Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: on March 09, 2003, 10:24:57 PM
-
In regards to the future of the PPC Desktop, regardless of whether you want an AmigaOne or Pegasos, what do you think your desktop OS of the future needs?
I need, in no particular order;
1) Wholly Integrated network stack.
I should not have to learn how to install the Internet just to use it.
2) A 100% fully compliant browser which handles every new standard out there including CSS, Javascript, XML, and XHTML.
3) Games. Lots of cool, NOT PORTED games to keep me occupied.
These three things I feel would drive development, much more than a word processor or even desktop video application. What do you think?
-
Stuff that needs/wants to be ported (typically from other platforms), IMO:
apps: Mozilla, OpenOffice
games: Quake 3, Worms 2
services: Apache, mysql, PHP
'Classic' Amiga software that should be ported, IMO:
IBrowse (well, we're going to get that anyway :-)), YAM, WordWorth, Final Writer, SnoopDOS.
I would suggest old Amiga games but that'd make this thread fly way out of control :-)
-
I'd like to see something similar to DiskSalv and QuarterBack Tools make it to OS4 and beyond.
They've both saved my HD's life before :-D
-
My needs aren't that great. Heck, most everything I do these days can be done with an Amiga.
@Wayne
I think the only problem you'll see is with number 3.
-
1) Wholly Integrated network stack.
I should not have to learn how to install the Internet just to use it.
2) A 100% fully compliant browser which handles every new standard out there including CSS, Javascript, XML, and XHTML.
3) Games. Lots of cool, NOT PORTED games to keep me occupied.
These three things I feel would drive development, much more than a word processor or even desktop video application. What do you think?
I have to agree, for the most part... Though I think #3 is the weakest of these, and the least necessary.... At least early on. #1 and #2 are game-enders. If it's a pain to install/configure TCP/IP and a GOOD (Opera, Moz, Konq level -- no offence to the iBrowse team, but it doesn't cut it!) browser, it's a dead computer. It's that easy.
I'd have to value an Open Office type app package above the games, though. This is for two reasons. One is that it lets the computer become somewhat usable as a day-to-day machine, rather than just a toy. Second, it will show some of the machine's ability, and that porting larger apps makes sense.
As for the games, let's face it... No new machine is going to get commercial support early. And, as much as I hate to say it, almost every worthwhile game I've ever played originated in the commercial realm. Therefore, I'd say you're dreaming if you expect to see any worthwhile game for the new Amigas. Your best bet would be to have ports of MAME, Frodo, UAE, and other emulators. At least this will give access to some (albeit dated) quality works.
As for desktop video, I agree that it's probably a moot point, by now. High end went to Avid, low end went to Macintosh. Nothing left. Why bother?
-
To name off specific apps is being a short-sighted fool. The best idea, as Wayne has done, is name off needs rather than tools. You never know where the next Quicken or Lotus 123 will appear.
So how about we keep this focused on needs.
What I need is:
1) A fully object-oriented desktop experience
2) Integrated networking stack
3) Integrated preferences system
4) Web browser that can fully support XHTML 1.1
5) XML support is a must
6) IPC system
7) fully documented
8) Games, need original game ideas. Don't need the next Quake3 here, but need originality. Sometimes the best games can come from the most unexpected areas.
-
1) A fully object-oriented desktop experience
As "OO" is vastly over used and overrated, care to elaborate on what you mean?
-
Less clutter, more beer, bigger monitor, smaller price, open secretary and no boss.
-
@ downix
To name off specific apps is being a short-sighted fool
Thank you for calling me a fool! Any more insults you'd like to throw into the conversation, or will that do for now?
Did you consider that I named specific apps because I happen to like/prefer those specific apps?
If you say you want 'an office package' running on OS4, would you settle for any old one, or one that you know has features that work the way you want to use them for?
-
As "OO" is vastly over used and overrated, care to elaborate on what you mean?
@ downix
Hey! My bedroom is object-orientated... there's the desk, the bed, the wardrobe.... :-)
... I really want to know what a "fully object orientated desktop experience" is, considering the only place I've heard the term OO used is to describe Java, and I know why it's referred to as that, but a 'desktop experience'?
-
Working Web browser
Proper usenet downloader tool
Software for movie files and coverter Divx/Xvid (mp3,ac3,ogg) vcd, svcd, dvd, rm, wmv, asf,
More powerful cd burning program (inc dvd)
Loads of p2p programs
Office suite
Games (not 90s ports)
Emulators
Multimedia player
Codecs for everything with sound and/or video
-
A complete GCC, which should be installed as default with the OS!
-
The TCP/IP stack should be a part of the "kernel" much like it is on Linux. Starting a specific program just to get online is SO 20th century :-)
A text editor that does exactly what it should.
A good scripting language.
A 2D pixel painter. More like Personal Paint or TVPaint than Photoshop.
Mozilla or Netscape 7.
A good movie player, that handles both DivX movies and DVDs.
Improved shell and commands. Real pipeing (unix-style), extended pattern matching etc.
-
1. Neural Interface
2.. Holographic Data Storage
3. Quantum CPU
oh, okay, seriously...
1. TCP/IP stack integrated
2. networking suite (Basic telnet, ftp, web, email clients)
3. system/drive recovery tools
4. file management tools (ala SID, Opus)
5. a few other things that others have mentioned.
-
As "OO" is vastly over used and overrated, care to elaborate on what you mean?
I mean OO in a similar manner to how OS/2 had an OO desktop: Each program was built-up from other components, and when a new program added new capabilities, those same capabilities were availible to other programs to utilize.
Say someone makes a viewer for their newest wiz-bang compression alg for video. In an OO system, this viewer is able to be embedded into a higher-end editor without requiring the compiling of modules to that editor, just need to be able to decode from the viewer to raw pixel data, which can then be manipulated.
In addition, this means that the ability to set preferences is built into the desktop rather than into the specific app.
-
1)A single user OS.
2)Integrated TCP/IP stack.
3)A port of Mozilla, Opera, or any equivalent browser.
4)Eye-candy. Yes, you heard me; and no I won't use Windows XP. If I wanted to use it, I'd use it allready...
5)A good, fast and native pascal compiler.
6)Some form of backward-compatability.
7)Games from this century.or at least a port of Sim City 2000.
-
I don't know if it's related to OS/2 being Object Oriented or not, but a cool feature of OS/2 that I've never seen on any other OS is that if you move a file that has a shortcut somewhere, the shortcut was smart enough to know that the file was moved and to where. That's keen.
-
I mean OO in a similar manner to how OS/2 had an OO desktop: Each program was built-up from other components, and when a new program added new capabilities, those same capabilities were availible to other programs to utilize.
From that point of view you could say that Microsoft operating systems have an 'objected orientated' setup, but you'd still find that a million Java advocates would want to kill you for using the term like that.
And wasn't it you that said:
So how about we keep this focused on needs
Surely your needs are for it to all 'work properly', not to tell a load of developers who they should be doing their jobs.
-
@ whabang
1)A _single user_ OS.
Why does it have to be single user only?
-
mikeymike wrote:
@ whabang
1)A _single user_ OS.
Why does it have to be single user only?
I don't like to log in every time that I start my computer, and I don't like the XP-style login screen either. I want an OS which is made to be used by one user. I don't need the capability to switch from one user to another, while still running the programs from the other user. I don't need the possibility to run my computer in a major network.
On the other hand, an OS doesn't have to be designed to be a single user OS. Who knows, I might need those features one day... :-)
-
Wayne wrote:
I need, in no particular order;
1) Wholly Integrated network stack.
I should not have to learn how to install the Internet just to use it.
Add integrated support for a bunch of protocols apart from TCP/IP to that. SMB, NFS, SSH...
2) A 100% fully compliant browser which handles every new standard out there including CSS, Javascript, XML, and XHTML.
3) Games. Lots of cool, NOT PORTED games to keep me occupied.
These three things I feel would drive development, much more than a word processor or even desktop video application. What do you think?
Agreed. "The web" is a basic and probably the most used "application" and a fundamental requirement of a modern desktop system today.
While not essential for the usability of such a system, games do certainly attract/retain users and drive development. As an example, I don't think many x86 Linux users would let a Windows partition be around wasting disk space if there only were a sufficient number of games for Linux. Ports are needed too - for example, people probably want to play the same network games with other people on other platforms.
A reasonably modern printing system, with network support and integrated postscript interpreter. People want and need to make hardcopies of their work, simple as that. CUPS is probably a bitch to implement on a single-user platform, but that'd be an example of an ideal solution IMO.
-
I don't like to log in every time that I start my computer, and I don't like the XP-style login screen either. I want an OS which is made to be used by one user. I don't need the capability to switch from one user to another, while still running the programs from the other user. I don't need the possibility to run my computer in a major network.
On the other hand, an OS doesn't have to be designed to be a single user OS. Who knows, I might need those features one day...
Did you know you can completely switch off the need to log in at all on Win2k/XP (and I don't mean use auto-logon)? I can point you in the direction of all the relevant info you need to do that, if you want.
The advantages of a multi user OS may not be obvious straight away, but a decent OS security model is usually the greatest benefit, including a filesystem that allows per-user permissions (even not allowing the system to access particular files, but allowing your user to).
-
Add integrated support for a bunch of protocols apart from TCP/IP to that. SMB
You want integrated support for the most buggy and security-hole'd filesharing protocol in existence?
-
Didn't you know? The fact that is unstable, unsecure and generally full of ####, automatically makes it very popular... :-D
-
Did you know you can completely switch off the need to log in at all on Win2k/XP
Not without using auto-logon... HOw do you do that?
-
@ whabang
:-)
What's so wrong with FTP I have to ask... and don't tell me people seriously need to directly print files to a printer on another PC... even I just FTP the file to the other PC at home and print it off from there, and both computers are running Windows! :-)
(It's been years since I've needed to print something from my Amiga)
-
and don't tell me people seriously need to directly print files to a printer on another PC
You have obviously never experienced the fun in printing pr0n to someone else's printer over an open network... :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
@mikeymike
People do seriously need to directly print files to a
printer on another PC.
My wife and I both share a laser printer at home.
It's an essential bit of kit for both of our respective jobs.
Why should I spend money on TWO of these, or buggerise around
with FTP when I don't have to? When I should be able to just
hit 'print' and have it work?
Siggy.
-
mikeymike wrote:
You want integrated support for the most buggy and security-hole'd filesharing protocol in existence?
Yup, because in addition to being the most buggy and security-holed file/printer sharing protocol, it's the most commonly used one. :) There's no SANA-II implementation for all the most common OSes, or is there?
No, I don't want it and root directory sharing turned on by default. :)
-
@ whabang
Not without using auto-logon... HOw do you do that?
I don't have XP handy, but I doubt it's different from Win2k Pro in this respect. There's two ways of changing that setting, one is when you've just reinstalled, it asks you whether you want to log in every time or not.
The other way is in Control Panel > Users & Passwords: the check box:
"Users must enter a user name and password to use this computer"
Personally I prefer having to log in as it stops other people with local access from being tempted to snoop :)
-
@ Seehund
Having support for it is one thing, but I'd much prefer it to be a third party piece of software. Your use of the term 'integrated support' worried me as to what you might mean. I certainly wouldn't want it to be installed by default either, even if you could fully uninstall that component without screwing everything else up.
There's probably also potential legal problems if an official company tries to make an implementation of SMB. Let the samba guys do it :-)
-
mikeymike wrote:
What's so wrong with FTP I have to ask... and don't tell me people seriously need to directly print files to a printer on another PC... even I just FTP the file to the other PC at home and print it off from there, and both computers are running Windows! :-)
My printer doesn't have a built-in FTP server, but it does have a built in printing/JetDirect server. :) Also, in a multiple OS network it's not reasonable to expect that the application you wish to print from is/can be installed on every system. If the printer is connected to/served from a Linux box, then I can't print a PageStream document from the Linux box, but if AmigaOS had a printing system from this side of the Silur geologic era I could ask PageStream on the box running AmigaOS to send the job to the Linux printing server. If I have a Word document with pics, tables and stuff I can't print it from the box running AmigaOS if that's the machine connected to the printer... Et c.
(It's been years since I've needed to print something from my Amiga)
It's been years since I wanted to print anything with AmigaOS... :( PageStream is what comes to mind, but now I'll have to convert such docs to postscript and copy them to a machine with an OS capable of network printing.
-
@mikeymike
I see your point. Samba (smbd, smbclient, smbmount...) can be a bitch to set up and use though. Thinking in *ix-ish ways related to Samba on AmigaOS feels like a malplaced kludge. I guess "Samba suite included, not necessarily integrated, but with nice tools, GUIs, seamless WB and file requester usage, and integrated support of network mounted disks regardless of protocol" is perhaps a more accurate description of what I'm looking for. :)
-
mikeymike wrote:
@ whabang
Not without using auto-logon... HOw do you do that?
I don't have XP handy, but I doubt it's different from Win2k Pro in this respect. There's two ways of changing that setting, one is when you've just reinstalled, it asks you whether you want to log in every time or not.
The other way is in Control Panel > Users & Passwords: the check box:
"Users must enter a user name and password to use this computer"
Personally I prefer having to log in as it stops other people with local access from being tempted to snoop :)
I bet you could hear my "DOH!" over there... :-D :-D :-D
-
@ whabang
It's probably something only people who've actually manually reinstalled Win2k/XP would know for sure that that feature exists, so I don't think the DOH factor is that high :-)
Oh, and if anyone is deluding themselves that they're "reinstalling Windows" by using a recovery CD, stop it now! Be a man and reinstall it properly!
:-)