×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MorphOS 2.5 Released, Supports More Old Macs

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the raid-the-attic dept.

Operating Systems 177

An anonymous reader writes "The MorphOS Team has released version 2.5 of its PPC computer-only operating system. The new version extends its support of the PPC Mac range to include the eMac, which was the 2002-2006 Mac model consisting of a CRT monitor and computer in a single housing. MorphOS previously and continues to support the PPC Mac mini, as well as the Pegasos and Efika niche computers (all discontinued but available second-hand). MorphOS includes a web browser and TCP/IP stack and a few traditional baseline OS-associated apps among its features. Further software is available from a range of online repositories. MorphOS 2.5 comes on a bootable 30-minute demo live CD ISO which may also be installed. The ISO is available for free download by anyone. The 30-minute limit is removed by online purchase of registration/key file which is available for a limited period for the sum of 111 euros to celebrate the launch of this version."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

177 comments

Is it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471042)

Morph from Orph?

Re:Is it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32472784)

a COCK in the ANUS

Why not just use a Linux distribution? (3, Insightful)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471058)

It's free and probably works with more programs.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471094)

Why not just use a Linux distribution?

People'd use this for the same reasons they'd use BeOS and ReactOS. You're right, though -- they'd probably be able to get actual work done with a Linux distribution.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471264)

Except those are open source, community driven projects and this is an expensive, closed source OS.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471430)

BeOS open source?

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471702)

I assumed he was talking about Haiku - do people really still use an OS that stopped being developed a decade ago?

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2, Interesting)

niteshifter (1252200) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472270)

... do people really still use an OS that stopped being developed a decade ago?

Yep. Even older: The last DOS (MSDOS 4.01, running on a ancient Compaq) install I had to maintain was retired last July. This in a ~ 26bil (US) Fortune 500 company. It operated a testing apparatus. Lack of slow enough hardware (not kidding) to replace that Compaq was why it was retired.

Redundancy is Best uptime. MorphOS here to stay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32472912)

Yea, I maintain a few FreeDOS systems that virtualize Novel PCDOS and Caldera Dr DOS for various processes. They surprisingly run much faster and more efficiently for single tasks of website CGI processing offloaded to them from the main servers. Have had Linux and XP systems that crash and burn under load and the sites I run are switched into a lower resource export to the web while these FreeDOS CGI servers keep chugging along.

With the nature of MorphOS it can greatly pick and choose features induced or parallelized from Open Source without actually being liable to GPL. After all, the technical specifications of hardware disclosed by Open Source or GPL is sometimes easier to re-implement when all the difficult discernment re-implements it in an actual tool on Linux.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#32473200)

I can top that! Last I heard my old gamer rig, which I had to dig out of my shed for a customer a few years back, a whopping Pentium 100Mhz with 32Mb of RAM, two PCI and 3 ISA slots, is STILL running DOS 3 in a lumber company down the road!

The owner of the mill left his kid in charge while he went on vacation, and wouldn't you know it that would be the time their ancient DOS 3 PC that ran the lathe that did custom columns would take a shit. The kid came into our shop practically having a heart attack, because the old lathe (which apparently was an 85k+ piece of hardware back in the 80s and the company that made it is long out of business) would only run on an ISA slot and only on DOS 3, and every shop said they didn't have anything that old. Naturally they had a big job requiring those custom columns due by the end of the week and the kid was ready to shit puppies. I thought that kid was gonna faint when I said "I think I got a couple of ISA PCs out in my shed that works". Luckily the board and not the whole 20Mb HDD was what died on their old one, so I was able to clone it onto my old gamer rigs and get it back to life.

So you'd be surprised what some folks are still using, and when you consider it would probably cost the 50k to replace that custom lathe you really can't blame 'em. I ended up making $400 for those two old junkers PLUS time and a half PLUS double my usual service call fee just to go set them up and show the kid how to keep the spare in running order. Last I heard my old DOOM box is still running that lathe, 5 days a week, just running that single program in DOS 3. They really don't make them like that anymore. Those beige boxes were fugly, but they were built like tanks.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1, Redundant)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472368)

do people really still use an OS that stopped being developed a decade ago?

Yes, Windows XP.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472564)

What are you talking about? It got a Service Pack two years ago, and still get patches. Not the same thing at all.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471132)

And supports more hardware. Ubuntu PPC on a Mac G4 works just the same, is a better CD/DVD burner than Tiger and supports hardware that Mac OS X doesn't.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471500)

So David, let me ask you something: If you had a 17" G4 Macbook Pro, is there any advantage to using Ubuntu PPC in place of OS X? I've got such a machine and I don't use it much any more but I'd like to get some productivity out of it. So many of the programs that I use a Mac for now require Intel (Logic Studio, Netflix via browser, Eve Online) that unfortunately this beautiful machine is just not a go-to system for me any more. Considering it cost me 4 grand, I'd like to squeeze some more life out of it. It's got 2gig RAM.

Maybe I'll dual boot OSX and Ubuntu PPC.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471574)

The PPC machines aren't as susceptible to viruses. Use it for browsing questionable sites, or opening up attachments! I use either a Linux machine or my old PPC mac mini for those.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471626)

I have a 12" G4 iBook that I recently wiped OS X from and installed Ubuntu on. The two main advantages are being able to run the current version of the OS and current versions of applications. Mac OS X 10.6 won't run on anything PPC and 10.5 is currently security updates only, and even that support is going to dry up sooner or later. And as you mentioned, there's applications. More and more simply stop bothering to keep supporting PPC, whereas anything available on Linux that's open source (which is damn near everything) will work on PPC.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (4, Interesting)

flnca (1022891) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471152)

Well, MorphOS is one of the few Amiga-compatible OSes that remain that can run natively ... MorphOS has some interesting concepts by itself ... it does have some applications. I used it on Efika for a while ... the only thing about MorphOS I came to dislike was the lack of virtual memory and the fact that it was closed-source. But certainly, you're right ... Linux and even the BSDs are so good nowadays that there's barely a reason to use MorphOS (let alone AmigaOS 4) except for people who want (or need) to run an Amiga-like OS natively. The speed is certainly impressive. You'd get a lot of bang for the buck if everything related to it wasn't so expensive (the hardware, the OS, some of the software). There was an Intel-based clone of AmigaOS once but Amiga Inc. forced it off the market. Another aspect speaking for it is the simplicity of writing device drivers. So it can have some applications in the embedded area where time-to-market and speed are more important than price.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471248)

The thing is, why would you really need to run Amiga OS? Other than admiring the simplicity and the architecture and all that fun stuff, theres no real reason to run Amiga OS for day-to-day work that can't be done with a decent Linux distro.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471570)

Other than admiring the simplicity and the architecture and all that fun stuff, theres no real reason to run Linux for day-to-day work that can't be done with Windows.

FTFY?

I am a Linux user btw, I just think this is a silly line of thought.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471588)

Hell, why one would bother with Linux distro for day-to-day work if it can be done with Windows that came preinstalled on a laptop...

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

Smeagel (682550) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471754)

Security, stability, plethora of truly free applications...tons of reasons that make your day-to-day tasks much faster. Hell half the reason I dislike windows so much these days is the UI, I just work faster on my fully-customized linux machine.

Even if you say these reason are all arguable, which they are, at least there are solid arguable reasons. I've seen no such arguments for MorphOS.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471784)

Security (c'mon...what malicious thing would run on MorpOS?), snappiness, plethora of Amiga and Amiga-style apps you love (and which work for you)...tons of reasons that make your day-to-day tasks much faster.

Even if you say these reason are all arguable, which they are, at least there are solid arguable reasons.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32473424)

MorphOS might have a few positive points about it that are shared with GNU/Linux- but frankly GNU/Linux has much more than MorphOS and you loose nothing with going with GNU/Linux over it. You gain with going to a GNU/Linux distribution over MS Windows though- it's safer, faster, easier to use, better compatibility, etc. Sure MS Windows has it's strong points. You can go almost anywhere and find hardware / new computer with MS Windows however you don't really know if it'll work given the flakiness of the MS Windows ecosystem.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32473568)

Because you are into Amiga, you like the Amiga environment, how stuff is done and handled in the Amiga environment, the extremely low footprint and snappines etc of the OS and applications, etc. Nobody here is claiming MorphOS is out to take over the world. If you for example professionally need the creativity applications available only for Mac OS and Windows, you simply can't be helped by MorphOS. And that was never not the point either.

Why does people bother with renovating old Ford Mustang's, when new cars are so much faster, safer, better equipped, etc? It's the luxury of having a hobby! :-)

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471278)

Cost has been the undoing of AmigaOS for many years...
When i first got an Amiga, it was because the machine was relatively cheap while still being pretty capable. It was capable of gaming with the simplicity of a console, while also having an OS allowing serious and/or educational work to be done... You could buy one for your kids and they would enjoy playing games on it, but could also hook up a printer and do their school work.

However, once i started trying to get the amiga online that all fell apart... Even simple things like a tcp stack, telnet client or web browser cost money and all these costs soon added up. After a while it simply wasn't worth keeping the Amiga anymore.

More recently, i tried MorphOS on a mac mini and found it fun to play with for a few minutes, but certainly not worth 111 euro.. Same goes for AmigaOS 4, it's certainly not worth the price of the OS plus having to buy low spec but relatively expensive hardware to run it on.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472082)

It was laughable back then and it's laughable now. I still check Aminet now and then, and there are still crazy people that release everything for the Amiga as shareware. It's insane when you compare with all the 100% free applications that people spend hours and hours on for linux.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (4, Informative)

larpon (974081) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471322)

you could consider AROS [sourceforge.net] to be intel-based although it runs on other architectures :)

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471546)

Amithlon was perhaps even more interesting in its time - a fully transparent layer (build around a stripped down Linux or something) providing the ability to run AmigaOS 3.9, through JIT 68k emulation, on quite typical x86 machine. Also with binary compatibility and being the fastest Amiga back then, by a huuuge margin.

But killed quickly, supposedly due to some IP troubles; though I suspect the idea of not milking Amiga faithful was simply too hard to swallow.

Amiga? (1)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471366)

Now, I'm not trying to troll here and I genuinely loved the Amiga, back in the day, but why on earth would anyone want to run an Amiga-compatible OS these days?

Can the modern Amiga OS run old Amiga software? Could I really fire up my old copy of Alien Breed, Titus the Fox or some of the old mega demos?

What can you do on an Amiga compatible OS that can't be done more easily and cheaply with, say, Linux or even OS X? I'm asking this because I'm genuinely interested...

Re:Amiga? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471478)

Can the modern Amiga OS run old Amiga software?
Yes, that's the point of MorphOS... (though if it doesn't run on a machine with custom Amiga chips (zombie "1200" with PPC accelerator for example), then the software depending on that chips won't run)

What can you do on an Amiga compatible OS that can't be done more easily and cheaply with, say, Linux or even OS X? I'm asking this because I'm genuinely interested...
Having Amiga-like experience. Is that so hard to guess?...

Re:Amiga? (1)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471822)

What can you do on an Amiga compatible OS that can't be done more easily and cheaply with, say, Linux or even OS X? I'm asking this because I'm genuinely interested...
Having Amiga-like experience. Is that so hard to guess?...

Yes, and what can you do with an Amiga-like experience (come on, the GUI, while it was innovative for it's time has nothing on Windows 7 or OS X) that can't be done more easily with a modern OS. If you're the kind of person that knows Workbench back-to-front and inside-out, and haven't learnt anything else in the intervening 15-odd years, then I'm sorry, but it's time to move on ^_^

Is there any Amiga-only software that is worth running today that doesn't depend on the custom hardware in the Amiga, is there any software that does anything useful that hasn't been ported or replicated on another platform?

Re:Amiga? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471854)

Apparently some people still like it... (while certainly having lots of experience in other OSes, you can't really avoid it nowadays) ...who are you to judge they must be wrong?

Re:Amiga? (1)

flnca (1022891) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471486)

Yup, both MorphOS and AmigaOS 4 (and perhaps AROS) have 68k emulation layers to run legacy AmigaOS 1.x-3.x software. :) But for some old software, you can fire up an Amiga emulator like UAE as well ... it's only when you want to run the software more or less natively that you need one of those OSes. Speed-wise, these OSes still outperform other OSes running on the same hardware ... but if it's really worth the investment, that's a good question. The user interface is still more or less the same, promising you the same ages-old user experience! ;)

Re:Amiga? (1)

flnca (1022891) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471554)

I just read that you'll still need UAE on those OSes if you want to run applications that were accessing the old Amiga hardware directly (like most games or demos). So, perhaps the best solution for you would be to run UAE or WinUAE. There's a nice (commercial) software package called AmigaForever from Cloanto that runs on Windows. But if you have the ROM images and OS disks, you can use the free versions of UAE on Linux or WinUAE as well.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471558)

You'd get a lot of bang for the buck if everything related to it wasn't so expensive

Best thought ever.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

AnonymousX (1632759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472352)

So basically we can emulate a dead OS made by a dead computer company that runs on a dead end line of Macs. And it only costs $150? Don't everyone rush at once!

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

ninjakoala (890584) | more than 3 years ago | (#32473892)

Amiga Inc. did not force Amithlon off the market.

What happened was that the distributor (Haage & Partner) supplied Kickstart ROM and related software for the developers Bernd Meyer and Harald Frank. It turned out that Haage & Partner were not licensed to distribute said software, so Bernd Meyer terminated his relationship with the company over breach of contract.

After this, Haage & Partner kept selling Amithlon for a considerable amount of time and lawsuits were filed against Bernd Meyer. Initially he tried developing a new version without code related to Haage & Partner and Harald Frank, but eventually dropped the project in 2002, because he was no longer interested in fighting his former partners.

While Amiga Inc. screwed up plenty of things, this was not one of them.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2, Interesting)

chaoskitty (11449) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471198)

Why not just use Windows?

The reasons some people might give for using GNU/Linux (Linux is just a kernel, after all) are probably similar to the reason that people might give for using MorphOS. Some people like the development environment (especially people who learned on AmigaOS), some people probably enjoy the efficiency of this OS on PowerPC hardware, and some people like to be different and not run the same software as everyone else.

There are no GUIs for GNU/Linux which are as efficient or as intuitive as AmigaOS, and MorphOS tries to continue that philosophy.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471262)

Because you can't use windows on a PPC architecture?

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

jaak (1826046) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471376)

Windows NT supported PowerPC.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

bedouin (248624) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471606)

Yeah, but it never actually ran on any Macs.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (2, Interesting)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#32473182)

Yea, it was one of several OSes that was supposed to run on hardware confirming to the PReP/CHRP hardware standard that was created as part of the attempt to push PowerPC processor-based computers as an better alternative to IBM PC compatibles based on x86 processors. The Advanced Computing Environment's Advanced RISC Computing (ARC) standard was a similar standard created for a similar purpose, but for the MIPS processor instead of PowerPC.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471326)

Unlike MorphOS, Linux:

Costs nothing
Runs on a much wider array of hardware
Is open source
Has a much wider array of useful applications - enough to be usable on a day to day basis

And i imagine that despite the efficiency of morphos, a 2ghz g4 (does it even support the g5?) will not outperform a modern quad core system...

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471648)

There's always AROS if you really want all that (and it and MorphOS have enough apps "to be usable on a day to day basis")

But since MorphOS, among few other things, is doing relatively (very relatively, yeah...) fine even with AROS around, perhaps its community doesn't care about those factors all that much (plus... [sourceforge.net])

As for the speed, and most notably the percieved speed...I wouldn't be so certain. Grab AROS, it's reasonably comparable for our needs (more rough though); there are even some VMs of recent builds always available. And run it on as low amount of processing power as you can get your hands on.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471832)

Aros didn't seem all that quick (tried it on a dell latitude c610, (1.2ghz cpu and 512mb ram - it wouldnt boot on my regular desktop)... Also when trying to rebuild the OS out of curiosity when it first became self hosting, it got slower and slower until it basically froze.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471862)

I wouldn't be surprised if that was some unintended effect of trying to run it natively...

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471268)

After reading the feature list I'm wondering where they borrowed all the code.

No code needs to be borrowed, only re-implemented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32472984)

An implemented not derived, but somewhat induced to develop in parallel with a competing product is how MorphOS could inter-operate with Linux.

Re:Why not just use a Linux distribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32473526)

If what you are looking for is a way to use old Mac hardware, then of course you are right in that Linux is the best option (if there is any Linux for these old Mac's? Yellowdog perhaps?)

But if what you are looking for is a way to use the Amiga environment (and yes, there are quite a few of us "Amigans" left ;-) ) in a modern version on cheap and easily available hardware, then MorphOS is your only choice.

Is this an ad? (4, Insightful)

Chelmet (1273754) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471082)

This is quite clearly a sales pitch - am I the only reader left thinking, 'well so what'?

Its all well and good keeping old computers running (providing the OS is secure enough), but I for one feel that this is neither news for nerds, nor stuff that matters.

And I'm not even clicking the link to vindicate the posting, click-through-wise.

Re:Is this an ad? (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471232)

This OS is one of the ways Amiga zombie tries to stay undead; stuff quite a bit for nerds, I'd say.

Re:Is this an ad? (2, Funny)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471304)

I looked at the summary, was wondering what's the advantage over TerraSoft's YDL, the os formerly known as Yellow Dog Linux.

When I saw the 30 minute limit thing, I realized clearly what was the disadvantage compared to YDL.

Re:Is this an ad? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471390)

If it's an ad, it sure does a bad job, because I'm like "registration key, oh, this isn't open-source or anything, just another proprietary OS. I might as well continue using Mac OS 9."

Are they that rich? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472952)

So, poor (!) Xerox, IBM, Microsoft has to buy (possibly bid) ads from huge ad networks to show ads on /. but some no name, fantasy OS company can buy stories.

That is what you mean right?

Re:Is this an ad? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32473002)

This is quite clearly a sales pitch - am I the only reader left thinking, 'well so what'?

Its all well and good keeping old computers running (providing the OS is secure enough), but I for one feel that this is neither news for nerds, nor stuff that matters.

And I'm not even clicking the link to vindicate the posting, click-through-wise.

Old computers are appreciated by nerds. If you were really one, you'd understand that, even if you weren't into old computers.

Is there a market for this? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471096)

111 Euros means about $2000 in US dollars because of the weak US currency.

Why pay for this OS which is likely worth more than the Mac it is running on as opposed to a BSD or YDL? It isn't like developers are going to write applications for an OS for a market segment of computers with no upgrade path.

Re:Is there a market for this? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471116)

Dear dumbass:

111 euros = ~132 USD

Still, I don't see what the point is spending that much money for an OS that will support virtually no software on an extremely old platform.

Re:Is there a market for this? (2, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471130)

111 Euros means about $2000 in US dollars because of the weak US currency.

111 Euro is $132.82, not anywhere near $2000. Right now, the Euro to US$ conversion is very good due to the general state of the European economy.

Re:Is there a market for this? (1)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471156)

Why pay for this OS which is likely worth more than the Mac it is running on

It's worth more? Why, that's a great reason to use it!

slashvertisement (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471100)

This "story" is an ad, with promotional language in the slashdot summary like "available for a limited period." The OS isn't open source. Looks like someone knows how to game the firehose.

Re:slashvertisement (1)

ithyus (711527) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471114)

Well, if it is it's kind of amusing. The /. community is all about tinkering with toys both old and new. But if we're going to revive an old machine for the purposes of tinkering, we're not going to pay money to do it. Seriously, most of us live in our mom's basements (or should probably be stored there for the benefit of society). Do you really think we have money laying around?

Re:slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471128)

I like how the ISO is 'available for free download by anyone', but the OS itself isn't. I just assumed it was FOSS until I saw the 30-minute trial thing.

Re:slashvertisement (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471844)

Yeah, it's the same crappy tactics that all the 'free download' sites use. Sure, it's a free download... But you have to pay for the software.

Re:slashvertisement (1)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471140)

To be fair, open source is by no means a requirement for something to be story-worthy. It seems that most of the computer stories these days are about Apple products, which are rarely open source.

Also, the Linux/BSD release "stories" are usually far more enthusiastic (or advertising) than this, even if the company that releases it aims to make a profit. I say this as a Linux fanboy, by the way...

Re:slashvertisement (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471340)

Apple products are more open source than morphos, and they don't intentionally cripple themselves after 30 minutes (i think even microsoft is more generous than that with suspected pirate copies)...

Re:slashvertisement (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471370)

Apple products are more open source than morphos

Ehhh?
http://morphosambient.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

And FFS, it's not "crippling suspected pirate copies", it's a trial; quite adequate (you can restart, you know...) to determine if you want to get the thing.

Re:slashvertisement (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471794)

Having to restart every 30 minutes is far from adequate and gives you no ability to test the long term stability...

MS gives you 180 days on their trial versions - a lot more useful than 30 minutes!

I remember the trial TCP stacks on amigaos - had the same issue, disconnected you after 30 minutes... On a slow dialup, 30 minutes wasn't enough to download anything (like another tcp stack without such limitations).

Incidentally, for those of us with old amigas, its no longer possible to register any of this software... you can download the trials, but they're useless 30 minute affairs with no way to legitimately get a full version... finding a cracked copy (and thats not very easy either) is the only option. I have an A4000 and an A3000 sitting around somewhere.

Re:slashvertisement (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471836)

180 days is far from adequate and gives you no ability to test the long term accumulation of crud in the OS...

Re:slashvertisement (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472480)

On a slow dialup, 30 minutes wasn't enough to download anything (like another tcp stack without such limitations.

Probably that was deliberate...

WTF??? Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471106)

I've never heard of this before. It sounds stunningly retarded. It's not going to make the freetards happy, because it's not completely open source. And it sounds damned expensive, considering it's basically a crippled OS. Why on earth would I use this????

Re:WTF??? Why bother? (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472114)

And it won't make us Amitards happy either, because like.. it doesn't really run on any Amiga with relevance.

Re:WTF??? Why bother? (1)

LoadWB (592248) | more than 3 years ago | (#32473580)

Which would be? And relevant to what?

I missed out on the thread about what it means to be a "real" Amiga. I think I will have to find it on AO and have a read.

I recently acquired a G4 MacMini and installed MorphOS 2.4. I am pretty pleased with its operation, especially how quickly USB devices are recognized and mass storage devices get mounted (excellent work, Chris, thank you!) There is a nice selection of software -- free, shareware, and commercial -- out there for the various Amiga-oid platforms. And the native compatibility with OS3 (68k) software is a great benefit.

Why use it rather than Linux? Because it IS NOT Linux.

How did all these damned mosquitoes get into my house?!!

PPC computer-only operating system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32471108)

Aw man, I was hoping for a PPC toaster OS.

111 Euros? (1)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471160)

Seems like a bit much for a very limited operating system that only works on PPC architecture. Can anyone explain why this would be attractive at that price?

Re:111 Euros? (1)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471210)

MorphOS is in relative terms 'Amiga' alike and can run older Amiga programs with a JIT emulator at great speed in comparison to older Amiga based systems.

So, for anyone who had an interest, what this offers is basically a faster Amiga, modernised quite a bit, and with more resources.

In this, there is a large library of software and so on that is around from the time Amiga's were in wider use, and for anyone who has an old Amiga thats on deaths door, this offers one modern way forward.

You can do similar things with WinUAE or UAE, however, emulation is all well and good, but having real hardware and modernised software is always one good avenue.

Lastly, its a single user, exec alike OS, so its fast in terms of look and feel, on a level that more modern OSs cannot match. Off course, its actually raw processing power is only whatever the cpu's offer, so it tends to only be look and feel in nature.

Re:111 Euros? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471308)

But how would it be worth $130+? Having an Amiga is all good an well but its a very dead platform. If this was freeware or better yet F/OSS it would be great. But for $130 I can buy a second hand x86 desktop, buy a used Amiga or just upgrade OS X/the hardware to Leopard.

If I really wanted a weekend project, why would I pay $130 for it? Amiga or MorphOS will never reach the same level of usability as Linux or OS X so why pay tons for an OS that is worthless?

Re:111 Euros? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471314)

It doesn't run anything which depends on those great custom Amiga chips though, only the "OS level" software. Not without UAE at least...but it doesn't really make a difference where you run the latter.

There was even better option a long time ago, Amithlon (probably quite a bit faster, to). I suspect there were not only merely problems with IP, but also somebody, at the time, thought that Amithlon doesn't provide enough opportunities to milk small fanbase out of their cash...

Re:111 Euros? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471362)

Would anyone seriously use this for anything more than the odd nostalgia kick?
If this was free i might consider installing it and might use it once in a blue moon, but it certainly isn't worth 111 euros..

If i want to play with old Amiga software, i can install UAE and while i don't doubt MorphOS has some very efficient emulation code the fact that it only runs on fairly obsolete processors nullifies that advantage.

Modern Amiga software really has very little appeal, a lot of it consists of ports of open source apps (eg they got a webkit based browser quite recently) which are always several years behind the more mainstream ports.

Re:111 Euros? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471764)

Webkit isn't a browser, you know; it's an engine. They recently built a browser around Webkit which has very Amiga-like feel - that's a bit more accurate. Most/all software they use on MorphOS has that feel. "Fairly obsolete processors" notwithstanding. Doing it via UAE apparently doesn't quite cut it for its users...

Re:111 Euros? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471274)

That's quite a bargain considering prices of many things with which amigans kept their nostalgia alive over the last decade+

Re:111 Euros? (1)

ifeelswine (1546221) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472398)

[quote]Seems like a bit much for a very limited operating system that only works on PPC architecture. Can anyone explain why this would be attractive at that price?[/quote] ok, I will do my best. Since the bankruptcy of Commodore, I never feel truly happy nor do I ever feel truly happy. I feel like I am going through the motions of life, numb to the monochromatic monophonic realities of life. It is like the people who went to see avatar and could not bear to not live in idyllic Pandora. I remember the first time I saw an Amiga, back in 85 or so. 4,096 colors, multtasking, stereo sound. Even in 2010 now computer has matched the Amiga's ability. My PC still beeps like an apple 2 when I turn it on, I cannot format two floppy disks at the same time, and the pc's audio does not connect to my home stereo. The promise of reigniting the amiga flame, bringing my back to 1985, is a siren song to me and others like me. I have purchased not one but two licenses even though I only have one PPC mac.. I might find another one at the goodwill or something, you never know. but just incase i do I have the license already. I will always purchase one more license than I have physical hardware for this reason. If morphos falls short of the glory of amiga, then I am going to take up crystal meth. At least I will not be held to the whim of a bahamian corporation for the rest of my living years.

Buy a new computer for that price... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471202)

For $150-ish dollars the same price as the OS, you could easily buy a cheap, second-hand x86 computer and do more. Or heck, why not just get PPC versions of Linux?

Unless MorphOS has some killer feature like the ability to emulate Windows perfectly, or something that Linux doesn't have, I'm not seeing the point in wasting hundreds of dollars on software that nothing really runs on.

Re:Buy a new computer for that price... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471722)

It has killer feature of emulating the Amiga experience (there's your something that Linux have...), that's enough for its intended audience.

Re:Buy a new computer for that price... (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471892)

Why so I could buy some new software for an old computer or I could buy windows 7. Now that would be a selling point.

Re:Buy a new computer for that price... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32472024)

Good point. You can also buy a PPC Mac for the same price. I recommend a Pismo.

Bumer it doesn't support G3 Macs ... (1)

SickLittleMonkey (135315) | more than 3 years ago | (#32471808)

Then again, it's closed source, pricey and runs Amiga apps.
Any suggestions for Linux on G3?

Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu and even Fedora (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 3 years ago | (#32473016)

Those all run great. I still run an fairly old version of Ubuntu on my B&W G3 tower. I have OSX 10.3 on it too and it runs okay, but Linux runs circles around the thing. Gentoo is a better choice for PPC these days because the ports.ubuntu.com stuff is not as well supported as the standard ubuntu stuff, back when I install the PPC version it was one of the main supported architecture for ubuntu. There is even Fedora Core for PPC, it's a little tricky to install but once it is on there it runs like a champ.

But really all you need is some Linux distro that you like that also supports PPC, X11 and all that runs very nicely on PowerPC, and Linux tends to scale to the low end better than OSX and Windows so you'll have a pretty comfortable experience. I have a 1.6Ghz Atom and an 800MHz G3 (got an overclock chip in it) both running Ubuntu with some 2D video acceleration going on (ATI Rage128 in the G3, GMA950 in the Atom) and the G3 feels quite a bit snappier. And the load times when I ran a stop watch was 10% faster for the small apps and 20% slower for the big ones, I don't like waiting for a simple Xterm to load so it's worth it to me. I don't really run OpenOffice or the GIMP that much on a low end system anyways.

You can usually pick up a Powermac B&W G3 in the paper or local shop for around $50. The built-in IDE controller has issues with anything bigger than a 120GB device. But there are PCI slots and it is possible to boot off them if you pick the right controller. I have a SATA card in mine and just boot off a 40GB drive and mount two 1TB SATA drives for storage. There is a G4 500MHz upgrade for the old B&W but it's not worth it, there is a 1GHz G3 upgrade for about the same price which is a much better deal as it is faster and more stable than a G4 in that system.

15" PowerBook G4 with 512 MB of RAM? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#32472650)

I have an old 15" PowerBook G4 with 512 MB of RAM, dial-up, WEP wireless, etc.

What runs well on it since its Mac OS X 10.2.8 and softwares are outdated these days.

Support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32473232)

What? Apple doesn't support your eMac 4 years later? Quick, scoot down to Best Buy and pick up an iPad. You can buy the replacement iPad 2G next year and the iPad 3Gs the year after.......

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...