Amiga.org

Operating System Specific Discussions => Amiga OS => Amiga OS 4.x (future) Hardware Compatibility Discussions => Topic started by: trekiej on December 03, 2009, 01:56:52 AM

Title: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: trekiej on December 03, 2009, 01:56:52 AM
I feel like some here do not like OS 4 that much.
Is there anything wrong with OS 4?
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: tone007 on December 03, 2009, 04:05:34 AM
Only problem is the lack of affordable hardware. As an OS, it's fine.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Amigamia on December 03, 2009, 04:07:21 AM
COOL License plate!! Oh well I have to settle for another one in VA now..lol
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: NovaCoder on December 03, 2009, 06:55:26 AM
Yes is most ways it is I think.  I see it as a more modern version of the original OS, the problem is that it's being updated so slowly that it's falling further and further behind.  Hopefully things will start to move forward a bit quicker now....
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Everblue on December 03, 2009, 07:01:14 AM
Amiga OS4.1 is an official, modern version of the classic workbench. MorphOS is the same, except its not really official. So if I had to choose on an equal stand, I'd get OS4.1 - unfortunately Sam440 are way underpowered and too expensive, especially by today's standards, on the other hand MorphOS will work on a PowerMac which you can get next to nothing.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: countzero on December 03, 2009, 07:29:03 AM
Quote from: Amigamia;532342
COOL License plate!! Oh well I have to settle for another one in VA now..lol

get C65 :afro: :lol:
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: takemehomegrandma on December 03, 2009, 09:16:28 AM
@trekiej

IMHO it's more about individual personal opinions about the various options, than "something wrong with...".

Quote from: NovaCoder;532353
I see it as a more modern version of the original OS, the problem is that it's being updated so slowly that it's falling further and further behind.


There are *two* "more modern versions of the original OS", well three if you include AROS, but I really don't, because that one is more of the experimental kind IMHO.

So if you are to choose one of the two new OS options, I think it would be fair to compare them in four key areas before making your choice:

1) Level of compatibility to the original OS.
2) Performance
3) Features
4) HW options, including "bang for the buck" ratio

Take this "blind test" to see which one (option 1, or option 2) you would prefer:

1) In the first OS of the two, Amiga compatibility has been a top priority since day one. In the second, it hasn't.

2) The first of the two is faster than the second one, running on exactly the same HW.

3) The first of the two has more, better and more modern features in important areas than the second one, as well as most of the Amiga "3rd party standards" (CGX, Poseidon USB, MUI4, TurboPrint, etc) *integrated* into the OS.

4) The first one runs on a much wider selection of (second hand) HW, including very cheap yet powerful Mac G4 computers, offering performance levels previously completely unseen in an Amiga context. The second one completely lacks the option of similarly affordable and powerful HW, but runs on new (with warranty), expensive, low-power HW, on which it hasn't come out of "beta state" since over a year (for unknown reasons).

OK, let's throw in a fifth "key area" as well:

5) The first one does not have a red/white checkered ball as a logotype (but a blue butterfly), while the second one does. The first one isn't called "AmigaOS4" (but MorphOS), while the second one is.

So, time to sum up your answers, and look at the result:

If you would prefer option 1 in a majority of the above statements, you would rationally go for MorphOS.
If you would prefer option 2 in a majority of the above statements, you would rationally go for OS4.

So, "Is there anything wrong with OS 4?"

Not really. It's simply one more option you could choose between, if you want a NG *miga OS environment. You *could* ask: "Is there something better than OS4 out there?", and then I would say yes, definitely.

You also asked: "Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?"

Perhaps you could determine "worthiness" based upon the above areas of comparison? I don't know, but "worthiness" is a moot point here anyway; it looks like Hyperion has been granted the right to use the Amiga name for their OS in a settlement ending the long battle they had with the Amiga IP owner. Worthy or not, they have it. But does it matter? For me, not the slightest. I mentally dropped that "fifth key area of comparison" above the minute I went for MorphOS. But for *some* people, that "fifth key area of comparison" is the *only* thing that matters when they make their choice. Funny that...
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: spirantho on December 03, 2009, 10:13:52 AM
Nice to see people are still giving unbiased answers to people's questions...

OS 4 is usually hit on by:
a) People who are MorphOS fanboys (if you look really carefully you may just spot on or two in this forum, nay even in this thread!)
b) People who believe anything using AmigaOS has to have a custom chipset underneath it.
c) People who believe the hardware is too expensive and therefore the software must be no good.

Generally, people who have actually tried it have been very impressed by it. I can't talk for MorphOS as I've not tried it, and it wasn't even in the original question anyway! But what I can say is that AmigaOS 4 is definitely worthy of the Amiga name because it isAmigaOS. When AmigaOS 1.3 evolved into 2.04 it broke things, but it was still AmigaOS. When it went to AmigaOS 3.0 it broke other things, but no-one would say that it wasn't AmigaOS. AmigaOS 4.0 had to not only move to a completely new architecture to survive, but it also had to have various new elements added to keep up with peoples demands these days, and these things always come at a cost. Ask Apple, they know all about advancements at the cost of compatibility (remember, Apple's method with OS X was to throw an entire OS 9 installation at any program that didn't play nicely with OS X!).

Don't take my word for it, try it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions, because there's a lot of fanboys out there with no objective opinion. Personally, I think the fact that I've been using (and coding for) Amigas since 1989 and find AmigaOS 4 to be quite incredible speaks for itself - I have 3 OS 4 systems, an A4000, an A1XE (G4) and a Sam 440ep - and I've not looked back.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: bernd_afa on December 03, 2009, 10:25:02 AM
Maybe you make a poll, and ask the Question.

Do you think the OS4 devs are able to make a attractive AOS for not Amiga Fan Users ?

Yes or no.

I say no because when see for example this, there is no update and bugfix since long long time.

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30162&forum=14&23#523401

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29569&forum=14&106

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29561&forum=33&34

I see no excuse not enough money or so, because i am sure, every developers get with the same money, support of users/devs that support this much much better results.

and for this we need 2 PPC AOS solutions and red versus blue war, i dont understand.ok, if devs like OS4 good, but there should be working together possible because nobody can assume that many live with such OS4 limitation and update/bugfix slowness.

also can compare what that MOS/AROS devs do, they have not such problems.Or does this too happen on MOS and MAC Mini ?

we see that Hyperion develop very very slow SAM over 1 year now beta, was not able to build a good slab allocator, that reach speed of other slab allocator, and are not able that OS4 show correct used and free memory.
Thats a thing all OS can do, and there is no excuse that OS4 is something special.

I cant understand wy develop a driver need so much time, there need only look how the driver in Linux work.

Problem of course is that OS4 is closed source, so just modify the Linux driver and use is illegal.

But when there are devs that do a closed source AOS they should be able to do a working driver too soon, i dont want pay much money when they are slow and need much time to develop and make stable this.

Special on Amiga is only that there are some Fans that like OS4 so much and pay money because they think its last hope.

I think on otrher market if Hyperion develop a Slabv allocator with that features and speed it have on OS4, the Hyperion guys get fired.

If AOS is opensource, then a Linux opensource Slab allocator can use that is fast and show correct used memory.

So if the money does not flow to developers that reach better results with the given money, i think its impossible that amiga market can grow and go attractive for more users and especial devs that write more apps and need less bounty.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: smf on December 03, 2009, 10:40:06 AM
@trekiej

Well there is something wrong with OS4.
It's very outdated and lacks features. just like all the other Amigaos'es and wannbes.

But if you like the classic AmigaOS like i do. then OS4 is great and the only true successor to the classic amigaos.  
Unfortunately some people has a sick need to hit on it whenever they can mostly just to promote some other unnecessary solution that sucks just as hard as OS4.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Everblue on December 03, 2009, 10:53:01 AM
@spirantho

Just because a complete Sam440 is too expensive for me for a hobby computer, it doesn't make me a 'fanboy'. If OS4.1 was out for PowerMac, I wouldn't care for MorphOS, but considering that I do not have 800-900 euro to spend and MorphOS will run on a cheap G4, then by all means I will go for the second best option. Money may not be a problem for you, but for me it is.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Fingers on December 03, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Agreed with the above...using MorphOS to type this right now on my G4 Mini...if 4.1 was available for this machine I'd probably be using it instead.

SAM costs are beyond my financial scope, let alone PPC expansions for A1200, Pegasos, etc...

PZ.

p.s. For what it is, I'm quite happy with MOS & it's rapid development :)
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: DyLucke on December 03, 2009, 11:08:51 AM
I think both systems are reasonably good, despite they have differences. However i do choose MorphOS, for a handful of simple questions.

Hardware supporting MOS is faster.
Hardware supporting MOS is cheaper.
People developing soft for MOS seems to be more serious... (but this is a particular thought)

However on the other hand it seems there are more movement on the OS4 side about, programs and stuff... But the number of Sam's sold is really really low. About if OS4.1 is worth of the Amiga name, i would say a "why not?" On the other hand after the wise move of MOS supporting mac hardware, i bet we will see more programmers and new stuff to come... And grow in number much more than OS4 stuff...
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: ck1200 on December 03, 2009, 11:13:26 AM
Quote from: Nostromo;532354
Amiga OS4.1 is an official, modern version of the classic workbench. MorphOS is the same, except its not really official. So if I had to choose on an equal stand, I'd get OS4.1 - unfortunately Sam440 are way underpowered and too expensive, especially by today's standards, on the other hand MorphOS will work on a PowerMac which you can get next to nothing.

Agreed :D
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: bernd_afa on December 03, 2009, 11:13:33 AM
>But if you like the classic AmigaOS like i do. then OS4 is great and the only true >successor to the classic amigaos.

And wy is only OS4 the true sucessor and not MOS or maybe AROS if you want native Hardware ?
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: spirantho on December 03, 2009, 11:22:36 AM
@Nostromo

Believe me, money is a problem for me. I wasn't referring to you because you weren't knocking OS4, only those people who say that OS4 is bad because the hardware is expensive (those people need a better understanding of economics...).

What does annoy me, however, is how a question about AmigaOS has - as usual - been turned into a "My OS is better than your OS" red vs. blue argument as has been done to death so many times and is no good for anyone. It was pretty much this kind of argument that stopped me buying MorphOS at all.

'nuff said. I'm out of this thread now - seen it all before.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: ck1200 on December 03, 2009, 11:28:21 AM
I do really like the look of OS 4.1 though ! :)
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Varthall on December 03, 2009, 11:34:49 AM
Quote

So if you are to choose one of the two new OS options, I think it would be fair to compare them in four key areas before making your choice:

1) Level of compatibility to the original OS.
2) Performance
3) Features
4) HW options, including "bang for the buck" ratio

Take this "blind test" to see which one (option 1, or option 2) you would prefer:

1) In the first OS of the two, Amiga compatibility has been a top priority since day one. In the second, it hasn't.

I think that a better comparison would be how legacy software actually performs under both systems, and if there are programs that run only on one system, how many of them do so and how much important/relevant/useful they are and if a native version of them already exist.

Quote

2) The first of the two is faster than the second one, running on exactly the same HW.

True, at least according to a benchmark done some time ago.

Quote

3) The first of the two has more, better and more modern features in important areas than the second one, as well as most of the Amiga "3rd party standards" (CGX, Poseidon USB, MUI4, TurboPrint, etc) *integrated* into the OS.

I don't know about all the features of MOS, what about the following ones that have been integrated in OS4, are they integrated in MOS as well and if so how do they compare?

- TCP/IP stack (MOS has MosNet integrated AFAIK, how does it compare with Roadshow?)
- PTP support (is it integrated in MOS? Does it have e.g. thumbnail support as in OS4?)
- HW compositing
- integrated Cairo library
- third party HW driver support (I don't really know here how do the two systems compare)
- journaling filesystem (JXFS vs. SFS, how do they compare feature-way?)

BTW, MUI3 is integrated in OS4, although not to the same degree as MOS and it's not configurable as much as in MOS, but at least it is installed together with the base installation of OS4. Also, regarding third party standards, Picasso96 is integrated by default.

Quote

4) The first one runs on a much wider selection of (second hand) HW, including very cheap yet powerful Mac G4 computers, offering performance levels previously completely unseen in an Amiga context. The second one completely lacks the option of similarly affordable and powerful HW, but runs on new (with warranty), expensive, low-power HW, on which it hasn't come out of "beta state" since over a year (for unknown reasons).

I wouldn't rule out the fact that, if you'd prefer to have a new machine, OS4 runs on machines which are in production and sold, while MOS not (at least for the "in production" bit, I have read that there is still at least one reseller offering Efika systems).

Varthall
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: cv643d on December 03, 2009, 11:42:45 AM
You forget a big point...

If AmigaOS is going to be what is known as Amiga I want more than just an up to date OS on 1000 dollar sub 1 GHz hardware.

I want a roadmap, a vision and above all a sign of passion that the commitment we make to the system is going to be worth it in the end. After all, Amiga is supposed to be the best system out there, if OsX can do it, so can Workbench. I believe, why can not a company believe to and not be scared of showing their big balls.

So IMHO anyone can produce a kind of "next-gen" Amiga that looks like the real thing.

But the real Amiga is the system which can take us into the future as a serious alternative to PC and Mac. IMHO that is currently not AmigaOS4.1, it is just a hobby OS, something for us who have invested 20 years into Amiga to amuse ourself with.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: jorkany on December 03, 2009, 01:37:16 PM
Regarding the subject: no, because OS4.1 is no more "Amiga" than MorphOS, AROS, or any other Amiga-like OS. In it's day the Amiga was able to do things no other computer in it's class could, OS4 and it's contemporaries simply don't measure up.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: zylesea on December 03, 2009, 01:39:17 PM
I think OS4 is worth the Amiganame - but the real question is: How much worth is the name Amiga today?
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Fab on December 03, 2009, 01:53:03 PM
Quote from: Varthall;532378
I think that a better comparison would be how legacy software actually performs under both systems, and if there are programs that run only on one system, how many of them do so and how much important/relevant/useful they are and if a native version of them already exist.

Well if you're interested in such a compatibility comparison, let's also remember MorphOS avoid breaking compatibility when it's not required. So programs like magellan or golded6 still run on MorphOS, unlike OS4. Also MorphOS is more compatible with Warp3D/WarpOS applications (which is quite ironic), and Hyperion games actually run better on MorphOS.

Quote
I don't know about all the features of MOS, what about the following ones that have been integrated in OS4, are they integrated in MOS as well and if so how do they compare?

I shouldn't do it, but since this thread has turned into a comparison, let's reply anyway. Also note that MorphOS has almost all features that OS4 still lacks and plans to have in next versions (such as USB2, DDC support, usable shell with history/completion/tabs, window shadows, ...)

Quote
- TCP/IP stack (MOS has MosNet integrated AFAIK, how does it compare with Roadshow?)
It's not Mosnet, but AMITCP 5 more integrated into the system, basically.

Quote
- PTP support (is it integrated in MOS? Does it have e.g. thumbnail support as in OS4?)
PTP is implemented as a dos handler by Poseidon, so Ambient can directly browse the device, and obviously show thumbnails it wanted.

Quote
- HW compositing

There's hardware compositing since 2.0 (which gives eyecandy like transparent windows, window shadows, triple buffered display and so on).

Quote
- integrated Cairo library

No, but let's note that the supplied cairo library in OS4 is totally unaccelerated and even slower than the plain image surface, which is why joerg used a straight cairo recompilation for OWB instead.
I also use my own cairo "port" for OWB MorphOS port and related projects.

Quote
- journaling filesystem (JXFS vs. SFS, how do they compare feature-way?)
Trusting a new filesystem takes time. How does JXFS perform in all aspects?
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: persia on December 03, 2009, 02:26:22 PM
I think most would concur that in 1995, OS 4.1 would hold it's ground against anything else out there....
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: cha05e90 on December 03, 2009, 02:37:09 PM
@jorkany
So, if you take yourself seriously, everything later than ...hmm... OS2.1 isn't AmigaOS anymore...
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: smf on December 03, 2009, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: bernd_afa;532373
>But if you like the classic AmigaOS like i do. then OS4 is great and the only true >successor to the classic amigaos.

And wy is only OS4 the true sucessor and not MOS or maybe AROS if you want native Hardware ?


Because AmigaOS is AmigaOS? :)
I cant build cars in my garage and call them Porsche, even if i used better parts than the original it would still not be a porsche.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: tone007 on December 03, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: smf;532404
Because AmigaOS is AmigaOS? :)
I cant build cars in my garage and call them Porsche, even if i used better parts than the original it would still not be a porsche.


Names are important.

OS4.1 is so nice I rarely boot my <4.0 machines anymore.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: trekiej on December 03, 2009, 06:39:06 PM
Another question I would like to ask, is OS4.x based on OS 3.x code?
That may be a not so smart question. :D
Did they have to fill in the blanks in areas?
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: persia on December 03, 2009, 08:05:32 PM
@treklej

Yes, the OS4 folks (Hyperion) have an exclusive license to use OS 3.1 and have done so.

If you are interested there are also two unofficial Amiga-like OSs

Morphos, originally scheduled to be OS 4, is available to run on old PPC Mac Minis and soon G4 Power Macs, they had access to 3.1 source but may or may not have license to it currently

Morphos (http://www.morphos.de/)

AROS, a rewrite of AmigaOS into open source, they had no access to source (of course).  Runs on several platforms including industry standard Intel/AMD boxes.

AROS (http://aros.sourceforge.net/)
ICAROS (http://icarosdesktop.org/)
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: amyren on December 03, 2009, 08:09:58 PM
I wote for Yes.

And I dont think its fair to bash Hyperion for slow development on the SAM, my guess is that they had to use a considerable amount of time and effort on legal issues while the trial was going on. Besides the OS4 stuff they do, they need to make a living, as I dont think their main income come from OS4 coding (probably even not their second main income).
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Gulliver on December 03, 2009, 08:15:00 PM
Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
As worthy as Amiga Inc is of the Amiga name!
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Golem!dk on December 03, 2009, 08:53:56 PM
Quote from: persia;532453

Morphos, originally scheduled to be OS 4, is available to run on old PPC Mac Minis and soon G4 Power Macs, they had access to 3.1 source but may or may not have license to it currently

Mkay... would this be the sources Ben Hermans supplied them with?
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: F1Lupo on December 03, 2009, 08:55:42 PM
yes indeed it is! it's the best and fastest Amiga OS to date.  Now that the course case is finally over much better things are on the way for AmigaOS.
Honestly people make me laugh when they need a 4 GHz machine to write the same letter that my 133Mhz PII machine can write...it really all depends on what you 'need' from your computer.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: B00tDisk on December 03, 2009, 10:49:14 PM
Quote from: klx300r;532464
yes indeed it is! it's the best and fastest Amiga OS to date.  Now that the course case is finally over much better things are on the way for AmigaOS.
Honestly people make me laugh when they need a 4 GHz machine to write the same letter that my 133Mhz PII machine can write...it really all depends on what you 'need' from your computer.


There's no such thing as a "133 mhz PII machine", unless you have got some SERIOUS underclocking going on...
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: zylesea on December 03, 2009, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: klx300r;532464
yes indeed it is! it's the best and fastest Amiga OS to date.  Now that the course case is finally over much better things are on the way for AmigaOS.
Honestly people make me laugh when they need a 4 GHz machine to write the same letter that my 133Mhz PII machine can write...it really all depends on what you 'need' from your computer.


Define "fastest Amiga OS".
Faster in overall execution?? Failes - Amithlon can be faster due to much faster hardware.
Getting more things with lexx cpu cycles done? Maybe - but I somehow doubt all rewritten and/or new ppc routines are faster/cycle than the 68k counterparts.

If you count native code only the fastest system in overall performance would be some probably some AROS maschine (Core i7 someone?). The fastest PPC maschine supported by an Amigaish system: Mac Mini G4 1500 MHz (MorphOS). Fastest OS4 maschine: PegasosII or overclocked A1XE.
Performance of OS4 on the same hardware as MorphOS (namely the PegII) doesn't look too good for OS4.
Thus I finally conclude: OS4 supports the least powerful hardware and is cpu power independent slower than e.g. MorphOS. At least these points made my choice pretty easy. That OS4 is the most exensive system is another issue (but that wouldn't have stopped me, luckily my bank account is pretty loaded).
But yeah - it is AmigaOS (tm).
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: redfox on December 04, 2009, 03:58:57 AM
@trekiej

I'm not here to fight with anyone.  We all have our own opinions.  I think there are many good solutions available for the Amiga user.  And I feel they are equally valid.

Some years ago I chose to go the OS4 route.  The following are my opinions based on my actual experiences.  IMHO, OS4.1 is worthy of the Amiga name, and a worthy successor to my old system.  It is not the only worthy successor.

I went straight from a Commodore Amiga 2000HD running AmigaOS 3.1 to a MicroA1 running an early pre-release version of AmigaOS 4.0 called update 1.

As soon as I powered up my new system, I was able to use it.  OS4 was familiar and yet it was new.  I had that "amiga feeling" again like when my A2000 was new.  All the concepts were there with more colour and eye candy than I had on my old machine.  The major differences for me were the keyboard and no floppy disk.

At that time, the price of entry was high, approx $1039 Canadian dollars plus tax and shipping, just for the motherboard bundled with an OS4 CD.  I purchased a new case and power supply and DVD-ROM drive locally, and used a spare keyboard, mouse, hard drive and monitor.

That was 4 years 11 months ago and I have seen lots of upgrades in the OS since that time.  Now I am running AmigaOS 4.1.

I use a mixture of 68K programs and PPC programs.
Final Writer 97, KingCON, IBrowse, PPaint, TVPaint, Real3D, MicroRexx, AWebPPC, OWB 3.20, NetSurf 3.0, AmigaAMP, TuneNet, WarpView, DVPlayer, WookieChat, SimpleMail, YAM.

My main focus is web browsing and that is why I use several web browsers.

I am also interested in trying out newer programs like OWB, NetSurf and Cinnamon Writer.

I also have the AmigaOS4PPC version of E-UAE to run a few really old programs which require AmigaOS 3.1.

---
redfox
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: trekiej on December 04, 2009, 04:32:00 AM
@RedFox
Thanks, I wanted to basically know if OS4.X had the same lineage or uh source code as 3.X. It also seems that OS4.X has received the," its nice but ...", kind of response.
I like it, but I do not have it yet. I do have a machine that I am turning into an AROS machine. It boots off DVD, I have not installed to HD yet.
It has been running for about a day and a half without locking up and I have Luna Paint running too.
By the end of Dec. I am going to have my C++ book read and I am going to tackle AROS and then hopefully OS3.X and 4.X.
Thanks to all that have posted.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: F1Lupo on December 04, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
@ zylesea
I am referring to all the previous classic Amiga OS's before OS4.1 (including OS4.0) of which I have experience with and not any of the Amiga like variants that yoiu have described.

@ BOOtdisk

:-)..guess I should have said my first peecee...a 20 Mhz wopping fast 286
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: Piru on December 04, 2009, 06:13:36 AM
Quote from: persia;532453
@treklej
they had access to 3.1 source but may or may not have license to it currently

I've been involved with MorphOS development since year 2000, and I can assure you that no AmigaOS source has been used.

Obviously we have no AmigaOS license.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: bernd_afa on December 04, 2009, 10:21:57 AM
Quote from: Fab;532391

No, but let's note that the supplied cairo library in OS4 is totally unaccelerated and even slower than the plain image surface, which is why joerg used a straight cairo recompilation for OWB instead.
I also use my own cairo "port" for OWB MorphOS port and related projects.


Here can also read about problems of OS4 Cairo from a OS4 dev.

http://vlists.pepperfish.net/pipermail/netsurf-dev-netsurf-browser.org/2009-August/001454.html

""""
The Cairo clipping is so ridiculously slow on OS4 that I'm not able to
fully Cairo-ise it unfortunately,......
""""

And this is the biggest Problem i think is in OS4.

There is a big and lot announcment of OS4 Feature but when you look deeper in it, you notice that it work worser than on other Systems.

sure showing lots feature on paper is maybe good for sell.
But what every future AOS need are more developers.And if maybe a developer buy such a system and he see, its only on paper good, maybe he sell soon his OS4 system because he think the OS4 devs are not qualified ebough to do a attractive System for more Users/dev than Fans that see OS4 as last Hope.

every developer knows its easy to make a software in parts running so its good enough to announce the feature and it is in some way usable.

But if a software should have a future, the software must be rock solid or near rock solid.
Cairo is btw since long time in AROS in and its not so complicate to compile.
But when a program run without Cairo its always faster not use Cairo.

maybe there do somebody a Cairo bench that show speed between MOS and OS4 Cairo and clipping.

Cairo on MOS is opensource, but OS4 devs fiddle it in OS4 so its hard to add a new cairo on OS4.

Waht Cairo Version OS4 have ?

look what Cairo Version OS4 have and look what currently opensource Cairo is here.
and what bugs are since then fixed in opensource Cairo.
same is with other libs, as newlib.OS4 with the closed source strategie have old newlib.


http://utilitybase.com/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=3&topic=1744&page=0

""""""
Posted: 2009-Jul-8 16:29:27
.....

Despite any open status it has (that you guys have been discussing) it has no debug symbols in it. All I found in the binary are errors. And on my system it dates back to 2005!

Is that right? The newest-library in OS4 is four yars old? :-?
""""""

And when build a opensource Version, then there can also debug symbols build in to make it more easy to find Bugs

the next thing is the OS4 compositing Engine.Here in Forums can read that it es near unusable slow when a System have only 32 megabyte GFX Card(as micro aone many user have)
with 64 mb it work better, but still can run in some slowdown Problems.so there need at least 128 megabyte to get no large slowdown on compositing in OS4 it seem

I dont know how MOS transparency and shadow work, but i have not read in Forums that it better switch off, on 32/64 meg GFX Cards.

So for my eyes MOS transparency seem better implement.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: takemehomegrandma on December 04, 2009, 03:56:18 PM
Quote from: Nostromo;532354
Amiga OS4.1 is an official, modern version of the classic workbench. MorphOS is the same, except its not really official. So if I had to choose on an equal stand, I'd get OS4.1

Quote from: smf;532368
OS4 is great and the only true successor to the classic amigaos.

Quote from: Fingers;532370
Agreed with the above...using MorphOS to type this right now on my G4 Mini...if 4.1 was available for this machine I'd probably be using it instead.


So, since you make a choice, but obviously disregard from factors like the level of Amiga compatibility, OS performance, features, price, and HW performance, it's basically about the brand and boing ball then?

Just curious...
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: tone007 on December 04, 2009, 04:00:17 PM
Quote from: takemehomegrandma;532584
So, since you make a choice, but obviously disregard from factors like the level of Amiga compatibility, OS performance, features, price, and HW performance, it's basically about the brand and boing ball then?


It's all about the brand and the Boing Ball.

If you want price, features and performance, you go with a modern PC.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: zylesea on December 04, 2009, 04:15:23 PM
Quote from: tone007;532586
It's all about the brand and the Boing Ball.

If you want price, features and performance, you go with a modern PC.


It is? Well fo you mayeb, but my agenda it is about *how* things work. And which apps work. I am used to the Amiga way of things since ages (1989?) and refuse to change my mind about that as long as possible. I couldn't care less about boing balls or butterflies or #? as long as the system executes the same software I am using since ages and the system is as fast as possible, clean and known by me. The system qualifies when it feels as I am used to feel and when it acts exactly as I want it to act.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: cha05e90 on December 04, 2009, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: zylesea;532590
The system qualifies when it feels as I am used to feel and when it acts exactly as I want it to act.

So for all of us who came from OS3.x a standard multi ghz intel pc with winuae would qualify for the same?!? I don't really believe that your reasons are really the reasons you mentioned - there is/was more than that...
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: cha05e90 on December 04, 2009, 04:46:57 PM
@tone007

+1   ;-)
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: itix on December 04, 2009, 05:08:25 PM
Quote from: tone007;532586
It's all about the brand and the Boing Ball.

If you want price, features and performance, you go with a modern PC.


I guess we MorphOS users are Amiga nuts :D
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: zylesea on December 04, 2009, 05:11:09 PM
Quote from: cha05e90;532599
So for all of us who came from OS3.x a standard multi ghz intel pc with winuae would qualify for the same?!? I don't really believe that your reasons are really the reasons you mentioned - there is/was more than that...

Sure, OS3.x can be pretty fine.
But it doesn't mean that things cannot be changed and/or improved.  My main decision-driver is functionality. But let me give you some (usorted and fully uncomlete) examples why I don't use 3.x any longer but migrated to MorphOS:
Ambient versus WB.
The integrated prefs vs. the prefs mess in OS3.x.
A powerfull Shell vs. the 3.x shell.
The skinnig system vs. no skinning system in 3.9.
A powerful browser (OWB for MorphOS) vs no really useable powerful browser.
Reggae & Datatypes vs. Datatypes only.
Good support by the developers vs. no support for 3.x.
Need of a host system (for emulation) vs. no need of a host system.
A sepration of system files and private files vs. no seperation.
A new icon system vs. some hacks and patches.
High speed on a low wattage system vs. high speed on a non-low wattage system.
CGX and AHI fully integrated vs. not fully interated.
MUI 4.0 vs. MUI 3.8.
Exeution of 68k, WOS PUP and MorphOS executales vs. 68k only.
The list goes on and on. I really liked OS3.x but I moved on and decided for the system that provided the smoothest upgrade path from my computer heritage to a rather modern system.

I should note that AROS and OS4 offer similar upgrade pathes, even AfAOS qualifies to some extend. But my earlier reply was about my motivation to chose a particular system. And my main motivation actually is functionality and *not* names or logos.
Title: Re: Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
Post by: jsixis on December 13, 2009, 03:22:50 PM
if it works and you like it fine. I couldn't stand OS3.5 (and it would not work with my warp card) and the people running it at the time, they were not very nice.
 So I plug along with 3.1 with some fixes for large hardrives.