Pros and Cons of Amithlon type systems

[Lando]

Amithlon wasn't so much an Amiga emulator as it didn't actually emulate an Amiga (ie. the custom chips, which to me were what makes an Amiga what it was).  Rather it was a way of running Amiga OS 3.x on a x86 machine on top of a barebones linux kernel.

I torrented it several years ago to try out (it wasn't available to buy anymore) and it was very fast.  In UAE the customer chip emulation takes 90% of the processor time so the reason Amithlon was so fast is because it didn't bother with any of that, but you had to run hardware-banging apps in E-UAE on top of Amithlon which kinda negated the whole point.

[Lando]

Franko,
 
That info is for an updated kernel. First, you need to install and get the system working before you can update the kernel.
 
I'm interested in what hardware the original amithlon cd supported, which I have a copy of but no docs, or hw supported info for.
 
Steven

There is a hardware compatibility list here

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~garycvl/amithlon/hardware.htm

[stefcep2]

@BootDisk:

Not this old crap again about OS3.5/3.9 not being proper upgrades. It's rubbish and you know it, or should do by now. Workbench ARexx port, GlowIcons support, various enhancements and bugfixes to core APIs etc. The fact that some previously 3rd-party apps (eg. ReAction) were also integrated into the package doesn't negate this.

I agree.  

I'm in the process of installing my own 3.1 system on an A4000 68060 with CGX.  I have both 3.5 and 3.9, but I'm trying to get the speed of 3.1 with the functionality of 3.9 (3.9 is slower, 3.5 is far less stable, and  HATE the doubletriple cold boot, and yes I've tried programmable ROMS and they do Funny Things).  

I think I can do it but its taking a long time, and there are quite a few incompatibilies cropping up between different patches that need to be installed.  And the result is far less elegant that 3.9.  3.9 deserves more credit than it gets  I wish they just sold 3.9 ROMS to go with it as well.

[Franko]

@ stefcep2

I agree with you that 3.9 is the slowest but curious as to why you think 3.5 is "less stable"...

I run 3.5 all the time and never have any problems with it on my Blizzard060 or 030 boards be interested to know what problems you seem to have found with 3.5...

I simply use some small scripts with 3.0 & 3.1 ROM Images and BlizKick for switching between OS 3. to 3.9 and a small script file that switches me to OS4.0 if I want to use it and it only take a quick double reset to do so...

Best way I find to do it is to have each version of Workbench stored simply in a separate drawer (ie: 3.0,  3.1,  3.5 and 3.9) and some small scripts that reset the Amiga (with BlickKick if I need to go between the 3.0 & 3.1 ROMS) and a small util I wrote that selects the chosen OS on reset by simply holding down the appropriate function key...

[billt]

I skipped over Amithons heyday and got into it later, but I'm very interested in it.

Would you still use something similar?

What would a modern version need to change?

I'd use it if it gave me a laptop. For desktops, I already have nearly all of them., no need for emulation there. I use WinUAE, never did get Amithlon to work myself.

It'd be cool to see an AmithlonPPC for OS4.

[runequester]

You do indeed get some incompatibilities with 3.9. I didn't find it that slow to use, though the boot up process is obnoxiously slow.
 
3.5 was as stable as 3.1 for me, but I didnt have a lot of other patches in there

[Heiroglyph]

I don't think 3.9 was that much slower, but I think it feels slower.

Feel is a lot of what makes AmigaOS AmigaOS IMHO.  OS3.9 has this intangible slowness that certain people are more sensitive to.

The multiple reboots are just inexcusable.  I have no idea how that made it out the door.

[EDanaII]

Part of my reasoning is that Haiku is more of a spiritual successor than most other OS's, but is far more advanced.
It has SMP, memory protection, virtual memory, datatypes, responsive UI, it's multi-media centric and has a good selection of drivers.  It also boots to a usable desktop in 8 seconds. (not counting BIOS crap that can't be helped)

Doesn't Haiku have the same limitation that AROS has in regards to drivers? I assume you'd want to support a limited set of architecture first, but wouldn't the ideal be to ultimately support as broad a range of hardware as possible? Am I missing something here?

I have nothing against Haiku and I'm definitely not a Linux fan, but wouldn't you want to start with something that had a fairly broad foundation?

Just curious.

[runequester]

Haiku is keen but going from "barely supports any hardware" to "barely supports any hardware" probably isnt the way to go

[amigadave]

.......It'd be cool to see an AmithlonPPC for OS4.

Huh???

[amigadave]

I agree.  

I'm in the process of installing my own 3.1 system on an A4000 68060 with CGX.  I have both 3.5 and 3.9, but I'm trying to get the speed of 3.1 with the functionality of 3.9 (3.9 is slower, 3.5 is far less stable, and  HATE the doubletriple cold boot, and yes I've tried programmable ROMS and they do Funny Things).  

I think I can do it but its taking a long time, and there are quite a few incompatibilies cropping up between different patches that need to be installed.  And the result is far less elegant that 3.9.  3.9 deserves more credit than it gets  I wish they just sold 3.9 ROMS to go with it as well.

I have a Flash ROM board that I have never properly utilized for one A4000 and a Deneb with Flash ROM functionality in another A4000 and I believe my ACA630 in my A600 has enough Flash ROM room to create a custom ROM file that would be an improvement over what AmigaOS3.9 does, or has.  If there is not already a project out there, there should be one or more that suggest the best ROM modules to combine to create the best AmigaOS experience, based on the 3.1 Kickstart ROM's, plus only the best parts of 3.5, 3.9 and later improved ROM modules that were created after 3.9.  There should be different recommendations for different CPU's, such as recommended ROM modules for each of the following Amiga models and CPU's;
A500/A2000 w/68000
A500/A2000 w/68030
A500/A2000 w/68040
A500/A2000 w/68060
A3000/A3000T w/68030
A3000/A3000T w/68040
A3000/A3000T w/68060
A3000/A3000T w/68060 & PPC
A1200/CD32 w/68020
A1200/A4000/A4000T w/68030 or 68040
A1200/A4000/A4000T w/68060
A1200/A4000/A4000T w/68060 & PPC

You could also almost double the above selections by adding another variable of RTG graphics card, or no RTG.

It would be nice to have some kind of matrix, or database that would give the best suggestions of not only ROM modules, but would also provide suggestions for optimizing datatypes, libraries and other parts of the system to get the best results.  I am sure that this is something like what the un-official BoingBag3 and BoingBag4 projects are doing, but don't know how complete they are, and I don't think they make any suggestions for creating the best custom Kickstart ROM files.  There are so many choices to best optimize the Amiga now, that it is quite an art to get all the best options installed.  Those that have spent long hours picking and choosing which ROM modules and other OS components to use to get the best results should have a place to share their notes and experiences and discuss what works and what does not.

[Heiroglyph]

Doesn't Haiku have the same limitation that AROS has in regards to drivers? I assume you'd want to support a limited set of architecture first, but wouldn't the ideal be to ultimately support as broad a range of hardware as possible? Am I missing something here?

I have nothing against Haiku and I'm definitely not a Linux fan, but wouldn't you want to start with something that had a fairly broad foundation?

Just curious.

It's not exactly a logical project to work on as much as an emotional one to begin with, but Haiku has surprisingly good hardware support and I like the actual OS.

Haiku is just far more like what I want an updated AOS to be than Linux is.  I'd spend all my time covering up Linux-isms instead of weaving the best of them together.

With Haiku, if it shows through the emulation it's still basically a feature.  Plus I'd rather give my changes back to Haiku and AROS than Linux.

(BTW, I use Linux a lot, I just don't have an emotional attachment there)

[Fats]

But that would not have the benefit of Amithlon's seamless 68k emulation.

Yeah forgot a step: integrate m68k emulator in i386be AROS,
Once you have i386be AROS that would not be a big step I think.

greets,
Staf.

[nicholas]

Yeah forgot a step: integrate m68k emulator in i386be AROS,
Once you have i386be AROS that would not be a big step I think.

greets,
Staf.

Has anyone attempted to produce i386be port of AROS before?

[XDelusion]

As it turns out, there are plenty of Youtube videos showing off the greatness that was never mean to be.

http://youtu.be/EwTW2yqlpzc

[Fats]

Has anyone attempted to produce i386be port of AROS before?

No, I did not say it was easy
Staf.