Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: mingle on September 08, 2008, 07:16:30 AM
-
Hi,
I'm probably stating the obvious and/or flogging a dead horse here, but is there any chance that MorphOS could appear for x86?
If not, what are the main reason for it not?
I can think of a few, but please feel free to let me know if there are any more obvious ones:
1: Lack of resources/developers
2: Difficulty of porting to such a large range of hardware (see point 1:).
I just think it'd be amazing if MorphOS was available for the cheap and powerful x86 hardware...
!
Cheers,
Mike.
-
The never endian(-ess) endian issue is also brought up.
But AROS must partly have addressed that issue since they now are on PPC and x86
-
I'm probably stating the obvious and/or flogging a dead horse here,
Yup.
but is there any chance that MorphOS could appear for x86?
No
If not, what are the main reason for it not?
endian-hell, takes to long, impossible to support all x86 hardwares, no one would do be interested doing it, Compability with Deluxe Music Construction Set would suck, PPC is better, Intel is evil, We can't compete with Windows....insert you favorite here...
I just think it'd be amazing if MorphOS was available for the cheap and powerful x86 hardware...
Me too but it will never happen.
Aros is the only chance you got.
PS. Read my sig.
8-)
-
The enitre argument that endian-ness is the reason that MorphOS will never be ported to x86 is ridiculous. Several operating systems have made the leap to x86 without any problems whatsoever. OSX is one example. Even Windows NT went the opposite direction and was ported to PPC many years ago. It languished due to lack of interest until Microsoft finally stopped supporting and developing it.
The primary reason we won't see MorphOS on x86 any time soon is simply demand related. There aren't enough people out there who want to use it on x86 hardware to make it profitable for the MorphOS team to invest in developing for the x86 platform.
If you really want a MorphOS-like operating system to run on your x86 hardware, then I suggest OSX. I've been able to install and run the Kalyway Leopard version of OSX on everything from an IBM Thinkpad to a Panasonic CF-74 Toughbook. And OSX is much more mature and robust than MorphOS right now. I hope that will change, but until MorphOS has an office suite and a web browser that properly supports CSS and Java, it will always be crippled and suffer from a lack of demand.
-
Problem there is that you must drop all existing software.
-
So, software on hardware you can't use is better than software you can't use on hardware you can?
One of these two can be replaced more easily than the other...
Ed.
-
The main problem is, they can't sell the outdated hardware for ridiculous amounts of money once they port to x86, and that's what everyone is counting for. they know if they don't have an exotic hardware, the software can always be cracked and pirated. sad but true.
-
ferrellsl wrote:
The enitre argument that endian-ness is the reason that MorphOS will never be ported to x86 is ridiculous. Several operating systems have made the leap to x86 without any problems whatsoever. OSX is one example. Even Windows NT went the opposite direction and was ported to PPC many years ago. It languished due to lack of interest until Microsoft finally stopped supporting and developing it.
You cannot compare OS X or NT with MorphOS in that regard. Programs and the OS itself share common structures, a 68k application cannot work in a x86 OS unless it is individually boxed (the approach the AROS guys are trying now).
The shared structs are a heritage of the old AmigaOS (and not a bad thing as long as you stay in the same endianess).
On OS X or NT structs are not shared, thus there's no enianess trouble.
If you really want a MorphOS-like operating system to run on your x86 hardware, then I suggest OSX.
While OS X is a quite fine OS it is IMO *very* different to MorphOS: On OS X the User should not control the system (but there's not much need for that anyway, OS X does it for you) and while very nice in appearence it is a slow ressource hog (which only feels fast due to massive hardware power). IMO good to work with, but also a bit boring.
-
@zylesea
I didn't say one thing about software. This thread was/is about MorphOS and why it won't be ported to x86 anytime soon, if ever.
My comments were in no way a comparison of MorphOS, Windows NT or OS X. I was pointing out that endian-ness is not a problem when porting ANY operating system to different hardware architectures. If it was a problem, we wouldn't see Linux running on nearly every processor that's been developed. I'm tired of arm-chair experts who constantly sound like parrots and repeat the same old garbage that endian-ness is what is keeping MorphOS from being ported to x86. If it's such a problem, then how did the AROS team port it to PPC? If it's such a problem, how did Microsoft port NT to the PPC? If it's such a problem, how did Apple port OSX to x86? OS porting across architectures happens all the time! And of course it means the applications need to be recompiled for the target OS unless you use something like Rosetta or Wine or DOSBox. Nobody is/was arguing this point, but for some reason you seem to be trolling for a fight.
And yes, the operating systems that I mentioned are all diverse and quite different, but of the ones I mentioned, OSX is quite similar to MorphOS and to OS4, at least on the surface. Endian-ness will never be the reason why an OS is or isn't ported. It's all about demand and the return on investment for the developer!
-
@ferrellsl
An operating system without applications isn't very useful.
-
arnljot wrote:
The never endian(-ess) endian issue is also brought up.
But AROS must partly have addressed that issue since they now are on PPC and x86
AROS solves the endianness issue by not trying to have binary compatibility. Thus, AROS PowerPC software won't run on x86 and vice versa.
So, if one were to ditch compatibility with every single MorphOS program out there today, sure, it would be easy. Otherwise, writing an emulator for existing software that integrates properly with the system would be a huge task.
Hans
-
@Golem!dk
Wow, has anyone told you that you have a talent for stating the obvious?!
Did you even read my posts? Obviously not.
-
I wonder if those who have an OS that is big and little endian per cpu have a developement tool chain capable of handling both?
How did BeOS cope?
-
trekiej wrote:
I wonder if those who have an OS that is big and little endian per cpu have a developement tool chain capable of handling both?
How did BeOS cope?
No idea about BeOS, but it's common to have a header file such as endian.h (http://www.koders.com/c/fid0E2B191EA10EF8846716DB2D723C56518A25AF12.aspx) that indicates which type the current CPU uses. Most software developers don't have to worry about endianness, but when you start doing things that access hardware directly, or read/write stuff to/from disk or streams, CPU endianness does make a difference. For example, a CD/DVD-writer app for AROS would have to take CPU endianness into account as it accesses the CD/DVD drive at a low level. Otherwise, it would work either on AROS x86, or on PowerPC, but not both.
Hans
-
I have done some C programming and wanted to know if some one could give us a good example of when endianess becomes an issue. I bet this has been a subject many times before.
-
@ferrellsl
No, you're the first, thanks.
-
trekiej wrote:
I have done some C programming and wanted to know if some one could give us a good example of when endianess becomes an issue. I bet this has been a subject many times before.
Have a look at the source-code to cd-record. Specifically, look at the file scsimmc.h. You'll see that the bit-fields are inverted, depending on the endianness of the CPU. There will also be other, non-bitfield issues too.
Hans
-
Problem there is that you must drop all existing software.
There is a wonderfull piece of software called UAE... And guess what, it runs on x86! And guess what, it allows to run more software than any AmigaOS will ever run natively...
Next problem ?
We can't support every x86 piece of hardware.
Who says you need to support every piece of hardware ? Does the PPC version runs on every PPC version outthere ?
No: motherboard has been selected, and software is stick to it. Why would it be different for x86 ?
We would compete with Windows
Really ? Is MorphOS competing with Linux on PPC ?
Guess it doesn't... Why would it be different with x86 ?
x86 is evil
Once upon a time Steve Jobs said Apple would never use intel microprocessors... Today the x86 is faster and cheaper than any other desktop class processor... Steve Jobs decided to switch to x86. Apple has never ever sold so many Macintosh than today. Yes: maybe x86 isn't the reason... But for sure x86 has nothing to do with evil...
The primary reason we won't see MorphOS on x86 any time soon is simply demand related.
Really ?
170 million x86 computers are sold each year. That's more potential users than the Amiga ever had, even in it's golden age...
There are like what... 5 thousand Pegasos outhere ? As much Efikas ?
Do the maths...
It would take a lot of time
The sooner it is started, the sooner it is finished then... And as for the software, most NG software are already available for x86 (mplayer, emulators, SDL software, compression libs, png libs,...) and could be recompiled with some changes...
No, the reason we won't see any AmigaNG OS on x86 is because they are closed source, and leaders don't think it would be a good idea/doable and/or don't want to see it on x86...
-
@ Hans_ Thanks.
-
@warpdesign
Yeah, really. All those x86 boxes being sold are running Windows or Linux. People aren't buying them and waiting with bated breath for a MorphOS port!!!!!!!
When enough people want MorphOS on x86, the MorphOS team will do a return on investment analysis. If they can make money by porting it to x86, then they'll do it. Why else would they do it? Out of love for the OS??? Get real. They need to eat and pay their bills too, just like everyone else.
-
@warpdesign
Problem there is that you must drop all existing software.
There is a wonderfull piece of software called UAE... And guess what, it runs on x86! And guess what, it allows to run more software than any AmigaOS will ever run natively...
(Win)UAE is not an operating system. But maybe you meant that MorphOS could map all memory on x86 as big endian and run 68k software natively.
Without the software MorphOS is like Windows NT on PPC. Nice to have but completely useless because there is nothing to run.
We would compete with Windows
Really ? Is MorphOS competing with Linux on PPC ?
Actually MorphOS competes with Windows all the time.
-
ferrellsl wrote:
The enitre argument that endian-ness is the reason that MorphOS will never be ported to x86 is ridiculous.
It's not. The community would expect that you are able to run all your existing m68k and ppc software on such x86 MOS. With MOS (and AmigaOS in general) design it is not feasible. Don't use Rosetta of OSX as an example because it's wrong one. Small example: on OSX a process has a PID assigned - unique identifier. If you will call FindTask(NULL) MOS and/or AmigaOS, you will receive a pointer to the struct Task, the very same structure MOS is using internally. Try to deal with it and find a sane solution for Little-endian system (with little-endian layout of all system structures) and big-endian software running on emulated PPC and using the very same little-endian layouted system structures (the software would expect them to be big endian though).
Several operating systems have made the leap to x86 without any problems whatsoever. OSX is one example.
OSX is an example of an operating system which separates userland from kernel space. On MOS they are basically the same.
Even Windows NT went the opposite direction and was ported to PPC many years ago.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but PPC NT was running PowerPC cpu in little endian mode.
and from another message:
I'm tired of arm-chair experts who constantly sound like parrots and repeat the same old garbage that endian-ness is what is keeping MorphOS from being ported to x86.
Prove they are wrong then. No, giving an example is not enough. Prove them, that you may do such transition with Amiga-like operating system.
If it's such a problem, then how did the AROS team port it to PPC?
Simply. We didn't cared about the binary compatibility. Therefore, you are not able to run x86 AROS software on PPC AROS and vice versa. Keep in mind however, that if the amiga community wants MOS or OS4 on x86, they will demand to be able to run m68k and/or PPC software through a built-in transpared emulator integrated tightly into the system. That's the point. I, an AROS developer, don't care about it actually, but most people here do care.
And of course it means the applications need to be recompiled for the target OS unless you use something like Rosetta or Wine or DOSBox. Nobody is/was arguing this point,
You seem to be new here :)). Most people in Amiga community want it. The people here don't care x86 unless you would be able to run original m68k and ppc software on x86 without recompilation. Not to mention they will be very unhappy if you would suggest running such old m68k software on x86 MOS through UAE. They would likely hate you for having such crazy idea ;)
If they would never mind it, they would support projects like AROS with pleasure. But no, most people expect AROS developers to make the integrated m68k emu for AROS.
-
Very nice web site Warpdesign.
If only Dennis could make minimig into a pci card. Then a x86 motherboard would have a true heart and a migration for the OS would be easier to justify. How about a MEGAMIG.
-
@mschulz
Uhhhh, sorry to inform you, but it has ALREADY been proven.......look at all the operating systems out there that have been ported to different architectures, both PPC and x86, such as Yellow Dog Linux (x86 and PPC), OS X (x86 and PPC), Windows NT (PPC and x86). Are you saying that they weren't ported? I bet you think the lunar landings were faked too! I never said that the ports didn't suffer from a lack of support or software.
All the operating systems that I've mentioned have been ported to different architectures that have endian differences. That's what this entire thread is about.....Mingle, the guy who started this thread asked a valid question as to what was keeping MorphOS from being ported to x86. Some wise-acre said it was due to endian-ness and would therefore not happen...he said that endian-ness was such a huge technical issue that it couldn't be overcome. That is utter crap. It all boils down to demand. And just because a handful of Amigans on this forum want to run it on x86 is meaningless too. Until the MorphOS team and its investors can make money from a MorphOS port, it will never be ported. It isn't a technical or a programming problem. It's a money and demand problem. There aren't enough users on this forum to make it profitable for the MorphOS team to port MorphOS to x86 and there never will be for several reasons. The community is too small now to make it profitable. There isn't enough demand for the port, let alone the applications that people would want or need to run on the port. If the demand was there, the port would happen, and so would the applications. Even MorphOS on PPC lacks a large user base and is several generations behind the rest of world in terms of software like a mature and robust web browser and an office suite. Until an OS has those things, it will always be a "hobby" OS.....just a geek toy.
Now I can see why so many people have left the Amiga community and especially this site. This site as well as the one at Amigaworld.net is full of people who have no idea what they're talking about who simply lay in wait to troll, flame others and spread disinformation.
-
@ferrellsl
You are wrong in more than one ways. I don't even bother going into this porting stuff, mschulz is more than capable in skinning you alive on that.
Until the MorphOS team and its investors can make money from a MorphOS port, it will never be ported.
If you're thinking we're making any profit you're gravely mistaken.
It is not about making money. It's about having the whole codebase written for big endianity in mind (except the parts which loan from AROS). It would be horrible nightmare to go thru all of it. Plus there would be the requirement to not only rewritete the 68k emulation (two of them in fact!), but to write PPC emulator aswell.
And lets not even go into the gazillion different HW configurations that users would like to have supported. Sure in theory you could set some strict limitations on what you support, but that HW would be obsolete in 6 months anyway. With the limited resources we have it would be just impossible to keep writing new drivers all the time.
Thanks, but no thanks.
This site as well as the one at Amigaworld.net is full of people who have no idea what they're talking about who simply lay in wait to troll, flame others and spread disinformation.
There always are some.
-
I never said that you guys were making money on MorphOS, but you certainly wouldn't continue its development if it was losing money, at least not for long.
All I've been saying is that it's technically possible to port MorphOS to x86.....nothing more, nothing less. And that the endian-ness issues could be overcome. Other operating systems have done it and I'm certain you and your team are more than smart enough to do it as well. But you won't do it if it means you and the team lose money in the process with no chance to recoup your investment in time or in money.
But maybe you guys ARE that dedicated and love MorphOS so much that you'd develop for a money-losing venture. I personally would like to see MorphOS on x86 hardware too, but I have to be realistic. And I don't want to see you or anyone on the team go bankrupt either!
-
@ferrellsl
you certainly wouldn't continue its development if it was losing money, at least not for long.
8 years is not long?
All I've been saying is that it's technically possible to port MorphOS to x86.....nothing more, nothing less
Bollocks, you were saying a lot more than that.
Other operating systems have done it and I'm certain you and your team are more than smart enough to do it as well.
That's not the problem. Read my previous post again.
But you won't do it if it means you and the team lose money in the process with no chance to recoup your investment in time or in money.
Again: It is not about money.
I don't want to see you or anyone on the team go bankrupt either!
We all (as far as I know) have full time jobs you know (can't remember if some of the team members are still students, though). No-one is making a living from MorphOS, that's for sure.
So please stop this "losing money" BS. Thank you.
-
OK, if it's not about making money, then give MorphOS away for free instead of charging 150 EU for it. And port it to x86 for free too.
Don't try to make us believe that MorphOS is a charity OS. 150 EU is a lot of money for any OS.
When you guys stop charging 150 EU for it, I'll stop believing it's a business.
-
ferrellsl wrote:
OK, if it's not about making money, then give MorphOS away for free instead of charging 150 EU for it. And port it to x86 for free too.
Don't try to make us believe that MorphOS is a charity OS. 150 EU is a lot of money for any OS.
When you guys stop charging 150 EU for it, I'll stop believing it's a business.
It is?
**checks prices**
Vista Ultimate: $450
Windows Server: $1000+
Netware: $36,642.00
MorphOS looks pretty reasonable to me.
Hey Piru, any chance of getting MorphOS onto SPARC instead? At least we have new hardware and are BE. 8)
-
@downix
You must be kidding!!!!
Vista Home Premium $65.99
Linux $0
OS X Leopard $85
Prices are all from Amazon.com's US site.
And who in their right mind would compare MorphOS to Windows Server, Netware, or Vista? MorphOS is not even in the same league. It's a hobby OS. Nobody will be buying MorphOS for web hosting or for much else since it has few applications.
So yeah, MorphOS is a bit on the pricey side when you consider that 150 EU is roughly $211 US at the current exchange rate.
-
Home Premium is buying half an OS. To compare to MorphOS, you must go Ultimate. So the comparison is invalid. I went by MSRP, not some undercutting dealers price. We don't have millions of dealers competing, to force a price war.
But frankly, MorphOS guys can set whatever price they choose, it's their OS. Don't like the price, don't buy it. just that simple. I'm considering it myself, but the lack of suitable hw holds me back. I consider it reasonable compared to how much I've spent for Be, OS/2 and Solaris in my day.
-
Well, I'll have to disagree with you that MorphOS is in the same league as Vista Ultimate, especially when it comes to useful applications.
I certainly agree that the MorphOS team can charge whatever they want, but in addition to the lack of decent hardware, the high price is keep many people from buying it. I've seen many of the posts here myself decrying the high price.
I'd buy it too and run it on my dormant PegII, but I can't justify the purchase when I consider that my PegII is already outdated, MorphOS is sorely lacking applications, and I can get more powerful, better supported OS's much cheaper.
And unfortunately there will never be dealers for MorphOS undercutting each other with price wars for the very same reasons I stated in the previous paragraphs.
-
@ferrel
you can always write your own OS and give it away, port it to whichever system you'd like. Let me know which mailing list you'll be creating for designing this new OS. :-)
I'd buy it too and run it on my dormant PegII, but I can't justify the purchase when I consider that my PegII is already outdated, MorphOS is sorely lacking applications, and I can get more powerful, better supported OS's much cheaper.
well why port MOS to x86? you still wouldnt have new applications and you wouldnt see programmers coming out of the woodwork just because MOS is on x86.
-
ferrellsl wrote:
Uhhhh, sorry to inform you, but it has ALREADY been proven.......look at all the operating systems out there that have been ported to different architectures, both PPC and x86, such as Yellow Dog Linux (x86 and PPC), OS X (x86 and PPC), Windows NT (PPC and x86). Are you saying that they weren't ported? I bet you think the lunar landings were faked too! I never said that the ports didn't suffer from a lack of support or software.
Have you really read what I wrote? Please, do it carefully again. I know software would suffer because of porting. I wrote you, however, what the community here would demand if MOS would ever be ported to x86. Did you read that part of my reply? It seems you didn't.
Please note that I am not a native English speaker. If you didn't understand some part of my reply due to my poor language skills, ask.
Before you start insulting me again a small hint: I'm the one who made AROS boot natively on x86 for the first time. I have ported AROS to x86_64 and sam440 (it's PPC) too and now I am porting AROS to efika. I guess I know how to port AROS to different architectures with different endianess. I bet I have more knowledge about porting an operating system to different architectures than you.
-
Michael, thank you for porting it to x86 the far biggest, the cheapest, most scalable, most powerful platform available. I run it with astronomical speed on an x64. Personally I wished you had worked on a browser but I hope it will come any way and that will make a big difference for my use of AROS on a more daily basis.
Amiga made a bad call in not recognizing the worlds demand for 3d. Amiga needs power behind it. Going x86 is in IMHO the cheapest and most reasonable way.
-
I would rather see MOS on PS3 than any other platform. Here are a few reason:
-Cheap
-Very powerfull processor
-Will be available for many years to come
-Many people already owns it
Only thing bothering is the fact that accelerated GFX are disabled when using other OS with PS3. This could be over come by writing an acceleration driver for the SPEs, but that kind of think would eat up a lot of development resources.
-
@Painkiller
Well a PS3 is a PS3 (Never owned one. Always did work and played games on PC with the latest graphic cards.) But if you buy an old PC for a dollar you can run AROS. If you make a HTPC you can run AROS or you can run it on a brand new power PC or a small pico itx. The versatility is the heaviest argument for me.
If it walks, flies or swims you can use it if it's x86. That's that extra ability that makes it compelling to me.
-
Now what programs are you able to run with Aros x86? How usable is it in everyday use? How is the hardware support etc. With PS3 you would have a single target hardware and it would easier for the dev team to support it.
-
Plus there would be the requirement to not only rewritete the 68k emulation (two of them in fact!), but to write PPC emulator aswell.
Why ? Did Apple include a 68k emulator with OSX-Intel ?
It's the opportunity to remove these stupid emulations layers... And improve this old operating system. I see it as an opportunity more than as a problem...
As for the PPC emulator, again, most software could be recompiled...
Of course, software wouldn't magically appear, same goes for the developpers. But at least there is a huge potential. By staying on PPC, we don't even have such potential...
Of course this would be huge work... But doesn't it worth it ? Or should we stay forever running OS3.x software ??
I'm really wondering why developers do not look more in the future... It would be so great to have a true *modern* OS... And the worst thing is that everything is ready for that with Quark/QBox... I wonder why you didn't take Hyperion's approach and directly base the OS on Exec since it seems you're not taking advantage of all the features provided by Quark/QBox... :(
-
@warpdesign
Why ? Did Apple include a 68k emulator with OSX-Intel ?
How would Apple's situation compare to ours in any way?
Apple had quite a bit more resources don't you agree?
It's the opportunity to remove these stupid emulations layers
I don't think they're stupid, nor I think they could be removed. We wouldn't have any software then.
most software could be recompiled
You live in a dreamworld.
I'm really wondering why developers do not look more in the future... It would be so great to have a true *modern* OS..
Feel free to write one.
-
cicero790 wrote:
Michael, thank you for porting it to x86 the far biggest, the cheapest, most scalable, most powerful platform available. I run it with astronomical speed on an x64. Personally I wished you had worked on a browser but I hope it will come any way and that will make a big difference for my use of AROS on a more daily basis.
Amiga made a bad call in not recognizing the worlds demand for 3d. Amiga needs power behind it. Going x86 is in IMHO the cheapest and most reasonable way.
Not the biggest, as x86 is found primarily in desktops, and the cell phone market alone dwarves what you can find x86 based CPU's running in.
Not the cheapest either, as I can pick up SoC's where the whole system is less than just the x86 CPU.
Not the most scalable either, as you can find chips like PPC, ARM and MIPS running in a wider variety of devices.
So please, inform the class your proof for such wild claims.
The desktop is on the way out. It's market dominance is fading in light of such magnificent devices as smartphones, UMPCs, and the like, which run online. Once you step out of this little bubble that is the desktop world, it's a whole new ballgame, and a whole new set of rules.
-
cicero790 wrote:
@Painkiller
Well a PS3 is a PS3 (Never owned one. Always did work and played games on PC with the latest graphic cards.) But if you buy an old PC for a dollar you can run AROS. If you make a HTPC you can run AROS or you can run it on a brand new power PC or a small pico itx. The versatility is the heaviest argument for me.
If it walks, flies or swims you can use it if it's x86. That's that extra ability that makes it compelling to me.
Alright, and you're going to hire the people needed to code for the billions of possible combinations of hardware, right?
x86's strength is also it's weakness, too many choices, too difficult to support as/is. Hence my other suggestion that if one did go x86, to limit the support to a few mobo/peripheral combinations.
-
@downix
In my experience I found it easier working by a desk than walking blindly in traffic.
I don’t believe desktops are out. By the time your small devices are capable of what a power machine can accomplish today, that power machine will accomplish ten times the handheld for a smaller price with the best games and apps following its demand.
I don’t buy your logic here.
You said: Alright, and you're going to hire the people needed to code for the billions of possible combinations of hardware, right?
I said now: Ask sammuraicrow. I think he is implementing that LLVE thing or something that will make AROS very processor independent indeed. I haven’t looked at it. And I don’t understand it, but I think it will be important for the future development.
Finally: This is an Amiga community. If AROS can run the Amiga software then the programs that are liked can be used. Final writer and so on. And it is possible to make better versions because the added power of AROS and the hardware under it.
Have a hard time seeing the end of the world.
The only thing that is sad is that all expert programmers should work on one single OS, but that is a personal opinion. So much more could be accomplished in shorter time that way. But....
EDIT several hours later: It was LLVM.
-
cicero790 wrote:
@downix
In my experience I found it easier working by a desk than walking blindly in traffic.
I don’t believe desktops are out. By the time your small devices are capable of what a power machine can accomplish today, that power machine will accomplish ten times the handheld for a smaller price with the best games and apps following its demand.
I don’t buy your logic here.
You said: Alright, and you're going to hire the people needed to code for the billions of possible combinations of hardware, right?
I said now: Ask sammuraicrow. I think he is implementing that LLVE thing or something that will make AROS very processor independent indeed. I haven’t looked at it. And I don’t understand it, but I think it will be important for the future development.
Finally: This is an Amiga community. If AROS can run the Amiga software then the programs that are liked can be used. Final writer and so on. And it is possible to make better versions because the added power of AROS and the hardware under it.
Have a hard time seeing the end of the world.
The only thing that is sad is that all expert programmers should work on one single OS, but that is a personal opinion. So much more could be accomplished in shorter time that way. But....
You continue to miss the point. The CPU is nothing, nada, irrelevent to the arguement. The arguement above was cheap systems. Well, cheap systems can have the same CPU family, sure, but they likely will have different chipsets, pic controllers, CMOS settings, SATA controllers, networking capabilities, GPU's, DSP's... even multiples of each. To make any OS work with such a large number of possible hardware combinations is not work to be taken so lightly. Look at AROS, even now it has support for a narrow range of hardware.
I did not say Desktops are out. I did say that they are not where the growth is. If you want to release a new platform, the desktop is an also-ran. Microsoft's OS dominance is wearing out due to the desktop becoming an older market, no longer do you have the rapid growth to enable an edge in for a share of the pie. That ship has sailed, much like the workstations did in the 1990's and the MiniComputers in the 1980's. You'd make as much sence demanding a port to the VAX or PDP-11.
The Amiga was about being the next big thing. Frankly, there is no NBT in desktops. There is, however, in smaller, lightweight products. And the Amiga, and MorphOS, are uniquely situated to such markets. Instant-on, multitasking, and scalable. And the weakness of the design, not so relevent anymore once you get to that scale.
-
@cicero790
LLVE
How exactly does that solve the driver issue?
-
Finally: This is an Amiga community. If AROS can run the Amiga software then the programs that are liked can be used. Final writer and so on. And it is possible to make better versions because the added power of AROS and the hardware under it.
AROS has EUAE for years. There is a bounty for integrating EUAE with AROS that is open to donations. There are indeed several options for the Amiga Community to deal with the above:
1. Fire up EUAE when you need to run an Amiga68K app.
2. Routinely donate to the EUAE bounty on P2P until a developer full fills the bounty. If you want AROS to run on your existing hardware, donate half of the money you are saving by not buying new hardware.
3. Port whatever software you are missing to AROS or rewrite from scratch.
I'm simply amazed people on here expect AROS developers to do their bidding for FREE. I guess they still haven't gotten the hang of OSS vs paying for hardware/OS in a package. Sure, if your buying hardware, I can clearly understand you demand to run your preferred software with minimum of effort. This is because your spending $, probably a significant amount, that will go to pay the hardware and software engineers plus everyone else in the loop that brings you their product. This goes for OS4 or MOS.
AROS, OTOH, unless your coughing up cash for bounties it's costing you nothing. If you paid nothing into AROS, how the hell can you even expect a developer, who your not paying, to do things you want if it's not of his/her interest? AROS is not being funded by your taxes. Your buying any product will not yield directly to any AROS developer's paycheck because they don't get a paycheck.
To quote an old US saying (forgive the drug reference plz), "Grass, Gas, or Ass, No One Rides For Free."
Dammy
-
@Piru
You are the one with knowledge here not me. I return the question by asking: Is there a way to use the native pc drivers. I don’t know if this is possible but if AROS could somehow utilize the drivers so they didn’t have to be rewritten??
About LLVE: I overheard a discussion about apple going this way for cpu independence that all.
-
"Grass, Gas, or Ass, No One Rides For Free." :lol:
I will contribute.
-
don't think they're stupid, nor I think they could be removed. We wouldn't have any software then.
Yes. And we could start writting software...
Do we have that much software right now ?
If we exclude 68k software (that tend to crash, hit hardware,.. anyway), do we have that much native software ?
And aren't already all native software available in x86 ? Provided the OS and some third-party libs (SDL,...) are available, wouldn't it be possible to easily port these apps on an hypothetic x86 MorphOS ?
And most software is still in the works anyway... So what would it change ?
most software could be recompiled
You live in a dreamworld.
Maybe, maybe not. But seems like people writting the original Quark/QBox also lived in such a dreamworld... I doubt Quark/QBox was only meant to run ABox... Or what a waste!
I'm really wondring what's the fear of moving forward...
This could not work at all, so what ? It's not for the money, right ? so...
And no I couldn't write my own... Designing an OS is a huge work... And you need to be experienced in both OS design and programming. I'm in neither...
-
downix you said:The Amiga was about being the next big thing. Frankly, there is no NBT in desktops. There is, however, in smaller, lightweight products. And the Amiga, and MorphOS, are uniquely situated to such markets. Instant-on, multitasking, and scalable. And the weakness of the design, not so relevent anymore once you get to that scale.
I say: I can see your point. And agree. But I have a different view about Amiga's possibility to snatch back market shares and finding its place next to PC and MAC. And why? because being in the Amiga OS is an experience, that is special.
-
Yes. And we could start writting software...
Who exactly? I don't see that many devs around anymore. And it would be really hard to attract anyone to platform with zero existing apps.
Do we have that much software right now ?
More than would be with x86, that is none.
If we exclude 68k software
But I don't. Granted I only use couple of the m68k apps anymore, but it is invaluable SW library to have in case you need something. Having aminet to look into is way better than having no software at all. And no, UAE just doesn't cut it IMO.
And aren't already all native software available in x86 ?
No, for some hypothetical OS we have 0. Just being x86 doesn't automagically give you software.
Provided the OS and some third-party libs (SDL,...) are available, wouldn't it be possible to easily port these apps on an hypothetic x86 MorphOS ?
Only slightly easier when dealing with bad little endian dependant code. Other than that it wouldn't make porting easier.
But seems like people writting the original Quark/QBox also lived in such a dreamworld... I doubt Quark/QBox was only meant to run ABox... Or what a waste!
Quark works just fine thank you. Just because all the possibilities weren't used doesn't make it any less valuable. Not a waste at all.
I'm really wondring what's the fear of moving forward. This could not work at all, so what ? It's not for the money, right ? so...
There is no fear, there is the reality of the situation that I've explained couple of times already. Making 10 (20 in some cases) years of code suddenly work in an endian safe manner would be a massive workload, too much to handle. Coding drivers for every imaginable HW would be ever more work. Plus the quickly moving target the x86 is wouldn't make it any easier.
And no I couldn't write my own... Designing an OS is a huge work... And you need to be experienced in both OS design and programming. I'm in neither...
So I guess I can just ignore your comments in the future?
-
Not the most scalable either, as you can find chips like PPC, ARM and MIPS running in a wider variety of devices.
X86 scales from embedded micro-controllers to super computers. Majority of X86s falls between netbooks to servers.
From 2005 market share(from memory)
~700 million ARM
~200 million X86
~140 million MIPS
~60 million PPC
PS; I need to find an updated market share stats.
-
Painkiller wrote:
I would rather see MOS on PS3 than any other platform. Here are a few reason:
-Cheap
-Very powerfull processor
-Will be available for many years to come
-Many people already owns it
Only thing bothering is the fact that accelerated GFX are disabled when using other OS with PS3. This could be over come by writing an acceleration driver for the SPEs, but that kind of think would eat up a lot of development resources.
Transgamming made Swiftshader product that renders DX3D 9b on X86 CPUs.
-
Who exactly? I don't see that many devs around anymore. And it would be really hard to attract anyone to platform with zero existing
There aren't, but quite difficult seeing there's no hardware to run MorphOS, don't you think ? With massively available hardware anyone could potentialy try MorphOS and/or develop for MorphOS. Right now, no one but people having spent a lot of money can...
So I guess I can just ignore your comments in the future?
Not being experienced in OS design doesn't mean I cannot make any interesting remarks...
But you're free to do so of course... If you feel so superior to non experienced people...
-
@warpdesign
Not being experienced in OS design doesn't mean I cannot make any interesting remarks...
Interesting perhaps, but those remarks are somewhat misguided due to lack of insight and practical experience. Thus, if you don't mind I won't continue this particular discussion further.
Obviously you're entitled to have your opinion, but I don't agree with it. If you feel I'm wrong, you can always prove me wrong by starting your own x86 OS and making it successful. Good luck.
-
There aren't, but quite difficult seeing there's no hardware to run MorphOS, don't you think ? With massively available hardware anyone could potentialy try MorphOS and/or develop for MorphOS. Right now, no one but people having spent a lot of money can...
What do you mean? Efika is still available from numerous of stores and the price ain't bad.
For the future it is nice to see them doing a port for Mac Mini as there are loads of them on sale at ebay and other places. With that platform I don't think there is any reason to whine about the missing hardware as it is cheap and can be bought pretty much from any country. Yes it is used but who cares.
-
@TheMagicM
Please refer back to the first post in this thread....
-
@mshulz
I think we've both been misunderstanding one another. I've been saying that there is nothing to prevent MorphOS from being ported to x86 from a technical perspective. Then I was jumped by Piru because I said that the port would never happen because porting MorphOS wasn't a money-making venture. I know that the expertise exists to conduct such a port. I started out in this thread by rejecting the claim that a port would never occur because of endian-ness issues. Someone stated that endian issues made it impossible to port MorphOS to x86. Those issues CAN be overcome as evidenced by several operating systems, including AROS. BTW, thanks for porting AROS to PPC.
-
Hammer wrote:
Not the most scalable either, as you can find chips like PPC, ARM and MIPS running in a wider variety of devices.
X86 scales from embedded micro-controllers to super computers. Majority of X86s falls between netbooks to servers.
From 2005 market share(from memory)
~700 million ARM
~200 million X86
~140 million MIPS
~60 million PPC
PS; I need to find an updated market share stats.
Not that much different, save MIPS now has a Chinese firm pushing it hard in that rapidly growing economy. PPC has also grown.
x86 does scale, but not as completely as other options for a reasonable price. New MIPS netbook announced last week, $100. New x86 netbook announced last week, same features, $350.
Not saying it can't go x86, just that x86 is not this magic bullet gee-whiz-fix-it-all.
-
When enough people want MorphOS on x86, the MorphOS team will do a return on investment analysis. If they can make money by porting it to x86, then they'll do it. Why else would they do it? Out of love for the OS??? Get real. They need to eat and pay their bills too, just like everyone else.
Question is, are they making a killing being bundled with EFIKA?
Dammy
-
cicero790 wrote:
downix you said:The Amiga was about being the next big thing. Frankly, there is no NBT in desktops. There is, however, in smaller, lightweight products. And the Amiga, and MorphOS, are uniquely situated to such markets. Instant-on, multitasking, and scalable. And the weakness of the design, not so relevent anymore once you get to that scale.
I say: I can see your point. And agree. But I have a different view about Amiga's possibility to snatch back market shares and finding its place next to PC and MAC. And why? because being in the Amiga OS is an experience, that is special.
And out of date. 10 years ago, you could make the claim still for it's features. Now, it's a quaint novelty system for a desktop. The last big chance was in the early parts of this decade, but that ship has sailed.
Yes, a case can be made, and I've made it in other threads, but we have to be realistic here. None of us have the cash to do what needs to be done. We can do this for fun, and if we stick to it being fun, we will never die.
If someone came to me tomorrow saying "I've bought out Hyperion and AmigaInc, and hired the MorphOS guys, I have $12 million in the bank, and I need the best team to develop a machine" then yes, I'd be all over that. I don't see that happening, but stranger things have happened.
-
downix wrote:
Hammer wrote:
Not the most scalable either, as you can find chips like PPC, ARM and MIPS running in a wider variety of devices.
X86 scales from embedded micro-controllers to super computers. Majority of X86s falls between netbooks to servers.
From 2005 market share(from memory)
~700 million ARM
~200 million X86
~140 million MIPS
~60 million PPC
PS; I need to find an updated market share stats.
Not that much different, save MIPS now has a Chinese firm pushing it hard in that rapidly growing economy. PPC has also grown.
x86 does scale, but not as completely as other options for a reasonable price. New MIPS netbook announced last week, $100. New x86 netbook announced last week, same features, $350.
.
They don't have the same features. Have you factored in the GPU?
According to http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10038054-1.html
This $100 MIPS based netbook comes with 400Mhz CPU, 64MB RAM, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, three USB ports, 1GB flash storage and an SDHC card slot.
This is matched by AMD Geode based OLPC.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/laptop-inspiron-9
Dell's Inspiron Mini 9 comes with Intel Atom CPU(1.6GHz, 512KB L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB with HT), Intel Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator 950, 512MB RAM and a 4GB solid state drive. Starting from $350 USD.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4526797348.html
(MIPS based )Loongson 2F 900Mhz manufactured by STMicroelectronics
Memory -- 512MB DDR2
Flash storage -- 8GB or 16GB flash G-Key
USB -- 3 x ports (one used for G-Key). No USB 2.0 support is claimed, although the 2F in theory supports it
SD -- 1 x SD HC port
Display -- 10-inch, 1024 x 600 LCD powered by Silicon Motion SM502 (16MB RAM)
Networking -- 10/100Mbps Ethernet (RJ45)
WiFi -- 802.11 b/g
Starting from $450 USD.
So, which one can play Quake 3 OpenGL?
-
Obviously you're entitled to have your opinion, but I don't agree with it. If you feel I'm wrong, you can always prove me wrong by starting your own x86 OS and making it successful. Good luck.
What's the definition of "successfull" in that context ?
Do you consider MorphOS currently successfull ? Why (not) ?
-
I think this is one of only valid technical comments in this discussion so I will try to respond to it.
It's not. The community would expect that you are able to run all your existing m68k and ppc software on such x86 MOS. With MOS (and AmigaOS in general) design it is not feasible. Don't use Rosetta of OSX as an example because it's wrong one. Small example: on OSX a process has a PID assigned - unique identifier. If you will call FindTask(NULL) MOS and/or AmigaOS, you will receive a pointer to the struct Task, the very same structure MOS is using internally. Try to deal with it and find a sane solution for Little-endian system (with little-endian layout of all system structures) and big-endian software running on emulated PPC and using the very same little-endian layouted system structures (the software would expect them to be big endian though).
There is a very obvious solution to this problem. You can simply store the structures in big-endian format even on x86. This on it's own would turn into a programming nightmare however for writing new applications you would use functions like htons, ntohs, ntohl and htonl even on 68k and/or PPC to make sure the code is portable between big-endian and little-endian systems. As a result x86 would be making many more conversions than 68k and/or PPC software but it would greatly simplify the compatibility between the two. Secondly I would argue that most amiga software today is either 68k or PPC and the very small penalty that you get from doing conversions when using x86 code would not really be a problem. After all TCP/IP is big-endian but that hasn't stopped us from using it on little-endian machines.
OSX is an example of an operating system which separates userland from kernel space. On MOS they are basically the same.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but PPC NT was running PowerPC cpu in little endian mode.
and from another message:
Prove they are wrong then. No, giving an example is not enough. Prove them, that you may do such transition with Amiga-like operating system.
Simply. We didn't cared about the binary compatibility. Therefore, you are not able to run x86 AROS software on PPC AROS and vice versa. Keep in mind however, that if the amiga community wants MOS or OS4 on x86, they will demand to be able to run m68k and/or PPC software through a built-in transpared emulator integrated tightly into the system. That's the point. I, an AROS developer, don't care about it actually, but most people here do care.
You seem to be new here :)). Most people in Amiga community want it. The people here don't care x86 unless you would be able to run original m68k and ppc software on x86 without recompilation. Not to mention they will be very unhappy if you would suggest running such old m68k software on x86 MOS through UAE. They would likely hate you for having such crazy idea ;)
If they would never mind it, they would support projects like AROS with pleasure. But no, most people expect AROS developers to make the integrated m68k emu for AROS.
-
4 years later we finally got closure
-
Never have closure now with such a fractured group enjoying the 'Amiga' hmmmm
As for x86 MorphOS, it's not financially viable for them. They need to make money on their projects otherwise no more MorphOS team doing anything for any CPU.
-
According to takemehomegrandma , MorphOS is moving to Arm.
-
There is a very obvious solution to this problem. You can simply store the structures in big-endian format even on x86. This on it's own would turn into a programming nightmare however for writing new applications you would use functions like htons, ntohs, ntohl and htonl even on 68k and/or PPC to make sure the code is portable between big-endian and little-endian systems.
You're better off with AROS running in little endian on x86 with an emulator running AROS on 68k that transparently links the two environments.
You'll never achieve an x86 kernel that can run x86 or 68k software that automatically can link to either a 68k or x86 library. We don't even have a version of UAE that can run PPC software.
-
According to takemehomegrandma , MorphOS is moving to Arm.
ARM is the new holy grail I guess.
As an aside, on a technical level, how does Mac OS does it with universal binaries that run on both X86 and powerPC ?
-
OSX universal binaries just have both x86 and PPC binaries packed into one file, that's all. (You can actually get tools to strip out whichever one you don't need to save space.) Intel OSX did have a dynamically-recompiling emulator called Rosetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28software%29) for running non-universal PPC software, but quit providing it by default in 10.6 and cut support altogether in 10.7 onwards.
-
I never tried intel osx and rosetta, how well did it run powerpc osx apps?
-
You're better off with AROS running in little endian on x86 with an emulator running AROS on 68k that transparently links the two environments.
You'll never achieve an x86 kernel that can run x86 or 68k software that automatically can link to either a 68k or x86 library.
Amithlon can execute 68k and x86 code and binaries can link to each other.
http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/emulators/amithlon.html
http://aminet.net/search?arch[]=i386-amithlon
But here x86 binaries are using modified compiler where endianess is swapped automatically (IIRC?).
-
I never tried intel osx and rosetta, how well did it run powerpc osx apps?
Dunno, I've never owned an Intel Mac. (Might as well just get a PC, as far as I'm concerned.)
-
I never tried intel osx and rosetta, how well did it run powerpc osx apps?
Better in many cases than the native PPC due to the much more powerful intel chip :)
-edit- I should add that my last PPC was a 1.5Ghz G4, and the intel Mac was a 2Ghz CoreDuo... So it was able to emulate the PPC very well!
-
You're better off with AROS running in little endian on x86 with an emulator running AROS on 68k that transparently links the two environments.
You'll never achieve an x86 kernel that can run x86 or 68k software that automatically can link to either a 68k or x86 library. We don't even have a version of UAE that can run PPC software.
And this assumption is based on what facts exactly?
-
According to takemehomegrandma , MorphOS is moving to Arm.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
-
SOunds fine to me, but I do enjoy my new MacBook thoroughly. I just want a definite decision at this point, no speculation. But if it moves to x86 and PPC goes unsupported, it will be a long time before I want to use MorphOS. MorphOS is a waste on modern HW, it definitely is not ready for use on a more powerful system as the OS needs to mature, just like a good Parmigiano-Reggiano. Once MorphOS is able to incorporate some modern OS features then we can talk about a move, IMHO.
-
And this assumption is based on what facts exactly?
You can't have a single library base that can be called from x86 or 68k.
The only option would be to have all library bases called as 68k and have a switch from x86->68k->x86 when you called an x86 library from an x86 piece of code. However this would introduce a huge overhead for every call.
You would also have to include a 68k stub when using SetFunction(), so the code would not be source compatible. You can't call a different function as something might have SetFunctioned SetFunction(). You can't have a different library base for 68k and ppc programs as the libraries data is also stored in the library base.
Anyway, good luck.
-
You can't have a single library base that can be called from x86 or 68k.
The only option would be to have all library bases called as 68k and have a switch from x86->68k->x86 when you called an x86 library from an x86 piece of code. However this would introduce a huge overhead for every call.
The overhead is tiny. In MorphOS all old AmigaOS API calls are called as 68k from PPC code and the overhead is negligible. Overhead is so small that even OS4 cant beat it with interfaces.
You would also have to include a 68k stub when using SetFunction(), so the code would not be source compatible. You can't call a different function as something might have SetFunctioned SetFunction(). You can't have a different library base for 68k and ppc programs as the libraries data is also stored in the library base.
Anyway, good luck.
SetFunction() is trivial. In MorphOS you can patch 68k functions by PPC or 68k code. You have to include a 68k gate to install PPC native patch but internally 68k code is never executed in PPC -> PPC calls. PPC native patches run without performance loss and on the other hand 68k SnoopDos is fully functional in MorphOS if you dont happen to have PPC native port on your HD.
Not being source compatible doesnt matter. You cant port MCP or MCX or SnoopDos from 68k to PPC or x86 or ARM without making changes to patch code. In 68k arguments are passed in 68k registers and they often involve hand written machine code.
-
The overhead is tiny. In MorphOS all old AmigaOS API calls are called as 68k from PPC code and the overhead is negligible. Overhead is so small that even OS4 cant beat it with interfaces.
SetFunction() is trivial. In MorphOS you can patch 68k functions by PPC or 68k code. You have to include a 68k gate to install PPC native patch but internally 68k code is never executed in PPC -> PPC calls. PPC native patches run without performance loss and on the other hand 68k SnoopDos is fully functional in MorphOS if you dont happen to have PPC native port on your HD.
Not being source compatible doesnt matter. You cant port MCP or MCX or SnoopDos from 68k to PPC or x86 or ARM without making changes to patch code. In 68k arguments are passed in 68k registers and they often involve hand written machine code.
It's got to execute the 68k gate, because it doesn't know what the code is doing. You can dynamically recompile it, but you've still got some lookups to do to find the native code. Or you can put some heuristics in to find a standard gate and shortcut it. It's not just old libraries that this would have to happen for if you want to be able to drop ppc libraries in and have them used by 68k software. It could be any library that has ever been written.
You can write libraries completely in C, I wouldn't like to say how often in occurred but you don't need assembler at all (just compiler support for regparm).
The next problem is that we're actually talking about x86 not PPC. So all of your code is going to have to do endian conversions. You either go the amithlon route, but then software that needs to write little endian values will end up doing two conversions. Or you spend the rest of time changing code to do the conversion where necessary. Or you try to come up with a new compiler patch that allows you to selectively have little or big endian variables.
Because of the amount of effort, still being limited to single processor and no memory protection, how horrible all the compromises would be to get it working on x86 it's not going to happen. I can't see developers flocking to an operating system that is crippled with that amount of backward compatibility. You can't even support x64.
ARM is probably a better choice if you want to avoid the endian issues, but then you have new problems like lack of decent hardware. Rasberry Pi is cheap, but it's also not very good. Even the more expensive boards are pretty poor in terms of expandability. 64bit is also coming to ARM, but you'll be shutting yourself off from that too.
-
According to takemehomegrandma , MorphOS is moving to Arm.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Uh? WTF?
-
It's got to execute the 68k gate, because it doesn't know what the code is doing. You can dynamically recompile it, but you've still got some lookups to do to find the native code. Or you can put some heuristics in to find a standard gate and shortcut it. It's not just old libraries that this would have to happen for if you want to be able to drop ppc libraries in and have them used by 68k software. It could be any library that has ever been written.
You can write libraries completely in C, I wouldn't like to say how often in occurred but you don't need assembler at all (just compiler support for regparm).
I am not familiar with this terminology so I really can't comment.
The next problem is that we're actually talking about x86 not PPC. So all of your code is going to have to do endian conversions. You either go the amithlon route, but then software that needs to write little endian values will end up doing two conversions. Or you spend the rest of time changing code to do the conversion where necessary. Or you try to come up with a new compiler patch that allows you to selectively have little or big endian variables.
The compiler suggestion is not realistic in my opinion, no one would seriously consider it. You could create abstractions (for example a library for x86 apps) on top of all this pretty easily.
Actually come to think of it what would be better is not another amiga operating system on x86 but something that feels like wine (but more stable) with 68k and ppc emulation. Having seamless integration between your native os apps and amiga apps would be ideal (integration with the filesystem, clipboard, windowing system (resize, minimize, maximize, etc), networking stack). That way you avoid many of the problem like drivers, hardware support having to implement core os components like filesystems etc...
Because of the amount of effort, still being limited to single processor and no memory protection, how horrible all the compromises would be to get it working on x86 it's not going to happen. I can't see developers flocking to an operating system that is crippled with that amount of backward compatibility. You can't even support x64.
See my previous comment, I think much of this is not relevant if you aren't building the entire OS.
The Amiga is not likely to ever become mainstream again. Nearly all of the software that will ever be written for the amiga operating system already has been written. This is a sad but true story.
That said the amiga has tons to unique software that is worth salvaging. What most people really need is a stable, highly compatible, well integrated, convenient and non-cumbersome (not like uae) way of running amiga applications in concert with their more recent applications.
ARM is probably a better choice if you want to avoid the endian issues, but then you have new problems like lack of decent hardware. Rasberry Pi is cheap, but it's also not very good. Even the more expensive boards are pretty poor in terms of expandability. 64bit is also coming to ARM, but you'll be shutting yourself off from that too.
Meh ARM seems like a good match to me seeing how PPC is starting to disappear quickly. At least for MorphOS
-
It's got to execute the 68k gate, because it doesn't know what the code is doing. You can dynamically recompile it, but you've still got some lookups to do to find the native code.
It has to check if 68k gate is there: if it is then it can directly continue executing PPC code. If 68k gate is not found then system switches to 68k emulation. No need to dynamically recompile anything. The 68k gate is just 68k trap instruction and pointer to PPC code. Application writers dont have to care about it. It is all embedded into operating system.
Or you can put some heuristics in to find a standard gate and shortcut it. It's not just old libraries that this would have to happen for if you want to be able to drop ppc libraries in and have them used by 68k software. It could be any library that has ever been written.
Calling PPC code from 68k is really simple and extremely efficient. All PPC native 68k ABI calls have 68k gate with 68k trap instruction. When trap instruction is executed emulator switches to direct PPC execution mode.
It is easier than you think.
You can write libraries completely in C, I wouldn't like to say how often in occurred but you don't need assembler at all (just compiler support for regparm).
All 68k libraries written in C I have ever seen always use some reg(a0, foobar) style argument passing which will not work on non-68k compilers.
The next problem is that we're actually talking about x86 not PPC. So all of your code is going to have to do endian conversions. You either go the amithlon route, but then software that needs to write little endian values will end up doing two conversions. Or you spend the rest of time changing code to do the conversion where necessary. Or you try to come up with a new compiler patch that allows you to selectively have little or big endian variables.
Endian conversion of course is real issue on x86 it will be faster than WinUAE or any real Amiga.
Because of the amount of effort, still being limited to single processor and no memory protection, how horrible all the compromises would be to get it working on x86 it's not going to happen. I can't see developers flocking to an operating system that is crippled with that amount of backward compatibility. You can't even support x64.
Of course cant and if MorphOS switched arch it would most likely drop all 68k (and PPC) binary compatibility including use of 68k gates.
-
Actually come to think of it what would be better is not another amiga operating system on x86 but something that feels like wine (but more stable) with 68k and ppc emulation.
This was my original point. What AROS is doing with integrating UAE in is the best way. Anything with a well defined API can then be shared between 68k & x86. So you'd be able to use a 68k filesystem, but you probably wouldn't be able to send packets to it from x86 code as each packet would need custom code for doing the endian conversions.
An assign in one environment could be pushed to the other.
And you'd need some way of launching a 68k process from x86 and vice versa, but this shouldn't be too hard.
However nobody has even bothered to add PPC emulation to UAE. For most people that would be all they actually need as they could run it on any host OS. Even an amithlon style Linux distro.
-
This was my original point. What AROS is doing with integrating UAE in is the best way. Anything with a well defined API can then be shared between 68k & x86. So you'd be able to use a 68k filesystem, but you probably wouldn't be able to send packets to it from x86 code as each packet would need custom code for doing the endian conversions.
Can we stop with the endian debate? It's quite clear that if you always do the conversion on x86 everything would work just fine, it can even be abstracted away in a set of libraries so the developer doesn't even need to think about it. The performance hit is of no real consequence. If you can think of any API that wouldn't work with this in mind post it here so we can discuss it.
I would argue that AROS is not the best way to integrate 68k software. If you are serious about running old Amiga 68k + PPC software and I don't mean just for nostalgia or as a curiosity, I mean for real actual use. You need to have it alongside your other modern applications (that most likely means Linux, MacOS X or Windows applications) and not some OS that is almost completely devoid of applications. That also means having good integration with the host operating system for example not having to copy files back and forth to a VM or running workbench in a window or fullscreen or being unable to do simple things like copy/paste. Think of speed like ARDI Executor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_(software)) (68k mac emulator) and seamlessness of Wine.
An assign in one environment could be pushed to the other.
And you'd need some way of launching a 68k process from x86 and vice versa, but this shouldn't be too hard.
However nobody has even bothered to add PPC emulation to UAE. For most people that would be all they actually need as they could run it on any host OS. Even an amithlon style Linux distro.
See above.
-
Hi,
I'm probably stating the obvious and/or flogging a dead horse here, but is there any chance that MorphOS could appear for x86?
If not, what are the main reason for it not?
I can think of a few, but please feel free to let me know if there are any more obvious ones:
1: Lack of resources/developers
2: Difficulty of porting to such a large range of hardware (see point 1:).
I just think it'd be amazing if MorphOS was available for the cheap and powerful x86 hardware...
!
Cheers,
Mike.
Hi,
Why would you want to ruin a good PC with an Amiga Emulator for a Mac?
PC's already have a better operating Amiga Emulator called WinUAE, and guess what it is probably 10 times faster than MorphOS, and it really works, even I can use it.
Not only that but:
I think it would really be amazing if MorphOS really worked
smerf
-
Hi,
Oh Gawd!!
Here we go into the the endless debate of which OS is better.
Amiga Dos 1.0 wins. Makes all the newer OS's look like dawggy poo poo
Hey transition, you know the term take the bull by the horns, well I hate to say this but on this thread you got the bull by the tail, do you know what that means, you are receiving a lot ob bull poo poo.
smerf
-
Why would you want to ruin a good PC with an Amiga Emulator for a Mac?
1. MorphOS is not an Amiga emulator.
2. Software cannot ruin hardware it runs on.
called WinUAE, and guess what it is probably 10 times faster than MorphOS, and it really works, even I can use it.
3. Probably, but unfortunately it is not true.
4. MorphOS really works too. Check it for yourself, low quality of your posts may be improved then.