Version Numbers

We may give the developer release of the OS a base number of 4 and then start
counting the individual releases. In short, however, they will all be alpha's and
beta's of release 5.

Personally, i find the use of "real" release numbers for beta releases confusing.
I would prefer alpha-1, alpha-2, beta-1, etc., followed by OS5 release 1 etc.
When I have our developers program fully implemented, I'll let you all know what
the numbering scheme will be.

Hope this clarifies things.

Allan Havemose, Ph.D.

Operating System Size

Bennu,
I guess I didn't see the original posting, but
1. We don't need VM to run the OS. VM is mostly for apps needing much memory
(such as 3D rendering, image processing etc.)

2. I don't know where you have the info on the size of the new OS from? It
certainly isn't me. We have already announced our plans to do both computers
and information appliances, so obviously the OS will have to exist in a
version significantly smaller than 4MB. I'd say that 256k for the OS and 256
for the apps is about right for really small highly functional devices. For
single function devices less rom and os is needed.

3. Re the "concept AmigaOS". Are you referring to the artwork from last year
? Just artwork/ideas. It was presented as such as well.

If people want to post specific questions on the technology to this group
(c.s.a.misc) I'd be happy to answer as best as I can (we can not disclose
everything at this point).

Allan
--
----Allan Havemose, Ph.D.
Vice President, Engineering
Amiga
havemose@amiga.com
havemose@gateway.net

Dual Screen Support

Hi,

 Finally I mailed Jim Collas with the dual screen idea, I gave him the
same arguments than the ones I gave in this newsgroup, and I was very
pleased because he answered me.

 I finally mailed him 4 times and he answered me 3 times.

 I prefer not to say too much at this time, because I don't want to post
wrong ideas, I'll maybe have the confirmation begining of next month as
I know someone who will normally meet Jim at this date.

 I just can say that, taking some words of Jim's mail and making a
concrete sentence : "It shouldn't be an issue to show the Amiga NG (the
low-cost A500 style) at the Comdex of Las Vegas standardly with a second
slot for adding a second GFX card optionnaly, and that this card should
be already available at the Comdex show, presenting the Amiga low-cost
system using this feature"

 Now I hope that if they do it, as I gave the idea to Jim, to present it
with a good game demo using this feature (Quake3 should be the ONE), but
also the OS handling this dual screen feature and maybe one or 2
applications already showing its power.

 I hope they will be able to do it.  I finally explained (in fact gave
my own opinion) to Jim, that I think the main argument from Amiga Inc
showing the A500 NG at the Comdex will be "Look at what it can do with
its so low price".  It may be already very impressive.  But from my
point of view, showing also this low-cost machine, proposing this
feature for $100 more (let's hope such a price for the second GFX card)
is 10x more impressive, mainly if it's already proven by some
applications and games, and a list of the enhancements possible at any
level, as I described it in my previous post.

We'll see, but keep hope
Amiga OE Portability
From: Jim Collas <jim.collas@amiga.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 03:55:40 GMT
> Hi Jim, just wondering, have you read fleecy's column in AmigaUniverse
> yet?
<SNIP>

I read it yesterday night. He did a good job describing the current
situation in a nuetral yet informative manner. It's a good column so
the following comments are just clarifying our position not refuting
Fleecy's column. I don't completely agree with his assessment of how
revolutionary our technology will be but he is entitled to his opinion.
People will get it when we ship the product. The part about portability
of our OE is not quite correct. A part of our OE is completely portable
but not all of it. The info-appliance part of the OE is Java based and
portable but the multimedia computer extensions are not. They are
dependent on tight coupling between the OS and hardware (especially the
processor subsystem) to achieve great multimedia performance.
AmigaObjects Analogy
Over the summer Jim Collas' analogies got weirder. In this post he compares AmigaObjects to a cell of a human being and other object technology to the cell of a chimpanzee
Jim Collas <jim.collas@amiga.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Let's have a little more FAITH!
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 03:29:49 GMT

Comparing Voyager or any other object technology to AmigaObjects(TM) is
like comparing the cell of a human being to that of a chimpanzee. They
are extremely similar structures, based on the same building blocks
(amino acids, DNA, etc.), and perform almost identical functions
(execute genetic code and replicate). The differences may seem
extremely subtle and virtually impossible to detect at the genetic
level but the end results are quite radically different. One yields a
highly intelligent (in most cases) human being capable of complex
thinking and one yields an animal of fairly limited capabilities.
Subtle differences in object technologies can yield similar types of
significantly different results. There is a huge difference in getting
it right and getting it almost right. It can make the difference
between an interesting technology with limited capabilities (analogous
to the chimp) and a technology that is a revolutionary building block
to a revolutionary new computer environment (analogous to the human
being). I believe we have developed the later. I am an engineer by
trade and have spent 15 years working on computer technology so I have
seen most popular variations of object technology to know the
difference. We also had several industry experts and patent attorneys
verify my assessment. Only time will tell but I would not have left my
job as a senior executive at Gateway if I didn't believe we had
something revolutionary to offer.

BACK