A video (20MB, DivX) made by an OS4 betatester, demonstrating the native graphics drivers has been made available. This is not an official OS4 demonstration, just one users machine. The picture quality is low, but it gives an idea of the current graphics speed.Also these Pre-release party recordings from Sweden show native versions of the OS4 movie player MooVid and the game Descent: Freespace being demonstrated. Furthermore CEO of KMOS (AmigaOS owners), Garry Hare, Ph.D. will hold a keynote speech at this month’s AmiWest banquet in Sacramento and AmigaWorld.net will provide live Radio coverage.
New AmigaOS4 Demonstration Videos
2004-07-09 Amiga & AROS 55 Comments
Hard to see flickering and such with that quality, but I’m not suprised that the UI in general looks really responsive, that’s the amiga way and have been since long ago.
Wow when can I get it. I love speed speed speed
Yeah, it’s not a off good quality.
The beta-tester: “So here is my AOne filmed with my Webcam, 320*240, with my PC that crawl to encode in DIVX in real time.”
So IMO the low quality not that strange.
To imagine what this version of OS4 (mixture of classic and 24-bit PNG icons) really would looks like, here are various screenshots:
With Classic-style Icons by Mason:
The default icons (by Mason) are still pretty much WIP and are planned to be overhauled completely due to feedback from the Amiga community.
Looks pretty great!
i especially like the feature that you can select icons/files from multiple windows like that!
Now thats how an Amiga is supposed to act!. I’m looking foward to OS4.
I was told when I saw this video a while ago that the desktop isn’t even properly hardware accelerated yet and that graphics.library still is 68k, and only Picasso 96 is PPC native.
I could be wrong, but then this video would only demonstrate a part of OS4’s real speed. It is a monster.
That speed is amazing. I don’t even remember BeOS being that fast. How is this achieved? If I’m not mistaking, the new AmigaOS does not run on specialized hardware, but on “standard” PPC hardware, right?
I used to be an Amiga owner. In fact it was my 1st personal computer that I myself purchased. It was way cool for the time.
Now here we are, and the stuttering, lurching beast that is modern-day Amiga may finally be releasing a new version on the world. Granted, the 300-400 die-hard Amiga nuts are lining up for the OS4 motherboards, but the rest of the world has moved on to either an x86 architecture (Intel, AMD), or a PPC architecture (Apple, IBM).
Why Amiga thinks they’ll have enough market interest to sell underpowered and overpriced 3rd party PPC setups is beyond me.
I would be all over paying money out for an updated Amiga if I could run it on my shiny new G5, or even an older Apple G4, as I’m sure would many others who are not willing to spend almost the cost of a low-end Apple machine, just for the motherboard and CPU of a new Amiga.
Hell, if it’d run on my P4 or my old AMD box, I’d also be out there with my dollars in-hand, but to try and sell proprietary hardware for an unproven company (or more specifically, to a 3-time loser of a computer company) is just ridiculous.
The geeks may come in swarms, but selling 500 or so motherboards is nowhere near the numbers Amiga needs to fuel its fire.
Look how long OS4 has taken to get this far. Unless Amiga can grab some marketshare, we’re looking at another 10 years for it’s next release!
They simply have to remove the restriction of only running it on official Amiga hardware… If you could take any PPC machine and put it on there, I guarantee that their OS sales will far outshine what their hardware/software sales numbers are ever going to be.
with Mr. Banned. I had an Amiga back in the day. But the price of the Motherboards for A1 is so insane. I want one but I will never, ever pay $900 dollars for a G4 800 and a whole 133 FSB!! That is just a motherboard and process, no memeory, no graphics… By the time you get all that put together you can buy a more powerful Mac.
The problem is not Amiga’s, it is Apple’s. It has been stated in the past that an Amiga version for MAC is not being worked on because Apple won’t release the hardware data required to make this possible. So the restriction is from Apple, not Amiga. I am sure Amiga would love for their OS to also run on MAC hardware.
Do you really think Apple would want people running Amiga on their hardware over the heavily invested OSX? I doubt it.
Don’t get me wrong, I am an old time Amiga user and it seems my next purchase will be one of those new iMacs coming in September. I am currently looking for a system that is in a small form factor, fast, quiet, cool, and low power. The 3 choices I have are Pentium M Mini-ITX based system, Amiga G3/G4 Mini-ITX system, or an iMac PPC system. I would strongly consider an Amiga system, but the longer the wait, the more advanced Mac OSX becomes and a future Longhorn. Also who knows when OS 4.0 will be in retail form, and when the Amiga Mini-ITX board will be in retail production? I don’t care for the Pentium M system, Windows still runs sluggish, and tired of Windows problems. So my choice was to wait for an IMac with a G5. Looks like I will get that in September.
I do hope that someday Amiga OS is available for the Apple hardware, but doubt I would use it much over OSX. I just see OSX being a good home for an old time Amiga user. Funny this is coming from a user that mocked the old MAC systems before OSX, and was a happy Amiga user. But OSX is a whole new OS that looks great (internally and externally), as compared to the crappy old Mac OS.
The current AmigaOne-XE boards have been produced in limited numbers as they are primarily targeted at current power users and software developers.
It’s all regarding economics of scale. The MicroA1 boards shown (not the final version yet) in the second video should be produced in much higher volumes, probably resulting in significant lower prices. AmigaOS4 has also been demonstrated to be in beta for BlizzardPPC and Cyberstorm equipped classic Amigas.
With regard to the speed of AmigaOS, I expect things to get alot faster still. I believe that the final version on AmigaOne spec hardware will speedwise look surreal to people who have been using MacOS X, Linux and/or Windows for all their lives. I believe Amigans wouldn’t expect anything less as classic AmigaOS has always been very usable, even on ancient hardware.
Just have a look at the following Amiga demonstration from the 80s, I believe it will blow your mind if you realize that these machines demonstrated are 7 Mhz (no typo) machines, showing functionality possible since 1985 on Amigas and essentially doing alot you do now on your computer at home, such as copy & pasting between wordprocessors/spreadsheets, special effect programs for movies (too bad they don’t demonstrate Genlock functionaly), gaming, etc. At the time there was MSDOS and MacOS for general computing, which could not do even do more than one task at once for more than many years to come at the time.
(Warning the video above, may not be compatible with what you have been thought to believe about the advancement and innovations within the computing industry. Computing history often ignores the Amiga probably as it does not fit within their timeline, going from pre-emptive multitasking multimedia monsters and then with general computing “advancing” into severely limited and dull CLI based solutions.)
Having programming GUI application on Amiga 1200, I know the great GUI speed came from offscreen rendering combined with blitter rendering using light widget. With a synchronization on VBL, it allowed a very good looking display without flickering.
It worked very well because the screen size and depth were low enough to have lot of windows in the chip memory.
PC technologies were not so well balanced and, thus, it bring back direct widget display to screen once the PC wins. Something still widely present in current software architecture for GUI.
I wonder how much graphic memory is needed for OS4 for this purpose or if the BUS/RAM speed is fast enough in order to compose from RAM. The last solution can have a huge impact on CPU perfomance.
one thing’s for sure. 20 MB for a video under 20 seconds that doesn’t look all that great is uncool. Next time use MPG or even some QuickTime codec with no audio track. This could have easily been less than 2 MB.
… to give OS X this kind of gui speed. That would rock!
It’s about 153 seconds, not 20….
Still, the quality is lousy, I agree, but hey, it was sure interesting to see anyway…
Was this movie recorded in fast forward? The thing that blew me away was the preferences program where the mouse ran through the options and each option had a side view that loaded a heap of new preferences etc… That was AMAZING!
But i’d say it would have more to do with the individual application rather than any graphix drawing software. These applications are very light weight and the Graphix elements are very light weight also. The Amigaian philosophy of KISS shines through.
whenever you film a computer screen, change to refresh rate to 60hertz so you don’t get the annoying scan lines. There will still be a very small scan line, but its hard to notice. To get rid of that you would need a camera that can record true 30fps instead of the NTSC standard 29.97fps. I think some webcams record 30fps… most video cameras do not.
I have better experience with high refresh rates, i.e. 100 Hz and higher, so the dixels get no time to darken anymore.
At 60Hz, when I take a photo of my monitor with a digital camera, 50% of the picture is black. At 100 Hz, the picture is okay.
Ah, but a digital camera taking a still picture is very diffrent than a video camera taping a monitor. If you want to take a picture of the screen, then you need to be at a high refresh rate. If you are taping the monitor you want the refresh rate to be at 60hz so that the camera and the monitor draw a frame at the same time (bsaicly).
Moving to a higher refresh rate for taking a still picture is usefull because there is more of a chance of the camera taking a picture of a full frame and not the scan line. It’s a better ratio.
maybe they should show off its multimedia capabilities by hooking up the computer to a Mini-DV cam to record the desktop! Oh wait…
That would be dead simple on classic Amiga hardware, but sadly not on modern day mainstream hardware. On classics just hook up a video recorder or whatever and start recording (by standard).
The AmigaOne uses mainstream PC world hardware, including graphic cards. For suitable hardware you would still need drivers. As the system matures I guess it’s just a matter of time though.
I’ve had the chance of seeing run for real, and it’s indeed lightning fast. Given that it’s a modernized version of an OS whose main advantage was to be able to be very fast and responsive on machine with a few dozen of MHz cpu, it’s not surprising that it’s that fast on a relatively modern hardware.
However, the huge drawback of Amiga is they’re a closed-source alternative platform, which IMO simply cannot work nowadays (expecially since the people remaining loyal to that platform are also very closed-source minded).
Another oddity is that mystical refusal of using x86 hardware, even though it’s widely available and cheap.
> However, the huge drawback of Amiga is they’re a closed-
> source alternative platform, which IMO simply cannot
> work nowadays (expecially since the people remaining
> loyal to that platform are also very closed-source
I have nothing against open source and I believe neither does the AmigaOS4 team, in fact I am sure they would love to see open source apps like Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc be ported to AmigaOS.
However it’s not appealing to give away your IP for free, for competitors to use, for which you have worked your ass off the last couple of years.
AROS is an open sourced AmigaOS3.1-like effort but due to only having partime/hobby developers, it IMO hasn’t moved forward fast enough these past 8 years since development started.
> Another oddity is that mystical refusal of using x86
> hardware, even though it’s widely available and cheap.
AmigaOS doesn’t support multiple CPUs yet, but that may change in the distant future. Due to Amiga’s history and initial niche targets, the PPC is currently IMO an excellent choice.
> However it’s not appealing to give away your IP for free,
> for competitors to use, for which you have worked your ass
> off the last couple of years.
I don’t honestly see what IP anyone would want to use from AmigaOS. Sure, it’s a nice OS, but there’s nothing revolutionary in there that could justify keeping it secret.
And there’s not enough market to make it any worthwile as a commercial product. Especially as it runs on proprietary hardware.
Furthermore, what competition does it have ? MorphOS, maybe, but since they’re technically about at the same point as AmigaOS anyway, there’s nothing worthwile for them to steal.
> AROS is an open sourced AmigaOS3.1-like effort but due to
> only having partime/hobby developers, it IMO hasn’t moved
> forward fast enough these past 8 years since development
It’s not because the devs are part time and hobby, it’s because there’s not enough of them. This lack of interest perfectly illustrate the “closed-source, proprietary hardware” orientation of the amiga community.
Another oddity is that mystical refusal of using x86 hardware, even though it’s widely available and cheap.
Exactly that is probably why AmigaOS shouldn’t go there. It’s my personal opinion, but being a commercial OS would kill it immediately if migrated to x86, because of Windows’ presence there. The real open source alternatives are Linux and BSDs. I would love to see AmigaOS4 run on a highend x86. It would be a killer, but you’ll immediately run into the problem of having to support a ton of hardware, chipsets, motherboards, etc.
AmigaOne is a fairly controlled platform. It’s not very widely known, but the AmigaOne is based on the Zico specifications, schemed by Amiga Inc. way back in 2000-01.
BeOS was strangled in this endless hardware driver writing cycle on x86. Amiga Inc. stated long ago that they wouldn’t fall into that trap.
It would be interesting to see where BeOS would have been today, if they had stayed on their BeBox.
Granted, a lot of people have seen BeOS now because they could run it on their x86’es, but it’s only a short term, sweet tasting advantage.
> And there’s not enough market to make it any worthwile
> as a commercial product. Especially as it runs on
> proprietary hardware.
That all may very well be your opinion. However the fact remains there are full-time commercial developers investing years of coding on developing AmigaOS4. Shouldn’t fulltime employees have to oppertunity to get paid and be able to feed their wife and kids?
Anyway, the AmigaOS4 team thinks AmigaOS could be a commercial success, else they would never have started this huge task.
> Furthermore, what competition does it have ? MorphOS,
> maybe, but since they’re technically about at the same
> point as AmigaOS anyway
Yes, MOS and AROS could easily use AmigaOS4 source code to enhance their functionality. And in the case of AROS, with it being freely available and possibly multi-platform in the future, this would then destroy any possible potential of commercial success for commercial AmigaOS4 developers.
> It’s not because the devs are part time and hobby, it’s
> because there’s not enough of them.
In my experience, small fulltime devoted workgroups generally come up with much better quality and less messy software solutions then large pools of hobby developers.
IMO luckily, as else there would be tons more unemployed programmers. Why invest in ID Software when hobby game efforts are just as good?, why invest in Adobe when you can download an equivalent to Photoshop for free?, why pay for AmigaOS4 when you could get an equivalent for free (i.e. future AROS with open sourcing AmigaOS4)?
> In my experience, small fulltime devoted workgroups generally
> come up with much better quality and less messy software
> solutions then large pools of hobby developers.
Yeah, that’s the basis of all anti open-source software FUD. It’s a bit weird to heard this kind of thing from an alternative OS advocate, though
Open source doesn’t necessarily means that it’s done only by hobbyist developers, nor that they’re not of professional quality. What about Mozilla, Eclipse, KDE, or OpenOffice ? The amiga community would kill to have most of these ported to AmigaOS, btw, if I’m not mistaken.
“Exactly that is probably why AmigaOS shouldn’t go there. It’s my personal opinion, but being a commercial OS would kill it immediately if migrated to x86, because of Windows’ presence there. The real open source alternatives are Linux and BSDs. I would love to see AmigaOS4 run on a highend x86. It would be a killer, but you’ll immediately run into the problem of having to support a ton of hardware, chipsets, motherboards, etc.”
Thnaks God there’s AROS!
I really think you should check out the second video instead, that’s pretty good quality, albeit not quite as fast as the first video. you also have an option for low/med/high quality in the swedish clips.. so go ahead, download
> Yeah, that’s the basis of all anti open-source software
> FUD. It’s a bit weird to heard this kind of thing from
> an alternative OS advocate, though
It was not meant as FUD. I think both open-source and closed-source development have their place within this world. Maybe you are not open minded enough yourself to see that closed-source developments may offer significant advantages as well.
IMO I made my comments in the best interest of developers. I don’t agree that their efforts should be given away for free to just anyone.
> Open source doesn’t necessarily means that it’s done
> only by hobbyist developers, nor that they’re not of
> professional quality.
Yes, it is great that all companies can take advantage of already available and free software without much effort. Also the AmigaOne has seen much benefit from the existance of Linux. But IMO the most important reason why open-source is so hot at the moment is because of lack of real efforts and innovations by the big commercial OS boys, such as monopolist Microsoft and to a lesser degree also Apple.
IMO within this last decade we have seen far too few real innovative advancements compared to the huge amounts of money that was being earned within the computing industry. Far too much money and efforts seems to have been spent on maintaining monopolies.
On the PC hardware front we did see significant advancements, but for instance Microsoft doesn’t have to worry much about things like drivers, as the hardware companies have to make sure to support Windows due to their monopoly (if they like it/them or not!) and small companies like Be Inc, next to staying alive, also needs to worry about writing drivers for 3rd party hardware.
So IMO, some of the biggest driving forces for open-source development has been:
1) Software monopilies with a lack of flexibility
2) Lack of development (security, optimisations, innovation)
3) Unemployed developers
Open source doesn’t necessarily means that it’s done only by hobbyist developers, nor that they’re not of professional quality. What about Mozilla, Eclipse, KDE, or OpenOffice ?
Open Source is a nice thing, but only if it’s done right. Exactly KDE is a good example of lack of control. They have a large team of programmers who fill it with overlapping features, of which some are stripped for the next release of KDE. Look at how many times things are rearranged, how many times the Control Center has changed and how many media players there are. KDE is very full of features and the coders are very skilled.
They have, however little to lean against when applying rules to their programs. Gnome developers are a bit more fortunate since they have GUI rules, created by Sun Microsystems, resulting in a much cleaner and simpler user interface.
But again, a lot of their programs need to be either rewritten or modified to fit these rules, as they didn’t have them to begin with. They also have problems with development tools and APIs. Several solutions are appearing, where you shouldn’t need them. You can’t run a GTK1 program directly in GTK2.
Mozilla has this problem as well at code level. Lack of control. The Mozilla team has spent years optimizing their code. It’s coming around now and the products are excellent, but it has taken a very long time to get there.
OpenOffice was built by a company and is a great piece of software. I use it myself, but you have to admit, it’s a very big and slow package. Fortunately like Mozilla, it’s coming around.
Rebol is a great example of innovative closed source software that works, because it’s under tight control. AmigaOS is another great example. Had it been thrown into the hands of the KDE people, you would have completely destroyed the OS, because the philosophy of AmigaOS and KDE are very different.
GNUStep is a great example of open source software that works, because they have the OPENSTEP model to lean against. The OPENSTEP was however first implemented in a closed source system, NextSTEP which showed that it worked. It has one API which is simple to approach, because it has only changed little since 1994.
You can now compare the desktop situation between Linux and Darwin. Now which one offers a complete, consistent, documented desktop again? The one with most control.
Now try putting “control” and “Windows” in the same sentence… 🙂
The AmigaOS Exec kernel was originally written by one man who locked himself up for three weeks in a room (they say) and came out again with a 32 bit multitasking operating system kernel.
The conclusion is that if AmigaOS were to be open sourced, it would have to be controlled by a small team of full time, dedicated developers with strong discipline. You can’t do that without some kind of financing, and who would do this, if you can’t sell the software afterwards? It’s not likely to be used by millions right now. What about forking? Which fork of AmigaOS would be the most important/popular/technically best?
“I don’t honestly see what IP anyone would want to use from AmigaOS. Sure, it’s a nice OS, but there’s nothing revolutionary in there that could justify keeping it secret.
And there’s not enough market to make it any worthwile as a commercial product.”
It’s not about necessary using IP *from* AmigaOS – the point is that if it was open source, then anyone would be able to copy it, so how exactly are they going to make money?
Sure, I’d love to have seen AmigaOS open sourced when Commodore went bust 10 years ago. But suggesting that it would be profitable for Amiga Inc to do so is ludicrous.
“Especially as it runs on proprietary hardware.”
Right, so they should port it to x86, and then release it for free. A great business plan! At least on proprietary hardware they could still make money on the hardware if the software was open source.
No wonder it’s so quick — it’s also quite basic looking. It doesn’t look wildly different from the Amiga I remember back in 1994, and yet it’s running on a processor many magnitudes faster than the 14mhz 68020 that I remember!
Still the question remains, who really wants this kind of computer? Very fast preference screens are not really what one expects as the killer feature of their $800 machine.
“The problem is not Amiga’s, it is Apple’s. It has been stated in the past that an Amiga version for MAC is not being worked on because Apple won’t release the hardware data required to make this possible. So the restriction is from Apple, not Amiga. I am sure Amiga would love for their OS to also run on MAC hardware. ”
Well, I’ve never been an Amiga owner (ST –> Mac) so I don’t really care, other than in that I like the idea of there being multiple OSes “out there”…
Anyway, the point is, I’m sure some enterprising engineer with a bit of Linux PPC experience and a hankering for the Amiga will eventually get it running on Macs. Certainly, don’t expect Apple to help, but it should be possible.
Technically, at least.
Thanks for posting the link to the Computer Chronicles video, it really took me back in time! I remember the Amiga and watching the Computer Chronicles show (although not this particular episode).
Watching the video, I think that it is incredible. It is amazing how we take this kind of graphical multitasking for granted nowadays but that the Amiga really pioneered it in a personal computer.
And all of this in sub-10MHz computers without virtual memory!!
I really can’t fault you for your humor Mr J. Gade )
OS3.1 (released in 1994)
http://www.mhd.mh.se/shoe/grab3.jpg OS4.0-pre release
You are right, there is no noticable difference. 😉
It looks different in terms of window decors and icons. But is it really that much different i terms of desktop functionality?
> OS3.1 (released in 1994)
Actually that was 1993 and do keep in mind that this version of AmigaOS had also be able to boot from a single Double Density diskette (880KB) and thus no eyecandy was included.
So the default look pretty much sucked, but due to the flexibility of AmigaOS, many people customised the (OS2.0-3.1) looks.
The downfall was that no Amiga computer seemed to look the same anymore.. Luckily AmigaOS4 will have pretty nice default eyecandy. 🙂
> It looks different in terms of window decors and icons.
> But is it really that much different i terms of desktop
There’s a huge list available of enhancements which should be in AmigaOS4 compared to what you get in AmigaOS3.9:
To know all the changes compared to AmigaOS.3.1 you would also need to check the OS3.5 & OS3.9 featurelists as well.
The change in desktop functionality is the same as you can see between MacOS 7 and MacOS X – small, subtle changes without breaking metaphors, but improving the basic functionality instead. Which is what you should do unless your design is fundamentally flawed (which I don’t think AmigaOS/Workbench is)
“It looks different in terms of window decors and icons. But is it really that much different in terms of desktop functionality?”
Bear in mind that the Amiga Workbench program is not “the computer” as is the Windows desktop. It is just one program for doing file management and launching programs. There have been alternative programs in the past for these tasks and hopefully there will be more in the future.
Magellan is the best known example, and it had more functions than Workbench.
The screen of the Workbench program is a public screen, so it is possible to run other programs on it, but normally a large program such as a web browser would run on its own screen. The dock (AmiDock) is a utility for launching programs (and more) and would normally run on the Workbench screen.
But you could (for example) skip Workbench altogether, boot straight into a web browser, and run the dock on the browser’s screen.
I agree, too, and so do at least 1131 others, apparently:
There’s no “Amiga hardware” anymore. Stop pretending that there’s any remotely sane reason for your software (OS) customers to only buy their hardware from “special” dealers, with “special” trademarks, at “special” prices. Else AmigaOS is Dead By Stupidity, which would be a pity even though it would just be following tradition…
As for this video, for some reason it is indeed encoded to XVID at twice the speed (30 fps). Try watching it at 15 fps and it’ll be like it was demoed in Landskrona – still pretty fast, but with humanly possible mousing and the correct speed of e.g. the IBrowse spinner.
@ The tax man
To me the competitor FUD team seems working in overtime again and actually it took a little longer than I had orginally expected.
To counter your conspiracy or false allegations directed against Crisot here’s the point of view from Ben Hermans (project leader) on the video:
“The video is quite real.
It is truly hilarious to see all this conspiracy nonsense.
The fact of the matter is that the Developer Pre-release has a Radeon driver with NO blitting support and a 68K Picasso96.
Not hard to beat that with a somewhat optimised, fully PPC native P96 using a Radeon driver with blitting support.
Quite frankly, the smell of desperation in certain quarters is getting somewhat overwhelming.”
“Hyperion does not “endorse” the video as such, it is a video produced by a beta-tester and is in no way “endorsed” as official.
It does however accurately reflect the current state of affaires.
Most of the other unofficial videos until now made use of the very unoptimised Radeon drivers using the 68K version of P96.
The video from Crisot is using the native version of P96 with the accelerated Voodoo 3 driver.
The same results can be obtained with the soon to be released optimised Radeon drivers.”
A new video in better quality can be found here: http://uniweb.free.fr/os4/ – this is ALSO running at the proper speed. Just like the first one.
You seem somewhat paranoid, or at least SEVERELY hypersensitive about something? Calm down. “Competitor FUD”? WTF?! It approaches the absolutely ridiculous paranoia/conspiracy style of the amusing Ben Hermans quote you posted. (BTW, he has said he is no longer a Hyperion employee, and doesn’t lead any Hyperion projects.)
Yes, I take the 15 -> 30 fps comment back. No need to tighten your tinfoil hat to protect against those conspiracy brainwaves. The impression of additional speed (on top of the pretty fast performance, as I said) really comes from the horrid quality and flickering of the video. There’s a new, slightly better (still a filmed CRT screen) video up at http://uniweb.free.fr/os4/os4morequal.avi , which gives a somewhat more correct impression. Perhaps it would be a good idea to swap URLs in the original OSNews story?
hi, I’m author of the video.
This one looks much better, with no flicker at all. Please talk of it in the news, if interrested.
@ The tax man
We saw a (ex-?) Genesi employee posting to AmigaWorld.net under the nick Merko almost simultaneously to when you posted this false doubts here. So it’s not really paranoia.
I think you may well be a user and advocate of the rival camp, I didn’t accuse you to be part of a conspiracy efforts, I was saying that the competitor FUD machine seems to be working overtime again. (such as at ANN, AmigaWolrd)
If there’s any FUD machine here, it’s you, Merko never worked for Genesi, please stop claiming he’s some kind of hellhound-on-a-leash doing Genesi’s “dirty work”…
Merko observed what many also observed with him (there’s a nice big thread on ANN.lu), that Crisot seems to be very skilled at high-speed high-accuracy mouse operation in that video, something which led to the suspicion it might have been speeded up .. however this has been disproven and consented (in the very same ANN.lu thread, where Merko changed his mind twice mind you (at first he believed the video was genuine)!) by all parties involved due to the new, much improved footage…
If that is true he shouldn’t have stated on Moobunny that Genesi still owns him 3000 Euro for his past work.
I meant owes.
You mean this thread? -> http://www.flyingmice.com/cgi-bin/squidcgi/mbthread.pl/amiga/expand…
..as you can see, the deal was with Thendic-France, which went bankrupt, not Genesi, and it wasn’t as much work, as a funded Master Thesis…
Anyway, why would someone who is owed 3000 Euro (mind you, read that thread to get a better understanding of the whole story) be running around bad-mouthing competitors to a company affiliated with your debtor?
Either way, the whole debacle about this video wasn’t even about OS4, it was whether or not a private person had done something silly or not, I fail to see how you could work this into your whole “FUD machine” conspiracies…
Uhm. On http://www.ann.lu I first posted 4 comments saying that I
didn’t think it was faked, then 7 comments while I thought it was
faked, then 3 comments thinking once again that it’s not faked.
There are of course two ways to interpret this. One is that I simply
changed my mind twice.
The other, which I’m sure suits Mike Bouma better, is that at first,
Hyperion paid me for defending the video. Then Genesi gave me a higher
bid for claiming that the video was false. And finally, Hyperion once
again raised the payment.
Unfortunately, the first explanation is the true one, although I wish
it had been different.
(In my single post at amigaworld.net I didn’t claim either that it was
faked or not, btw)
No, I am almost always choose the side of people who do their best to contribute to the Amiga Community and against the usual suspects who make false allegations against these great people, especially those who appear to have a hidden agenda.