problem MorphOS has to face (albeit I personally stll like ppc). With the old Apple kit at least prices for suitable machines are low. A used powermac G4 doesn't cost much more than a Raspberry Pi. Yeah, it's old, it's bulky, but pretty powerful (compared to the Raspberry Pi - not to an i7 of course).


Personally I think it was shortsighted to lock themselves in to a single architecture back when they started. Portable OS's started in the 60s, those who fail to learn those lessons — hell fail to learn the lessons of AmigaOS itself which was largely written in an obscure language (BCPL) and depended to much on CPU dependent assembly — pay the price for it.

Yes I can go out and buy old macs for a song, mind you they are power hungry, bulky, and evolutionary dead ends. Its easy to find them now, but it won't be long before that statement isn't true anymore.

Who thought that in 2013 (19 years after Commodore died) there are still actively developed Amiga systems (beside MorphOS there's also AROS and OS4) that actually are at least remotely current.


N.E.R.D — Nothing Ever Really Dies. There are emulators for for almost every major OS made. A few years ago I was contacted by a company that wanted to move software from their DataGeneral Nova (not SuperNova, but the original) hardware to a PC running an emulator.

You can still get "Atari" systems that run something that when you squint could be called "TOS". Hell you can still get "Sinclair QL" systems that run the unofficial successor to QDOS.

I wouldn't go that far as to call any of the hardware out today to be an Amiga. MorphOS, AROS, et al, share a OS heritage, but as a guy who owned one of the first 1000 Amigas ever made, and did professional development on one, I wouldn't call any of the current systems Amiga.

The Amiga hardware was a philosophy of tightly integrated hardware and software for a peak multimedia experience — and came with significant compromises to do so. And like all tightly integrated dedicated systems it did amazing things, and then was outshined by generalist modular approaches.

The only "Amiga" out there that comes close to the original vision is the "X1000" which doesn't even showcase its own technology well.

Even in the ARM world the Efika MX SmartTop — which can't run MorphOS, and can't be purchased at the moment, but I am making a point — compares poorly in almost every way to the BeagleBone Black. If MorphOS didn't limit itself to an increasingly obscure hardware platform, they could leverage others advances in hardware.

Thing is, MorphOS community knows pretty well about the problems present. But with the given constraints MorphOS makes he best out of the situation. And one constraint is to stay original.


I wish I had your optimism. I am afraid I don't. People can keep a hobby going for a surprisingly long time (I know this from personal experience), but one day you wake up and realize just how much weight you are carrying around.

Were it me back around the turn of the millennia, I would have taken linux as the base OS, ditched X, and used AROS as the graphics and GUI layer. Today I would tweak that formula a bit. It would be its own set of compromises, but it would have come with portability, device support, and more.

I don't think there is anything else I have to add to this conversation, so I give you the honor of the last word. Enjoy!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by moondevil on Fri 31st May 2013 06:48 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I wouldn't go that far as to call any of the hardware out today to be an Amiga. MorphOS, AROS, et al, share a OS heritage, but as a guy who owned one of the first 1000 Amigas ever made, and did professional development on one, I wouldn't call any of the current systems Amiga.

The Amiga hardware was a philosophy of tightly integrated hardware and software for a peak multimedia experience — and came with significant compromises to do so. And like all tightly integrated dedicated systems it did amazing things, and then was outshined by generalist modular approaches.


This was my point as well. +1

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by -ujb- on Fri 31st May 2013 23:28 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
-ujb- Member since:
2005-10-21


Even at 99 EUR it is still more expensive than Windows 8 (just for comparison), and if far less capable. It might run well on that hardware, but to the best of my knowledge it still doesn't have WiFi support (and I would love to be proved wrong).


While there's no support for build in Airport cards there is actually wifi support for Atheros WLAN cards at least. For Powerbooks quite an option.
For the price, yes it's not the lowest price, but rememeber updates are free. I paid 111.11 EUR years ago for V2.0 (IIRC summer 2007) and received 10 free updates since. If that fact isn't negelcted all the time, the price really comes down to a way more attractive level.


Well and about the X1000 - that's just a PowerPC desktop computer in the league of a Powerbook/Atom. Eventually it is stuck in the same dead end as the used Macs, but way more expensive (something about 3000 EUR). And the Xena/Xorro thingie eventually is only a marketing stunt - it's an attached µC (XMOS XS1) everyone can attach to any computer with usb or pci. But if ppl have fun with that machine, good, It isn't my cup of tea though. Ppl have different tastes and interests - I accept and welcome that.

Edited 2013-05-31 23:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Sat 1st Jun 2013 13:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't go that far as to call any of the hardware out today to be an Amiga. MorphOS, AROS, et al, share a OS heritage, but as a guy who owned one of the first 1000 Amigas ever made, and did professional development on one, I wouldn't call any of the current systems Amiga.

The Amiga hardware was a philosophy of tightly integrated hardware and software for a peak multimedia experience — and came with significant compromises to do so. And like all tightly integrated dedicated systems it did amazing things, and then was outshined by generalist modular approaches.

Let's just go ahead and say it - present "Amigas" are, architecturally, PCs (just with weird CPUs for no good reason other than the old hate of Intel)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by MOS6510
by jockm on Sat 1st Jun 2013 14:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Well at the time — the turn of the millennia — Amiga users were stuck with two options:
<ol>
<li>Use ever more advanced versions of the 68K line, which were faster than what they were using, but more or less dead ends.
</li>
<li>Look to another architecture with growth potential</li></ol>
At that time PPC was a superior architecture to X86. PPC performed better at the top end, had a better SIMD implementation, and had a clear and smooth 32 bit to 64 bit migration path. Back in 2000 a lot of my fellow engineers used to joke we were using the right OS (Windows 2000), on the wrong architecture (x86).

Eventually AIM faltered, AMD showed a better way to get to 64 bit, and Intel got where they needed to go. But at the time it wasn't clear that x86 would be the winner it is now.

Apple was smart, they kept their OS portable, and were able to migrate to a new architecture quickly. But MorphOS, and to a slightly lesser degree AmigaOS didn't learn their lesson and stuck to a single architecture.

If you want to play around with something Amiga like, then UAE, or AROS seem like better options than MorphOS.

Reply Parent Score: 1