I have updated my guide for WinUAE at AmigaWorld. Check in for more info.This guide was originally published here at OSNews and is intended to help people unfamiliar with the platform and OS get acquainted through emulation. New demonstration videos have been added, links and information have been updated and some new information about a new AIAB alternative called AmigaSYS has been included.
MikeB’s Guide for WinUAE: Updated
2004-11-30 Amiga & AROS 25 Comments
Very nice and informative.
IMO WinUAE is a nasty program to setup. The UI is horrible. But I won’t rant into that…
The first three messages firmly establish all three of remaining users of this OS all hate one another.
Priceless to be sure.
You couldn’t be more wrong. There’s 4 users including me, and I only mildly dislike the other 3 😉
> Very nice and informative.
Glad you like it.
> IMO WinUAE is a nasty program to setup. The UI is horrible.
> But I won’t rant into that…
I agree, one problem is that everytime new options are added the emulator becomes more overwhelming to newbees. Also because the emulator was designed to emulate nearly any classic Amiga model in combination with almost any hardware configuration doesn’t help in this regard.
> The first three messages firmly establish all three of
> remaining users of this OS all hate one another.
> Priceless to be sure.
Hehe, it may seem this way but that’s not really the case. Thousands of Amiga users get along fairly well at Amiga meetings, parties and fairs each year. The troublemakers generally don’t seem to attend such events as there was no trouble when I visited over a dozen such events across Europe and the United States.
Also thousands of AmigaWorld.net members behave reasonably friendly and constructive towards eachoter. 🙂 IMO the trouble you see on some forums result rather from rivalry than real hatred.
As someone who was brought up using an Amiga and has lost touch with the scene, I found this article very useful.
Nice guide…….mmmm that first screenshot is sexy =)
It’s a lot of work to customize AmigaOS3.x to look like this. AmigaOS4 will look a lot better by default and can be customized much more easily:
Customized screenshot of OS4 dev pre-release:
Nice… can we expect WinUAE ported to Linux? I hate Windows but there are only poorly maintained UAE ports for KDE.
There is E-UAE, which is based on the latest versions of WinUAE. You can get it here: http://rcdrummond.net/uae/
“Customized screenshot of OS4 dev pre-release:
In that shot I can see the G4
Does that mean that the new AmigaOS can run on Mac? Or is that impossible? I’m quite uneducated when it comes to Amiga.
@ Thom Holwerda
> Does that mean that the new AmigaOS can run on Mac?
No, although it would be possible to port AmigaOS4 to the Macintosh platform this is currently no the case and may never be. Also MacOSX needs Linux as a host operating system to run on AmigaOne hardware (Mac-On-Linux).
MacOS originally used 68k processors just like classic Amigas, however AmigaOS was never ported to the Macintosh platform. So to use AmigaOS on a classic 68k Mac you would need an emulator like UAE.
Amiga users used the Shapeshifter emulator to emulate 68k Mac software. This was pretty cool as high-end Amigas were able to emulate Macs faster than an equivalently powered Mac! For instance you could also pre-emptively multitask between different emulated environments and Amiga software. This while 68k MacOS itself did not even support pre-emptive multitasking.
Thanks for the quick response– seems to make sense.
However, I always wonder why it’s the case that operating systems that run on PPC/G3-G4 such as MorphOS and AmigaOS don’t run on Mac. Is this due to Mac being different, is it due to the Pegasos/AmigaOne being different, or due to AmigaOS/MorphOS being different? Or any combination of the, err, three?
@ Thom Holwerda
> However, I always wonder why it’s the case that operating
> systems that run on PPC/G3-G4 such as MorphOS and AmigaOS
> don’t run on Mac
There are significant hardware differences. Windows (and most Linux distros) install CDs include many drivers for many different motherboard chipsets and configuarations, AmigaOS4 and MorphOS do not include Mac specific drivers.
Similar for this reason OS4 does not run on the Pegasos systems but currently only on AmigaOne systems or classic Amiga hardware upgraded with PPC boards. For this reason MorphOS does not work on the AmigaOne neither.
“For this reason MorphOS does not work on the AmigaOne neither.”
MorphOS has been demonstrated running on a Teron board. Amiga ONE is a Teron with a different firmware. Legally it can’t run as you’d have to pirate MorphOS unless you had a Pegasos board as well, but there is no technical reason for it not to work on the A1.
> MorphOS has been demonstrated running on a Teron board.
The Teron evalution board which was said to have had MorphOS running at on time is not identical to the current AmigaOne (and Teron) motherboards (indeed including different Firmware). However the fact remains MorphOS does not run on AmigaOne hardware currently, but AmigaOS4 and Linux do.
In the case of Mac-On-Linux, Linux provides the necessary AmigaOne drivers and then can host MacOSX through Mac-On-Linux, which takes care of dealing with the virtual Macintosh hardware.
This is also a reason why Linux was a good host for the Amiga emulator Amithlon (many drivers):
>AmigaOS4 will look a lot better by default and can be customized much more easily
Will it have 24bit icon display capabilities or do you still need system hacks for that?
Whats happening to E-UAE? I thought they were porting back the extra WinUAE features that was added on the UAE.
But it runs much less software than uae-0.8.22 which runs well.
> Will it have 24bit icon display capabilities or do you
> still need system hacks for that?
Elena’s PowerIcon (24bit color PNG icons with alpha channel) utility will be included with the AmigaOS4 CD for everyone who wants to use it.
The AmigaOS4 version has been developed in co-operation with the OS4 team to make its implementation as seamless and transparent as possible. In fact most beta-testers demonstrating AmigaOS4 had it running when demonstrating AmigaOS4.
> thought they were porting back the extra WinUAE features
E-UAE is currently based on the WinUAE 0.8.27 core. This in an effort to bring UAE emulation on alternative platforms on par with WinUAE. The AmigaOS4 version currently seems to have priority.
A screenshot of E-UAE on AmigaOS4:
Note that Richard is an AmigaWorld.net regular.
Thanks for the update Mike, I’ll be looking forward to emulating my A500 and as many games possible on my Thinkpad this Aussie Summer break.
Just a question about this screenshot posted on the first page of the comments section.
What is the font in use, and is that freetype or something else. The fonts look wonderful.
> Whats happening to E-UAE?
I’m still plugging away at it. 😉
> I thought they were porting
> back the extra WinUAE features that was added on the
> But it runs much less software than uae-0.8.22 which
> runs well
I don’t agree with that. I found uae 0.8.22 to be as buggy as hell. That’s one of the reasons I started hacking on the thing in the first place.
If there is some software you have problems with then let me know.
> Note that Richard is an AmigaWorld.net regular.
And has also been known to lurk around OSNews.com too. 😉
> Elena’s PowerIcon (24bit color PNG icons with alpha channel) utility will be included with the AmigaOS4 CD for everyone who wants to use it.
> The AmigaOS4 version has been developed in co-operation with the OS4 team to make its implementation as seamless and transparent as possible.
I don’t think PowerIcons will ever be a default part of OS 4. It’s still something of a hack (like so much good shareware!) and doesn’t support the 2 icon states – selected/unselected – which is a very Amiga feature.
I think I heard them say they would develop a new icon ssytem which supported 24-bit colour, the alpha channel and so on.
Hopefully it’ll be PNG-based. Maybe they’ll go one better and allow animated PNGs instead of just 2 frames…
“Will it have 24bit icon display capabilities”
Why would you want that? An icon has only to be instantly recognisable. It needs no more than 256 colours for that – probably far fewer.
There are many higher priorities for an OS than 24-bit icon images.
(I suppose if you own no programs, you may want to sit and look at icons instead of actually using the computer.)
> Why would you want that? An icon has only to be instantly recognisable. It needs no more than 256 colours for that – probably far fewer.
You’re a whole lot of fun.