I wasn't sure what to write for this month's comments, and I hadn't really given much thought to it because I've had my mind on other things - like being ripped off by my car insurance company, Eagle Star, who don't like to return phone calls, continually lose my file and make a huge fuss over what was a simple claim for an accident I had no responsibility for. It's been three months and they still haven't got round to sorting my claim out - during which time the third party has changed statements and practically accused me of being responsible. Odd that I can be the cause of the accident when rammed from behind while stationary at a roundabout waiting for traffic to clear. Ah well, that's life I guess... just thought I'd share that with you all. UK drivers should avoid Eagle Star at all costs if they want any kind of service... feel free to mail me for further details.
But on with the comments. With all the recent developments of new Amiga technology and the odd little 'official' PowerPC endorsement, it seems like a good time to discuss what my ideal upgrade path would be. I try to keep neutral on my information pages, because all ideas are equally valid, but perhaps it's time I spoke and said a few words on my view of the future.
Industry standard or custom solutions? Okay, the Amiga was based on some outstanding custom coprocessors which complemented the radical, sleek OS offering a potent platform at low cost. Even though I'm a software guy at heart, the sheer performance of the hardware grabbed me out of the 8-bit, 64k era of my life and took me into truly modern computing. Seeing an A1000 in 1986 totally changed my view of hardware - maybe there was something more to it than just the bare-metal I would program in assembly. Take a look at computer systems today and you see the idea of custom coprocessors all around you - graphics cards, DSPs, printer controllers, multi-CPU motherboards.
So, to me at least, shifting the Amiga over to standardised hardware is nothing to worry about. I'm not saying abandon custom hardware - Phase 5's A\box, assuming it ever sees the light of day, and other similar projects all have innovative qualities to offer the world. If they give me a good price-performance rating and a decent upgrade path, I would certainly be tempted by them. All I'm saying is that my next Amiga will probably be based upon a standardised platform - the PIOS transAM standing as the current favourite for my hard-earned savings. But why?
Cost, upgradeability, and probably because Dave Haynie and Co. seem to have the right idea and the best technical know-how. They're Amiga folks at heart, so they're hardly likely to create some monstrous creation like that well-known industry standard: the PC. Industry Standard doesn't mean a clumsy architecture, a backlog of kludges and ridiculously bloated legacy structures (unless you leave it for too long and don't work hard to keep it lean). It can do, but it doesn't have to - and it certainly looks as if Amiga International have this fact of life firmly embedded in their minds as they map out the Amiga's future. By embracing widespread (and suitable) standards, Amiga users can opt to take advantage of a wider range of resources and upgrade paths, and Amiga International et al can show off the AmigaOS to new and more diverse users. Plus, CHRP is here and now, and in need of revitalisation after Apple's sudden desertion - Be have already capitalised on the platform's state of flux, so why shouldn't the Amiga?
AmigaOS is the most important thing to me. Hardware should be up to the individual - I don't care if I run an Alpha, a PowerPC or a StrongARM, so long as I know I'll have Amiga-compatibility and a good system for reasonable cost. Amiga users should be able to buy a hardware platform suitable for their needs and using AmigaOS, backed up with tasty SDE binary support, run software with all the efficiency and power the Amiga is famous for. For me, a standardised system, probably a PowerPC, approved by Amiga International (the Amiga logo is a very important emblem to me personally) and running AmigaOS would be ideal. But then, I'm in favour of users (in the world at large) being able to run the OS most suited to their needs, using the hardware they want... so long as I can have AmigaOS.
What we need is a selection of systems. Amiga International could produce a selection of reference platforms, in conjunction with licensees, to ensure a high quality, high compatibility standard. Amiga Hardware Reference Platforms, AHRPs, could be constructed for different processor systems (PowerPC, Alpha, StrongARM, MiPS, 68k, Merced, etc.), each providing a standard architecture for a particular port of AmigaOS. BeOS, for example, runs on CHRP PowerPCs and standard IBM PC compatible systems which have a well defined architecture and ensure documented reference platforms for developers. With a set of base systems and a compatibility guarantee, the majority of users are promised a definite level of support and compatibility. There's a delicate trade-off between keeping rigid control of the systems and permitting choice/diversity, but nothing too problematic.
However, reference platforms can't cope with every situation (like embedded or one-off custom systems) so exotic solutions, based on more specialised requirements, could be tailor-made by specialist licensees and supported on a more individual basis. These may not require as much backward compatibility or future software/hardware support as the general purpose platforms and can be developed with more relaxed standards in mind.
Alright, this is probably too simplified an idea (or perhaps too cluttered?) but it is just an idea. Hopefully it'll set off some thoughts and discussion on the subject... which can't be a bad thing, surely? I welcome your thoughts on the matter.
Until next time... take care, and check out your car insurance clauses carefully!