Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga community support ideas => Topic started by: amigadave on November 14, 2014, 09:26:43 PM
-
I am moving the forum post below to this thread, as it did not belong in the thread it was placed in by the original poster and had contributed to that thread going further "Off Topic".
Originally posted by matt3k
I have always encouraged and commented positively concerning Hyperion and Trevor and it is well deserved. From a business standpoint his investment and return on investment, this is certainly a labor of love and I'm grateful for it. How many guys would pony up real dollars knowing that they will never make real money at it for the benefit of a community? Heck, I would put that kind of money in mutual funds and collect an effortless return and not risk it in a fractured community and all the issues with hardware and software development...
I'm not into bashing the few guys left willing to support the community. I bet Trevor and the gang are reasonable people, PM them privately to work this out...
IMHO,
Hyperion should consider dropping AOS4.x and move to MOS, it would solve some of the problems we have been having and unify the community under one banner.
MOS is really many country miles ahead at this point and they have a proven track record of delivery, and a larger user base. Having the one OS would help the software developers and help get rid of this pointless bickering. If they want to rebrand MOS as AOS... fine... I really don't care what they call it. I'm just so tired of the back and forth.
-
Another moved forum post which is a reply to the original post
originally posted by spirantho
MOS is really many country miles ahead at this point
In what way? I see the opposite.
I would be very upset, having seen the progress that's been made behind the scenes on OS 4, if we went back to MorphOS.
However, this shouldn't turn into a red vs. blue debate (again) but please just realise that MorphOS is NOT far ahead of OS 4 (having used and developed on both), and throwing away all the good work that Hyperion have done (much of which has never been seen because the end results have not yet been released) would be a massive mistake.
-
Yet another reply moved to this thread.
Originally posted by matt3k
I don't want to turn this into an MOS vs AOS session either.
To be fair and not make it my thoughts, I will give you the comments of an AOS (NOT MOS) user who is a friend of mine and give you his comments the last time he used MOS when he was over:
He mentioned:
Ambient being much more developed than workbench in many areas from cohesion of the OS to better file management.
Speed and performance of the system overall (regular usage, gaming, USB) was much better in MOS.
Available applications and application performance for MOS especially OWC and mplayer made a huge difference for him.
Remember these are from an AOS Users comments and not mine. I'm not here to bash AOS at all, and I realize that many users who bought AOS would be miffed initially, the end result would help the whole community. You can't make everyone happy in life, but as I said IMHO this would make sense to me and end the war and perhaps even attract more people.
Again this is my opinion and a longshot at best, but it is the way I see it...
Added:
LOL I found a OSNews article that illustrated some of my friends observations.
http://www.osnews.com/story/21977/Benchmarks_AmigaOS_4_1_vs_MorphOS_2_3
In what way? I see the opposite.
I would be very upset, having seen the progress that's been made behind the scenes on OS 4, if we went back to MorphOS.
However, this shouldn't turn into a red vs. blue debate (again) but please just realise that MorphOS is NOT far ahead of OS 4 (having used and developed on both), and throwing away all the good work that Hyperion have done (much of which has never been seen because the end results have not yet been released) would be a massive mistake.
-
And another reply moved to this thread.
Originally posted by spirantho
I don't agree with his comments. :)
That's all I'll say, otherwise it'll all go red vs. blue again - but that osnews article is misleading because for one thing MOS devs had more information than AmigaOS devs about the Peg-II, and also because the osnews article is measuring speed differences between MorphOS 2.3 and AmigaOS 4.1 beta - it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that comparing a beta to a mature 4-year old product is a little unfair. :)
-
And another
Originally posted by Matt3k
We are all on the same team here :).
That was my friends observations, and it is ok that you don't agree with him. I do agree and others here do...
I would say that the same difference would be similar with the latest iterations of the OS's.
If the reverse was true, I would be annoyed that I invested in a product that was being replaced by the other. But at some point I would enjoy the benefits and move on...
This community is FAR too small for both MOS and AOS. If we want to attract better/more software development it is hard to deny that having one OS as the standard would be a big step forward.
I don't agree with his comments. :)
That's all I'll say, otherwise it'll all go red vs. blue again - but that osnews article is misleading because for one thing MOS devs had more information than AmigaOS devs about the Peg-II, and also because the osnews article is measuring speed differences between MorphOS 2.3 and AmigaOS 4.1 beta - it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that comparing a beta to a mature 4-year old product is a little unfair. :)
-
Last post to be moved into this thread from the other thread (I hope). There has to be an easier way to move forum posts, so I will try to find that method and use it next time. Sorry if this thread is confusing due to the method used to move the off topic comments here.
Originally posted by spirantho
We are all on the same team here :).
That's the main thing. :) My experiences are entirely different to yours, but we're coming at them from different angles, I think. I just get really annoyed when people say one OS is "better" than the other, it's just not that simple.
So, we agree to disagree, and move on with enjoying our OS's and pushing both of them forward. This is too small a community for disagreement, we need to unite.
AmigaOS, MorphOS and AROS forever! :)
-
Let's stop advocate stuff that simply aint gonna happen. It's better to strive for better cooperation in areas we actually have a shot at succeeding.
-
Let's stop advocate stuff that simply aint gonna happen. It's better to strive for better cooperation in areas we actually have a shot at succeeding.
+1
-
Now for my own comments on this topic.
It will never happen! At this point in time I am not convinced that it would be the best thing for us even if it could be accomplished, but I understand the desire to have our limited resources all working on the same OS, to improve the speed of progress. It is just not possible, unless one person or group could buy out all of the groups, and even then there is no guarantee that the community would follow the new path and decisions made by this one person or group who had gotten control of all existing Amiga and Amiga inspired platforms.
There are too many differences of opinions on which direction is the best for any one of those choices to be considered the ONLY right choice for all of us. Each choice has it's own life now, it's own user base (though many users are involved in more than one of these choices), it's own developers, and it's own vision for the future.
Nice dream, but a waste of time dreaming of something that can never happen.
Edit: Yasu, you beat me to the punch.
-
Maybe not a unified OS, but why not a unified AmiStore, with Morphos/AmigaOS versions of every program?
-
Maybe not a unified OS, but why not a unified AmiStore, with Morphos/AmigaOS versions of every program?
That already exists as far as I know, but it is up to each individual developer to decide which platforms to support, or to allow others to port his work to different platforms than the one(s) he has written his work for.
-
One OS to them all
One OS to find them
One OS to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them...
Sorry I've been drinking
-
That already exists as far as I know, but it is up to each individual developer to decide which platforms to support, or to allow others to port his work to different platforms than the one(s) he has written his work for.
INDIEGO Appstore seems to cather for all platforms. AmigaStore focuses 100% on AOS.
Ill let people with expirience with INDIEGO Appstore give details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FhieAkeh2M&list=UUUzG5OUZ3TNHSzjab9ENVjg
-
Not being an NG user or a programmer, I'm wondering, how hard is it to code an application that works under both OS4/MorphOS? That I see different versions for things on Aminet is about the most knowledge I have on the subject. From what I understand, they both can run non hardware-banging 3.1 compatible applications natively, correct? And both can run native Amiga hardware-banging code through some form of JIT compiler or built-in UAE, correct? So beyond that, how difficult is it to write things to run on both?
-
INDIEGO Appstore seems to cather for all platforms. AmigaStore focuses 100% on AOS.
Ill let people with expirience with INDIEGO Appstore give details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FhieAkeh2M&list=UUUzG5OUZ3TNHSzjab9ENVjg
My mistake, I thought that AmiStore was going to support all developers of any Amiga or Amiga inspired platform. I'll have to check into it more closely and see if it actually prohibits developers of software for other platform to submit their programs for sale on the site. Since AmiStore is an application that only runs on AmigaOS4.x, it does not make much sense to market software for other platforms from that store.
-
Edit: Yasu, you beat me to the punch.
I have my moments :)
-
Yasu sorting us both out I see ^^
Matthew alluded to he might look into getting a minimized version of AmigaStore to work for the lower end Amigas (68030 range or lower?).
At the moment he mentioned the Store to run crippling slow on even a 060.
-
There is already a unified OS! Its called windows!
We hipsters like to be special! The more obscure the better :)
-
There is already a unified OS! Its called windows!
We hipsters like to be special! The more obscure the better :)
We have a winner. Now let's go home and drink homebrew! :drink:
-
Well Dave you are much more in the 'know' than I am, so I will defer to your thoughts on the matter.
I did state it would be a long shot, but apparently that is even being optimistic.
Stopping the back and forth between the camps with one OS is appealing bit not realistic apparently...
A shame really and a waste of resources, but it is what it is. Perhaps the only solution is for a big investor to buy it all up and reorganize. With the minimal potential return that would be near to impossible...
Oh well I thought it was a well thought out idea at the time... :)
Now for my own comments on this topic.
It will never happen! At this point in time I am not convinced that it would be the best thing for us even if it could be accomplished, but I understand the desire to have our limited resources all working on the same OS, to improve the speed of progress. It is just not possible, unless one person or group could buy out all of the groups, and even then there is no guarantee that the community would follow the new path and decisions made by this one person or group who had gotten control of all existing Amiga and Amiga inspired platforms.
There are too many differences of opinions on which direction is the best for any one of those choices to be considered the ONLY right choice for all of us. Each choice has it's own life now, it's own user base (though many users are involved in more than one of these choices), it's own developers, and it's own vision for the future.
Nice dream, but a waste of time dreaming of something that can never happen.
Edit: Yasu, you beat me to the punch.
-
matt3k; I did actually link your post to Olaf (AROS), commenting "good post, but it will never happen".
I left the Amiga Classic platform when I joined the army in Norway mid 95s, and suddenly 10-14 years passed until I started browsing Amiga forums again. I was kinda suprised about the fragmatation and the relative hostile tone some had (and still have). But I think its the loud minority tbh. Maybe I shouldnt have been suprised. When people have no news or anything to do, people get frustrated and that energy seemed to be turned inwards.
For the most part I try to stay away from the noise, and actually find myself posting private messages more than public posts :P
Anyhow, I think AOS, AROS and MorphOS have been developing their own teams for so long that I dont see anyone willing to give up their vision. Cant say I blame them tbh, given the amount of effort they have put in.
-
And another reply moved to this thread.
That's all I'll say, otherwise it'll all go red vs. blue again - but that osnews article is misleading because for one thing MOS devs had more information than AmigaOS devs about the Peg-II, and also because the osnews article is measuring speed differences between MorphOS 2.3 and AmigaOS 4.1 beta - it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that comparing a beta to a mature 4-year old product is a little unfair.
Spirantho is wrong. If they are selling beta OS to consumers that is the product then they are selling beta OS to consumer. Beta OS is what you get.
Besides, there is no hidden information about Pegasos 2. Its hardware is documented and it is available to developers.
-
Not being an NG user or a programmer, I'm wondering, how hard is it to code an application that works under both OS4/MorphOS? That I see different versions for things on Aminet is about the most knowledge I have on the subject. From what I understand, they both can run non hardware-banging 3.1 compatible applications natively, correct? And both can run native Amiga hardware-banging code through some form of JIT compiler or built-in UAE, correct? So beyond that, how difficult is it to write things to run on both?
If you use OS 3.1 API then you are source compatible with each other. If you compile to 68k target you are binary compatible with each other.
But problem is that you cant use any new stuff.
-
Let's stop advocate stuff that simply aint gonna happen. It's better to strive for better cooperation in areas we actually have a shot at succeeding.
+1
-
The question is not whether AmigaOS is a better OS/platform than MorphOS or vice versa. The question is whether a unified platform would be better than both.
-
There are too many differences of opinions on which direction is the best for any one of those choices to be considered the ONLY right choice for all of us. Each choice has it's own life now, it's own user base (though many users are involved in more than one of these choices), it's own developers, and it's own vision for the future.
MorphOS and AmigaOs 4 lack common interests.
- MUI 4 / Reaction
- CGX / P96
- Ambient / Workbench
- Netstack / Roadshow
- Poseidon / other
And many more if we go deeper.
AHI is probably only one of common interest.
-
Let's be serious.... Amistore for Morphos won't happen because that won't increase X1000 sales. Maybe if Morphos is ported to X1000, then yeah, it will happen.
-
Spirantho is wrong. If they are selling beta OS to consumers that is the product then they are selling beta OS to consumer. Beta OS is what you get.
Besides, there is no hidden information about Pegasos 2. Its hardware is documented and it is available to developers.
My point was that comparing a mature OS of several years with a beta version of another OS isn't a fair benchmark of speed. I don't think I was wrong.
Plus there are some very low level bits of documentation that the AmigaOS devs did not have access to, which the MorphOS devs did.
Anyway, this is now off-topic, this thread isn't a "my OS can beat up your OS" thread.
-
My point was that comparing a mature OS of several years with a beta version of another OS isn't a fair benchmark of speed. I don't think I was wrong.
Soon it should be possible to compare AmigaOs 4.1.7 against MorphOS 3.7 on Pegasos 2 hardware and later AmigaOS 4.1.7 against MorphOS 3.8 on SAM460.
Plus there are some very low level bits of documentation that the AmigaOS devs did not have access to, which the MorphOS devs did.
Care to mention what bits of documentation Hyperion did not have access to?
-
Where is this 4.1.7 coming from? It is 4.1 Final Edition.
-
Yes, the Sam460 will be a much fairer comparison than the Peg 2.
I believe that bPlan kept some of the really low level stuff to themselves. Just did a quick Google and found this, for example:
I think RAM timing is kept solid for biggest compatibility, so there
will be room for improvement, but I don't know how, and bplan
won't tell us...
http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=4548&post_id=42844&viewmode=flat&sortorder=0&showonepost=1
That thread is just talking about twiddling the timings, nothing to do with AmigaOS - but the important thing is that it illustrates that bPlan did keep that sort of info to themselves.
I don't say that MorphOS isn't faster, only that the Pegasos II doesn't give a fair indication (the Sam 460 will), and that a benchmark that compares speed of a mature OS with a beta pre-release is completely meaningless.
-
Not sure I get the argument here... is it that OS4.1 is a beta?
-
Yes, the Sam460 will be a much fairer comparison than the Peg 2.
Funny that you say that because MorphOS 3.8 will be the first version to support SAM460 while AmigaOS 4 has supported SAM460 several years now.
;-)
I believe that bPlan kept some of the really low level stuff to themselves. Just did a quick Google and found this, for example:
http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=4548&post_id=42844&viewmode=flat&sortorder=0&showonepost=1
That thread is just talking about twiddling the timings, nothing to do with AmigaOS - but the important thing is that it illustrates that bPlan did keep that sort of info to themselves.
Users dont need such kind of information. And OS developers dont either if they want to stay compatible.
-
@itix
As long as the morphos devs have full access to the hardware details, then once MorphOs has reached a mature state on the 460, then I suspect we'll find there's very little difference. Of course before that state is true, then yes, MorphOS may well appear slower and that wouldn't be a fair comparison either. Look at G5 benchmarks on MorphOS now compared to their first beta releases, there's quite a difference.
@everblue
There was a link above to an OSnews article that compared non-optimal beta version of OS 4.1 on a Pegasos II with a mature MorphOS version and said "oh look! Morphos is faster, therefore it is better".
To make a true comparison (as if that would help anybody), you need to compare a fully open hardware platform running mature versions of both of the OSes.
-
There is already a unified OS! Its called windows!
We hipsters like to be special! The more obscure the better :)
Can this Windows thing run Apple Pages? What about the most recent MorphOS/Amiga OS 4.* software?
Is it compatible with my ARM/PPC hardware and my GNU/Linux drivers?
-
As long as the morphos devs have full access to the hardware details, then once MorphOs has reached a mature state on the 460, then I suspect we'll find there's very little difference.
Are you sure? Are you sure MorphOS is not faster on some task and OS4 is not faster on some other tasks?
Some benchmarks like RAM disk speed is not necessarily always tied to underlying hardware but to algorithms used in RAM disk implementation.
Of course before that state is true, then yes, MorphOS may well appear slower and that wouldn't be a fair comparison either. Look at G5 benchmarks on MorphOS now compared to their first beta releases, there's quite a difference.
It would be fair comparison because it tells exactly what you get. It is important to users so they can hold their buying decision if it turns out that support is not mature enough yet.
Mods: this discussion should be moved to its own thread.
-
Yes, MorphOS and AmigaOS both have their own strengths and weaknesses - there will always be some variance, but overall I don't think there'll be much difference.
As for the review being fair - yes, it was a fair indication of the state of AmigaOS 4.1 on the Pegasos II at that time, but in no way should it be used - several years later - to say that because of that AmigaOS as an OS is slower than MorphOS as an OS. All the review proves is that a pre-release beta of AmigaOS is slower than the full release of MorphOS at that time on that hardware.
-
@spirantho
You should know better than to come on here spreading your common sense and reason. Shame on you! ;)
-
MorphOS and AmigaOS both have their own strengths and weaknesses - there will always be some variance, but overall I don't think there'll be much difference.
I think the fact that MorphOS runs on dirt cheap hardware and well, AmigaOS doesn't is a very big advantage for MorphOS.
-
As for the review being fair - yes, it was a fair indication of the state of AmigaOS 4.1 on the Pegasos II at that time, but in no way should it be used - several years later - to say that because of that AmigaOS as an OS is slower than MorphOS as an OS. All the review proves is that a pre-release beta of AmigaOS is slower than the full release of MorphOS at that time on that hardware.
Funny that you claim Hyperion was selling pre-release beta to their customers. They never advertised it as such.
But yes, it nly reviews state of affairs in year 2009. Today if AmigaOS 4.1 FE (not released yet) was compared to MorphOS 3.7 (released) it could be even greater victory for MorphOS... ;-) I mean, it is also possibility, isnt it?
-
Funny that you claim Hyperion was selling pre-release beta to their customers. They never advertised it as such.
The OSNews article was done on the beta of AmigaOS 4.1 for the Pegasos II:
It is important to note, though, that AmigaOs 4.1 for the Pegasos II is still in its bets stage, so things can certainly improve once it moves out of beta
But yes, it nly reviews state of affairs in year 2009. Today if AmigaOS 4.1 FE (not released yet) was compared to MorphOS 3.7 (released) it could be even greater victory for MorphOS... ;-) I mean, it is also possibility, isnt it?
Absolutely, it could be. But I still say we need to wait until we have a fully open platform and a mature version of each OS on that platform before we can possibly make any decisions.
To me personally, I don't care which is faster - but I just get annoyed with people saying x is better than y and giving totally misleading 'evidence' such as that OSNews article, which - by its own admission - was not representative of the full story.
-
The OSNews article was done on the beta of AmigaOS 4.1 for the Pegasos II:
Absolutely, it could be. But I still say we need to wait until we have a fully open platform and a mature version of each OS on that platform before we can possibly make any decisions.
The OS news was repeating wrong information from French article (http://obligement.free.fr/articles/amigaos41_vs_morphos23.php) where it initially claimed that AmigaOS 4.1 for Pegasos 2 is beta. This was corrected later:
Contrairement à ce que j'avais écrit dans un premier temps, l'AmigaOS 4.1 sur Pegasos II n'est pas en version bêta. Il n'en demeure pas moins qu'il s'agit de la première version de ce système pour Pegasos II. Est-ce l'AmigaOS 4.x s'améliorera sur ce matériel%&$#?@!? Peut-être ou peut-être pas. En attendant, il reste moins optimisé que MorphOS. Enfin, on peut noter que la performance de certains tests est plus due à la façon dont a été compilé le logiciel qu'au système lui-même.
So it was full release vs full release. I know that Hyperion fixed slow disk I/O in later update, though.
-
@Everblue @Niding
In the new year, I will continue work on a stripped down GadTools based AMIStore for low-end Classic Amiga running EasyNet. It will be fun to scale it down but a lot of work of course ;-) I have some interesting ideas that I hope will work with it. I assume GadTools will work fine with all Amiga-like OS ? I do not really want to use MUI because of it's higher footprint with Classic AmigaOS and it may consume too many system resources, plus not every Classic user has MUI installed.
-
@itix
Fair enough (though it doesn't say much for the quality of the article if they don't even know what version of the OS it's running).
I still say that the only fair comparison will be when MorphOS and AmigaOS have both reached a stable, mature build on a completely open board like the Sam460 though.
-
Few thoughts:
MUI is not just much easier to code for it will also look much nicer for user (+ offering options)
Amigas that can't run MUI without problems are pretty lowend indeed, so unless you plan to distribute SW for 68000 + 1MB useing MUI won't be a problem
Anybody who hasn't MUI installed on his mid-range Amiga (read 020 or 030 with atleast 4MB) is most likely not really interested in new SW
-
Some interesting points there, Kronos!
I will take that into consideration. Need to do more research with Classic users...
-
Regarding MUI, if its becomes a part of the requirement of the low end AmigaStore, then either;
1) Include MUI in the install archive of the Store
2) Make it very clear, with instruction where to find it and how to use/install it
MUI is "standard" for old users, but for returning people like myself when a program refuses to run because it wants xyz file/program as a basis, its not as apparent where and how to go about it.
Going to OSdepot or Aminet you have tons of directories and subdirectories. If you know the name or close to it, you can search, only to find 10 files with similar names etc.
People usually figure it out by asking around on forums, but why not make;
"Installing stuff on amiga for dummies" a standard assumption when making programs ;)
Idiegogo storefront PDF that Pascal just posted was an excellent example about how instructions should be made.
This is not just a comment regarding AmigaStore, but more in general :)
Ofcourse, Epsilons blog have kinda set the standard in that regard.
-
MUI is "standard" for old users, but for returning people like myself when a program refuses to run because it wants xyz file/program as a basis, its not as apparent where and how to go about it.
I wonder how you got your Amiga online, because...
1) AmigaOS 3.1 comes without TCP/IP stack
2) AmigaOS 3.9 comes with TCP/IP stack but it is on CD-ROM
Just wondering :)
-
I wonder how you got your Amiga online, because...
1) AmigaOS 3.1 comes without TCP/IP stack
2) AmigaOS 3.9 comes with TCP/IP stack but it is on CD-ROM
Just wondering :)
Maybe he is not writing this on an Amiga? :)
-
Maybe he is not writing this on an Amiga? :)
I dont think AmiStore is that useful without internet :)
-
I wonder how you got your Amiga online, because...
1) AmigaOS 3.1 comes without TCP/IP stack
2) AmigaOS 3.9 comes with TCP/IP stack but it is on CD-ROM
Just wondering :)
What Yasu said ^^
I got USB for my A1200 (thanks for excellent product Jens), so the urge to get online dropped radically. Kinda doubt getting online and browsing for files will be as efficient as using a USB stick.
I tried for a few hours getting online, but with the USB method, the motivation wasnt very high.
EDIT; and I agree, AmigaStore aint very useful unless you get online. Id say the motivation would go up getting it sorted, but I suspect Matthew got his hands full with the current release for a long time.
-
@itix
Probably not a simple question to answer, but in your estimation, how many MUI applications depend on custom classes that are uniquely defined within that application (i.e. by runtime subclassing/extension in the BOOPSI fashion) as opposed to reusing existing shared classes?
-
@itix
Probably not a simple question to answer, but in your estimation, how many MUI applications depend on custom classes that are uniquely defined within that application (i.e. by runtime subclassing/extension in the BOOPSI fashion) as opposed to reusing existing shared classes?
Not sure what you are trying to say here, as all proper MUI apps would define atleast 1 such class, but thats ain't a problem in anyway.
If a MUI-app uses 3rd party mcc-classes is an important question.
-
If a MUI-app uses 3rd party mcc-classes is an important question.
That's basically what I was trying to ask.
-
Probably not a simple question to answer, but in your estimation, how many MUI applications depend on custom classes that are uniquely defined within that application (i.e. by runtime subclassing/extension in the BOOPSI fashion) as opposed to reusing existing shared classes?
Many old MUI applications depend on NList.mcc custom class because it has neat features (like horizontal scroll bar) to developers missing from the original MUI 3.8 List.mui class. Probably another is TextEditor.mcc/TextInput.mcc because standard MUI 3.8 also lacks text editor capabilities.
But you can use NList.mcc and List.mui (standard) interchangeably -- if NList.mcc is not installed application can fallback to List.mui. If TextEditor.mcc is missing you can fill blank space with text box telling how to download and install one. But better would be provide all in one. It really annoys me if I have to download dozen of libs and classes.
But before any GadTools or MUI version I would do market research how many potential users there could be and what is their typical configuration. Kinda pointless to have stripped down version if there are next to none products they could run on their system.
-
I dont think AmiStore is that useful without internet :)
Ha!
http://instantrimshot.com/
Kind of makes sense that most people who are going online with an Amiga already have MUI installed. I suppose there's rare cases where they wouldn't, but eh. My .02 cents, either MUI or GadTools is fine. Would love to try it out on my A2000! :)
-
The question is not whether AmigaOS is a better OS/platform than MorphOS or vice versa. The question is whether a unified platform would be better than both.
That's still not a unified platform. 68k is left out of both even though that's the largest group of current users with the largest collection of existing software.
PPC accelerators literally or effectively don't exist for most of us and the lucky few are only somewhat supported by either of the new OSs.
Basically, the two splinter groups are pulling the core users in different directions rather than becoming part of the core platform.
We Classic users have been so distracted by the infighting that we've forgotten that those two companies should be courting us instead of fighting amongst ourselves on their behalf.
IMHO, they should work on improving the Classic 68k so that the there is less incompatibility and a smoother move between their OS and Classic.
Who wouldn't buy a MorphOS or AOS4 680x0 ROM and OS for their Classic if it was still backwards compatible with AOS3? They've both shown us they can be compatible on a foreign CPU, so they could do it on 68k.
Since OS4 is effectively made by a custom hardware company, why not make accelerator cards for Classics?
I'd wager that a lot more people still spend money on their Classics than buy into the PPC platforms combined. Why don't they even try to embrace that market?
Whoever could grab the Classic market would own the platform by default, but neither seems to be paying attention to it.
-
The problem is that the Classic would need so many upgrades to come close to the performance of even a Sam440, that there'd be no Classic left! You'd need to upgrade everything, and the actual machine would be little more than a keyboard and disk drive dongle.
-
I also doubt that "Classic" users really are the biggest group but that may depend on your definition of "user".
IMO someone who just starts a bunch of games in WHDLoad and does same basic DPaint every odd year does not count.
In the same light one can also question the claim about the "largest SW collection", cos most of that is completly irrelevant today.
MorphOS,OS4 and to some lesser extent AROS aims a different demographic, peoöe who want to use "Amiga" as their main system doing things normally done by WinTel,Mac or *nix, which does mandate a certain min. spec far above all that is available for classic outside emulation.
Proper 68k users on the other side are far deeper entrenched in doing things the same way they did them for the past 20 years.
-
The problem is that the Classic would need so many upgrades to come close to the performance of even a Sam440, that there'd be no Classic left! You'd need to upgrade everything, and the actual machine would be little more than a keyboard and disk drive dongle.
From a software standpoint, there is no reason the 68k OS couldn't be at the same functional level as OS4 or MorphOS and thus almost completely source compatible and often binary compatible.
You could make some money off of Classic users while solidifying yourself as the market leader.
Having a larger percentage of the users and developers on your platform improves the community rather than working on incompatible alternatives.
If there was a unified platform, more resources could be expended on fixing either one of them.
Sure, some developers would leave if one of the two PPC OS's was gone or if they merged, but if 50% of the developers are working on something incompatible, 50% of them are only adding to the chaos.
-
+1 one partly to who ever said first "why discuss something that will never happen".
There is a deep mistrust between AOS4 and the MOS camp. Bring up the name Ben Hermans and see how the flame wars start... Just reread this thread and you can feel the palpable distain between the two different "camps" world view of who are in the right and who are in the wrong...
Even after all these years and all of the lost opportunities.
Yes, it would make sense. Yes it would be better to work together to pull coding resources towards common push forwards. But itx sums it ups quite succinctly, there is only one API that MOS and AOS4 have in common AHI. The rest they went there separate was, not only on the apprehension of reality, but on P96 vs CGX, MUI vs Reaction etc... At every turn they parted ways...
And all through this thread everyone has more or less argued the virtue one over the other, all rejecting the reality today that Intel compatible processors being from Intel or AMD are the only real alternatives today for end users for affordable hardware. And still no one has mentioned AROS???
Yes the MOS people can bash the AOS4 crowd over the head every time with the "low price" of second hand Apple Mac hardware in every argument when ones virtu is discussed over the other. But that doesn't change the fact that MOS compatible hardware isn't made anymore, and that the MOS capable hardware is getting rarer every day that passes and that more and more sellers are getting wise to it's value due to the prices middle aged amigians are willing to pay for it. So yes it's cheaper, but for what you get it's still expensive.
A unified next gen Amiga effort between AOS4, MOS and AROS would be nice. John Lennon Imagine fantastic even if it was for X86-64 processors. Heck, I'd even cheer for an ARM implementation!
What we need to do as Amiga users is to tell the application developers is to be multi platform. To try to be as "3.1 API" compatible as possible, and to deliver targets to AOS3.x, AOS4, MOS and AROS. It's a terrible cost, and it's holding us back...
But you can't ask me to pick one favorite.
I had the beta of AOS4 on classic. I have MOS on the Efika. I have OS3.x on classic. I have AROS on virtualization.
I love(d) them all. Most of them I still love.
But I can't say that one is more deserving than another to live on. And I know that I can't ask them to unify, as I know the people involved are too entrenched and have too much baggage with each other.
MOS will never have the speed or performance of AROS.
AROS will never have the compatibility of MOS. And I don't know AOS4 well enough to know what will be lacking there. But I'm sure I wouldn't be fully satisfied with it either...
And whats missing from my rant? Well, Amithlon. Another way the Amiga legend could have evolved...
Despite this rant, I have accepted where the Amiga legacy is now. It's fractured, but still living on.
MOS guys seem to be mostly focused on bringing it to new PPC hardware.
AOS4 devs seem to be slowly evolving (emphasis on slow) and only doing "new" hardware (new in quotes, as with the speed it's evolving, the hardware is old as new "payable" releases are done).
AROS guys are doing the "current" fad (with the exception of Toni Wilen who were doing a 68k version)
And Amithlon was killed off in a lawsuit (or threat of one) and never evolved at all...
So why focus on the OS devs? Focus on the app devs, and make sure they understand well were the users are. Tell them that they are "all over the place", tell them that you want to use your software key on AOS3.x and MOS, or on AROS and OS4 or what ever combo of amiga like OS's...
The guys now into MOS/AOS4/AROS or boing ball development are doing a great job. And people who are putting money into it like Amigakit and Trevor are doing obvious love affairs with their nostalgia. Thank you and kudos for that.
But it'll "dry up" without content. And for an operating system that means software.
Amistore has been mentioned here. That is a golden opportunity for the amiga community and the players to show that they want to build an Amiga ecosystem. Make it work and be available on AOS3.x, AOS4, MOS and AROS. It could be a great service to those who create amiga based software. Aminet was like this. All amiga based software was/is welcome. The user sees the software clearly annotated with what will it work with. It was a great platform for software developers to reach a huge user base back in the day. Amistore should first and foremost be for the developers. Then the users will come. When the developers are motivated and rewarded for putting their software there.
Just imagine Andreas Falkenhahn having one listing there for Hollywood, available on all amiga based platform, "one buy it now button" for all his versions of Hollywood. One button to rule all versions of all the four platforms...
Then, with that in place. Maybe the OS devs would be motivated down the road to harmonize and collaborate...
I apologise for the long rant...
-
A PowerPC card for the A4000 is a good idea. Expect a $1000 price tag though.
-
A PowerPC card for the A4000 is a good idea. Expect a $1000 price tag though.
So both cheaper and faster than the current hard to find ones! Nice.
I'm being sarcastic, but the current prices for those things are just stupidly high.
I'd much rather see all resources put into FPGA, Arm or x86, but we're still battling over which PPC OS is right.
-
I'd much rather see all resources put into FPGA, Arm or x86, but we're still battling over which PPC OS is right.
That's a pretty central point, and the reason why I stay away from MOS or AmigaOs 4. Basically, I don't understand their product and/or development policy. One dead obsolete platform is here replaced by another dead obsolete platform, giving me as a user a solution short of a problem. Thus, I don't quite understand what the intent with all the "ng"-Amiga is supposed to be, and didn't even back then.
Switching to x86 would have made some sense for users, but apparently the vendors currently try to take the user base hostage to finance the Os development by selling - sorry to say - outdated an overpriced hardware to users. I understand of course that if that switch would have been made, Os development could have not been financed by hardware sales, and hence it would have been unavoidable to open source the operating system to attract enough developers. Of course, that would have destroyed the business of selling the Os, but it would have preserved the Os, and might have established a platform for other products. And that, in the end, would then create income for the vendors. I mean, nobody is living from Os sales nowaways anymore. Including Microsoft.
One way or another, what happens here looks to me pretty much like throwing good money after bad money. Investments have been made to accquire the Aos rights, but there's currently no reasonable way to return these investments without damaging their own market - and that's what is currently happening by trying to sell non-competative products to a fan-basis for prices that would not be acceptable on a truely fair market.
My best guess is that, sooner or later, this market is also going to die away (because, ehem, the fans are... sorry) and then it's too late. Thus, I'm really short of seing any vendor creating some type of perspective here that could attract new users or could create a new market. A true plan (avoinding the word "vision") for the future is really asked for. All I can say is that the current plan (if it is one) is IMHO not going to work. Or, at least, it is not working for me and not catching my attention.
-
@thor, heiroglyph
+1!
-
A PowerPC card for the A4000 is a good idea. Expect a $1000 price tag though.
good idea? it has been attempted lately. expect it not to happen, simple as that.
-
Will never work. As much as anything there's different hardware routes.
Why would aros or mos want to adopt the ultra expensive/10-20 year old performance route? Doesn't make much commercial sense at all to begin with, and even less sense to drop affordable/easily obtainable hardware for something that's much more expensive and much less powerful (in the case of aros at last, mos h/w I guess isn't too dissimilar).
There's also the fact that one system in particular (near as I can tell) is trying to portray itself as a professional business, whereas the others (especially aros) are done soley as a labor of love. Somewhat incompatible agendas.
-
Will never work. As much as anything there's different hardware routes.
Why would aros or mos want to adopt the ultra expensive/10-20 year old performance route? Doesn't make much commercial sense at all to begin with, and even less sense to drop affordable/easily obtainable hardware for something that's much more expensive and much less powerful (in the case of aros at last, mos h/w I guess isn't too dissimilar).
There's also the fact that one system in particular is trying (albeit comically) to portray itself as a professional business (which is ironic as its attempts to do so have been the most comical parts), whereas the others (especially aros) are done soley as a labor of love. Somewhat incompatible agendas.
Not only incompatible agendas, incompatible intellectual properties. MOS folks, in theory, could (and more then likely would never do so) change to open source their code. Portions of OS4, OTOH, has tainted code with IP belonging to who ever owns (Cloanto?) AmigaOS (68K) because the OS4 original core Devs had access to the AmigaOS 68K source code when developing OS4. Only way for a unified OS that includes OS4 is for everything to swing to OS4 as open source and that would surely end up as a full blown disaster. Basically, merger of MOS and OS4 is impossible.
If the combine communities want a single unified OS, it will have to be based on open source (at least to start) with whatever code can be legally ported with clear intellectual property ownership and leave the closed and or tainted code behind. Good news is such an approach will leave certain legacy issues in the dust bin of history.
Now that will more then likely suck the last of the oxygen out of one or both camps but if you want a new beginning, you have to bring the old journey to it's final conclusion. Sadly, that can be too painful for some to do.
Alrighty, back to lurk mode...
-
Why would aros or mos want to adopt the ultra expensive/10-20 year old performance route?
Really?
So 1994 HW is on par with AmigaOne x1000?
-
No, but a bppc/csppc is about that mark. A Sam440 is about the 15year mark. X1000 is the 10yr figure I've mentioned.
Perhaps when trying to be clever you should consider the entire quote youre trying to twist?
-
Really?
So 1994 HW is on par with AmigaOne x1000?
He said 10-20 years, so if anything he was being optimistic.
10 years ago Mac G5s were up to 2.5GHz, close to 1GHz faster than an x1000.
The base model in 2004 was similar to an x1000 at 1.8GHz though.
Your comment actually only made the situation seem worse.
-
Heh, now I want to benchmark some 20year old pc gear. Given hardware drivers available 3d in particular might be interesting.
Back on topic though, yes, the "OS4 hardware is slow/expensive" conversation is old/tiring, but it happens to be an actual consideration if any thought is given to a merger. While those that do purchase a Sam/A1-X1000 seem happy enough with the quality of the hardware it's a pill that's just too hard for others to swallow, especially when they're already happy with their hardware running a very similar system and much the same software that's much cheaper and either just as fast, or a lot faster.
For the price of an a1-x1000 I could buy an i7 AROS machine, a g5 mos machine+license, some amiga-oid software and/or donations and a new tv.
I simply wouldn't have interest in pursuing the hobby anymore if I was forced into the OS4 price/performance eco system.
-
@fishy_fiz
The x1000 would give me more fun than the combination of an i7 AROS machine, a g5 mos machine+license and a new tv .
An some would have more fun just looking at the money in their bank account .
-
Well to be fair the cyb/bliz PPC was from 97, not 94.
The SAM440 although slow, is still alot faster than CyberstormPPC. The Pentium 3, form aorund 97/98 might have been clocked at the same speed as the SAM440, but with slower memory busses and, the introduction prices, was not really that low was it.
Preliminary test shows x5000 to be a lot faster than G5 macs.
Anyway, I can afford new amiga os hardware, I don't care much about the price, I do care that it is not old used hardware with a mac logo. But to each his own.
-
Can anyone give an unbiased pro/con list for current MorphOS and OS4 that doesn't involve hardware?
For example, MorphOS lacks a proper debugger and that's a show-stopper con for me.
I hear that you can use a debugger on OS4, but I can't personally attest to it.
-
Debugger....
here... http://hdrlab.org.nz/articles/amiga-os-articles/debug-logging/
and here... http://www.os4coding.net/news/debug-101-v1-first-class-debugger-os-41
Didn't I here something about a hardware based debugger for OS4.X? :confused:
-
Can anyone give an unbiased pro/con list for current MorphOS and OS4 that doesn't involve hardware?
For example, MorphOS lacks a proper debugger and that's a show-stopper con for me.
I hear that you can use a debugger on OS4, but I can't personally attest to it.
i think on aros hosted you can use gdb. apparently even with the aros68k under emulation. but i dont have any experience with it yet.
-
New Native OS 4 GDB in the works.
http://www.a-eon.com/PDF/News_Release_Software_Content.pdf
Can anyone give an unbiased pro/con list for current MorphOS and OS4 that doesn't involve hardware?
For example, MorphOS lacks a proper debugger and that's a show-stopper con for me.
I hear that you can use a debugger on OS4, but I can't personally attest to it.
-
ah, forgot the obvious link:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Aros/Platforms/68k_support
scroll down to gdb section.
-
ah, forgot the obvious link:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Aros/Platforms/68k_support
scroll down to gdb section.
Thanks.
So beyond that, how do they compare?
I was pretty impressed with Ambient, very polished. How does Workbench on OS4 compare?
Hows the stability? How seamlessly do 68k apps integrate?
What do you dislike in each?
-
@fishy_fiz
The x1000 would give me more fun than the combination of an i7 AROS machine, a g5 mos machine+license and a new tv .
An some would have more fun just looking at the money in their bank account .
And that's fine. But others wouldn't. If there was only one choice, the amiga community, regardless of preferred flavour would suffer.
-
You don't have to complain. If you like classic there will be faster FPGA accelerators soon.
-
Is that aimed at me?
If so,.... haha, that's funny.
Second time recently here someone has responded randomly to me about classics.
Where did I mention them, and who's complaining?
-
Anyway, I can afford new amiga os hardware, I don't care much about the price, I do care that it is not old used hardware
Must admit, I always find that argument a bit odd on Amiga forums. Don't most of us have old Commodore hardware in use that's at least twice as old (or three times) as a PPC Mac?
My G5 Tower from 2005 is at least 12 years younger than my newest Amiga.
-
Thanks.
So beyond that, how do they compare?
I was pretty impressed with Ambient, very polished. How does Workbench on OS4 compare?
Hows the stability? How seamlessly do 68k apps integrate?
What do you dislike in each?
Ambient is very polished yes, Workbench is.. well Workbench, it really depends what kind of Amiga user you were.
If you ran a Workbench replacement like Dopus Magellan, chances are you'll prefer Ambient, if you used Workbench with some add-ons, you'll feel more at home on OS4. Of course, you can run Dopus Magellan on either system as well.
Just down to taste really.
-
Just an idea but if people wanted to create a unified Amiga OS, perhaps it would be wise to start with something like NetBSD and lay out an Amiga esque userland on top of it.
That way, we'd have a kernel that could run on anything from 68k to x86_64. And at least for non-68k systems, running 68k applications wouldn't make much of a difference (they require emulation anyways).
-
* delete this
-
@danwood >> I was ofcourse talking about NG systems.
-
@danwood >> I was ofcourse talking about NG systems.
Of course, but my point is that even most NG users still have Commodore Amigas around too.
I'm sure most on this forum have at least an A1200 or 500 still.
-
If you ran a Workbench replacement like Dopus Magellan, chances are you'll prefer Ambient, if you used Workbench with some add-ons, you'll feel more at home on OS4. Of course, you can run Dopus Magellan on either system as well.
Just down to taste really.
Exactly, I was always a workbench + VincED + Dirwork user and I prefer OS4 Workbench over MOS Ambient. That's also why I think an unbiased comparison is impossible.
From the other side I do think MOS has some better technical lower level implementations compared to OS4 so as the latters use of .so objects.
-
Just an idea but if people wanted to create a unified Amiga OS, perhaps it would be wise to start with something like NetBSD and lay out an Amiga esque userland on top of it.
That way, we'd have a kernel that could run on anything from 68k to x86_64. And at least for non-68k systems, running 68k applications wouldn't make much of a difference (they require emulation anyways).
I always thought it would be great if MOS team worked with OS4 devs using Aeros as a base for OS5. It could bring together the best bits if all three OS's with the power, drivers etc of Linux. It would be multiplatform as well.
-
From the other side I do think MOS has some better technical lower level implementations compared to OS4 so as the latters use of .so objects.
So how is not supporting .so object better then supporting .so objects?
100% of all AmigaOS librarys are not .so files.
The only .so files you find is the onces ported from Linux. And having .so file support most defiantly helps poring over software like QT, hey if you don't like software that is ported from Linux your free to stick to only MUI and Reaction software, but chances are that even they contain linux libs ".a" files that have been linked into it.
Take mplayer for example do you know way mplayer exe file is so big?
Way is Odyssey Exe file so big?
Is statically linked .a files more or less amiga then sheard objects .so files?
Well its always a good idea to study, have you read the Hyperion blog about this.
http://blog.hyperion-entertainment.biz/?p=481
What you should find out is that OS4 Kickstart does not use sheard objects, because its not available until the OS is loaded, shared objects are not "shared" in memory, you should also notice the advice against making shard objects and when creating library for AmigaOS.
So way do we have shard object support? Well because statistic linked .a files make your programs fat, and also exe files that are statistic linked like mplayer for example has every thing built in, so if you wont to replace FFPEG lib in mplayer, you can't but if FFPEG was a .so file or .library file that be possible, so way are not all Linux libs ported as Amiga libraries, well because its a lot of work, and so that never happens.
Simply put "shard object" support is a compromise.
-
Exactly, I was always a workbench + VincED + Dirwork user and I prefer OS4 Workbench over MOS Ambient. That's also why I think an unbiased comparison is impossible.
From the other side I do think MOS has some better technical lower level implementations compared to OS4 so as the latters use of .so objects.
@Fats, Ambient in MorphOS3.7 can be set up to look like and function almost exactly like Workbench of any version, and vice versa. AmigaOS4.x's Workbench can be set up to look like, and work more like Ambient. Neither would be 100% the same as the environment they were trying to copy, but this argument alone should never be the sole reason for choosing one OS above the other to use as their preferred platform. When I see this statement used for the reason a user chooses one platform instead of the other, it makes me cringe and think that these users have not researched either choice very well, or even tried to customize either OS setup, which used to be one of the first things that most Amiga users did to their own systems. Where has that old Amiga trait of customizing and tweaking the user interface to their liking gone, or have most of us just become too lazy to do that kind of customization these days? I think that most Amiga users are smarter than that and should use other comparisons of features, performance and available hardware to run the OS on, as better reasons why to choose one OS instead of the other. The "Look and Feel" justification is one of the easiest differences to point to though, so it is often mentioned. I just hope it is not really true that users are making their choice on the "Look & Feel" factor, when it can be adjusted so easily on either OS to "Look and Feel" any way they like, even almost exactly like the other OS they are turning away from by making that decision. I prefer to read that a user has chosen one OS or the other for reasons of cost, or new vs used hardware, or free and Open Source vs commercial and Closed Source. At least those reasons make more sense to me, but not because of the "Look and Feel" of the user interface when it can be so easily changed. This little rant about the "Look & Feel" of either OS is not meant just for you and I am not assuming that you made your choices for that reason, but I have seen other users who have made specific statements like that before and your mention of "Look & Feel" just reminded me.
It is refreshing to see some reasonable discussion about the differences between AmigaOS4.x, MorphOS3.x, AROS (don't know what version range it is currently at these days) and AmigaOS3.x (emulated or native). Spirantho and I just had a great and rather lengthy discussion about the same topic (differences) via email, where he suggested we copy and paste our pages of discussion into a forum thread as an example of how to express different opinions, without becoming hostile or fighting with each other. His and my opinions are similar in a few areas, but it was apparent that we had many different opinions and experiences. His preference is to use and support AmigaOS4.x, while my preference is clearly MorphOS3.x, though I support all flavors of the Amiga/Amiga-Like experiences.
His perception of the pros & cons of each were very different than my own and I learned some new things about both platforms from the things he wrote. He also reinforced some of my perceptions on some of the more technical aspects of both, as his knowledge and expertise in coding and understanding the under lying structures of the OS itself exceed my current understanding.
(Edited out part of our private communication that should not have been paraphrased by me, out of context)
Some of the most interesting discussion I had with Spirantho (Ian Gledhill) was his perspective on the amount of low level infrastructure work that the Hyperion developers have been focusing on, to allow AmigaOS4.x to move forward to the goals of being able to implement the Protected Memory and SMP features promised for AmigaOS4.2. Since the MorphOS Dev. Team members have openly stated that those two features are not possible without breaking the legacy support for Amiga 68k software (or at least without undesirable consequences, due to the number or nature of compromises that would need to occur to allow such features to be added to MorphOS, or any platform which has an AmigaOS 68k software compatibility built-in)[/SIZE],
Since the MorphOS Dev. Team members apparently don't think those features are feasible without unwanted side effects, they probably are not doing any work to add Memory Protection and SMP to MorphOS, and instead their plan is to wait until they are forced to make an architecture switch, at which time they will abandon Amiga 68k legacy support, or "Sand-Box" such legacy support and use UAE to provide it, or some similar path forward.
I won't debate which path is better or worse, because I don't think such an argument can be won or lost, but there is no denying that the path that Hyperion programmers have chosen has taken (and will continue to take) hundreds, if not thousands of programming man-hours to work on implementing these features into AmigaOS4.x, without sacrificing too much of their own legacy support. We won't know how successful they will be, until AmigaOS4.2, or what ever version number they decide to use for the release version that includes these long awaited features, is finished and available for purchase and testing.
Memory Protection & SMP support are two features that would be very nice to have for lots of obvious reasons, but I am not sure that they are "Make or Break" features for me, with regard to my decision to continue supporting the development of AmigaOS4.x and using my X1000.
I got along very well for years on AmigaOS3.x and MorphOS without those features, so as long as I can still get some newer and more modern software applications (and a few new games) to enjoy on my X1000 running AmigaOS4.x, I probably will never complain if full Memory Protection and SMP support does not work, or never gets finished. If/When they do get finished, for me, that will be a big bonus, as it should increase the speed a few applications will be able to run at, will allow some applications to work, that currently can't be ported or written without SMP & Memory Protection, and it should reduce the number of fatal crashes we see, though I don't notice many crashes anyway right now.
MorphOS3.x appears to be making good progress without any plans to add full Memory Protection or SMP support, so my expectations aren't really any different for AmigaOS4.x.
Spirantho mentioned that he perceives an "End of the Road" for MorphOS development on PPC hardware, when they have completed support for the last few Mac PPC hardware choices that are not currently supported. My perspective is very different, and I actually look forward to the day when the MorphOS Dev. Team members are finished with trying to port MorphOS3.x to any other models of PPC hardware, as that will mean that they will have more time to focus on creating or porting more interesting and essential software applications and/or games to MorphOS3.x, as well as further optimizations of the OS itself instead of working on new drivers for hardware which will not improve performance or functionality, but only let us install MorphOS on one more model of existing PPC hardware.
This is one area where I think that A-Eon and AmigaKit have hit a "home-run". They see the value of now focusing their efforts on supporting the creation of more and better software to run on AmigaOS4.x, is their most important task. Having the software you need or want is what makes using any computer useful.
I hope that the MorphOS Dev. Team members will soon have more time to work on new, or newly ported software. More and better content/software applications and games, will probably do more for getting people excited and interested in using their Amiga, and/or Amiga inspired systems, than anything else.
I also hope that Soft-Core Motorola 680x0 CPU's running at speeds equal to, or exceeding 400MHz, loaded into FPGA chips on accelerator boards, inside of original Commodore Amiga computers, or stand alone FPGA Amiga clones, will spur on an increase of 68k software development. That kind of jump in performance should be able to allow software tasks that could never before be accomplished on any Motorola 68k based computer.
AROS and all of it's variants appear to have some really sharp programmers working on it over the past few years and great progress seems to have been made, with more just around the corner, that will eclipse all of the first 10+ years of work on AROS combined.
What a great time it is to be involved in any part of our remaining community! Certainly not a time to perpetuate the silly and childish fighting we see all too often.
-
I agree with Amigadave. The situation has improved in recent years with many updates in the different camps and new software. Of course there is a lot of to do and everyone can help, f.e. donating to bounties, help testing and giving feedback to developers, make documentation like tutorials for software, for optimizing and configuration of his preferred OS and much more. There are always popping up new threads requesting this or that from OS devs or the "community" instead to think about what they himself can do. That sounds a little lazy to me, instead making unrealistic requests people should do something himself. That was what I did, I never expected anything from others and always did what I could do myself (and will do that in future).
To the topic, it is much too late for a "unified OS" because there are both technical, legal and emotional reasons why this will never happen. What I personal hoped for was that the camps would agree on a common infrastructure to avoid unnecessary double work and speed up development and make it easier to crosscompile. Common are (in my view) PCI-support, USB, most of the system libraries and GUI system. The sources should be opensource. All user-related components like desktops and addons that are new and specific could have stayed closed. But I understand now that even this idea is unrealistic. So people should concentrate on what they have and help there.
-
Edited out this quote of the private conversation information I should not have paraphrased out of context, please forgive my mistake. AmigaDave
Well, no. Now it has been several years when I had Pegasos 2 and my memory is getting vague on these matters but there was great debate amongst users which configuration, one used by Linux or one used by MorphOS was better.
I cant remember which way around it was but IIRC in MorphOS 64-bit reads and writes were faster than in Linux but at expense of 32-bit read/writes (those are faster in Linux). Or was it vice versa, I cant remember anymore.
But it is strategy chosen by the MorphOS team and it is debatable which one is better. Linux or OS4 performance is not crippled in this regard.
Edited out this quote of the private conversation information I should not have paraphrased out of context, please forgive my mistake. AmigaDave
Of course because OS 4 was slower. If benchmarks were done on SAM460 or other platform there is no guarantee they would be using same configuration even on same hardware.
Spirantho mentioned that he perceives an "End of the Road" for MorphOS development on PPC hardware, when they have completed support for the last few Mac PPC hardware choices that are not currently supported.
That is funny statement.
This is one area where I think that A-Eon and AmigaKit have hit a "home-run". They see the value of now focusing their efforts on supporting the creation of more and better software to run on AmigaOS4.x, is their most important task. Having the software you need or want is what makes using any computer useful.
I hope that the MorphOS Dev. Team members will soon have more time to work on new, or newly ported software. More and better content/software applications and games, will probably do more for getting people excited and interested in using their Amiga, and/or Amiga inspired systems, than anything else.
Uhm, but this is what MorphOS team is doing and what Hyperion is not doing. There is bunch of useful software developed or ported by the MorphOS team, starting from Odyssey web browser to SDL ports. Sketch, Transfer, Scandal, Scribble, RemoteShell, Jalapeno, Jukebox or VPDF are examples from the MorphOS ISO. And dozens of ported or new libraries making porting and writing software easier. And there is new and ported software released externally.
-
@OlafS3
You mention something which would be very useful, actually.
I can see that for many parts, there are similarities rather than differences, but for some bits such as the PCI and USB that you mention, the APIs are quite different. If they were standardised across platforms it would make driver development much easier across platforms. Even graphics APIs are separating more and more now.
We should celebrate the differences in the underlying OS between MorphOS, AmigaOS and AROS, while striving to keep software flowing on all the OSes... but as the APIs move away from each other this will get harder and harder.
Ideally I would like there to be an independent "Amiga-like" council which would define APIs - each OS would contribute submissions via RFCs to the multi-platform council which would then ratify or deny that submission before it became standard.
This could never happen, though, because each of the OS owners would say "Why should we? We're a different OS - we're not responsible for the other OSes. We'll do what we like, thanks".... plus in my experience there would be precious little agreement about how the APIs should work - but it would be nice.
-
Spirantho mentioned that he perceives an "End of the Road" for MorphOS development on PPC hardware, when they have completed support for the last few Mac PPC hardware choices that are not currently supported.
That is funny statement.
Just to clarify - what I meant is that once all the Mac PPC models are supported, they're going to be stuck with increasingly ageing hardware which is going to get more and more obsolete. They're going to need to change to another ISA such as x86 or ARM if they're going to stay at all current - I don't think there can be any argument to that.
If they don't, then in the future AmigaOS will be using multi-GHz multi-core low-power brand new hardware, AROS will be using brand new low-cost x86 hardware, and MorphOS will be stuck to ancient Mac Behemoths without any support for the current technologies - that would be a bad thing for MorphOS.
-
@OlafS3
You mention something which would be very useful, actually.
I can see that for many parts, there are similarities rather than differences, but for some bits such as the PCI and USB that you mention, the APIs are quite different. If they were standardised across platforms it would make driver development much easier across platforms. Even graphics APIs are separating more and more now.
We should celebrate the differences in the underlying OS between MorphOS, AmigaOS and AROS, while striving to keep software flowing on all the OSes... but as the APIs move away from each other this will get harder and harder.
Ideally I would like there to be an independent "Amiga-like" council which would define APIs - each OS would contribute submissions via RFCs to the multi-platform council which would then ratify or deny that submission before it became standard.
This could never happen, though, because each of the OS owners would say "Why should we? We're a different OS - we're not responsible for the other OSes. We'll do what we like, thanks".... plus in my experience there would be precious little agreement about how the APIs should work - but it would be nice.
I have a alternative idea. In "normal life" I am programming on Windows using Delphi in different variants and Visual Studio. Common is that all are based on class libraries that hide the internals. As a application programmer I do not care about Win32 or other APIs, I use the classes of the library. The only chance I see (besides standardizing the APIs) would be to use a kind of Amiga class library that hides the differences so you could crosscompile a source without needing to make specific changes. The only problem is you need that for every language and you need experts who adapt the needed changes for every platform. I am myself (as written) a Pascal fan so Free Pascal (that is now available for 68k, Aros X86 and MorphOS, for AmigaOS there is a older port available) are first choice but that is a personal thing. Amiga-E is a good candidate too with many includes available and of course C. Solutions like Bytecode similar .NET are propably too complicated to do.
To the idea... the class library(s) should be open source so everyone can contribute. The big advantage... easy to crosscompile and changes would only be needed one time (in the class librarys) and not in every application. And it would be easier for outsiders to start on the platform.
-
@OlafS3
The other problem with abstraction layers like that (or even bytecodes like .NET) is that of speed. We will always suffer from a lack of speed compared to Windows machines, and as programs get heavier and heavier in their resources it's going to become more and more impractical. We need to grab as much power out of our "Amiga" machines (whatever they are) - the primary advantage we have is that we have much more lightweight operating systems. If we go the way of bytecode and abstractions we lose that strength entirely.
Abstraction is great for porting software, but useless for ekeing the most power out of the hardware, which is especially necessary for Amiga-like systems (particularly so when porting MAME, trust me :) )
-
@OlafS3
The other problem with abstraction layers like that (or even bytecodes like .NET) is that of speed. We will always suffer from a lack of speed compared to Windows machines, and as programs get heavier and heavier in their resources it's going to become more and more impractical. We need to grab as much power out of our "Amiga" machines (whatever they are) - the primary advantage we have is that we have much more lightweight operating systems. If we go the way of bytecode and abstractions we lose that strength entirely.
Abstraction is great for porting software, but useless for ekeing the most power out of the hardware, which is especially necessary for Amiga-like systems (particularly so when porting MAME, trust me :) )
yes abstraction has some cost but in my view the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. One big advantage is that there is a higher chance that developers from outside start with it. I have contact to a lot of former amiga-developers that were known for their projects. Unfortunately most of them have long left the platform and are not interested to return. For a real new developer with no previous experience the learning curve is very steep, the start difficult (missing modern development environments, not enough documentation, not many tutorials, no class libraries and so on). If they could use at least a standardized class library start would be much easier. It would be even useful to have a standardized class library that is implemented for different languages so you could transfer your knowledge and would only need to learn another language.
Might be that there are very specific projects that need every bit of power but for most applications that would not be a problem. Bytecode was only one example for crossplatform development, it would be too complicated to do and needed too much manpower for our small community.
-
Just to clarify - what I meant is that once all the Mac PPC models are supported, they're going to be stuck with increasingly ageing hardware which is going to get more and more obsolete. They're going to need to change to another ISA such as x86 or ARM if they're going to stay at all current - I don't think there can be any argument to that.
If they don't, then in the future AmigaOS will be using multi-GHz multi-core low-power brand new hardware, AROS will be using brand new low-cost x86 hardware, and MorphOS will be stuck to ancient Mac Behemoths without any support for the current technologies - that would be a bad thing for MorphOS.
That is going to take several years and there is always possibility that MorphOS is ported to some future AmigaOne hardware or gets ported to different CPU arch.
I just found it funny because there is no future for PowerPC on desktops. If A-eon calls it a day it is the end of AmigaOS 4.
-
@OlafS3
The other problem with abstraction layers like that (or even bytecodes like .NET) is that of speed. We will always suffer from a lack of speed compared to Windows machines, and as programs get heavier and heavier in their resources it's going to become more and more impractical. We need to grab as much power out of our "Amiga" machines (whatever they are) - the primary advantage we have is that we have much more lightweight operating systems. If we go the way of bytecode and abstractions we lose that strength entirely.
If not losing on speed then we are losing on application development. It is so much faster to type programs in C# using .NET than using relatively low level languages like C. When C programmer is working on 0.7 beta C# programmer is already finalizing new features to forthcoming 3.1 release.
And speed is not so much important anymore when we are at 1GHz+ range. Most of time CPU is running almost idle wasting its potential.
We are already using bytecode in sense how we run 68k programs on PPC and it is fast enough. We just dont get advantages of .NET with it.
-
It depends on what you want to do.
If you want to encode (or decode) video, play MAME, that sort of thing, then using bytecode would be impossible.
I know what you mean, though - for less demanding applications, high level programming languages like C# or Java can speed up the writing massively - but as usual different applications have different requirements, so we can't force people to use high-level code as it could be disastrous (especially for things like device drivers).
-
......... So people should concentrate on what they have and help there.
Nice post Olaf. I did not quote the whole thing, but give you a +1 for all of what you wrote.
If everyone just enjoyed what they have chosen to use and concentrated on how they can help improve any part of our community, things would be much better than they are now and programmers would be more encouraged to work on new code for any of our platforms. When there is less fighting between users, there also seems to be more cooperation between 3rd party developers, and more software that gets written or ported to different Amiga inspired platforms.
@everyone,
I want to take this opportunity to apologize to Spirantho for paraphrasing some of our private discussion, as it has hung him out on a limb for possible criticism by some users or developers, without the benefit of the context of our entire discussion. I was going to come back here and just delete that part of my post, but some of you have already quoted what I wrote and commented on it with posts aimed at Spirantho. His suggestion to copy and paste our private discussion to the forums as an example of how these differences can be discussed without any fighting or hostile words was rhetorical and not literal, and I should not have paraphrased what he wrote out of context, or without his permission. Please do not attack him for my mistake.
-
It depends on what you want to do.
If you want to encode (or decode) video, play MAME, that sort of thing, then using bytecode would be impossible.
I know what you mean, though - for less demanding applications, high level programming languages like C# or Java can speed up the writing massively - but as usual different applications have different requirements, so we can't force people to use high-level code as it could be disastrous (especially for things like device drivers).
Bytecode is not solution to everything but you could write a MP3 encoder in C# and use encoder libraries written in C.
-
Uhm, but this is what MorphOS team is doing and what Hyperion is not doing. There is bunch of useful software developed or ported by the MorphOS team, starting from Odyssey web browser to SDL ports. Sketch, Transfer, Scandal, Scribble, RemoteShell, Jalapeno, Jukebox or VPDF are examples from the MorphOS ISO. And dozens of ported or new libraries making porting and writing software easier. And there is new and ported software released externally.
Yes, I know very well that many MorphOS Dev. Team members also create new, or port existing software to MorphOS. My point was that if they slow down or stop working on ports of MorphOS to new PPC Mac models which are not currently supported, it will leave them with even more time to continue work on more software for MorphOS to run. In that way, running out of more PPC Mac models to try to support can be a good thing for MorphOS users, not a bad thing, like the "End of the Road", that some might perceive incorrectly. As itix also pointed out, it will take years before lack of new hardware becomes a real problem for MorphOS. Perhaps by then, cheaper PPC systems with acceptable performance might be available from ACube or A-Eon, as I see no reason why the MorphOS Dev. Team can't port to new hardware if they believe that it is a viable hardware choice, or no other choices are available and the switch to a different architecture is not ready to happen.
Using old Mac PPC hardware should remain an acceptable choice for a few more years, unless they begin going to recycle facilities or land fills, instead of eBay and Craigslist at reasonable prices, like it is now. I think my PPC Mac computers will last long enough for me to continue using them, until an architecture change is made by MorphOS Dev. Team members, or until they find other alternative PPC hardware to port to.
My comment was about Trevor Dickinson and Matthew Leaman of A-Eon and AmigaKit respectively, not Hyperion, and the recent efforts to help programmers, plus A-Eon's/AmigaKit's sponsorship of software projects, such as the Libre Office port, and others. Hyperion appears to have more programming work than they can accomplish quickly, just trying to complete AmigaOS4.2. I was commenting on A-Eon's & AmigaKit's increase in focus toward supporting more and better software to run on AmigaOS4.x, now that hardware availability is not the problem it was, prior to ACube's SAM boards becoming available and A-Eon's X1000.
I hope that all flavors of Amiga and Amiga inspired platforms will soon enjoy increased software development, for various reasons, and that was the main point I was trying to express. New content could be the best thing to happen for us in a long while, now that we have a fairly large number of hardware models to choose from. Even the Amiga 68k users and programmers appear to be getting new hardware soon, and hardware has never been a big concern for the AROS users and programmers, as their choices have been fairly wide for a long time already.
I just hope that enough programmers are still alive (we keep losing old Amiga users and programmers to natural causes and old age) and/or still interested in our community, and that some of our younger users will take this opportunity to learn how to program on one or more of the Amiga & Amiga Inspired platforms (I am going to improve my own meager coding skills within the next few years, so maybe even I will be able to produce something useful or fun in the near future).
-
Bytecode is not solution to everything but you could write a MP3 encoder in C# and use encoder libraries written in C.
Yes, that's a good description of when to use bytecode (final app) and when not to (the guts of it) - and illustrates how we need both quite well.
-
To the topic, it is much too late for a "unified OS" because there are both technical, legal and emotional reasons why this will never happen. What I personal hoped for was that the camps would agree on a common infrastructure to avoid unnecessary double work and speed up development and make it easier to crosscompile. Common are (in my view) PCI-support, USB, most of the system libraries and GUI system. The sources should be opensource. All user-related components like desktops and addons that are new and specific could have stayed closed. But I understand now that even this idea is unrealistic. So people should concentrate on what they have and help there.
+1. Let Darwinism do it's thing. It would be nice if some code can flow between projects, but such is life if it can't.
-
My comment was about Trevor Dickinson and Matthew Leaman of A-Eon and AmigaKit respectively, not Hyperion, and the recent efforts to help programmers, plus A-Eon's/AmigaKit's sponsorship of software projects, such as the Libre Office port, and others.
Genesi used to sponsor developers with free hardware but many just took free hardware, sold it and then quit. Some developers did develop something and then quit. Only few lasted longer so personally I dont see it viable option. Even when developers have good intentions it gets easily wasted, like with Spotify.
Bounties work better but someone must get committed to update software regularly.
-
The only .so files you find is the onces ported from Linux. And having .so file support most defiantly helps poring over software like QT, hey if you don't like software that is ported from Linux your free to stick to only MUI and Reaction software, but chances are that even they contain linux libs ".a" files that have been linked into it.
I don't have problem with porting Linux software. I have a problem with run-time linking which makes program startup non-instant which in my eyes is not Amiga-like.
When I start a browser on my A1SE it takes a few seconds to start up.
You should also find more info on this site and on the AROS dev archives on why I think that everything where they use .so now for - including plugins - can be done using amiga style shared libraries using compile time linking.
Simply put "shard object" support is a compromise.
In my eyes a bad compromise: it trades off user experience for developer comfort.
Of course all in my idealized definition of what an Amiga OS should be.
-
The "Look and Feel" justification is one of the easiest differences to point to though, so it is often mentioned. I just hope it is not really true that users are making their choice on the "Look & Feel" factor, when it can be adjusted so easily on either OS to "Look and Feel" any way they like, even almost exactly like the other OS they are turning away from by making that decision.
It's very difficult to really put the finger on it and it's likely more than just look & feel but the whole behavior of the system. And yes I did try to change the look (it was already a year or so ago so not the recent MOS version). If it really can be done it is not as easy as you seem to try to point out.
One example of look I can't get used to is the button style interface to switch between multitabbed shells; I did not find a setting to transform that in tabs as GUI element.
All said I do enjoy using MOS less than using OS4, although I hardly use any of the two lately. You may find it irrational and I have to admin it is subjective. I am also one of the guys who thinks DirectoryOpus went the total wrong way with version 5.
If you want to call me ignorant because of this I think we have to disagree.
Edit: This is in no way an attack on people who do enjoy using MOS over OS4. I can fully understand that and please do enjoy it; just realise other people may think differently and you will never understand them :)
-
@OlafS3
You mention something which would be very useful, actually.
I can see that for many parts, there are similarities rather than differences, but for some bits such as the PCI and USB that you mention, the APIs are quite different. If they were standardised across platforms it would make driver development much easier across platforms. Even graphics APIs are separating more and more now.
We should celebrate the differences in the underlying OS between MorphOS, AmigaOS and AROS, while striving to keep software flowing on all the OSes... but as the APIs move away from each other this will get harder and harder.
Ideally I would like there to be an independent "Amiga-like" council which would define APIs - each OS would contribute submissions via RFCs to the multi-platform council which would then ratify or deny that submission before it became standard.
This could never happen, though, because each of the OS owners would say "Why should we? We're a different OS - we're not responsible for the other OSes. We'll do what we like, thanks".... plus in my experience there would be precious little agreement about how the APIs should work - but it would be nice.
I think the OS devs make there a big mistake. From my outside view (you can correct me) that is expecially the case for the AmigaOS devs. I know that Aros and MorphOS are very similar and highly compatible to AmigaOS 3.X whereas I know for several projects who had problems to support AmigaOS. Biggest problem for Aros is still MUi-support (Zune) if that is solved most applications work. I see that when I test applications on Aros Vision where I could add MUI38. AmigaOS seems intentionally go in a different direction and force developers to decide for or against AmigaOS. That works as long most devs are only supporting one platform and not really interested in crossplatform development, as soon this changes (f.e. a commercial market is again slowly developing) that will strike back and then there will be no chance to correct that without breaking all software. What do you think?
-
I think the difficulty that's being faced is that AmigaOS has to change the API, whereas MorphOS doesn't. AmigaOS's long term goal is SMP and memory protection. That's a heck of an undertaking, and where a load of work has gone already (that's not been noticed because it's invisible to the end user). As MorphOS has been concentrating on single-core hardware, I haven't seen it making the groundwork towards SMP - which would require changing the API (like AmigaOS has done). SMP will never work on AmigaOS unless the API-changing groundwork is done first.
If and when MorphOS starts work on SMP (have they done so already? I really don't know) they too will have to change the API somewhat, but I just wish it would be with changes that are compatible with AmigaOS's API changes. Not going to happen, though, I suspect....
-
I think the difficulty that's being faced is that AmigaOS has to change the API, whereas MorphOS doesn't. AmigaOS's long term goal is SMP and memory protection. That's a heck of an undertaking, and where a load of work has gone already (that's not been noticed because it's invisible to the end user). As MorphOS has been concentrating on single-core hardware, I haven't seen it making the groundwork towards SMP - which would require changing the API (like AmigaOS has done). SMP will never work on AmigaOS unless the API-changing groundwork is done first.
If and when MorphOS starts work on SMP (have they done so already? I really don't know) they too will have to change the API somewhat, but I just wish it would be with changes that are compatible with AmigaOS's API changes. Not going to happen, though, I suspect....
You think the changes are SMP-related? I more thought they were done because of no interest what the others do. There are a number of cases where they reimplemented something but not compatible (neither to 3.X nor Aros/MorphOS).
Latest with 64bit nothing will run anymore so recompiling of everything would be necessary. The only camp where they are testing with SMP officially is Aros (Arix), if MorphOS or AmigaOS are heading in that direction yet is unknown. I read that the MorphOS devs would do 64bit and SMP in case of a ISA change and if I see it right (from outside) they have not yet decided where to go so they are propably concentrating on improving the existing base.
-
Besides as I understand it SMP is promised for decades (I think I read a announcement from 2003) but for 4.2 they only promised MESA/Gallium-support. 4.2 was paid by X1000 users so they will certainly concentrate on fullfilling the contract and features like SMP will have to wait. Another thing, will AmigaOS users accept a solution like Amibridge existing in Aros in AmigaOS? If not they have a serious problem with SMP.
BTW what do you think of my idea of a standardized Amiga class library?
-
The AmigaOS devs aren't stupid. They don't just change and break APIs for no reason - it's far too much work to do unless they need to.
As a maintainer of an OS, the first thing you need to do is to take the code you're given (in this case a patchwork of M68K and PPC 10 year old OS3 code). Then you need to clean it up and lay the groundwork for the future of the OS (in this case SMP and memory protection). Only then can you actually start on the new technologies themselves. That's exactly what Hyperion have been doing.
Already we're seeing some of the fruits of their labour (e.g. the Extended Memory system for >2GB RAM which is one of the main benefits of 64-bit architectures). This sort of thing would have been much harder without the API changes.
I think many of the misconceptions surrounding Hyperion developers is that they're idiots. They're not. There are reasons why they do what they do (but they're not always obvious to the end user). They don't create work for themselves just for the heck of it. It's not in their interests to do nothing except break APIs - they need to keep pushing the OS forward otherwise they'll never sell another copy, and they're well aware of this.
-
If and when MorphOS starts work on SMP (have they done so already? I really don't know) they too will have to change the API somewhat, but I just wish it would be with changes that are compatible with AmigaOS's API changes. Not going to happen, though, I suspect....
From MorphOS developer point of view I have not seen any changes in AmigaOS 4 that would support SMP.
-
The AmigaOS devs aren't stupid. They don't just change and break APIs for no reason - it's far too much work to do unless they need to.
As a maintainer of an OS, the first thing you need to do is to take the code you're given (in this case a patchwork of M68K and PPC 10 year old OS3 code). Then you need to clean it up and lay the groundwork for the future of the OS (in this case SMP and memory protection). Only then can you actually start on the new technologies themselves. That's exactly what Hyperion have been doing.
Already we're seeing some of the fruits of their labour (e.g. the Extended Memory system for >2GB RAM which is one of the main benefits of 64-bit architectures). This sort of thing would have been much harder without the API changes.
I think many of the misconceptions surrounding Hyperion developers is that they're idiots. They're not. There are reasons why they do what they do (but they're not always obvious to the end user). They don't create work for themselves just for the heck of it. It's not in their interests to do nothing except break APIs - they need to keep pushing the OS forward otherwise they'll never sell another copy, and they're well aware of this.
I did not write "idiots", I wrote "not interested". The difficulty of adding SMP is if applications automatically benefit of it or only if they are adapted to use it. SMP (how it is tested on Aros/Arix) is designed to automatically use several cores and that is much more complicated than a kind of PowerUp solution. That will not work without major changes on the system and that breaks 68k compatibility. For Aros no problem, MorphOS would make a break too but what will AmigaOS user say when that happens. 68k integration (in difference to using emulation) was a major reason to use PPC (and not another ISA).
-
I wasn't referring to you, particularly, more to the whole feeling I get from other people on forums like this. Usually the same people who accuse AmigaKit of making lots of money on the X1000, as though they're all driving Ferraris or something (but that's a different argument for another day :) ).
SMP has to be transparent, otherwise it wouldn't be SMP. The difficulty will be getting SMP working without breaking binary compatibility, as you say. I suspect the solution would be to have "SMP-enabled" binaries and "legacy binaries" which can only run on the one core. I don't really know, though, I'm just guessing there.
-
The AmigaOS devs aren't stupid. They don't just change and break APIs for no reason - it's far too much work to do unless they need to.
As a maintainer of an OS, the first thing you need to do is to take the code you're given (in this case a patchwork of M68K and PPC 10 year old OS3 code). Then you need to clean it up and lay the groundwork for the future of the OS (in this case SMP and memory protection). Only then can you actually start on the new technologies themselves. That's exactly what Hyperion have been doing.
Certainly, and that's - from the perspective of a developer - also the correct thing to do, i.e. for the purpose of a clear Os design. I can fully appreciate that. However, and that's a big "however", this seems to happen (as I observe it, as an outsider) without really having done a requirements analysis. Hence, what is the end product supposed to do, which problems is it supposed to solve, and who wants to buy that for which purpose.
When it comes to those questions, I always keep scratching my head. Actually, not for AmigaOs 4.x itself, but also for MOS.
It seems to me that the two camps are here developing an Os for the pure purpose of developing an Os. This makes probably a nice hobby, but it does not sound like a sustainable business strategy. If it's not a business, then what's the problem of giving the Os away to those that want to play with it as a hobby in first place? Why do I need to buy into more obsolete hardware for that? I don't understand...
-
If and when MorphOS starts work on SMP (have they done so already? I really don't know) they too will have to change the API somewhat, but I just wish it would be with changes that are compatible with AmigaOS's API changes. Not going to happen, though, I suspect....
SMP and other goodies breaking up compability will probably come whitn an ISA switch. While AOS4.x tries a slow transition (we'll see how well that will work out), MorphOS will do that with a hard cut.
-
That's another question - is MorphOS with a new SMP API, a new ISA and no binary compatibility with 68k Amiga or PPC MorphOS actually MorphOS at all? Or is it another OS by the same developers?
It will be interesting to see what happens for both OSes, I think! Anybody doing an API switch is going to have to be careful (particularly if they go x86) not to just reinvent the good work the AROS devs have done.
-
It's a preference thing. I own both MOS and OS4 machines, and love both OS's for what they offer.
But there's still some things I am more comfortable interface and user experience wise with OS4 vs. MOS, and all the skinning in the world won't change that. Think of it as how people prefer their morning breakfast rituals - some people take their coffee with cream and sugar, some like it piping hot and entirely black. I'm just more comfortable with OS4, but you couldn't pry my MOS boxes out of my cold, dead hands.
OS4 is not a better OS than MOS, or vice versa. Both are great experiences, but you'll likely prefer one over the other for strictly proprietary and personal reasons. It's the same reason why one person will buy a Chevy over a Ford, etc. It's a hobby, and it's a fools game to try and compare a hobby OS with a mainstream OS in terms of functionality. I for one am thankful that in the Amiga scene we have all the choice in OS's that we do.
I've not tried AROS for some time, but I hope it gets to the point where I can build a new PC and simply install AROS on the machine. As it sits, I lost a lot of interest in AROS when I had to build specific hardware builds to run it optimally. I built an AROS machine up, then just converted it to an Amithlon machine. That in itself doesn't make AROS a poor choice, it just wasn't for me, I suppose. I hope in the future AROS (native, non hosted) can support pretty much any commodity hardware, but as it sits I can't even begin to consider running it on this machine - it doesn't work at all on this particular hardware, but the devs are covering a lot of ground rapidly with the hardware support, so I'm expecting very good things out of AROS over time. It is quite a chore for them to try and support all commodity hardware, no doubt. That being said, I'm admittedly and vehemently against "hosted" OS experiences, and I am aware that the hosted versions support a lot more hardware than native does.
-
I think the difficulty that's being faced is that AmigaOS has to change the API, whereas MorphOS doesn't. AmigaOS's long term goal is SMP and memory protection. That's a heck of an undertaking, and where a load of work has gone already (that's not been noticed because it's invisible to the end user). As MorphOS has been concentrating on single-core hardware, I haven't seen it making the groundwork towards SMP - which would require changing the API (like AmigaOS has done). SMP will never work on AmigaOS unless the API-changing groundwork is done first.
If and when MorphOS starts work on SMP (have they done so already? I really don't know) they too will have to change the API somewhat, but I just wish it would be with changes that are compatible with AmigaOS's API changes. Not going to happen, though, I suspect....
I must admit, I'll be highly impressed with Hyperion if they can successfully implement smp and memory protection while remaining compatible to current apps.
There are those who claim it's impossible, and famously even Apple tried and failed with Copland.
-
One OS to them all
One OS to find them
One OS to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them...
Sorry I've been drinking
I like it! And is there one machine to do it all?
Or from the question posed do I fall,
What maketh or breaketh the ideal OS
Depends upon what the user bringeth..
Sorry not drinking enough, and hence the pseudo jibe :)
-
That's another question - is MorphOS with a new SMP API, a new ISA and no binary compatibility with 68k Amiga or PPC MorphOS actually MorphOS at all? Or is it another OS by the same developers?
Yes and no I'd say. If API changes that drastically that you need to rewrite all your code completely, then it's definitely a new whole OS, but if API stays rather similar (changes are of course inevitable and on a rather low lovel) then I'd say it's still the same OS. Probably somewhere in between. And i would welcome if MorphOS "NG" will still come with some compability to the old stuff, IMHO best approach in a boxed away implementation: http://via.i-networx.de/q86.htm
-
That's another question - is MorphOS with a new SMP API, a new ISA and no binary compatibility with 68k Amiga or PPC MorphOS actually MorphOS at all? Or is it another OS by the same developers?
If Amiga OS4 can be Amiga OS, while running on a completely different, utterly incompatible platform to the previous versions, only offering native support to a tiny fraction of Amiga software, I don't see why not.
-
I've not tried AROS for some time, but I hope it gets to the point where I can build a new PC and simply install AROS on the machine.
Good! So please learn the needed coding, and start writing drivers for the hardware you own. I'm afraid even if everyone here (and I mean anyone reading this) will do the same, we won't see AROS supporting ALL available PC hardware anyway. There's too much hardware to support, and too little people writing drivers, so the best we can do is trying to support all common standard and then hope that specialistic code will be brought by somebody else. Maybe, why not, some from the people currently just complaining that AROS does not work on their PC, that they had to buy (cheap, often already used) components, and maybe at the same time dream about buying that blazing, rare and uncommon $3000 hardware needed to run other operating systems (to basically do the same things, btw).
-
Since Linux runs on most next-generation hardware in some form, I think the Arix kernel's ability to bridge between AROS software and Linux drivers is the most plausible solution for unifying the Amiga community. All it would need (assuming the project is not delayed indefinitely) is some cross-compatibility bridges like OS4Emu on MorphOS to be able to run other applications AmiBridge-style as well.
My preferred solution to the driver scenario is actually to require everyone to give up on GFX cards that are incompatible with the Amiga chipsets and use FPGA technology to accomplish hardware compatibility. :) After all, if we could get next-gen performance out of a classic model Amiga, why bother with all the graphics card kludges?
Not that there is much point to this. Once unified, the Amiga community may still fall flat on its face.
-
Good! So please learn the needed coding, and start writing drivers for the hardware you own. I'm afraid even if everyone here (and I mean anyone reading this) will do the same, we won't see AROS supporting ALL available PC hardware anyway. There's too much hardware to support, and too little people writing drivers, so the best we can do is trying to support all common standard and then hope that specialistic code will be brought by somebody else. Maybe, why not, some from the people currently just complaining that AROS does not work on their PC, that they had to buy (cheap, often already used) components, and maybe at the same time dream about buying that blazing, rare and uncommon $3000 hardware needed to run other operating systems (to basically do the same things, btw).
i just thought about some possibility to improve the situation. one of the main issues is when the rtg hardware is not supported by gallium or any specific driver. it was discussed before but i think perhaps if the vesa driver was extended to accept screenmode change on the fly it could fill in the gap. is that possible at all? my interest in ths would be to have native aros driver for rtg cards in aris 68k esoecially for thise nit supported by p96drivers via uaegfx wrapper.
-
Since Linux runs on most next-generation hardware in some form, I think the Arix kernel's ability to bridge between AROS software and Linux drivers is the most plausible solution for unifying the Amiga community. All it would need (assuming the project is not delayed indefinitely) is some cross-compatibility bridges like OS4Emu on MorphOS to be able to run other applications AmiBridge-style as well.
My preferred solution to the driver scenario is actually to require everyone to give up on GFX cards that are incompatible with the Amiga chipsets and use FPGA technology to accomplish hardware compatibility. :) After all, if we could get next-gen performance out of a classic model Amiga, why bother with all the graphics card kludges?
Not that there is much point to this. Once unified, the Amiga community may still fall flat on its face.
Or Aeros, which allows you to run Linux apps as well. two different approaches, Arix hides the linux kernel, Aeros allows you to use it. To me having the ability to run Linux apps makes me want to dedicate hardware to it.
We all want different things, it would be hard to see one OS providing everything we want.
-
Nope, ARIX doesn't use the Linux Kernel, but rather a shiv.
Aeros is an interesting oddity in my opinion, but given the Linux hosted AROS side is what is amiga-oid about it, it fits the description of Linux distro more than anything, rather than an additional OS.
-
I must admit, I'll be highly impressed with Hyperion if they can successfully implement smp and memory protection while remaining compatible to current apps.
There are those who claim it's impossible, and famously even Apple tried and failed with Copland.
One of the main things that is a problem is that Forbid() is not SMP friendly. When a task calls Forbid() it expects no other process will run at the same time also not on another CPU. Currently this function is used a lot both in the OS libraries as well as in programs themselves.
So one of the things being done is to replace Forbid() locking in the OS functions with other means of locking. Likely this will break compatibility with some programs that expect the exact Forbid() behavior. This in turn will be enough for some forum whiners to claim the result is a not 100% compatible system but for more pragmatic persons it may be good enough as most of the programs will still run without problems and also giving you the advantage of SMP.
This still leaves the programs that themselves are heavy Forbid() users. This can likely be solved by penalizing the performance of these programs by rate limiting Forbid() calls so non-heavy Forbid() users are not much impacted and run (almost) at full speed. Probably enough material again for some people to complain loudly.
-
Nope, ARIX doesn't use the Linux Kernel, but rather a shiv.
Aeros is an interesting oddity in my opinion, but given the Linux hosted AROS side is what is amiga-oid about it, it fits the description of Linux distro more than anything, rather than an additional OS.
I will have to check out Aeros more closely to see if it emulates, or copies the "Look & Feel" of the original Commodore AmigaOS3.1 computers for my taste. I don't personally care if it is a Linux distribution or what name it has applied to it. If it can run all of the old Amiga software seamlessly by using UAE in a way that makes it almost transparent, or at least very easy, but not transparent, and I can also run new AROS native software, plus the huge library of Linux software, without requiring a reboot, or restart of the system each time I want to run software from a different platform, it will probably satisfy my needs and desire to run an Amiga Inspired platform. Has Aeros been ported to the X1000 already? I would use it on mine, instead of any alternative Linux distribution.
@Fats,
Similar to what I just wrote above about Aeros, if AmigaOS4.x needs to lose all ability to run AmigaOS 68k binaries and only rely on using Run-in UAE as the only method to run old 68k Amiga software, so that they can implement SMP and real Memory Protection, I would vote YES! Do it ASAP and dump the partial binary compatibility that Petunia provides, if it will give us real SMP and Memory Protection. I have a feeling that this is not the case and there are other things that are holding them back from providing SMP and Memory Protection, or they most likely would have done it already.
-
Genesi used to sponsor developers with free hardware but many just took free hardware, sold it and then quit. Some developers did develop something and then quit. Only few lasted longer so personally I dont see it viable option. Even when developers have good intentions it gets easily wasted, like with Spotify.
Bounties work better but someone must get committed to update software regularly.
Bounties are a good solution for funding some software projects, but as you pointed out, they don't guarantee that the software created will be maintained in the future.
With our needs for new software being so huge, I believe that any and all means to support and encourage new software development should be used, including bounties, sponsored commercial projects, and maybe even a few Kickstarter projects, along with donated hardware and the creation of sites like the AmiStore or other online services which make it easier for programmers to sell their work and continue programming for our platforms. There is no single solution and I guess we will always be struggling to get more and better software for our platforms, until such time when we are large enough to make it more financially desirable to program for any of the Amiga inspired platforms (if we ever reach that point again is doubtful).
-
@amigadave
Mostly it was semantics in reply to earlier responses. If people are going to be using Linux of some description Im all for them using it with an amiga spin.
-
One reason unification will never work is nobody will ever agree on a balance as to compatibility with legacy applications and adding modern features. Frankly, the majority of the software I as a user depend on:
Vi/Vim
Clang/PCC/GCC & binutils
Firefox and Thunderbird
ZSH/KSH93
Perl
BSD user land tools
X11/xWayland
All of these can be recompiled. For those using older, proprietary products you're obviously going to be forced to emulate or stick with older releases,but this isn't unlike Windows or OS X, where changes in ABI/API and architectural generations results in software not working. For instance, I know of a program for Windows XP that won't run on any 64-bit CPUs regardless of the OS being 32-bit, the developer used an undocumented instruction in the x86 instruction set in his code. In addition it is tied closely to the 32-bit ABI of Windows XP so it won't run under Vista or higher. So you're screwed if you want to use the program ( it is a soft microphone emulator intended for audio production ) on anything modern.
This is why I push for products to be either made with an open licence and source available state, or else well-written so they will work ten years down the line. Just the other day I built a copy of System V R4 based on the source on Archive.Org. Had a boatload of warnings but it compiled and reportedly ran on my friend's old 386 box ( he lost a bet with me and has to use System V R4 for a week. I bet him Ian Jackson would resign from Debian. Had I lost I would have had to use Yggdrasil Linux for a week ) That also being said, I wasn't able to run a binary for Windows under Wine because there is an undocumented bug in the MS version of the DLLs it needs.
-
One of the main things that is a problem is that Forbid() is not SMP friendly. When a task calls Forbid() it expects no other process will run at the same time also not on another CPU. Currently this function is used a lot both in the OS libraries as well as in programs themselves.
So one of the things being done is to replace Forbid() locking in the OS functions with other means of locking. Likely this will break compatibility with some programs that expect the exact Forbid() behavior. This in turn will be enough for some forum whiners to claim the result is a not 100% compatible system but for more pragmatic persons it may be good enough as most of the programs will still run without problems and also giving you the advantage of SMP.
This still leaves the programs that themselves are heavy Forbid() users. This can likely be solved by penalizing the performance of these programs by rate limiting Forbid() calls so non-heavy Forbid() users are not much impacted and run (almost) at full speed. Probably enough material again for some people to complain loudly.
You mean users are stupid trolls, right?
I mean, if the user has bought system to run his software collection he does expect it does run his software in the future, too. If you make clean break and say, this is not going to run 68k software anymore, then it is different. But dont expect users are going to buy into this because to many Amiga is just a hobby.
-
You mean users are stupid trolls, right?
I mean, if the user has bought system to run his software collection he does expect it does run his software in the future, too. If you make clean break and say, this is not going to run 68k software anymore, then it is different. But dont expect users are going to buy into this because to many Amiga is just a hobby.
But that's the main problem I have with all the "NG Amigas" in first place. I mean, if I need powerful computing and new programs, I already have a solution for that. I already have a PC. Thus, why exactly would I want to buy new expensive (avoing the phrase "overpriced") hardware to run incompatible software from a niche market? I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but I simply don't get the business model of all this...
I mean, 68K Amigas satisfy at least one demand, and that's retro computing and retro gaming, and apparently, there is *some* demand for it, even though it's not a big market. If you buy into this hobby, you also have a solution, and these are the old machines. Where the NGs fit into I fail to understand.
-
Where the NGs fit into I fail to understand.
Simple, NG users want to run AOS4 and/or MorphOS.
-
Simple, NG users want to run AOS4 and/or MorphOS.
Ok, and why that? I.e. you are explaining the answer with the question. In particular, I want to understand the motivation why people buy into that.
-
Wrote reply, entirely lost due to Amiga.org's ridiculous auto-logout whilst writing it.
Again.
Edit: managed to get it restored, thankfully this browser retains form contents when back-paging. Unlike amiga.org's forum software which helpfully trashes the whole post when re-logging in.
-
Ok, and why that? I.e. you are explaining the answer with the question. In particular, I want to understand the motivation why people buy into that.
When i first tried OS4 (and subsequently MorphOS) that was my reaction - frankly i couldn't see the appeal. Fewer applications, and not much patching (like i was expecting after OS3.x).
On top of that, no esoteric hardware to collect, and not much 'mystery' to exploring its capabilities - where's the 'Amiga' in plugging in a pci card, having rtg already available, and not having to sacrifice chickens or set cryptic env-vars and tooltypes?
I went back to OS3.9 and Amiga hardware.
Eventually i realisedi was switching onthe a4000t less and less, until it didn't even get unpacked after a house move. A couple of minor issues never got resolved which made it even less fun, and i grew wary of powering up £2000+ worth of ageing equipment every time which could easily break down and be worth near-nothing.
I realised i wanted to continue using my Amigas, but without the headaches and the financial roulette wheel of ageing hardware already running near to its limit and still not-quite-achieving. With a csppc/a4000t/rtg/usb/etc...there was nothing left to upgrade.
MorphOS, released on the mac-mini, offered the ideal choice: fast OS, in active development, fast cheap hardware that is easily replaceable, no hardware mess to maintain/troubleshoot,maximum backwards compatibility (although inow use very few 68k apps anyway due to more recent, better quality, native replacements/versions), and a large overlap in the venn diagrams of user base.
One morething is that it's not just the OS and applications, but also the community that is a common between Amiga and MorphOS (and OS4.x). Most of the people who helped me get the most out of the Amiga are the same people who help get the most out of MorphOS.
-
Ok, and why that? I.e. you are explaining the answer with the question. In particular, I want to understand the motivation why people buy into that.
lets face it. it must be a kind of complex that dates back to actual amiga days. in particular to its decline. amiga users were accustomed to their superiority and good laugh at others, especially ibm compatible fraction. as the advantage slowly disappeared and turned to the opposite the most so called reasonable users went with the opportunity. who was left behind and still constitutes most of what is supposed to be amiga scene are the die hard people, who never reconsider. they were already in the decline of amiga always hard pushed to find a justification for their choice and prove, how much better amiga is than the alternatives, even though it actually wasnt anymore. when amiga disappeared as an actual product they were forced to substitute for this in order to continue the procedere of bashing other platforms, because after all this emotional investment this must have been a point of no return. the actual product had to be to substituted with some hardware that just wasnt obviosly a plain pc but could be used as a reference for comparisons even though then could never be as favourable anymore. i must admit, i belong there somewhere in the middle field, the only excuse i have for my behaviour is, that im somewhat aware of the nonsense.
-
It's really hard for me to fully admire the above motivations. In AmigaOs times, I had a system I understood completely, pretty much every corner of it, so I could exactly do what I wanted, and I had a community around it. Nowadays, Linux has taken over and replaced this, to some degree, even though the complexity is higher. Anyhow, with enough effort, one can learn the inner workings of the system and set it up exactly as one wants it - and that's not possible with Windows. Plus, there is also an active community, but its much larger, and it is harder to keep on track, but yes, there is.
Nowadays, I get either a modern system with a modern Os on it which I can face and configure to my linking (Linux), or I can get an old system for the nostalgic feeling of it (Amiga), whenever I want to look into some old programs, old musics, probably some of the old pictures from DPaint, whatever, and the NG systems are not a completely adequate replacement - they offer a different "quality of experience".
I don't quite get the point why there's any room between the two for anything "more novel but still obsolete", and PPC hardware *is* obsolete, either because it is old (MOS) or because it is "obsolete by design" (AOS). If I'd like to reach out for the Amiga community (rarely these days), there are still the 68K machines, so I don't need them for that. If I want modern applications or more computing power, these machines don't offer that either due to lack of compatibility. If I need a specific application, it either runs on the 68K anyhow because it's a legacy Amiga application, or it runs on Linux on a PC, or under Windows. There's nothing "unique" about MOS or AOS software in this respect, there is no "killer application".
I also admire that there's probably some need to modernize the old hardware in a very careful, backwards compatible way to keep the software working - simply because the hardware is aging and will fail to function at some point. That's quite the same as restoring old cars. I can follow this motivation as well,
But neither AOS nor MOS fit into this picture. Both are incompatible niche systems which do not offer an advantage for either modern demands, or demands of retro computing.
Anyhow, we don't need to carry on the discussion, I'm probably too old, or too young, or something else got lost on the road, I don't know....
-
Ok, and why that? I.e. you are explaining the answer with the question. In particular, I want to understand the motivation why people buy into that.
There's only one motivation for hobbies: People like it. Why do they like it? Because they just do. It's the emotional part of being human. There's no sense in asking why, it just is.
Why do I like peanut butter? Because it tastes good? Well, yes, but why do I think it tastes good? I don't know!
Same with old cars. Someone buys a bucket of rust for 3000 bucks, and then starts fixing it up, spending another 3000 bucks in the process and a lot of time. Why? Because they enjoy doing that. Why do they enjoy doing that? They just do.
Don't try to explain or understand the emotional part of being human, there's just no point.
-
That was just my personal experience, others no doubt have different motivations. :)
There's probably also an element of laziness, and or being a bit of a luddite: after investing so long getting to know Amiga operating systems, the thought of starting again with some Linux distro just doesn't appeal.
I'm just happier spending time messing with an amigalike system than i am with a nix, windows or mac one. I still feel that sense of achievement when i get something complex working on an amigalike system, which is lacking if i do the same under windows, etc (just a sense of relief that the tedium is over).
As per your comments, i also appreciate having a system i can configure to my own needs, which seems to be the opposite of the ms/apple philosophy where everything is hidden and done for you, or likely to reconfigure itself because it 'knows best'.
For me, MorphOS hits the spot: powerful enough hardware, most software needs covered (office suite would be nice), affordable, allows me to keep my hobbies without becoming a hoarder (no space for a dozen desktops these days) and as a bonus the hardware is modern enough (albeit on a poorly supported architecture) to run nix/osx if i need it. No Windows of course, but i can live with that.
-
It's really hard for me to fully admire the above motivations. In AmigaOs times, I had a system I understood completely, pretty much every corner of it, so I could exactly do what I wanted, and I had a community around it. Nowadays, Linux has taken over and replaced this, to some degree, even though the complexity is higher. Anyhow, with enough effort, one can learn the inner workings of the system and set it up exactly as one wants it - and that's not possible with Windows. Plus, there is also an active community, but its much larger, and it is harder to keep on track, but yes, there is.
Dunno why but I never got warm with Linux. Am trying it since ages from time to time, but it always sucked. Starts with the file system not being volume based. Of course I understand that system, but I just don't like it. Same for the bash. Powerful and potent, but I don't like the bash. The MorphOS shell feels more human.
Call it what you want, but Linux always was and still is geeky under the hood. there's a reason why it never really took off for end users. Yes, I can learn that, but it's not comfortable. Setting up a Linux system that works and behaves to my taste would be quite a lot of work. Why should I do that? Before I use Linux I always prefer Windows.
Ppl are different. I prefer MS Visual Studio over emacs/gcc (yes I _can_ use that, too, but I don't like it). Thing I am saying: ppl are different and while I acknowledge technical power that doesn't mean it's the best for everyday usage.
For me MorphOS fits best in. The system comes well configured already and everythimg is easily and logically configurable. I know the system quite well and teh kind it is organized fits to my habbits (which of course are also shaped by Amiga).
Why should I force myself to use another system when there is a system that fits to me?
-
It's really hard for me to fully admire the above motivations. In AmigaOs times, I had a system I understood completely, pretty much every corner of it, so I could exactly do what I wanted, and I had a community around it. Nowadays, Linux has taken over and replaced this, to some degree, even though the complexity is higher. Anyhow, with enough effort, one can learn the inner workings of the system and set it up exactly as one wants it - and that's not possible with Windows. Plus, there is also an active community, but its much larger, and it is harder to keep on track, but yes, there is.
Nowadays, I get either a modern system with a modern Os on it which I can face and configure to my linking (Linux), or I can get an old system for the nostalgic feeling of it (Amiga), whenever I want to look into some old programs, old musics, probably some of the old pictures from DPaint, whatever, and the NG systems are not a completely adequate replacement - they offer a different "quality of experience".
I don't quite get the point why there's any room between the two for anything "more novel but still obsolete", and PPC hardware *is* obsolete, either because it is old (MOS) or because it is "obsolete by design" (AOS). If I'd like to reach out for the Amiga community (rarely these days), there are still the 68K machines, so I don't need them for that. If I want modern applications or more computing power, these machines don't offer that either due to lack of compatibility. If I need a specific application, it either runs on the 68K anyhow because it's a legacy Amiga application, or it runs on Linux on a PC, or under Windows. There's nothing "unique" about MOS or AOS software in this respect, there is no "killer application".
I also admire that there's probably some need to modernize the old hardware in a very careful, backwards compatible way to keep the software working - simply because the hardware is aging and will fail to function at some point. That's quite the same as restoring old cars. I can follow this motivation as well,
But neither AOS nor MOS fit into this picture. Both are incompatible niche systems which do not offer an advantage for either modern demands, or demands of retro computing.
Anyhow, we don't need to carry on the discussion, I'm probably too old, or too young, or something else got lost on the road, I don't know....
When I was A1200 user only (still have few classic amigas), I learn how to use LWave, ImageFx, FXPaint, Pagestream etc.
For me MorphOs is excelent OS because I still use same software (without UAE) and speed is awesome. Before MorphOS, I was try to use Windows, MacOsX, Linux (Ubuntu, Puppy, etc.) with UAE.
Just to do same stuff with same software. I hate to boot one Os, waiting for updates of antivirus, java, browsers before I can start UAE.
Linux is nice Os, but I don't have time to learn about billions folders and files. Also I don't like when Linux wanna be smart and change something which was working perfectly. (gfx, monitor freqency, etc.).
So I found MorphOs perfect for my needs. Why? Very fast respond unlike everything on non Amiga systems, same software, and few modern applications which covers web, movies, etc.
If you count that after 10+ years I spend only 300 euros for my "new" computer and OS, and zero on X86 stuff, I found my joy as smart move.
Only minor problem is when I show my work to some people I got respone...oh nice, you know how to use Photoshop. How to answer that? :)
-
I think similar to Thomas Richter... for me it is really surprising what people managed to realize with MorphOS or Aros (X86) or AmigaOS but I do not really see the sense of NG. For all amiga-related things I have 68k (using it on emulation) and for normal work I have Windows (7 and 8). I do not need something between. The only exception is a reimplementation of amiga (with its chipset) in a modern FPGA. It has some geek-factor and it is different to what I normal use. A PPC-based system that is 95% identical to a standard PC-board but either a old Mac or a expensive custom PPC board is not very interesting to me.
-
I do not really see the sense of NG.
It's because some people just like NG. That's all there's to it. Nothing to understand, it's just the way it is. That's what hobbies are about. People do what they like doing, and they use what they like using. Why? Because they just do. There's no use in trying to make sense of it. The same can be asked about classic. Why do I like my A1200? Because it's cool. Why do I think it's cool? I don't know, I just do.
-
I don't quite get the point why there's any room between the two for anything "more novel but still obsolete", and PPC hardware *is* obsolete, either because it is old (MOS) or because it is "obsolete by design" (AOS). If I'd like to reach out for the Amiga community (rarely these days), there are still the 68K machines, so I don't need them for that.
There are two good reasons.
If you are using real Amiga you must patch OS and install upgrades.
If you are using real Amiga you must patch HW and install upgrades.
With MorphOS you just buy some $20-$200 HW from ebay, install OS from USB or CDROM and if you like it you register it online. That is Amiga made easy.
Real Amiga can do same but personally I am not ready to invest my time and money to get it there. Not anymore.
I had to sacrifice some level of compatibility, I can only run RTG compliant software on it. But it was not great loss because my Amiga 1200 could run only RTG compliant software anyway (I didnt have TV available to Amiga).
-
It's because some people just like NG. That's all there's to it. Nothing to understand, it's just the way it is. That's what hobbies are about. People do what they like doing, and they use what they like using. Why? Because they just do. There's no use in trying to make sense of it. The same can be asked about classic. Why do I like my A1200? Because it's cool. Why do I think it's cool? I don't know, I just do.
I did not say that my view (or the view of Thomas) is the only one. The same is that some here still hate X86, it is not rational at all. But it will be hard for "NG" to win new users because people outside compare it to the alternatives (that are better because of more money and more developers). I read somewhere that the people at Hyperion said better PPC than X86 because people would compare it with Windows when it runs on X86. That is both wrong and true, of course it is true that people would compare a X86 version of AmigaOS (or MorphOS) with other OSs, but it is also wrong because people always compare it with existing alternatives. Example for a OS that failed because of using X86 was BeOS, but I think BeOS did not fail because of X86 but because of not enough software. But I accept that there are people preferring a "obscure" OS running on "obscure" hardware because I do the same, just using another OS/hardware combination :-)
-
I read somewhere that the people at Hyperion said better PPC than X86 because people would compare it with Windows when it runs on X86. That is both wrong and true, of course it is true that people would compare a X86 version of AmigaOS (or MorphOS) with other OSs, but it is also wrong because people always compare it with existing alternatives.
Nope :) People still compare MorphOS or AmigaOS to Windows, no matter were they running on same hardware or not.
-
There are two good reasons.
If you are using real Amiga you must patch OS and install upgrades.
If you are using real Amiga you must patch HW and install upgrades.
With MorphOS you just buy some $20-$200 HW from ebay, install OS from USB or CDROM and if you like it you register it online. That is Amiga made easy.
Real Amiga can do same but personally I am not ready to invest my time and money to get it there. Not anymore.
I had to sacrifice some level of compatibility, I can only run RTG compliant software on it. But it was not great loss because my Amiga 1200 could run only RTG compliant software anyway (I didnt have TV available to Amiga).
Not long ago I was on a amiga-meeting. There were a lot of Amigas with lots of addons, from A500 up to A4000. One was showing MorphOS on Mac Mini. Really a nice system (from first sight) but I do not think that there were people dropping their Amigas in favor of MorphOS (or AmigaOS). They like to tinker around with their old machine, build in exotic accellerators or sound cards. The only thing that really might create interest (and that is from my point of view the vast majority of amiga users) could be a FPGA accellerator they can use to update their old hardware. Or perhaps a good standalone device. "NG" is perhaps the loudest and most visible group in web but it is not representing the majority of users. What do you think?
-
Not long ago I was on a amiga-meeting. There were a lot of Amigas with lots of addons, from A500 up to A4000. One was showing MorphOS on Mac Mini. Really a nice system (from first sight) but I do not think that there were people dropping their Amigas in favor of MorphOS (or AmigaOS). They like to tinker around with their old machine, build in exotic accellerators or sound cards.
And when you dont like to tinker with it, what choices you have there? If you go to WinUAE you still have to update OS with patches and upgrades.
The only thing that really might create interest (and that is from my point of view the vast majority of amiga users) could be a FPGA accellerator they can use to update their old hardware. Or perhaps a good standalone device. "NG" is perhaps the loudest and most visible group in web but it is not representing the majority of users. What do you think?
Old Amiga users are loud, too. It is built-in to Amiga users, I think :) But there are more 68k users than NG users combined, just more fragmented with different ideas and requirements.
-
And when you dont like to tinker with it, what choices you have there? If you go to WinUAE you still have to update OS with patches and upgrades.
because either there is no entity beyond any doubt authorized to improve the system incorporating the most neccessary patches or there is deliberate intention not to allow for it. whatever the case, the chance to keep the system faithful to its genuine spirit and have it reasonably updated without the perspective of sacrificing the compatibility is improving aros68k. it is not presently in a state that is enough to fulfill these demands fully, i admit, but the prospect is there.
Old Amiga users are loud, too. It is built-in to Amiga users, I think :) But there are more 68k users than NG users combined, just more fragmented with different ideas and requirements.
they arent. in fact there is even a group refusing the fpga approach, but you will not hear of them too much. the loudest and most annoying fraction is actually the one that dismisses amiga as an obsolete platform, but advocates ng as the true stuff and demands loyalty and support for their case. interestingly morphos and aros fans are seldom that insistant.
-
There are plenty of logical reasons to not like x86. I prefer my Tetra K1 development board from my job for work many times over my howling dual Xeon system, which, since getting the board, isn't being used as much.
Why don't I like x86? Number of reasons:
High power consumption, heat generation etc ( My workstation howls like a jet taking off )
Patent protected, poorly documented/supported SIMD instructions for C compilers
Glitchy, unreplaceable EFI that won't boot Linux BSD correctly
Expensive, compared to my ARM boards.
x86_64 assembly is harder to debug, read and program for, and you have to deal with useless addressing modes such as real mode.
I really like my ARMv7 A8-Cortex BeagleBone and my ARMv8 Tegra K1 I use for work. They aren't perfect, they aren't going to blow you away with power but they're wonderful, inexpensive computers that do more than my workstation does with a lot more power.
Now with OPENPOWER, OPENSPARC, and various MIPS CPUs abound building a less expensive, open source hardware board that does what is needed should be possible. I'll consider the Apollo 68k designs good when they have them running on a dedicated ASIC or built as a CPU. As I said, A-EON should partner with TYAN to adapt some of their CPU designs to a newer, less expensive AmigaNG system,since TYAN already manufactures POWER hardware.
-
it is not a matter of like or dislike. I yesterday bought a notebook with 2 core 2.7 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 500 GB Harddisk, GPU, WIFI and so on incl. Win 8 for 238 EUR (used). There is nothing that can compete right now with such offerings.
Then you get support at every corner, something that is very important. If you have obscure hardware you have a problem there. Used Macs may be a exception there.
-
it is not a matter of like or dislike.
Oh, but it is. If I like something, and I can afford it, I get it. If I don't like something, and I don't need it, then I don't get it. If people want NG and they can afford it, then they buy it. It's a hobby after all. No other justifications needed.
-
Oh, but it is. If I like something, and I can afford it, I get it. If I don't like something, and I don't need it, then I don't get it. If people want NG and they can afford it, then they buy it. It's a hobby after all. No other justifications needed.
I answered to TeamBlackFox
I know that people for some reason want to use NG even if I personal am not very much interested. It is only a discussion where people exchange different views.
-
You mean users are stupid trolls, right?
No, the people who are not user but use the fact that one or two programs don't run or have to be run in UAE to put rants on forums are the trolls. The users should use the OS they enjoy the most; hobbyist devs should work on the features they enjoy the most.
-
No, the people who are not user but use the fact that one or two programs don't run or have to be run in UAE to put rants on forums are the trolls. The users should use the OS they enjoy the most; hobbyist devs should work on the features they enjoy the most.
Why should it matter if they put rants on forums?
-
As I said, A-EON should partner with TYAN to adapt some of their CPU designs to a newer, less expensive AmigaNG system,since TYAN already manufactures POWER hardware.
With A-Eon's investment of more than 1 million dollars to Vari-Sys to design and build PPC motherboards for running AmigaOS4.x (and possibly some embedded markets), I don't see them changing directions any time soon, or switching to a different company to do design work, or manufacture boards for future A-Eon computers.
I think they are committed to the road they have laid out in front of themselves for many years to come. This decision has it's own pros and cons, but one of the pros is that the direction they are going for the next few years anyway, should be stable and predictable, for users and developers who are interested in continuing development of AmigaOS4.x on PPC hardware. I am not personally convinced 100% that this is the best path forward, but it might turn out to be the best choice we will have for future NG Amiga hardware. I would like to see MorphOS also ported to future A-Eon motherboards, so we could have a new common hardware for both PPC NG Amiga inspired OSes, besides the SAM460, which I still consider to be a bit low powered (and there is no telling when the port of MorphOS will be finished for the SAM460).
-
IMHO after the X1000 they should have made the X500 for 1/4th of the price.
It should have been at least 2Ghz dual core. I'm not seeing myself putting 3000Euro on any computer even the latest IMAC of MacPro even less on an Amiga but I totally understand those who do.
As for an unified OS forget about it. The nearest AmigaNG experience I'd like to try is WinUAE/FSUAE with AmigaOS 4.1 final.
Kamelito
-
A-EON should partner with TYAN to adapt some of their CPU designs to a newer, less expensive AmigaNG system,since TYAN already manufactures POWER hardware.
OMG!!! :lol:
Did you even think that through before hitting the "submit reply" button? ;)
:)
-
OMG!!! :lol:
Did you even think that through before hitting the "submit reply" button? ;)
:)
*Ahem* I don't appreciate being insulted and addressed in a patronising manner. I did logically think this through: For roughly the same price as a brand new X1000, I could buy a POWER8 server ( The PA6T is based on POWER5, for reference, and that is 5 revisions behind the POWER8, counting the + revisions ) I am seriously getting something worth every penny I pay, compared to the X1000, which is using 10-year old tech and passing it off as a new system.
With A-Eon's investment of more than 1 million dollars to Vari-Sys to design and build PPC motherboards for running AmigaOS4.x (and possibly some embedded markets), I don't see them changing directions any time soon, or switching to a different company to do design work, or manufacture boards for future A-Eon computers.
All very good points, but if Varisys doesn't offer hardware that is cost-effective to build, and performs poorly, what's the point? Besides you and a few others, I don't know anyone who even owns an X1000, let alone laid eyes on it. I'm sure they were the best option when A-EON was founded by far, but you have to jump ship if the current one is leaking. I can't imagine Trevor and A-EON have made much in terms of profits, and while I know none of those involved in OS4 do it for the money, I can't have expected them to survive long running a deficit, especially with the banks so reluctant to lend money.
I yesterday bought a notebook with 2 core 2.7 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 500 GB Harddisk, GPU, WIFI and so on incl. Win 8 for 238 EUR (used). There is nothing that can compete right now with such offerings.
Sorry to burst your delusion, but there are: http://elinux.org/Jetson_TK1
I have experience with that board above, and it is a wonderful board that I have been given the pleasure of using, for free, for work purposes. It is quite powerful, not to mention inexpensive, and performs probably twice as good as your laptop's integrated graphics pipe, and depending on the CPU generation, comparable or better than the CPU.
Not exactly the cheapest ARM board out there, but definitely a winner in terms of cost/performance. I also bought a BeagleBone Black for $55+$11 shipping, and that is no slouch either, I have it running Gentoo until my friend, the developer of Void Linux and a former NetBSD developer, ports Void to it. It is very fast, about 4-6 times the speed of a Raspberry Pi, which is about the speed of a 300MHz Pentium II. Do the math, and you can tell it blows the transistors off of a Pentium III running at 1GHz, which I have running PFSense here, especially in power consumption.
I'd love to benchmark the TK1 against an old Mac Mini G4, I suspect that since it has twice the RAM, many times the bus speed, a faster CPU and GPU, it will beat it at nearly every record. When Project Denver, the ARM64 Tegra comes out, it will do better than almost every Intel Atom and likely a G5 CPU in terms of performance.
x86_64 is so messed up, that it has literally 63 different instructions that can perform the jump operation. An audit against the instructions used by the Linux kernel to the instructions present in a modern x86 CPU, in hardware or microcode, came to be roughly 1 instruction used by Linux for every 10 the CPU offered. And it has to maintain that massive instruction set, either in hardware or microcode, in addition to anything else AMD or Intel wants to cram into the chip. The patent-protections on these chips prevents third-party compilers, such as GCC and Clang, from fully utilising the instruction sets, forcing you to either use a proprietary compiler and the OS it will run on to build your OS and programs, or else contend with only being able to utilise a fraction of a chip's instructions.
The problem, I will remind you, with using the x86 architecture as a base, are the following:
The hardware is so diverse that with the tiny size of the community, only a small subset of that hardware will ever be supported. The BSD community, which is at least 4 times as big as the Amiga community, has trouble with this on almost every system built today. Your average GNU/Linux distro that doesn't use blob drivers not merged into the Linux kernel only supports about half the computers out there to satisfactory level, adding blobs from Nvidia or AMD raises it to about 70-80%. The GNU/Linux-libre distros? Less than 10%.
The Amiga community won't be able to utilise blobs, because Nvidia, AMD, Realtek, Intel etc. won't write them, unless you're referring to the Linux-hosted version of AROS, so you can count on their support being less than 10%, even in a unified state.
Furthermore, most members here don't even use AmigaOS or an OS that in any way resembles Amiga OS, the majority uses Windows, with lesser minorities using OS X and GNU/Linux, and then you have the esoteric ones like me who use BSD, IRIX and Solaris, operating systems most people aren't even aware exist. So what's the point? Most are on here to discuss WinUAE or maintaining old hardware, so one could argue that the apathy and lack of participation among userbases would effectively stifle any effort to modernise the OS or the hardware underlying it, let alone UNIFY it. You're kidding yourself if the switch to x86 will do anything other than piss in the well of the users who sunk money into NG hardware, frustrate new users with lack of hardware support, and fragment the community even more, and perhaps even cause MorphOS or OS4 to be forked again, making yet more players into a market the size of a quark.
-
x86_64 is so messed up, that it has literally 63 different instructions that can perform the jump operation. An audit against the instructions used by the Linux kernel to the instructions present in a modern x86 CPU, in hardware or microcode, came to be roughly 1 instruction used by Linux for every 10 the CPU offered. And it has to maintain that massive instruction set, either in hardware or microcode, in addition to anything else AMD or Intel wants to cram into the chip.
Why do you actually care so much about that? It's utterly irrelevant when it comes to performance or programming. You have the compiler to keep care about the code generation, problem solved. It might have been an issue 1987 when people still had to program partially in assembly, for some parts at least, but that's almost 20 years ago. We don't work this way anymore. Actually a lot of code is in high-level languages these days, with many levels of software and translation between the actual CPU, and the only thing that really counts is compatibility to legacy code and performance. The patent-protections on these chips prevents third-party compilers, such as GCC and Clang, from fully utilising the instruction sets, forcing you to either use a proprietary compiler and the OS it will run on to build your OS and programs, or else contend with only being able to utilise a fraction of a chip's instructions.
Pardon me? Since when does a patent disallow a compiler to emit a specific instruction? Please backup this claim - just the opposite, I'm pretty sure the intel folks do the best to provide customers with full support for their hardware. At least, this was my experience - the intel open source folks were always very helpful and open when I approached them. The hardware is so diverse that with the tiny size of the community, only a small subset of that hardware will ever be supported. The BSD community, which is at least 4 times as big as the Amiga community, has trouble with this on almost every system built today. Your average GNU/Linux distro that doesn't use blob drivers not merged into the Linux kernel only supports about half the computers out there to satisfactory level, adding blobs from Nvidia or AMD raises it to about 70-80%. The GNU/Linux-libre distros? Less than 10%.
Probably you then shouldn't even attempt that, and depend on hardware by vendors that release specs. See above, I had good experience with intel these days. Sure, you don't create a gaming machine with intel chipset graphics, but it's way ahead compared to what Amiga could do ages ago, and what "hand-rolled" hardware can provide. You're kidding yourself if the switch to x86 will do anything other than piss in the well of the users who sunk money into NG hardware, frustrate new users with lack of hardware support, and fragment the community even more, and perhaps even cause MorphOS or OS4 to be forked again, making yet more players into a market the size of a quark.
That's an argument that always comes up when you want to throw good money after bad money. Exotic hardware was a bad investment in first place. At some point, you'll have say that it isn't worth spending anymore and stop the nonsense. The error doesn't get better by making additional investments - the error gets worse. If you do, you're only trying to lie to yourself by finding justifications for having made a mistake in first place, and - if you ask me - all the Amiga NG stuff on proprietary hardware *was* a big mistake. Two options exist: Either make this a complete software thing and depend on off-the-shelf hardware, or make it a complete retro thing and try to build on the 68K/custom chip hardware from old times.
-
@TeamBlackFox
Always interesting to read the posts of someone like minded.
Personally, I'd love to see Amiga going down the ARM road. It just makes sense, if you think about it.
ARM is inexpensive, quite powerful and can easily be adapted to something like an A1200 case.
I still have a Beaglebone Black lying around that I spent 50 euros on but haven't used since.
If I have time to spare over the holidays, I might give it a go, install a patched Linux (or perhaps something BSDish) on it and try and run E-UAE through the framebuffer.
-
Personally, I'd love to see Amiga going down the ARM road. It just makes sense, if you think about it.
ARM is a nice processor family, and not outdated as PPC or 68K, but that doesn't change the problem. As soon as you're depending on non-standard hardware, prices will be high and products will be non-competative because you're operating in a very small market. Unless you see AmigaOs working on a smart phone or a tablet, but it's not exactly designed for that, neither the power management (which power management?) nor the user interface. So yes, it's a nice solution from an engineering perspective, but it won't fly either.
-
ARM is a nice processor family, and not outdated as PPC or 68K, but that doesn't change the problem. As soon as you're depending on non-standard hardware, prices will be high and products will be non-competative because you're operating in a very small market. Unless you see AmigaOs working on a smart phone or a tablet, but it's not exactly designed for that, neither the power management (which power management?) nor the user interface. So yes, it's a nice solution from an engineering perspective, but it won't fly either.
As far as I know, companies like TI actually build hardware to spec (i. e. they do contract work).
Even if they didn't, nothing wrong with choosing an existing board and providing a custom firmware.
The Amiga family ought to concentrate on software more than hardware. It's not in the interest of such a small community to concentrate on expensive, custom hardware.
-
As soon as you're depending on non-standard hardware, prices will be high and products will be non-competative because you're operating in a very small market.
There is a rather long list of small&cheaps ARM based boards readily available, stating from the rather weak RPi up to some quadcore versions, so HW surely ain't a problem when going ARM.
-
Exactly! When you look at it from my perspective, there is no reason to *not* seriously consider ARM. I've worked for MS, Dell, and a few other companies, and all the higher ups say that there all pushing their chips in the ARM bucket due to Windows' decreasing user base giving a very good opportunity to release more high end ARM CPUs. Qualcomm, Nvidia, etc are all working furiously on getting more powerful boards and CPUs ready.
-
Exactly! When you look at it from my perspective, there is no reason to *not* seriously consider ARM.
The question is just that: What exactly do you plan to do with the machine, and which problem is it supposed to solve? What can ARM do what PPC cannot? In a sense, you are advocating to repeat the same error as before, namely trying to establish a hardware platform. This type of approach would have worked in 1987, and it did work for some time for CBM, but it is now 2014 and CBM went downhill for a reason. You sell solutions nowadays, a complete product families or full infrastructures - see the all the App-shops in the M$, Apple and smartphone market. Thus, you are advocating to replace one niche market by another niche market - for which reason? Why should ARM be any better than PPC?
Like I already said, either Amiga is going through a transformation offering solutions for real world problems working on real-world hardware people can buy cheaply - or already have at home - or they should address the retro market and then need to consider compatibility as ultimate goal (unlike what they do today). The strategy of selling custom hardware is no longer working today because you can no longer create a competative product - existing off-the-shelf hardware is miles ahead from what a small vendor can possibly do. That was different when the Amiga was created, and it sold quite well because it did offer a very competative hardware indeed, and sold software by that.
-
What can ARM do what PPC cannot?
Not costing you an arm and a leg, for one.
On the other hand, it's also evolving far quicker than any other hardware platform.
If Amiga is to survive, what the community needs is inexpensive, extensible hardware with a low footprint. ARM can do that better than any other platform (including x86).
Inexpensive hardware is what made Amiga great in the first place, btw. Compared to similar offerings from Apple, an Amiga 500 wouldn't set you back all that much.
-
Inexpensive hardware is what made Amiga great in the first place, btw. Compared to similar offerings from Apple, an Amiga 500 wouldn't set you back all that much.
The problem is that you are still applying a business logic from 20 years ago. Back then, you could create a great hardware and sell that to freaks, no matter whether it comes with software or not. It's enough if it comes with Basic.
But look, this doesn't work anymore. Any ARM hardware you would get would be behind the x86 "off the shelve" cheap boards you can get. Hardware isn't relevant anymore, you can get excellent hardware for little costs almost everywhere. Whatever you pick, it wouldn't stand out, and you cannot sell by the hardware.
ARM has its justification, it's an excellent processor for embedded applications where you need maximum performance for as little power as possible. But is that a requirement? Is Amiga for "mobile" and "computing, everywhere"? Not that I remember.
Or to put this in a different way: Before you select hardware "by the coolness factor", you should probably better know what your requirements are. If "runs fast and can do a lot of things and doesn't have to cost much" is the requirement, then x86 is the answer these days. You get a lot of boom for little bucks.
-
@Thomas Richter
I'm not applying 20 year old business logic.
I'm well aware of the fact that software sells hardware.
However, in order for there to be great software we need to cater to developers first.
Not many software devs are able or willing to create software for hardware that costs several thousand dollars and is pretty outdated.
You'll have much more luck finding devs willing to code on a sub-100 dollar platform that is well documented and that plenty of people (probably even more than x86, those days) know how to program for.
Again. I'll probably start a little project over the holidays. If anyone wants to join, PM me.
-
Thomas_Richter,
I don't know your background in the hardware industry, but I have several people in the companies I have worked for saying that the engineering divisions are putting their bets on ARM. There are ARM for mobile, ARM for the workstation and ARM for the servers. It isn't limited to mobile or embedded applications, and hasn't been for about 5 years. If engineering divisions of major companies like MS and Dell are saying to place your bets with ARM, then perhaps a major shift is coming in the next few years. With mobile devices being the norm, it may end up spreading back into the workstation and server markets, and the server market is already getting some promising designs. AMD is selling society compatible Opteron-A ARM kits for developers, Qualcomm and Nvidia are ramping up production with high performance ARM chips. Why not get ahead of the curve, and stay on top of the game?
x86 is very costs ineffective because it doesn't scale down well, Intel Atoms consume on average 20-30% more power while offering a diminishing return on power as clock speed scales up. I have a Nocona Xeon workstation at my side that besides being louder and running hotter than modern chips, does roughly as well due to having massive RAM ( My machine has 16GB ) and UW-SCSI, which is still very fast when using 15kRPM disks. The only applications it sucks are are those that are quad+ core aware, it has dual Xeons and for NetBSD usage does very well, but I simply don't use it because it is loud and hot when I have the option of using my TK1 based board from work, which is quiet and has better graphics performance.
-
In a sense, you are advocating to repeat the same error as before, namely trying to establish a hardware platform.
There are tons of off-the-shelf ARM-based boards available, some cheaper than dining out, so there is no need to "establish a hardware platform". I tend to agree that ARM isn't the right way, but that argument just seems to have no basis in fact.
-
Thomas_Richter,
I don't know your background in the hardware industry, but I have several people in the companies I have worked for saying that the engineering divisions are putting their bets on ARM. There are ARM for mobile, ARM for the workstation and ARM for the servers. It isn't limited to mobile or embedded applications, and hasn't been for about 5 years. If engineering divisions of major companies like MS and Dell are saying to place your bets with ARM, then perhaps a major shift is coming in the next few years. With mobile devices being the norm, it may end up spreading back into the workstation and server markets, and the server market is already getting some promising designs. AMD is selling society compatible Opteron-A ARM kits for developers, Qualcomm and Nvidia are ramping up production with high performance ARM chips. Why not get ahead of the curve, and stay on top of the game?
x86 is very costs ineffective because it doesn't scale down well, Intel Atoms consume on average 20-30% more power while offering a diminishing return on power as clock speed scales up. I have a Nocona Xeon workstation at my side that besides being louder and running hotter than modern chips, does roughly as well due to having massive RAM ( My machine has 16GB ) and UW-SCSI, which is still very fast when using 15kRPM disks. The only applications it sucks are are those that are quad+ core aware, it has dual Xeons and for NetBSD usage does very well, but I simply don't use it because it is loud and hot when I have the option of using my TK1 based board from work, which is quiet and has better graphics performance.
"bet on something" is for private people making bets on horse races, on business you "do not bet" but make predictions and try to leave open chances to turn direction if prediction fails. We all know of the bets that were lost, from Commodore starting up to what we are discussing now. So if changing direction it would make more sense to have something portable like Aros so you can support both X86 and ARM and are on the safe side.
And if you talk about companies, there are a lot of companies that set on the wrong horse and do not exist anymore. Not a very wise strategy.
-
Show me an ARM that competes well with an i7. AmigaOS is not some tablet OS. If a switch away from where it is now is justified then with a significant increase of computing power. Sure, an Atom is rather crappy, but who speaks about that stuff? i5 or i7 is whats' in remotely normal computers these days. And to that level ARM scales up rather poorely.
Since years ARM is said to soonly enter/roll up the desktop and server market... Reminds me somehow to "two more weeks". x64 will stay usual and up to date for quite a couple of years (I'd say at least 15 - 20). Chances are that ARM will chime in, but it will not abandon x64 quickly (i.e. 15 - 20 years).
-
showme amigalike os thar would take advantageof all the i7 cores.
-
Not many software devs are able or willing to create software for hardware that costs several thousand dollars and is pretty outdated.
Pretty much. But if you want to attract developers, you should ideally pick a hardware platform the developer already has (x86) and a license model that attracts developers (open source). Many of the small platforms are successful with this strategy (Arduino comes to my mind). But this route isn't chosen. Instead, the folks still try to port the CBM model (closed source, custom hardware) to the 21st century, and that's not going to work. It's not going to work, regardless of whether the CPU is Arm or PPC. I don't have that at home, and I don't have experience with the hardware.
-
I don't know your background in the hardware industry, but I have several people in the companies I have worked for saying that the engineering divisions are putting their bets on ARM.
"Bet on" isn't quite the right word. "Support ARM", maybe, but for which reason? For what I know, it's more that vendors become more and more afraid of an intel monopoly now that AMD is more and more falling behind, so the industry is checking options for an exit strategy from intel, just in case. My personal best bet is that we'll still have to deal with x86 for quite a while, certainly with other options depending on applications. Actually, most microprocessors are used in embedded applications where you don't see them or notice them, so ARM is certainly not unimportant. What's probably more likely is that computing is moving away from classical desktops and notebooks, and for that reason maybe ARM has some future, but in a different way than you may consider. x86 is very costs ineffective because it doesn't scale down well, Intel Atoms consume on average 20-30% more power while offering a diminishing return on power as clock speed scales up.
The intel atom is, in my opinion, indeed not the right choice for "small & embedded" because it carries so much legacy cruft around, and because it isn't as customizable as ARM, but that's not quite the market where AmigaOs (or whatever it might be called) could compete. It's an end-user application and not an embedded application.
-
showme amigalike os thar would take advantageof all the i7 cores.
Tell me what "Amiga like" actually is supposed to mean. Because I don't have an immediate answer. Anyhow, an i7 has even a convincing single-thread performance, if this is what you mean.
-
Pretty much. But if you want to attract developers, you should ideally pick a hardware platform the developer already has (x86) and a license model that attracts developers (open source). Many of the successful small platforms are successful with this strategy (Arduino comes to my mind). But this route isn't chosen. Instead, the folks still try to port the CBM model (closed source, custom hardware) to the 21st century, and that's not going to work. It's not going to work, regardless of whether the CPU is Arm or PPC. I don't have that at home, and I don't have experience with the hardware.
Huh? You do realize that Arduino is pretty much a good example of the the kind of platform/business model we (TeamBlackFox and I) are talking about, right?
The beauty of ARM is also compatibility. Whereas an Amiga NG OS on x86 would require porting thousands of device drivers for all sorts of hardware, there aren't anywhere near that much different components in the ARM world.
@zylesea
Can you get an i5/i7 for 50 bucks (board included)?
Unless you can build an OS that is better, more stable and more compatible than anything else out there, people won't even bother to create another partition on their HDD.
The x86 market is simply too crowded. Everyone and his dog is pushing his distro. A hobbyist market simply doesn't stand much of a chance on there. Certainly not as much as on cheap hardware even people in developing countries can afford.
-
@zylesea
Can you get an i5/i7 for 50 bucks (board included)?
Unless you can build an OS that is better, more stable and more compatible than anything else out there, people won't even bother to create another partition on their HDD.
The x86 market is simply too crowded. Everyone and his dog is pushing his distro. A hobbyist market simply doesn't stand much of a chance on there. Certainly not as much as on cheap hardware even people in developing countries can afford.
Not 50 bucks, but serious computing power for still not that much money. At least that's what *I* want. My G4 systems are okay, but I would very much welcome another performance step (like from 68k to ppc). From current available ppc to i7 that would be such a leap forward.
And it's not about ruling the world. As it is with MorphOS today this micro ecosystem is doing surprisingly well. I doubt the user number would decrease that much when more powerful hardware would be available. It's not about challenging Windows or OS X. It's not about millions of users, but a few thousand.
And it wouldn#t be just another "pushed distro" as the usually pushed distro is just another Linux which wouldn't be the case for MorphOS x64.
-
showme amigalike os thar would take advantageof all the i7 cores.
i can only speak for MorphOS, but one of the rationals for an ISA switch (and breaking compability) would be to introduce SMP.
-
Not 50 bucks, but serious computing power for still not that much money. At least that's what *I* want. My G4 systems are okay, but I would very much welcome another performance step (like from 68k to ppc). From current available ppc to i7 that would be such a leap forward.
And it's not about ruling the world. As it is with MorphOS today this micro ecosystem is doing surprisingly well. I doubt the user number would decrease that much when more powerful hardware would be available. It's not about challenging Windows or OS X. It's not about millions of users, but a few thousand.
And it wouldn#t be just another "pushed distro" as the usually pushed distro is just another Linux which wouldn't be the case for MorphOS x64.
I didn't say anything about ruling the world. But the fact of the matter is: it's easier to get (computer iliterate) people to spend 80-100 bucks on a small machine than it is to convince them to partition or possibly reformat their existing computer HDD.
-
Lots of interesting answers and opinions being expressed in this thread, and almost zero trolling or baiting of members who disagree with each other, so thank all of you for that.
As a strong supporter of AmigaOS4.x and a primary supporter of MorphOS3.x in the USA, it almost pains me to write the following. I think that many users in our community who can look at the "Big Picture" objectively realize that AROS is the only real choice we have for moving forward toward more modern systems without limitations or "work-around" compromises. If the goal is to have a platform that works like the original Commodore Amiga in many ways, but has already made the break away from several undesirable design decisions contained in the original API that have caused problems, or held back progress, AROS appears to be the clear leader in making good choices for future development. What AROS lacks is organization and some of the polish of the user interface, that might be present in the other NG Amiga choices. If AROS had more community support and could gain more programmers working to complete more of the features and functionality of AROS, or if it could gain more programmers creating native AROS software, maybe it would begin to emerge as the leading choice for NG users? The split of our community into 4 parts seriously slows down the speed at which software can be created, or the number of available programmers willing to work on just one of the 4 remaining platform choices.
It is still unknown if AROS, or any of it's variants, will succeed in reaching it's goals, but to me is seems to be making better progress the last couple of years. I have already expressed many times my hope that if/when AmigaOS4.x and MorphOS3.x reach a point in their development where they decide to switch to different architectures, or if/when they lose momentum and start to fail as a organization, that they would dissolve and the programmers would join forces with the AROS developers, so we could have a unified platform again, at least unified for the NG Amiga users wanting something different than 68k Amiga hardware and software (I know that this is unlikely to ever happen, but I can still hope for unification and faster progress through combined efforts).
The keys to survival and possible success in growing the number of users wanting a NG Amiga inspired platform in our community are:
1. Better tools for ease of software creation. Software availability can make one platform a clear winner, but only when the difference in the amount and quality of software for that platform is far above the other similar platform choices. None of our current NG Amiga platform choices have a significant advantage yet. For example, when the OWB (later renamed Odyssey) web browser had reached a level of functionality and stability that far exceeded any other browser for Amiga & Amiga inspired platforms, it made many users take notice of the one platform it had been developed for, and had them asking for it to be ported to their platform of choice. It may have even been successful in getting a few users to become MorphOS users, who had not previously considered becoming a MorphOS user. I know this because I was the person promoting MorphOS at several AmiWest Show over the last 4 to 5 years, and saw the change of opinions and increase in respect those users gained, after seeing how well OWB/Odyssey works, as well as other features and software available for MorphOS3.7. My point is that software makes a difference, and none of the NG choices has a large enough advantage yet to make it a clear winner over any of the other choices to most users. Software availability is why all of us also own Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, in addition to what ever Amiga & Amiga Inspired systems we may own. If Aeros continues to improve so that it can seamlessly run most or all of the Linux software library, without the user being able to tell the difference between the software being a Linux program or an native AROS program, or legacy Amiga program, AND the Aeros user experience can become more like the Amiga it was inspired from, it may gain many new users in the future.
2. Reasonably priced hardware that is easily available to everyone, but still has sufficient performance to run all kinds of software that a typical computer user would want to run. It does not matter what architecture is used, so long as the platform has drivers to fully utilize all components of the architecture chosen, and the architecture has a future development path in front of it and large enough market that will keep it available for many years.
3. A difference at the OS level that makes users and programmers want to use it instead of the already established OSes available. This difference in user environment and/or structure and how the OS works has to be compelling enough to make it worth the time and considerable effort to create and maintain an OS outside of the mainstream choices. AmigaOS1.x to 3.x had that difference in the user experience that kept many users and programmers interested to this very day, but it also had design flaws that have not been easy to fix, while keeping the user experience close to the same, so people want to continue using and improving, or creating new software content for any of the NG Amiga inspired OSes. Without 1 & 2 above, 3 can only hold the interest of a diminishing number of users and programmers and the length of time it can hold the interest of any of us varies, which causes some to leave, and very few to join any of the NG groups from the "outside".
-
Huh? You do realize that Arduino is pretty much a good example of the the kind of platform/business model we (TeamBlackFox and I) are talking about, right?
I'm not arguing against the business model at all. Actually, for such a small community, it is probably the only model that might work. I'm arguing against the PPC choice, and I also don't think that ARM is the right choice, even though it is probably at least a *better* choice than PPC.
The beauty of ARM is also compatibility. Whereas an Amiga NG OS on x86 would require porting thousands of device drivers for all sorts of hardware, there aren't anywhere near that much different components in the ARM world.
But none that could compete to desktop systems - if that is the decided route. As said, I also see a second possible development direction, and this would be the retro market. For that, anything but 68K compatible (for example, by FPGA) wouldn't work. It's a different model, probably something that would be sustainable on a small scale as well. Can you get an i5/i7 for 50 bucks (board included)?
No, but if you double that, you probably don't get an i5, but you still get a competative system that can outperform an ARM platform. The "off the shelf" computer systems we ordered here came with monitor, keyboard, mouse, all-inclusive at probably 250 Euro, a pretty good deal, including warranty and service. It's such a common hardware that its easy to keep the price low. These are "boring office PCs" of course, but still ahead of anything Amiga had to offer. Unless you can build an OS that is better, more stable and more compatible than anything else out there, people won't even bother to create another partition on their HDD.
But why does that change if you replace the host processor with ARM? Is a crashing ARM system equally acceptable than a stable x86 system? In the end, I don't believe that the CPU matters at all. What matters is the availability of the hardware, and the community that develops for it. And believe it or not, most users and developers *do* have an x86 hardware somewhere, so that's probably a 0$ if you want to look at the total investment necessary. The system is already there, in almost all cases. The x86 market is simply too crowded. Everyone and his dog is pushing his distro. A hobbyist market simply doesn't stand much of a chance on there. Certainly not as much as on cheap hardware even people in developing countries can afford.
Why this is going to help to have a (still?) exotic? niche? hardware platform does not sound very logical to me. It restricts the choice even more, instead of opening it. If the Os is what makes an Amiga an Amiga, then the CPU shouldn't matter, and the easier it is to get hardware, the better.
Anyhow, as said, this is *one* possible direction, namely to go entirely into the software direction. I still see some chance for hardware, a second direction - and that is the retro direction, but that then one has to take the Amiga legacy serious, every piece of it, custom chips, CPU... - and what I currently see from the NGs doesn't. It is not sufficient to have an emulator then. If you define Amiga as the hardware and custom chips, then NG has nothing to do with Amiga. Again, "If". I don't know - make your pick, software or hardware.
So, no matter from which perspective I look at all the NG systems, something is really seriously wrong there. As I said before, I don't get it...
-
@Thomas Richter
My whole arguments rests on two simple facts.
1. Given the choice, the common consumer rather buys another cheap piece of hardware (adding additional value to his household. Like hooking it up to another TV, placing it in the child's room, etc) than screw with an existing computer. This is particularly true for sub-100 USD products
2. x86 as a platform has plenty of user friendly OS' people can rely on. ARM users don't have as much choice, in that regard.
-
Huh? You do realize that Arduino is pretty much a good example of the the kind of platform/business model we (TeamBlackFox and I) are talking about, right?
The beauty of ARM is also compatibility. Whereas an Amiga NG OS on x86 would require porting thousands of device drivers for all sorts of hardware, there aren't anywhere near that much different components in the ARM world.
x86 can offer long term platform stability by selecting an extended life cycle motherboard. Jetway are one manufacturer who offer a range of Intel products and a few AMD products.
Their latest I7/I5/I3 boards have planned availability until Q4 2018.
The NAF95-Q87 is an ideal candidate since it has has 3 PCI-e and 4 PCI slots meaning you can plug in cards supported on current PPC hardware and port the already existing AmigaOS or MorphOS drivers to x86.
I don't see any ARM boards with PCI-e or PCI slots so it would seem on ARM you have to write new drivers from scratch and may have trouble getting some of the documentation.
You may also be locking yourself to that hardware to a certain extent since there are a lot of different companies rolling their own ARM SOC's with different devices, leaving you at the mercy of the choices of whoever is making the next weird little ARM system. e.g. RPi and Beagle have completely different GPU for a start.
So much for compatibility.
@zylesea
Can you get an i5/i7 for 50 bucks (board included)?
Unless you can build an OS that is better, more stable and more compatible than anything else out there, people won't even bother to create another partition on their HDD.
People are currently paying thousands for PPC hardware to run OS4 so I think a lot more would be happier to pay hundreds for a dedicated x86 system.
The x86 market is simply too crowded. Everyone and his dog is pushing his distro. A hobbyist market simply doesn't stand much of a chance on there. Certainly not as much as on cheap hardware even people in developing countries can afford.
An ARM port of either OS4 or MorphOS would be equally as obscure as an x86 version.
As far as I'm concerned ARM has a long way to go before it can become a convincing alternative to x86 in the event of an architecture switch.
-
@Thomas Richter
My whole arguments rests on two simple facts.
1. Given the choice, the common consumer rather buys another cheap piece of hardware (adding additional value to his household. Like hooking it up to another TV, placing it in the child's room, etc) than screw with an existing computer. This is particularly true for sub-100 USD products
2. x86 as a platform has plenty of user friendly OS' people can rely on. ARM users don't have as much choice, in that regard.
But is that not making a bet again? In the mid 90s PPC was the bet, at that time it seemed a "safe bet". We all know history. Apple did not do the same mistake, they kept doors open, others in our community not, they bet everything on PPC and lost. Now people are again demanding to set everything on the "next safe bet". Why are you so sure that ARM will win? If you loose your bet AmigaOS or MorphOS go from one dead end in the next.
Yes X86 has other OSs but people will compare it anyway. Or you create something like the Raspberry that is unbeatable cheap. Other than that I am of a similar opinion like Thomas. What we need is new software and for that we do not necessarily a completely new platform but hardware with geek factor that is different from competition (like FPGA based hardware would be). Even if we have a 64bit OS with full SMP and MP this would not bring automatically new software because it would still have not the same user base and software as Linux, Mac or Windows. And for new markets like Smartphones or Tablets our desktops are not suited.
So if you are so sure you will certainly bet everything you own on that? Not? That is what most do. They talk as long as they do not risk their own money or do the work.
-
"bet on something" is for private people making bets on horse races, on business you "do not bet" but make predictions and try to leave open chances to turn direction if prediction fails. We all know of the bets that were lost, from Commodore starting up to what we are discussing now. So if changing direction it would make more sense to have something portable like Aros so you can support both X86 and ARM and are on the safe side.
Uhh the entire industry of computing is based on speculation - you can carry out years of market research in advance of a product release, but you seriously can't anticipate the impact of said product, or its reception. In the case of Android, which PRIMARILY runs on ARM devices, with x86 and MIPS making up the minority, it has been well-received. An Android desktop would likely be ARM based, as the hardware is cheap enough that it will still be powerful, but competitive. Intel/AMD x86 at the same price range as ARM either is too power-hungry or too anemic to even boot up. That being said, I'd trust the engineers of MS, Dell and AMD, all of which I have worked with in my past job as a data center tech, over a handful of users and developers in the middle of a forum known for sociopathic trolls, hell I had lunch with a manager for the largest AMD data centre in the DC area simply because he was called out to the MS data centre I worked at and invited me and the rest of the crew to lunch at a sushi bar and discussed what he wanted to see done to improve AMD-based Dell server reliability with us, over sushi and beer at that. He also talked to me about the Opteron-A series, and he said that it will, in his own words "Be the smartest move that HQ has made since launching the Opteron line"
You know as well as I do there are logistical and also other concerns with having to support two different architectures, diametrically opposed at that! Without a ports type system like FreeBSD uses, one or the other will simply have little software. Best to focus on one architecture for logistical reasons.
Show me an ARM that competes well with an i7. AmigaOS is not some tablet OS. If a switch away from where it is now is justified then with a significant increase of computing power. Sure, an Atom is rather crappy, but who speaks about that stuff? i5 or i7 is whats' in remotely normal computers these days. And to that level ARM scales up rather poorely.
If you're going to make a brash statement, prepare something better than just an opinion: http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-k1-processor.html
This, my friend is a SoC which has the power of an Nvidia GPU and a quad-core ARM CPU. I can't find any benchmarks vs an i5 or i7, but most people I know are on the budgetary end of computers, either older gen i-series, older-gen AMDs, or the Pentium and Celeron series of CPUs. Your personal desktop is certainly *NOT* representative of what everyone else has. ARM has scaled up at a logarithmic rate that is even better than x86, I can't really explain it to you other than it simply doesn't waste any space on the die for any legacy-cruft that an x86 CPU does. Your desktop, my workstation and most other x86 devices start up in a 16-bit mode, and have to be initialised from there to protected and then long mode just to even boot a modern, 64-bit OS. ARM? It originally deployed with a 32-bit design and a 26-bit address space, but it can still run a 32-bit binary inside the 26-bit address space. x86 doesn't have this luxury, its address mode is locked to its execution mode.
Furthermore, I will use the same argument that Howard Roark made in Fountainhead, original text below:
"The famous flutings on the famous columns — what are they there for? To hide the joints in wood — when columns were made of wood, only these aren't, they're marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?
Similarly, what is real mode, AKA 16-bit mode, in a modern x86_64 CPU for? To start the BIOS, mostly - the original BIOS comes from the original IBM-PC designs, based on the 8088 and 8086. This was reimplemented by competitors to become PC-compatible. Then the 386 and 486 added a 32-bit protected mode, using an undocumented opcode in the original 8086 design to initialise it. They retained the 16-bit mode to keep DOS running, they simply used extenders like DOS4GW. With the extinction of Windows 9x with the atrocious Windows ME in late 1999, the 16-bit real mode was effectively rendered obsolete. But this was kept and copied into the 64-bit world, where now you had to escalate to long mode from protected mode from real mode. And this is all because the industry decided to use an architecture which is an extension of a 16-bit reimplementation of an 8-bit copy of a 4-bit processor. Why the hell keep all this cruft? DOS won't even run properly on a modern GPT sliced disk, let alone a system with no drivers!
ARM is significantly more towards my ideal of legacy-free than x86, and with the ARM64 releases, they're using a binary translation layer to execute the older 32-bit binaries in microcode on the 64-bit CPUs. In addition, Amiga would do better on a dedicated piece of hardware that is both cheap, and cost-effective, x86 isn't that answer. AmigaOS has a new place in the media-centric world - its low resource usage, efficient memory management and user-centric design would make it a perfect small computer OS, being used in either all-in-one computers or small set-top box computers, and ARM excels in those applications. None of the NG Amigas utilise anywhere near the full potential of workstation hardware, and as I hate to admit it, the days of a large howling workstation are numbered. As we speak I've my Nocona workstation for sale, simply because it is too loud and noisy to keep on, my Challenge S is quiet enough for low-end server applications, the Origin does well for high end, my Octane2 and Beaglebone have been doing very well as my main machines for most applications, and where I need a mobile solution, my trusty Nexus 7 does the job. I simply don't really need x86 except for a few things, which I am considering getting a small low-power computer to do the job of instead.
-
Uhh the entire industry of computing is based on speculation - you can carry out years of market research in advance of a product release, but you seriously can't anticipate the impact of said product, or its reception. In the case of Android, which PRIMARILY runs on ARM devices, with x86 and MIPS making up the minority, it has been well-received. An Android desktop would likely be ARM based, as the hardware is cheap enough that it will still be powerful, but competitive. Intel/AMD x86 at the same price range as ARM either is too power-hungry or too anemic to even boot up. That being said, I'd trust the engineers of MS, Dell and AMD, all of which I have worked with in my past job as a data center tech, over a handful of users and developers in the middle of a forum known for sociopathic trolls, hell I had lunch with a manager for the largest AMD data centre in the DC area simply because he was called out to the MS data centre I worked at and invited me and the rest of the crew to lunch at a sushi bar and discussed what he wanted to see done to improve AMD-based Dell server reliability with us, over sushi and beer at that. He also talked to me about the Opteron-A series, and he said that it will, in his own words "Be the smartest move that HQ has made since launching the Opteron line"
You know as well as I do there are logistical and also other concerns with having to support two different architectures, diametrically opposed at that! Without a ports type system like FreeBSD uses, one or the other will simply have little software. Best to focus on one architecture for logistical reasons.
If you're going to make a brash statement, prepare something better than just an opinion: http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-k1-processor.html
This, my friend is a SoC which has the power of an Nvidia GPU and a quad-core ARM CPU. I can't find any benchmarks vs an i5 or i7, but most people I know are on the budgetary end of computers, either older gen i-series, older-gen AMDs, or the Pentium and Celeron series of CPUs. Your personal desktop is certainly *NOT* representative of what everyone else has. ARM has scaled up at a logarithmic rate that is even better than x86, I can't really explain it to you other than it simply doesn't waste any space on the die for any legacy-cruft that an x86 CPU does. Your desktop, my workstation and most other x86 devices start up in a 16-bit mode, and have to be initialised from there to protected and then long mode just to even boot a modern, 64-bit OS. ARM? It originally deployed with a 32-bit design and a 26-bit address space, but it can still run a 32-bit binary inside the 26-bit address space. x86 doesn't have this luxury, its address mode is locked to its execution mode.
Furthermore, I will use the same argument that Howard Roark made in Fountainhead, original text below:
Similarly, what is real mode, AKA 16-bit mode, in a modern x86_64 CPU for? To start the BIOS, mostly - the original BIOS comes from the original IBM-PC designs, based on the 8088 and 8086. This was reimplemented by competitors to become PC-compatible. Then the 386 and 486 added a 32-bit protected mode, using an undocumented opcode in the original 8086 design to initialise it. They retained the 16-bit mode to keep DOS running, they simply used extenders like DOS4GW. With the extinction of Windows 9x with the atrocious Windows ME in late 1999, the 16-bit real mode was effectively rendered obsolete. But this was kept and copied into the 64-bit world, where now you had to escalate to long mode from protected mode from real mode. And this is all because the industry decided to use an architecture which is an extension of a 16-bit reimplementation of an 8-bit copy of a 4-bit processor. Why the hell keep all this cruft? DOS won't even run properly on a modern GPT sliced disk, let alone a system with no drivers!
ARM is significantly more towards my ideal of legacy-free than x86, and with the ARM64 releases, they're using a binary translation layer to execute the older 32-bit binaries in microcode on the 64-bit CPUs. In addition, Amiga would do better on a dedicated piece of hardware that is both cheap, and cost-effective, x86 isn't that answer. AmigaOS has a new place in the media-centric world - its low resource usage, efficient memory management and user-centric design would make it a perfect small computer OS, being used in either all-in-one computers or small set-top box computers, and ARM excels in those applications. None of the NG Amigas utilise anywhere near the full potential of workstation hardware, and as I hate to admit it, the days of a large howling workstation are numbered. As we speak I've my Nocona workstation for sale, simply because it is too loud and noisy to keep on, my Challenge S is quiet enough for low-end server applications, the Origin does well for high end, my Octane2 and Beaglebone have been doing very well as my main machines for most applications, and where I need a mobile solution, my trusty Nexus 7 does the job. I simply don't really need x86 except for a few things, which I am considering getting a small low-power computer to do the job of instead.
please keep certain phrases out of discussion
What I have a problem sometimes is that it seems all is either black or white. X86 is evil, your preferred hardware is good, Linux is evil, your preferred OS is good and so on. Always extreme. If you are in business you must be flexible, you do not unnecessary set everything on one bet, you always try to have plan B. As a big processor producer I might have to act this way (we see at Motorola what happens if the bet is lost), expecially as someone concentrating on software (including OS) you have the chance to leave another door open. Aros is showing that this possible with supporting different platforms at the same time. Of course you still need adapted components like UAE for the specific platform and you need everything to be recompiled when you change ISA. Apple was more wise than others in that sense, they are still there but a lot of other companies are not. Over the years I have so many trends seen coming and going that I could not count them anymore. The IT industries is always producing lots of new "bets" all the time, the intelligence is to survive despite of this. I do not know with whom you are having lunch and I could not care less but only because someone has a big salary and a nice title on his card it does not mean that he is right.
And as a application developer (what I do in normal life) I do not really care about hardware or lowlevel OS development. More important for me is how many potential customers are there, can I be sure that there will be development in coming years, how simple and productive development is and so on.
And BTW phoenixconsole is already working on supporting ARM as a new target for Aros (has f.e. just published a new version of his distribution for Raspberry). So if you are really interested you should support this.
-
If you're going to make a brash statement, prepare something better than just an opinion: http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-k1-processor.html
This, my friend is a SoC which has the power of an Nvidia GPU and a quad-core ARM CPU. I can't find any benchmarks vs an i5 or i7
Feel free to search for benchmarks using the keywords "Nexus 9" and "Surface Pro 3". Mind you, the Nexus 9 only uses a dual-core version of the K1. But then again, the Surface Pro 3 only includes a dual-core chip as well. (Ironically, while the K1 appears to beat Apple´s A8X in terms of single-core performance, Apple´s GPU beats Nvidia´s...)
(http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2014/11/tabletmark_v3_overall-100531220-large.png)
In addition, Amiga would do better on a dedicated piece of hardware that is both cheap, and cost-effective, x86 isn't that answer. AmigaOS has a new place in the media-centric world - its low resource usage, efficient memory management and user-centric design would make it a perfect small computer OS, being used in either all-in-one computers or small set-top box computers
"Low resource usage" becomes completely meaningless if your hardware drivers support only a fraction of the hardware´s capabilities and are horribly slow compared to other supposedly "bloated" operating systems. In times when even cheap settop boxes like the Amazon Fire TV include 2GB of memory, "efficient memory management" is not much of a compelling feature either even if it meant gaining, say, 300MB of unused memory.
-
Uhh the entire industry of computing is based on speculation - you can carry out years of market research in advance of a product release, but you seriously can't anticipate the impact of said product, or its reception.
Which is why you need to make your software flexible. Which is why I highly recommend against using assembler these days. If the market moves, your product has to move, and better quickly, or it is history. Like Amiga. I wouldn't bother taking ARM if I would see that the consumer market is making a shift, and every developer has such a machine at home. But let's face it: The machines we have at home are x64 machines, not ARM machines. If I have an ARM, it's my smart phone or my tablet, but I don't get a development platform for them, these are shut-tight infrastructures I cannot potentially work on. They are shut tight because their vendors try to establish a vertical monopoly. An open infrastructure is needed, one that is readily available for everybody, for little money. And sorry to say, this currently means x64. If it means something else some day, ok - go for it. Similarly, what is real mode, AKA 16-bit mode, in a modern x86_64 CPU for?
Why do you bother? As a software engineer, you would be working in a higher level language like C. Or probably even higher like javascript. Why do you bother about implementation details of the hardware? In fact, all *your* code would be run in the orthogonal 64 bit mode, but even that is completely irrelevant. Even if the machine would store numbers to the base of 17 and would encrypt them with the day of the year in RAM it wouldn't make a difference at the level you are working on. It would run the application equally nice, from the same code. ARM is significantly more towards my ideal of legacy-free than x86, and with the ARM64 releases, they're using a binary translation layer to execute the older 32-bit binaries in microcode on the 64-bit CPUs.
Keeping the PC legacy was what actually enabled the rise of the PC as we see it today as it allowed customers a grace period to upgrade their hardware. If only Amiga would have been so wise! Instead of creating a carefully modernized machine that allows to execute legacy software without a speed penalty by emulation, they keep breaking compatibility. As the average customer, would you rather decide yourself when to modernize your equipment, or do you want to throw away your PC and your software every two years because some geeky engineer comes up with a new nice idea?
In the end, hardware is completely irrelevant nowadays. What matters is the software that runs on it. Now, we're gradually phasing out x86 legacy as we leave the BIOS behind. It's about time, and it will probably take another ten years before the last idiocracy of x86 falls (stuff like the A20 gate, for example). But all this stuff is there because there was customer demand for it, for running software. These folks take their customers serious, unlike Amiga, and yes, it leads to engineering solutions that are non-ideal. But the success proved them right.
-
Why decide between ARM and X86 at all?
Why pick one?
Linux runs on everything, UAE runs on everything.
Why would one need to focus just on one chip - makes no sense to me.
Now if you compare x86 and ARM both have their very own advantages.
1) x86 has the stronger chips
2) x86 has the more advanced company behind the,
3) arm has a compelling selling model which makes arm chips attractive for mobile devices.
ARM is not in anyway cleaner or technically better than x86.
People complaining about 16bit modes have lost the focus for what is important.
Don't get fooled by these silly points.
What is important for a today CPU is performance per cycle and the evolution of the cache technology.
Intel is certainly very advanced here .
-
ARM can run bigendian, like m68k and like PowerPC, which simplifies things when you have an OS that is also supposed to run an integrated m68k emulator.
-
ARM can run bigendian, like m68k and like PowerPC, which simplifies things when you have an OS that is also supposed to run an integrated m68k emulator.
And the x86 has similar instructions and similar address modes as the 68K.
This will also simplify things if you want to emulate 68k.
-
Tallking about going x86.
If you loose your bet AmigaOS or MorphOS go from one dead end in the next.
If, like Apple/Microsoft,... you think and write your OS to be portable (Darwin is portable, so are all MacOSX standard libs): no direct access to OS structures,... you can bet anything, and adapt quite easily ("quite" of course).
-
when you have something portable you are not betting, only if you set everything on one platform without any chance to change direction (like Hyperion and MorphOS team did)
-
when you have something portable you are not betting, only if you set everything on one platform without any chance to change direction (like Hyperion and MorphOS team did)
Not sure its so much "betting" per see by Hyperion/MorpOS. Not sure if they ever had/have any illusions to be a whole lot more than a niche product/OS.
If there are enough people that for various reasons stick around AOS/MorphOS, its probarly enough to keep small buisnisses alive. And I guess people like you just enjoy the challenge of dabbling with unique OS's regardless of how competative they are.
I find myself nodding when reading Thomas's posts. I dont see X86 platforms vanish any time soon. Then again, with the highlevel languages the hardware platforms doesnt seem to matter a whole lot. Or?
More and more of the people around me move slowly away from the huge stationary any selfrespecting nerd got, and moving towards laptop at most. And to increasing degree Pads take over (with some connectivity for keyboards).
I cant really see AOS changing away from their direction, tho Im pretty sure many of us would sign up for an x86 OS version since "everyone" got such a machine.
Considering the amount of money the loyal users/customers have sunk into their "NG" machines, I doubt AeonKIT or Hyperion would consider ...annoying their prime userbase.
You could maybe argue that you would tap into a much bigger customerbase if you moved AOS onto mainstream x86, but I assume it takes less effort and resources to stick with the current path.
Would be intresting to see if AmiKit could make a streamlined AOS4 installation to make a Emulation of "NG" for dummies. Might boost sales even more beyond the step by step deals you have to go thru now (at the mercy of Toni's intrest in developing+Rom file issue).
Very intresting and informative thread/discussion.
-
Endianess is important for handling data in memory, with a bigendian architecture native programs and programs running under emulation can all read and write the same data. Not so if emulation is bigendian and native is little-endian, then there is need for byte-order switching, and a can of worms is opened.
-
Endianess is important for handling data in memory, with a bigendian architecture native programs and programs running under emulation can all read and write the same data. Not so if emulation is bigendian and native is little-endian, then there is need for byte-order switching, and a can of worms is opened.
A cross platform (and endianess) program can access memory with either big endian or little endian but only a byte at a time without byte order swapping. Without hardware byte swapping, cross platform (and endianess) programs can run significantly slower than endian specific programs that work with 4 bytes at a time using a 32 bit CPU.
x86 is little endian while ARM is at least bi-endian but it has better support for little endian (default). PPC is bi-endian but has better support for big endian (default). The 68k is big endian. PPC is the best candidate for the Amiga, judging by endianess, then ARM.
-
I thought this discussion was about the (impossibility) possibility of a single OS that could unify the Amiga community, not the pros and cons of which hardware to use for any OS? What ever, carry on........ but some of these statements are seeming fairly useless to me. I hope we are not creeping back toward any kind of discussion that start pointing fingers and claiming which choices are the RIGHT choices, and everything else is the wrong choice.
-
I thought this discussion was about the (impossibility) possibility of a single OS that could unify the Amiga community, not the pros and cons of which hardware to use for any OS? What ever, carry on........ but some of these statements are seeming fairly useless to me. I hope we are not creeping back toward any kind of discussion that start pointing fingers and claiming which choices are the RIGHT choices, and everything else is the wrong choice.
The hardware choice plays a factor on how easy it is to move on. Moving to little endian hardware means updating old code which can be a big task depending on the software. Executables are even more difficult with an emulator and possibly some kind of sandbox necessary. The important AmigaOS structures become incompatible with little endian. Look at AROS x86 where the executables and AmigaOS are not compatible. There are still open endian issues with back porting from x86 to 68k. It's a pain to deal with cross endian issues. This leaves Amiga users behind dividing the Amiga community instead of unifying it. It makes a lot of sense to have 68k for the low end and PPC for high end Amigas. Programming for both wouldn't be too difficult if both were supported with similar shared APIs and software. The only way for this to happen is for one of the PPC platforms to share more software with the 68k (it's in their best interest as it furthers their API's and more software is written for both) or for AROS PPC to gain support and overtake AmigaOS 4 and MOS (it has the advantage of being free but it has catching up to do). My perspective may have changed more from a user to a programmer but it is what it is. I'm a 68k classic owner and programmer with no PPC hardware. I was never against PPC but the reason I didn't move to PPC is the attitude of some of the developers and companies. Some of the NG people have been snobbish, with completely closed software and development, yet expect me to pay up for more of the treatment? No thanks. The 68k Amiga is easier and more fun to use and program anyway.
-
I thought this discussion was about the (impossibility) possibility of a single OS that could unify the Amiga community,
There are three groups of OS developers right now.
AROS, MOS, OS4.
If you say one OS would this imply that the three groups merge their effort?
Or would this imply that one takes over the lead and the other two would die out?
-
A cross platform (and endianess) program can access memory with either big endian or little endian but only a byte at a time without byte order swapping. Without hardware byte swapping, cross platform (and endianess) programs can run significantly slower than endian specific programs that work with 4 bytes at a time using a 32 bit CPU.
Since ages (since the 486) the x86 support single instruction 32bit byte swapping to process Big Endian data.
-
The hardware choice plays a factor on how easy it is to move on. Moving to little endian hardware means updating old code which can be a big task depending on the software.
Actually, no. Introducing a sandbox is necessary anyhow, unless you are willing to carry on with the AmigaOs un-protected memory access. You would be ill-adviced if so. Once you have a sandbox, there is no necessary relation between legacy structures used with a 68K emulation sandbox and the structures of the outside Os, and if you have to emulate 68K - believe me - the endian swap is your least problem. xUAE isn't slow because of the endian swap. It is slow because it tries to emulate all features of the hardware for those applications that bypass the Os. The 68k Amiga is easier and more fun to use and program anyway.
Like I already said, there are two options: Option one is to modernize the hardware completely and go for a software only company. In that case, hardware is irrelevant and good hardware is available cheaply in the x64 camp. Endianness is then your least worry. If you want to take the Amiga legacy seriously - and this is the second path - then PPC, ARM and x64 are all equally unsuitable in first place. You would then need a hardware emulation(!) of the 68K and the custom chips, and probably carefully extend that with some emulation of expansion boards (like P96 for graphics). This was the idea with Natami, and the FPGA emulation. It is also an option, but goes into a different direction, namely the retro market.
Strangely enough, none of these options have been picked up by the big players.
-
If you want to take the Amiga legacy seriously - and this is the second path - then PPC, ARM and x64 are all equally unsuitable in first place. You would then need a hardware emulation(!) of the 68K and the custom chips, and probably carefully extend that with some emulation of expansion boards (like P96 for graphics). This was the idea with Natami, and the FPGA emulation. It is also an option, but goes into a different direction, namely the retro market.
Strangely enough, none of these options have been picked up by the big players.
With todays low cost FPGA you can instantiate a compatible chipset able to display FullHD
and you can instantiate an 68K core faster than 68060,
speed wise in the range of lower PPC systems.
Maybe people want more speed than a FPGA-68K equal low end PPC would provide?
-
Amiga Os would need a investor and losts of money. In current form it doesn't matter wich CPU architehture it uses, as there is no resources to port OS to any other cpu.
With money would wouldn't matter because it is perfectly possible to produce low cost / powerfull hardware with PPC cpu. It would require at least 10 000 - 15 000 mobos minium to get production cost low as 20-50€/mobo.
Amiga OS has a choosed to use "Amiga hardware", wich is nice choise, at least hardware collector point of view.
What I don't understand is that some people seems to belive that x86/ARM would some how make a Amiga OS more viable for general use. That is not a true.
RiscOS what happened to userbase when 20€ hardware came availlable?
BeOS devs blame x86 for dead of BeOS, no more decicated users.
Typical life cycle of x86 mobo is 1-2 months, one production run and then good buy.
-
With money would wouldn't matter because it is perfectly possible to produce low cost / powerfull hardware with PPC cpu. It would require at least 10 000 - 15 000 mobos minium .
Well if you produce that many than there would be the funds
to also produce 68k cores which can compete with PPC systems.
Including real AMIGA chipsets again.
Right now we can with FPGA technology build 68k system
in the performance range of PowerpC Efika systems.
If you would produce around 15,000 - 20,000 systems as you describe
then you could "bake" real 68Ks including AMIGA chipset as SOC.
These systems would have the real chipset and performance
wise would be able to play in the same league as PowerPC AMIGA XE systems.
-
Amiga Os would need a investor and losts of money. In current form it doesn't matter wich CPU architehture it uses, as there is no resources to port OS to any other cpu.
There might be resources in the community, but the current development form is not very attractive for developers. Essentially, you get only a small userbase, and you have to pay $$$ for a development platform offering no return of investment. What I don't understand is that some people seems to belive that x86/ARM would some how make a Amiga OS more viable for general use. That is not a true.
No, of course that's not true. Whether AmigaOs runs on x86 or PPC does not impact its usability or usefulness. But it would allow developers to join cheaply by using hardware that is available, and it wouldn't require potential users to make a huge investment into outdated hardware you cannot use for anything. The current hardware is "special" because it is exotic, but it is not "outstanding" in terms of performance. It can be replaced by PC hardware without loosing essential features.
-
so this is an interesting and informative discussion out of the sudden?
funny enough i cant find anything new here. ive heard all these arguments over and over and everybody knows that its just talk. no action will follow and nothing will be influenced by this thread. its just what they call a valve to set some hot air that people gathered free and proceed as previous.
-
I thought this discussion was about the (impossibility) possibility of a single OS that could unify the Amiga community, not the pros and cons of which hardware to use for any OS? What ever, carry on........ but some of these statements are seeming fairly useless to me. I hope we are not creeping back toward any kind of discussion that start pointing fingers and claiming which choices are the RIGHT choices, and everything else is the wrong choice.
Actually the hardware does matter. I think at least MorphOS and OS4 have a similar status quo, but a different long time strategy. AFAIU OS4 wants to stay on ppc and keep compatible to its current incarnation while bringing SMP and stuff like that to the OS. And while I doubt feasability of that approach it actually is their approch. MorphOS evolves and matures a little more in its curent incaranation on ppc but then, eventually, will do a sharp cut to a "MorphOS NG" with SMP, 64 Bit, full resource tracking, and maybe - maybe not - full MP. But this will come at the cost of direct compability. And that sharp cut will come with an ISA switch, too. Either to x64 (_my_ preference) or to ARM. AFAIK the ISA is not yet set into stone. If resources were huge, support for several ISAs for MorphOS NG would be also possible (but resorces aren't huge, hence it's only theory).
AROS (x86) kind of switched ISA (well AROS is available for many ISAs) already for the cost of binary compability while keeping API compability - with the disadvantage that SMP or MP are not present in AROS as they aren't in OS4 or MorphOS today. Introducing SMP or MP to AROS would mess things up there as much as it messes things up in MorphOS or OS4.
-
Actually the hardware does matter. I think at least MorphOS and OS4 have a similar status quo, but a different long time strategy. AFAIU OS4 wants to stay on ppc and keep compatible to its current incarnation while bringing SMP and stuff like that to the OS. And while I doubt feasability of that approach it actually is their approch. MorphOS evolves and matures a little more in its curent incaranation on ppc but then, eventually, will do a sharp cut to a "MorphOS NG" with SMP, 64 Bit, full resource tracking, and maybe - maybe not - full MP. But this will come at the cost of direct compability. And that sharp cut will come with an ISA switch, too. Either to x64 (_my_ preference) or to ARM. AFAIK the ISA is not yet set into stone. If resources were huge, support for several ISAs for MorphOS NG would be also possible (but resorces aren't huge, hence it's only theory).
AROS (x86) kind of switched ISA (well AROS is available for many ISAs) already for the cost of binary compability while keeping API compability - with the disadvantage that SMP or MP are not present in AROS as they aren't in OS4 or MorphOS today. Introducing SMP or MP to AROS would mess things up there as much as it messes things up in MorphOS or OS4.
Would it be possible at all to develop a "modern" amiga-based OS without sacrificing not only binary but also source compatibility? If everything would have to be broken what sense would that make at all? And what software could then run on it (except 68k in UAE)?
-
Would it be possible at all to develop a "modern" amiga-based OS without sacrificing not only binary but also source compatibility? If everything would have to be broken what sense would that make at all? And what software could then run on it (except 68k in UAE)?
exactly. if you have to sandbox 68kand start over from the very beginning, why try to create another os at all? what unique concepts of amiga could be reimplemented in that os, that wouldnt be present in another modern os or couldnt be derived from some linux distribution?
correct me if i am wrong, but i guess: none.
there is two edge cases here. aros may make sense as far as it carries over some amiga balast like unified memory space or messaging by passing pointers (?), but anything that would attempt to make it more modern in underlying sense, might make it non-sense in general. so the one and only future proof version of amiga is a 68k sandbox on whatever system of your choice.
-
Since ages (since the 486) the x86 support single instruction 32bit byte swapping to process Big Endian data.
A CISC CPU can do an operation instead of a BYTESWAP if the endianess is the same. The x86 BSWAP is to a register only so there is 1 additional instructional and an extra 4 bytes per memory access. CISC can normally do:
OP.L mem,Rn
OP.L Rn,mem
with the x86 BSWAP instruction and memory using the wrong endianness this becomes:
MOV.L mem,Rn
BSWAP Rn
OP.L Rn
OP.L Rn
BSWAP Rn
MOV.L Rn,mem
RISC may not have any other penalty beyond their load/store penalty. However, both PPC and ARM have disadvantages when in their non-native endian mode. It's not optimal to have memory in the opposite endianess of data needs.
Actually, no. Introducing a sandbox is necessary anyhow, unless you are willing to carry on with the AmigaOs un-protected memory access. You would be ill-adviced if so. Once you have a sandbox, there is no necessary relation between legacy structures used with a 68K emulation sandbox and the structures of the outside Os, and if you have to emulate 68K - believe me - the endian swap is your least problem. xUAE isn't slow because of the endian swap. It is slow because it tries to emulate all features of the hardware for those applications that bypass the Os.
Partial memory protection is possible on the Amiga without compatibility problems and without a sandbox. Shared memory for message passing and AmigaOS structures has as many advantages as disadvantages so I would keep it. Programs should protect private data and code with memory protection using a common API including new protection flags in executable formats like Amiga hunk or ELF.
-
exactly. if you have to sandbox 68kand start over from the very beginning, why try to create another os at all? what unique concepts of amiga could be reimplemented in that os, that wouldnt be present in another modern os or couldnt be derived from some linux distribution?
correct me if i am wrong, but i guess: none
Happy to correct you: datatypes, assigns, user interface.
My receipt would be quite simple (actual cooking wouldn't). Take FreeBSD (or Linux, but I personally prefer BSD licensing model, than GPL), keep everything except UNIXoid file structure and add Amiga volume/device names, assign, datatype system, MUI, then port from AROS missing components like intuition, amiga shell commands, DirectoryOpus 5 and/or Wanderer, or straightly Ambient from MorphOS. You'll end up with a modern operating system, on-par with MacOS X, with Amiga user interface.
Yes, it wouldn't be compatible with sources, but you can host AROS for them.
Yes, it wouldn't be compatibile with binaries, but you can port UAE for them.
Yes, it wouldn't be an AmigaOS-like system anymore, but if you want a MODERN "Amiga like experience" then you have to deal with a MODERN operating system and no, you do not need to reinvent the wheel again, even Apple didn't with MacOS X. Please bring me a Mac user that would now turn back to OS Classic, please.
-
Would it be possible at all to develop a "modern" amiga-based OS without sacrificing not only binary but also source compatibility? If everything would have to be broken what sense would that make at all? And what software could then run on it (except 68k in UAE)?
A sandbox alone cannot overcome all shortages.
If API stays as similar as possibie recompilation should be done with rather little effort. Part of it is that I _myself_ still put MP for a next generation OS still in question. An NG (Amigaish) OS doesn't need to run nuclear power plants, hence I guess MP could still be left out. Would ease up many things (API could keep pretty similar) and staying as snappy as it is now should be easier too. On _my_ priority list for a NG OS SMP and 64 bit are pretty important, full resource tracking very welcome. MP would be nice, but only if "cost" isn't too high. Needs careful selection of trusted software though (pretty much as it is on Amiga today).
-
My perfect OS
* does not need to have 64bit pointers.
* does not need to have memory protection
* does not need to support many cores.
I actually think that AMIGA OS as it was and is -
actually is quite what I'm looking for. :-)
-
Happy to correct you: datatypes, assigns, user interface.
doesnt sound like much.
biggest problems seems the linux-oid file structure as you yourself notice.
certainly if there is no valid replacement for assign, such a program could be done after the previous problem has been solved.
with the interface you likely mean workbench. well, actually all contemporary guis share similar philosophy introduced by xerox, mac and amiga. they are bloated, as amiga would become if it survived, but bloated with additional and sometimes unnecessary functionality. actually aros wanderer strives to catch up with any of them as well as the genuine workbench, and this demonstrates the woes of reimplementation pretty well i guess.
and datatypes.. isnt there a similar system in any of the contemporary oses? libreries to open certain file formats? im not sure but i would expect that.. in fact the genuine amiga systems had another annoying flaw to open files with application stored in tooltypes, which could not be changed once for all if the host system was lacking the particular app, but had an alternative named or located elsewhere.
-
@wawrzon
If by "file structure" you're referring to the Linux file system hierarchy: It can be worked around (and in fact has been in the past. By the LinuxStep project).
Possibly the easiest solution is doing what Apple did inside Mac OS X. Adding symbolic links and hiding part of the hierarchy.
-
Wow Biggun, I don't know if you're trolling or just plain delusional:
Not only does AmigaOS fit that criteria, but so does CP/M, TOS and DOS. I don't see why you'd want to renounce memory protection, I mean I'd hate to have a stop error, guru meditation or what have you constantly interrupt my work and corrupt my data. Its used because often enough programmes simply aren't perfect and will happily corrupt your OS.
SMP, and also threading and multiplexing are very important, simply because a single CPU can't do more than one task at a time. Multiprocessing allows for load balancing, increased CPU efficiency and less time spent switching tasks.
64-bit addressing and pointers are also important, because 4GB RAM no longer cuts it. Virtualization, rendering, servers and computational math all are very memory intensive and you simply can't use nasty hacks like PAE to get around it.
Either your trolling or your computing needs are so minimal that a cooperative multitasked OS with incomplete preemptive scheduling, no network stack out of the box and severely limited security and performance is enough for you to do everything on. Hell, Windows 3.1 is the same way. Expose that to the internet and before you know it you're box is compromised and exposed!
-
4GB RAM no longer cuts it.
4Gb is a huge amount of memory and should be enough for any conceivable purpose, if the OS and application aren't poorly written bloatware.
a cooperative multitasked OS with incomplete preemptive scheduling, no network stack out of the box and severely limited security and performance
Are you talking about any of the AmigaOSes here? Because they all have full preemptive multitasking and TCP/IP stacks, and they all are very efficient (especially OS3.9) and thus highly performant.
-
4Gb is a huge amount of memory and should be enough for any conceivable purpose, if the OS and application aren't poorly written bloatware.
(http://topinternet.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/billgates.jpg)
4GB clearly isn't enough. Especially in modern times.
My laptop only has 4GB RAM and it really can become an issue. Especially when reclaiming memory takes too long, there are memory holes in a piece of software like Flash Player or without cache optimization.
It's actually less of a problem for most 32 bit OS', since they usually assume that there's less RAM available. However, that isn't too say 32 bit systems can't be starved.
-
If there is ever a multicore Amiga compatible system running an AOS compatible operating system with memory protection, virtualisation and all the other buzzwords used by marketing professionals, who is going to write software to fully exploit all those features?, the best we can hope for is ports from the PC, and why would they even bother doing that for a market of just a few hundred people at best?
Such a system should perhaps come with an advanced program generator so that we are not dependent on other people to write the software.
-
4GB clearly isn't enough. Especially in modern times.
My laptop only has 4GB RAM and it really can become an issue. Especially when reclaiming memory takes too long, there are memory holes in a piece of software like Flash Player or without cache optimization.
Then you have the wrong OS and the wrong processor for a laptop. A 32 bit x86 with 2GB of memory and a little older OS is very happy for most uses needed for a laptop. I like your pic but I think that guy may have something to do with the problem.
It's actually less of a problem for most 32 bit OS', since they usually assume that there's less RAM available. However, that isn't too say 32 bit systems can't be starved.
The 68020 has about 10-20% better code density (code size) than the x86. The x86_64 is 10-20% worse code density by some estimates than the x86 (plus much more memory needed for stack and data alignment). We can make the 68k 5-15% better code density. That means our new 68k ISA programs could use 40% less memory than a x86_64. Better 68k compilers (I'm working on it) could save up to another 40% in code size. Caches can be this much smaller or have this percentage more code in them. Processors are cheaper to make with fewer caches. The i7 now has more caches than most Amigas have for main memory. Do we want to go bigger and more costly or do we want to go cheaper and more efficient? Some people may need the bigger and more costly so that is a good reason to have PPC for the high end and 68k for the low end with one unified AmigaOS API that makes programming easier.
-
AmigaOS does in fact have several performance bottlenecks, discounting hardware completely, the OS is cooperatively multitasked, similar to Mac OS pre X, so a task that demands CPU time gets it, with no way for the user to interact with and kill the task. Similarly, the OS is lacking a thread implementation, which spells to me NOT-THREAD-SAFE. I have seen a few userspace implementations of a ptheads-type model, but this is insufficient in most cases. This means AmigaOS, bare metal, runs everything in its own process, which increases memory requirements, wastes CPU time and makes the OS feel slower.
4GB RAM is not sufficient in many cases, either. If I am rendering something in lightwave on my Octane, I am limited to using slower rendering techniques that conserve memory, simply because my Octane has only 2GB RAM. If I had 8, the max, I would not have to be as careful. Even if I were to to take the Origin and hook it up to a G-Brick, which can have over 8 times the RAM of the Odyssey GPU, with only 4GB between four 64-bit CPUs, is going to have issues. Before you call a false analogy and say that IRIX is bloated, I have many times the power of the most-decked out Classic Amiga, and MIPS R10000 CPUs and derivatives are in a class above any G4-based Mac, and if I had a quad 800MHz Tezro with DCD and 8GB RAM I would go toe-to-toe with a quad G5 Mac in benchmarks and expect comparable performance, for a similar reason that the Amiga edged out PCs in the early 1990s: the central CPU didn't have to be fast because the GPU was able to pick up the slack, combined with a DMA design based on, and designed with, networking in mind.
The fact is you can't brush off hardware advancement like its nothing at all - you have to adapt and advance with it. 64-bit is becoming the norm in the open source world - PC-BSD, DragonFlyBSD, Ubuntu and a lot of other players are dropping 32-bit support, it is a DEAD-END. Even ARM has the v8 specification now, a 64-bit architecture is upon us. I love my Beaglebone Black, but sooner or later I will sell it, and cope with the fact that 32-bit in the consumer and hobbyist market is running out of petrol and circling the drain.
The fact is the Amiga-NG platforms MUST evolve and advance, otherwise it will be pretty much history, and it will join its competitors, DOS,OS and OS 9 in the history books for good.
-
AmigaOS does in fact have several performance bottlenecks, discounting hardware completely, the OS is cooperatively multitasked, similar to Mac OS pre X, so a task that demands CPU time gets it, with no way for the user to interact with and kill the task. Similarly, the OS is lacking a thread implementation, which spells to me NOT-THREAD-SAFE. I have seen a few userspace implementations of a ptheads-type model, but this is insufficient in most cases. This means AmigaOS, bare metal, runs everything in its own process, which increases memory requirements, wastes CPU time and makes the OS feel slower.
The Amiga has used preemptive multitasking from day one. It has lots of different processes and tasks. Almost everything including most of AmigaOS works in user space which is much faster than switching to supervisor mode for everything. It's not as secure or crash proof because of it but it is fast and it works well enough when programs don't misbehave.
4GB RAM is not sufficient in many cases, either. If I am rendering something in lightwave on my Octane, I am limited to using slower rendering techniques that conserve memory, simply because my Octane has only 2GB RAM. If I had 8, the max, I would not have to be as careful. Even if I were to to take the Origin and hook it up to a G-Brick, which can have over 8 times the RAM of the Odyssey GPU, with only 4GB between four 64-bit CPUs, is going to have issues. Before you call a false analogy and say that IRIX is bloated, I have many times the power of the most-decked out Classic Amiga, and MIPS R10000 CPUs and derivatives are in a class above any G4-based Mac, and if I had a quad 800MHz Tezro with DCD and 8GB RAM I would go toe-to-toe with a quad G5 Mac in benchmarks and expect comparable performance, for a similar reason that the Amiga edged out PCs in the early 1990s: the central CPU didn't have to be fast because the GPU was able to pick up the slack, combined with a DMA design based on, and designed with, networking in mind.
MIPS has the worst code density of any modern processor. The code size is more than twice that of 68k code. I can understand why you need more memory. Can you even boot your Octane with the same amount of memory as the Amiga 3000? My Amiga 3000 came with 2 (or 3 MB?) of memory and I could do a lot with it. I have a 3000T with a little over 100MB of memory with RTG gfx and I can do just about anything I need to with that while multitasking. I can't imagine 1GB of memory not being enough for 95%+ of users on an Amiga.
The fact is you can't brush off hardware advancement like its nothing at all - you have to adapt and advance with it. 64-bit is becoming the norm in the open source world - PC-BSD, DragonFlyBSD, Ubuntu and a lot of other players are dropping 32-bit support, it is a DEAD-END. Even ARM has the v8 specification now, a 64-bit architecture is upon us. I love my Beaglebone Black, but sooner or later I will sell it, and cope with the fact that 32-bit in the consumer and hobbyist market is running out of petrol and circling the drain.
The 64 bit hype sells computers. Bloated software sells computers. The desktop computer seems to be disappearing though. I wouldn't say 32 bit is dead for embedded and electrical devices. I know a 68k Amiga could do everything a pad and lower end laptop could do with less memory. Most powerful 68k Amiga computers have 64 or 128 MB of memory with happy Amiga users and you are saying that 4GB of memory is not enough for an Amiga? Maybe it wouldn't be for a MIPS Amiga or even a PPC (has good code density for RISC) Amiga but I can only dream of powerful enough apps for a 68k Amiga with 2GB of memory to ever run out of memory.
-
Wow Biggun, I don't know if you're trolling or just plain delusional:
Not only does AmigaOS fit that criteria, but so does CP/M, TOS and DOS. I don't see why you'd want to renounce memory protection, I mean I'd hate to have a stop error, guru meditation or what have you constantly interrupt my work and corrupt my data. Its used because often enough programmes simply aren't perfect and will happily corrupt your OS.
If your texteditor crashes then you loose your work anyhow.
Whether this is on AMIGA-OS or on UNIX it does not matter.
And memory protection does not help here.
SMP, and also threading and multiplexing are very important, simply because a single CPU can't do more than one task at a time. Multiprocessing allows for load balancing, increased CPU efficiency and less time spent switching tasks.
First of all - AMIGA OS supports threads.
Your argument is very "simple" but OK lets follow it.
Just say stop when you think you have enough CPU power
2 Cores have theoretically more power than 1
4 Cores have theoretically more power than 2
8 Cores have theoretically more power than 4
16 Cores have theoretically more power than 8
32 Cores have theoretically more power than 16
64 Cores have theoretically more power than 32
128 Cores have theoretically more power than 64
256 Cores have theoretically more power than 128
512 Cores have theoretically more power than 256
1024 Cores have theoretically more power than 512
2048 Cores have theoretically more power than 1024
Not happy yet?
Still need more?
What bloated Software do you want to run?
64-bit addressing and pointers are also important, because 4GB RAM no longer cuts it.
For all I want to do with my computer - 4 GB is enough.
-
Well if you produce that many than there would be the funds
to also produce 68k cores which can compete with PPC systems.
Including real AMIGA chipsets again.
Right now we can with FPGA technology build 68k system
in the performance range of PowerpC Efika systems.
If you would produce around 15,000 - 20,000 systems as you describe
then you could "bake" real 68Ks including AMIGA chipset as SOC.
These systems would have the real chipset and performance
wise would be able to play in the same league as PowerPC AMIGA XE systems.
Maybe when more work is completed on the FPGA 68k Soft-Core design, and if a standard can be established for some kind of SAGA, and after several "Proofs of Concept" have been produced and sold to customers as accelerators for existing Commodore Amiga 68k computer models, or stand alone FPGA Amiga clones, maybe after all of that has happened, we can get a Kickstarter project started to provide the funding needed to "Bake" some new ASIC chips and increase the speed and performance of these FPGA accelerators and stand alone clones by another factor of 2x to 4x, or more.
I think that a Kickstarter project to fund the creation and production of new Amiga custom chips would be wildly successful, compared to other Amiga bounties. There was a ton of interested and support for the Natami project, so the interest in an enhanced 68k Amiga accelerator or clone system is clearly there. Maybe not in numbers greater than 10,000, but certainly more than 2,000.
Too bad that none of this will be ready in time for the 30th Anniversary of the introduction of the Amiga, which is planned to be celebrated late in July of 2015 at the Museum of Computer History in Mountain View, Calif., as well as other locations around the world.
-
maybe after all of that has happened, we can get a Kickstarter project started to provide the funding needed to "Bake" some new ASIC chips and increase the speed and performance of these FPGA accelerators and stand alone clones by another factor of 2x to 4x, or more.
.
The FPGA get faster every other year.
If you assume that "maybe after all of that has happened" will take a year or two.
Then simple using the new FPGA models will us a 2x performance factor.
No big fund will be needed for this.
-
The FPGA get faster every other year.
If you assume that "maybe after all of that has happened" will take a year or two.
Then simple using the new FPGA models will us a 2x performance factor.
No big fund will be needed for this.
That is true. Maybe it will never be cost effective to "bake" new ASIC chips for an updated Amiga clone. I don't know how much performance increase is gained from going from a fast FPGA to a new baked ASIC, or how much performance increase is "Enough". It has been stated in the past that 10,000 to 15,000 chips would need to be produced to make any new ASIC chip cost effective, which is probably too many for our remaining community, but who knows, maybe with the improvements shown using FPGA's and the Apollo Soft-Core 68k CPU, plus a SAGA core, we will see enough former Amiga users become interested again to reach those numbers.
I have guessed that we only have about 1,000 to 3,500 active users counting all flavors of Amiga & Amiga Inspired platforms today, but others claim there are many more than my estimates. It will be interesting to see how many users line up to purchase the Phoenix accelerators, so please do NOT keep your sales numbers secret, like so many other sellers of Amiga gear do. We want to know how many units you produce and sell and how quickly they are sold, which will help all programmers know the size of the community they might consider writing software for really is.
I can understand secrecy about some things from Amiga companies, but have never understood why they refuse to release sales numbers. The only reason I can think of to hide sales numbers is that the number of sales is so embarrassingly low, they refuse to let anyone know how bad things really are, for fear of having the community shrink even smaller. I hope the Apollo Team will not follow the pattern of hiding sales numbers for their Phoenix accelerators, or the Viper boards from Majasta.
Edit: Maybe a big Kickstarter fund would help get hundreds of Phoenix accelerators built quickly and eliminate the risk of producing more than the number you have buyers for them. This could also help fund the design and production of additional Phoenix accelerator models for any Amiga models you have not already designed an accelerator board for.
-
That is true. Maybe it will never be cost effective to "bake" new ASIC chips for an updated Amiga clone.
It will depend on your goal.
If you want to bring out something like "CD32-2015 edition" which you want to sell to halve a million people then baking chips is the best way forward.
If you want to produce some 68K Amiga clones and you are satisfied with
a calculated performance of an A500 running @ 1 Giagaherz then FPGA are the easiest way for this.
-
(http://topinternet.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/billgates.jpg)
4GB clearly isn't enough. Especially in modern times.
My laptop only has 4GB RAM and it really can become an issue. Especially when reclaiming memory takes too long, there are memory holes in a piece of software like Flash Player or without cache optimization.
It's actually less of a problem for most 32 bit OS', since they usually assume that there's less RAM available. However, that isn't too say 32 bit systems can't be starved.
4 GB RAM is a issue? :confused:
Seriously all my newer systems (with Windows) and I never had a problem with RAM
-
That is true. Maybe it will never be cost effective to "bake" new ASIC chips for an updated Amiga clone. I don't know how much performance increase is gained from going from a fast FPGA to a new baked ASIC, or how much performance increase is "Enough". It has been stated in the past that 10,000 to 15,000 chips would need to be produced to make any new ASIC chip cost effective, which is probably too many for our remaining community, but who knows, maybe with the improvements shown using FPGA's and the Apollo Soft-Core 68k CPU, plus a SAGA core, we will see enough former Amiga users become interested again to reach those numbers.
I have guessed that we only have about 1,000 to 3,500 active users counting all flavors of Amiga & Amiga Inspired platforms today, but others claim there are many more than my estimates. It will be interesting to see how many users line up to purchase the Phoenix accelerators, so please do NOT keep your sales numbers secret, like so many other sellers of Amiga gear do. We want to know how many units you produce and sell and how quickly they are sold, which will help all programmers know the size of the community they might consider writing software for really is.
I can understand secrecy about some things from Amiga companies, but have never understood why they refuse to release sales numbers. The only reason I can think of to hide sales numbers is that the number of sales is so embarrassingly low, they refuse to let anyone know how bad things really are, for fear of having the community shrink even smaller. I hope the Apollo Team will not follow the pattern of hiding sales numbers for their Phoenix accelerators, or the Viper boards from Majasta.
Edit: Maybe a big Kickstarter fund would help get hundreds of Phoenix accelerators built quickly and eliminate the risk of producing more than the number you have buyers for them. This could also help fund the design and production of additional Phoenix accelerator models for any Amiga models you have not already designed an accelerator board for.
+1
You answered why they propably keep sales number secret
-
Then you have the wrong OS and the wrong processor for a laptop. A 32 bit x86 with 2GB of memory and a little older OS is very happy for most uses needed for a laptop. I like your pic but I think that guy may have something to do with the problem.
Great. You summarize in a few lines of text what I actually hate about retrocomputing-minded people like you, here and on other IT fora. Your absolute knowledge about other people's needs about hardware specs and computer uses. Your "for most uses" clearly don't fit the needs of the person you're talking with, and, for your info, they don't fit mine either. My laptop, which incidentally is the machine I use to develop and build Icaros Desktop, is a 8-GB 64-bit Windows 7 PC hosting the Ubuntu Linux virtual machine I use to develop and all needed target AROS guests. Ubuntu VM takes 2 GB of RAM and every AROS VM at least 512-1024 MB each one. For my main job, however, I need Windows. Current 8 GB are fine, but I had to add 4 GB to the ones I got with the laptop at the beginning, since 4 GB only were plain not enough to perform similar tasks.
We're ending yar 2014 DC and we're now paying less than 50¢ per gigabyte on mainstream SSD devices, while 8 GB RAM modules generally cost less than 100 euros. There is no practical, no economical, no moral need to save clock cycles and memory cells anymore. There's no need to be afraid of paging files and memory protection: our SSD, but even our fastest hard drives, can perfectly live with them, fastly and reliably. Being so conservative in resources can be good for embedded applications, but neither with mainstream operating systems, nor with Android, nor even with post-Amiga OSes, we're even remotely targeting to embedded uses. Scalability can be good, but we're definitely using our computers to perform more and more resource demanding tasks. If you still think 4 GB are "just enough" for today tasks, it simply means you haven't ever worked with huge images, with HD movies, with virtualization, with most of CURRENT "computer tasks" that 15-20 years ago we could just dream about.
-
If your texteditor crashes then you loose your work anyhow.
Whether this is on AMIGA-OS or on UNIX it does not matter.
And memory protection does not help here.
It does matter, indeed, if you were performing other tasks while using your text editor. For instance, if you were compiling your sources on cpu #2, downloading files and running other tasks on processors #3 and #4, having your stupid text editor crashing on cpu #1 and brin ging all other tasks to death with the rest of the OS, actually MAKES the difference between amigoid and unixoid OSes. Are you really still performing a single operation every time? Curious to hear, from the "we have had the first and most powerful mainstream multitasking machine in computer history" kind of people.
First of all - AMIGA OS supports threads.
And they would work far better if they only could be parallelized on different CPUs (or CPU cores, that's quite the same), as any other operating system already proved, without any chance of saying the contrary.
Your argument is very "simple" but OK lets follow it.
Just say stop when you think you have enough CPU power
2 Cores have theoretically more power than 1
4 Cores have theoretically more power than 2
8 Cores have theoretically more power than 4
16 Cores have theoretically more power than 8
32 Cores have theoretically more power than 16
64 Cores have theoretically more power than 32
128 Cores have theoretically more power than 64
256 Cores have theoretically more power than 128
512 Cores have theoretically more power than 256
1024 Cores have theoretically more power than 512
2048 Cores have theoretically more power than 1024
Not happy yet?
Still need more?
What bloated Software do you want to run?
It does not depend on software bloatness, but on how tasks you need to open in order to get your results as quickly as possible. This is the exact reson why we're talking about etherogeneous computing for 5-10 good years now, using GPUs to perform parallel computation instead of CPUs. And yes, 2048 cores are far better than 1024 for chemistry simulations and scientific computation, as like as 4096 would be better than 2048 and so on. And, believe in me, software running on Tesla-based servers are far from being bloated, since the algorhithm sent to every stream core must be as neat as possible.
There's also, indeed, a break even point for "normal" CPU core parallelization on home computing tasks. But this heavily depends on user needs as well. The more tasks you open, the more CPU cores you'll need to keep responsiveness, altohough the rest of your hardware should also cope with that (configuration balancing). Having 16 cores would be pointless without a huge amount of RAM and a good disk subsystem, since some tasks would end up filling available resources and place others on the to-do list, waiting for resources to be available again.
For all I want to do with my computer - 4 GB is enough.
As I said, I love people pretending their poor computing needs should be just enough for everyone.
-
Great. You summarize in a few lines of text what I actually hate about retrocomputing-minded people like you, here and on other IT fora. Your absolute knowledge about other people's needs about hardware specs and computer uses. Your "for most uses" clearly don't fit the needs of the person you're talking with, and, for your info, they don't fit mine either. My laptop, which incidentally is the machine I use to develop and build Icaros Desktop, is a 8-GB 64-bit Windows 7 PC hosting the Ubuntu Linux virtual machine I use to develop and all needed target AROS guests. Ubuntu VM takes 2 GB of RAM and every AROS VM at least 512-1024 MB each one. For my main job, however, I need Windows. Current 8 GB are fine, but I had to add 4 GB to the ones I got with the laptop at the beginning, since 4 GB only were plain not enough to perform similar tasks.
We're ending yar 2014 DC and we're now paying less than 50¢ per gigabyte on mainstream SSD devices, while 8 GB RAM modules generally cost less than 100 euros. There is no practical, no economical, no moral need to save clock cycles and memory cells anymore. There's no need to be afraid of paging files and memory protection: our SSD, but even our fastest hard drives, can perfectly live with them, fastly and reliably. Being so conservative in resources can be good for embedded applications, but neither with mainstream operating systems, nor with Android, nor even with post-Amiga OSes, we're even remotely targeting to embedded uses. Scalability can be good, but we're definitely using our computers to perform more and more resource demanding tasks. If you still think 4 GB are "just enough" for today tasks, it simply means you haven't ever worked with huge images, with HD movies, with virtualization, with most of CURRENT "computer tasks" that 15-20 years ago we could just dream about.
I use PC for programming and have never had any problems with 4 GB. I do not use it for professional video editing and when I did that I would definitely not use anything amiga-related. Even new games do rarely need more RAM so, 4 GB is enough for "most" users not power-users using it professionally. Many users even use tablets instead of desktops, certainly not for video editing :9. But who here does that at all and where do you get the "power-software" needing that to use on amiga? People use their computers (or tablets) for web-browsing, email, facebook and so on and gaming.
-
It does matter, indeed, if you were performing other tasks while using your text editor. For instance, if you were compiling your sources on cpu #2, downloading files and running other tasks on processors #3 and #4, having your stupid text editor crashing on cpu #1 and brin ging all other tasks to death with the rest of the OS, actually MAKES the difference between amigoid and unixoid OSes. Are you really still performing a single operation every time? Curious to hear, from the "we have had the first and most powerful mainstream multitasking machine in computer history" kind of people.
And they would work far better if they only could be parallelized on different CPUs (or CPU cores, that's quite the same), as any other operating system already proved, without any chance of saying the contrary.
It does not depend on software bloatness, but on how tasks you need to open in order to get your results as quickly as possible. This is the exact reson why we're talking about etherogeneous computing for 5-10 good years now, using GPUs to perform parallel computation instead of CPUs. And yes, 2048 cores are far better than 1024 for chemistry simulations and scientific computation, as like as 4096 would be better than 2048 and so on. And, believe in me, software running on Tesla-based servers are far from being bloated, since the algorhithm sent to every stream core must be as neat as possible.
There's also, indeed, a break even point for "normal" CPU core parallelization on home computing tasks. But this heavily depends on user needs as well. The more tasks you open, the more CPU cores you'll need to keep responsiveness, altohough the rest of your hardware should also cope with that (configuration balancing). Having 16 cores would be pointless without a huge amount of RAM and a good disk subsystem, since some tasks would end up filling available resources and place others on the to-do list, waiting for resources to be available again.
As I said, I love people pretending their poor computing needs should be just enough for everyone.
"As I said, I love people pretending their poor computing needs should be just enough for everyone."
LOL
Why starting to be polemic?
Counterquestion
Why do you think your "bloated" needs are representing everyone? I am just a application developer, perhaps I have no clue...
-
I use PC for programming and have never had any problems with 4 GB. I do not use it for professional video editing and when I did that I would definitely not use anything amiga-related. Even new games do rarely need more RAM so, 4 GB is enough for "most" users not power-users using it professionally. Many users even use tablets instead of desktops, certainly not for video editing :9. But who here does that at all and where do you get the "power-software" needing that to use on amiga? People use their computers (or tablets) for web-browsing, email, facebook and so on and gaming.
I use my virtual machine for the same purpose (programming, if we can call this way what I do) and I need just 2 GB of RAM. This does not make me any better and does not absolutely means 2 GB should be enough for everyone doing the same things.
But I specially love your bold statement, and the following reprise: "who here does that at all and where do you get the "power-software" needing that to use on amiga?". I can only answer: you won't EVER find the needed software on amiga to do that, if you still keep resources and goals on the lowest possible bar. Lack of ambitions is part of the issue. I would really love to have at least QEMU ported on Icaros Desktop, and SMP added to AROS because my ambitions are higher. I guess all this discussion started because AmigaOS/clones lovers do have the same ambitions, and finally start feeling sad these ambitions are still... well... delusions.
-
Counterquestion
Why do you think your "bloated" needs are representing everyone? I am just a application developer, perhaps I have no clue...
My "bloated" needs are just higher-resources hungry ones than others. I perfectly know I don't represent the normality, but I hereby constitute a case where yours/Matthey's/Biggugn's target resources for the OS are just too low. Obviously I wouldn't use a classic Amiga or a FPGA reimplementation to virtualize Linux, but I wouldn't keep the OS underpowered and "cut off" to the bare minimum needs of 68K apps just because they may be "enough" for most people. I would love the OS being right for ALL people, no matter how low or high hey needs are.
I start being polemic because I don't like, really, this "it's right for me, it should be right for everyone" attitude. I consider it utterly unpleasant.
-
I use my virtual machine for the same purpose (programming, if we can call this way what I do) and I need just 2 GB of RAM. This does not make me any better and does not absolutely means 2 GB should be enough for everyone doing the same things.
But I specially love your bold statement, and the following reprise: "who here does that at all and where do you get the "power-software" needing that to use on amiga?". I can only answer: you won't EVER find the needed software on amiga to do that, if you still keep resources and goals on the lowest possible bar. Lack of ambitions is part of the issue. I would really love to have at least QEMU ported on Icaros Desktop, and SMP added to AROS because my ambitions are higher. I guess all this discussion started because AmigaOS/clones lovers do have the same ambitions, and finally start feeling sad these ambitions are still... well... delusions.
I am realistic, ambitions are all nice but we see at Arix what happens when amibtion is too high. Perhaps we should be more realistic, when full SMP is not possible (or too complicated) why not doing something less ambitious. I would have wished Arix project would have (at first step) only added missing drivers, that alone would have helped a lot. And if "real SMP" is too much why not doing it less complicated (even if it is not "true" and needs adapted software). More than 4 GB are only needed for professional graphic software (including video editing). In reality there are not many people doing that (even on their work systems). But even if you say 4 GB is not enough for "everyone" you can also say it is only relevant for a minority (that needs it professional).
-
Why do you think your "bloated" needs are representing everyone?
Bloated is relative. What is definition where efficiency ends and bloat begins?
C64 with 64 kB RAM used to be plentiful. Then Amiga 500 with 512 kB RAM, then with 1 MB. Then Amiga 1200 with 2 MB and now we are pondering is 8 GB bloat or not.
-
I am realistic, ambitions are all nice but we see at Arix what happens when amibtion is too high. Perhaps we should be more realistic, when full SMP is not possible (or too complicated) why not doing something less ambitious. I would have wished Arix project would have (at first step) only added missing drivers, that alone would have helped a lot. And if "real SMP" is too much why not doing it less complicated (even if it is not "true" and needs adapted software). More than 4 GB are only needed for professional graphic software (including video editing). In reality there are not many people doing that (even on their work systems). But even if you say 4 GB is not enough for "everyone" you can also say it is only relevant for a minority (that needs it professional).
No, you're not realistic at all. 4 GB and 32 bits are not enough anymore. single processing is not enough anymore. lack of memory protection is not enough anymore. inability to parallelize tasks is not acceptable anymore. It may be still somehow true today, it won't absolutely be tomorrow, and since - for instance - ARIX is not available today, but it will (hopefully) tomorrow, your target shoud not be todays, but tomorrow's ones. Today games use more CPUs, use huge amounts of memory, expecially for hi-def textures on consoles, and keep resources under an "acceptable" level only on Android devices, but just for the fact they don't share the same specs of computers and consoles.
-
My "bloated" needs are just higher-resources hungry ones than others. I perfectly know I don't represent the normality, but I hereby constitute a case where yours/Matthey's/Biggugn's target resources for the OS are just too low. Obviously I wouldn't use a classic Amiga or a FPGA reimplementation to virtualize Linux, but I wouldn't keep the OS underpowered and "cut off" to the bare minimum needs of 68K apps just because they may be "enough" for most people. I would love the OS being right for ALL people, no matter how low or high hey needs are.
I start being polemic because I don't like, really, this "it's right for me, it should be right for everyone" attitude. I consider it utterly unpleasant.
"yours/Matthey's/Biggugn" have a different goal. It is a fun system, a new platform based on 68k certainly not competing with Windows or Linux or Mac. People like you are dreaming of a high-end platform in the same league as those big players. The air is thin in that league, who do you think will port the professional applications to it using that resources? I had contact to former amiga developers, mostly even Linux ports are financial failures. Applications are either on windows or for mobile platforms (expecially games). The other source of new software might be to motivate freeware/shareware developers but for those it is more important to have better dev tools. More than 4 GB is completely irrelevant there. And even more than one core is certainly only used by professional software.
-
No, you're not realistic at all. 4 GB and 32 bits are not enough anymore. single processing is not enough anymore. lack of memory protection is not enough anymore. inability to parallelize tasks is not acceptable anymore. It may be still somehow true today, it won't absolutely be tomorrow, and since - for instance - ARIX is not available today, but it will (hopefully) tomorrow, your target shoud not be todays, but tomorrow's ones. Today games use more CPUs, use huge amounts of memory, expecially for hi-def textures on consoles, and keep resources under an "acceptable" level only on Android devices, but just for the fact they don't share the same specs of computers and consoles.
If you have looked at the consoles, that are mostly multi-million projects now (mostly exclusive tied to one platform). Do you think that such a super-Aros or super-AmigaOS or whatever would be even taken seriously by these developers? As I said, more and better development software will bring much more software than support of more than 4 GB.
-
Bloated is relative. What is definition where efficiency ends and bloat begins?
C64 with 64 kB RAM used to be plentiful. Then Amiga 500 with 512 kB RAM, then with 1 MB. Then Amiga 1200 with 2 MB and now we are pondering is 8 GB bloat or not.
Bloated is indeed relative. It depends what you want to do with a system. If you want to play in first league competing with Windows or Mac (in applications) and see it running the newest games (in competition to the newest consoles) then 4 GB are not enough in future. But I do not see big chances to get there and compete in that field. So better to build up a niche and to get more software other shortcomings are more relevant.
-
Bloated is indeed relative. It depends what you want to do with a system. If you want to play in first league competing with Windows or Mac (in applications) and see it running the newest games (in competition to the newest consoles) then 4 GB are not enough in future.
Maybe I just want to have multiple applications running in parallel. At the work I may have 10 Visual Studio solutions open, three remote connections via RDP, stupid Lotus Notes (sh*t IBM software but unfortunately it is our email solution), few browser instances and some utils including TortoiseSVN, possibly checking out multiple repositories at once. None of them are particularly demanding but with all that stuff together I would appreciate having more RAM than just 4 GB.
-
If your texteditor crashes then you loose your work anyhow.
Whether this is on AMIGA-OS or on UNIX it does not matter.
And memory protection does not help here.
This thinking is flawed. When your text editor crashes you indeed lose your work on that text editor. But your other text editors are still running and you can save your work.
-
As I said, I love people pretending their poor computing needs should be just enough for everyone.
Mind to te-read my post.
I clearly said that FOR ME PERSONALLY for my home usage.
I'm absolutely happy with 32bit pointers.
As work I use an SMT POWER8 system with 640 threads and 2 Terrabyte of main memory.
This system is nice for its purpose.
But I do not think that people need such systems at home.
And me personally surely does not need this.
What I like to do at home is:
- read emails
- listen to some mp3
- buy stuff on amazon or ebay
- chat in irc
- view some videos
- write some stuff in my favority editor = vi
For all these task more than 4GB is not needed.
If the main CPU is fast enough to decoder the video I like to watch then I also have no need for SMT.
With more cores I could not listen faster to MP3, nor faster read my emails.
These are MY personal demands. I only speak for myself and not for you.
-
Maybe I just want to have multiple applications running in parallel. At the work I may have 10 Visual Studio solutions open, three remote connections via RDP, stupid Lotus Notes (sh*t IBM software but unfortunately it is our email solution), few browser instances and some utils including TortoiseSVN, possibly checking out multiple repositories at once. None of them are particularly demanding but with all that stuff together I would appreciate having more RAM than just 4 GB.
+1
I can't get away with less than 8 gigs on my work machine.
-
This thinking is flawed. When your text editor crashes you indeed lose your work on that text editor. But your other text editors are still running and you can save your work.
No its not,
When I do stuff in parallel on AMIGA then I listen to an MP3 in the background and write some stuff in an editor.
If the MP3 player and the text editor is stable enough - then you do not need memory protection for this.
Even without memory protection my texteditor did not crash on me for years.
So I'm not missing anything here.
-
@matthey
As much as I'd love to blame Gates, it's unlikely he had anything to do with the creation of the OS I'm using (Debian).
It's a memory hole inside the kernel that most core devs acknowledge but are unwilling to fix.
The caching mechanism as well as conservative minds are at fault here.
I recently applied a kernel patch fixing it (indeed it works very well while I'm in the office. Consuming approx. 1/3 of the memory. However, I've yet to get the Atheros wifi module working, so I can't use the custom kernel at home.
@biggun
There's a first time for everything. Perhaps one day, while writing a long document or doing your taxes, your MP3 player crashes and takes everything else with it.
Memory protection does make a huge difference.
-
@biggun
There's a first time for everything. Perhaps one day, while writing a long document or doing your taxes, your MP3 player crashes and takes everything else with it.
Memory protection does make a huge difference.
The discussion is like talking about "seat belts".
Yes seat belts can save lives.
But I like to drive my motor bike and used to scate board when I was young.
I look at AMIGA OS as "fun" OS.
Like I look at a scate board or a motor bike.
Its fun to dirt race on the bike. And when I fall then I will fall.
Its that simple. :)
What I like abotu AMIGA os is that is elegant and "free" in its way to use stuff.
I can quickly hack a program together which snoops system calls.
Or which monitors the disk IO.
This is how AMIGA OS is and I just like the way it is.
-
The discussion is like talking about "seat belts".
Yes seat belts can save lives.
But I like to drive my motor bike and used to scate board when I was young.
I look at AMIGA OS as "fun" OS.
Like I look at a scate board or a motor bike.
Its fun to dirt race on the bike. And when I fall then I will fall.
Its that simple. :)
What I like abotu AMIGA os is that is elegant and "free" in its way to use stuff.
I can quickly hack a program together which snoops system calls.
Or which monitors the disk IO.
This is how AMIGA OS is and I just like the way it is.
You can do that on a Unixoid too. Probably even easier due to the well documented and widely used shell scripting languages.
-
Perhaps one day, while writing a long document or doing your taxes, your MP3 player crashes and takes everything else with it.
Memory protection does make a huge difference.
Yes, memory protection is very nice, especially when programming. However, you still have to save your work regularly under different names (perhaps a name with an increasing number, such as file1, file2, file3 etc), because the program itself can crash, taking your work with it. In fact, I easily save at least once every five minutes so that I can only ever loose five minutes of work.
-
No its not,
When I do stuff in parallel on AMIGA then I listen to an MP3 in the background and write some stuff in an editor.
If the MP3 player and the text editor is stable enough - then you do not need memory protection for this.
Sure, if you can trust every single piece of software that you run then you don't need memory protection.
I don't think I'd trust it for online banking or entering my credit card details anywhere though.
-
Great. You summarize in a few lines of text what I actually hate about retrocomputing-minded people like you, here and on other IT fora. Your absolute knowledge about other people's needs about hardware specs and computer uses. Your "for most uses" clearly don't fit the needs of the person you're talking with, and, for your info, they don't fit mine either. My laptop, which incidentally is the machine I use to develop and build Icaros Desktop, is a 8-GB 64-bit Windows 7 PC hosting the Ubuntu Linux virtual machine I use to develop and all needed target AROS guests. Ubuntu VM takes 2 GB of RAM and every AROS VM at least 512-1024 MB each one. For my main job, however, I need Windows. Current 8 GB are fine, but I had to add 4 GB to the ones I got with the laptop at the beginning, since 4 GB only were plain not enough to perform similar tasks.
I talked about the choice of 32 bit 68k for the low end and 64 bit PPC for a high end Amiga with one unified API. Let's let the consumers choose:
1) 68k laptop Amiga for $1000
o CPU speed of a Raspberry Pi or better
o 1GB of memory
o 40GB SSD
o SAGA gfx with chunky
o supports most 68k Amiga software
o battery life of 16 hours
or
2) PPC laptop Amiga $7000
o CPU speed of an i3 or better, 64 bit, 2-4 cores, virtualization support
o 8GB of memory
o 1TB hard drive
o integrated modern gfx card
o 68k software is sandboxed, PPC AmigaOS support is possible, no virtualization software
o battery life of 4 hours
Like Olaf said, it's not just about wants (or even needs in this case) but what is realistic. We could probably realistically have option 1 as it would sell in the thousands. Option 2 would have a few hundred buyers and not enough high end Amiga software to take advantage of it.
I have been programming, debugging, using a web browser and transferring files with SMBFS on my Amiga for the last few weeks with several days of uptime. I have done up to 32 bit gfx editing for a web site using TVPaint, ImageFX and PPaint. I can do a lot with 128MB on a 68k classic Amiga. I could use more speed and a little more memory would be nice but I can't see any way that I would use more than 1GB of memory with current Amiga apps.
-
"yours/Matthey's/Biggugn" have a different goal. It is a fun system, a new platform based on 68k certainly not competing with Windows or Linux or Mac. People like you are dreaming of a high-end platform in the same league as those big players. The air is thin in that league, who do you think will port the professional applications to it using that resources? I had contact to former amiga developers, mostly even Linux ports are financial failures. Applications are either on windows or for mobile platforms (expecially games). The other source of new software might be to motivate freeware/shareware developers but for those it is more important to have better dev tools. More than 4 GB is completely irrelevant there. And even more than one core is certainly only used by professional software.
Thing is, with Amiga 32 bit does not provide GB RAM aviailability. Bit 32 is taken aready, leaves two GB only and from that parts are also not available for RAM. On MorphOS teh limz is actually 1.5 GB on OS4 a bit higher (1.8???) and on AROS I currently don't know.
And less than 2 GB is an issue. My Mac mini with 1 GB runs quite often out of RAM, my Powerbook with 1.5 GB is a bit better, butsometimes I use it all. Hence, te more the merrier. Indeed I guess on Amiga 4 GB would be comfortable for acouple of years, but that changes. 32 bit limit is annoying.
-
No its not,
When I do stuff in parallel on AMIGA then I listen to an MP3 in the background and write some stuff in an editor.
If the MP3 player and the text editor is stable enough - then you do not need memory protection for this.
Even without memory protection my texteditor did not crash on me for years.
So I'm not missing anything here.
Teet editor was used just as an example. And please remember because there is no MP some other program could crash it. Perhaps MP3 you are listening to has broken frame your MP3 player can't decode and trashes data in your text editor. Not likely to happen but it is possible.
I am ok with it but it can't be denied how useful MP is.
-
Thing is, with Amiga 32 bit does not provide GB RAM aviailability. Bit 32 is taken aready, leaves two GB only and from that parts are also not available for RAM. On MorphOS teh limz is actually 1.5 GB on OS4 a bit higher (1.8???) and on AROS I currently don't know.
And less than 2 GB is an issue. My Mac mini with 1 GB runs quite often out of RAM, my Powerbook with 1.5 GB is a bit better, butsometimes I use it all. Hence, te more the merrier. Indeed I guess on Amiga 4 GB would be comfortable for acouple of years, but that changes. 32 bit limit is annoying.
Aros is 3.5 or 3.8 gigs iirc. Aros64 I have tested with 32 Gigs only screenshotted when it was in a 24 Gig VM though.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x919q50/62/kyza.png
-
Sure, if you can trust every single piece of software that you run then you don't need memory protection.
I don't think I'd trust it for online banking or entering my credit card details anywhere though.
You trust any amigaoid for that? You are a optimistic person :-)
Seriously all our OSs (including NG) are completely open. And even if there would be some protection and the banking software would run on it I would like to see how you explain what you uses to the banking people. The bank will always try to say it is your fault and they would certianly use it against you. I do not online banking in general but if I would do that I would use a protected Windows-PC or Linux or Mac for that.
-
Teet editor was used just as an example. And please remember because there is no MP some other program could crash it. Perhaps MP3 you are listening to has broken frame your MP3 player can't decode and trashes data in your text editor. Not likely to happen but it is possible.
I am ok with it but it can't be denied how useful MP is.
Yes of course MP makes sense but the problem is that we have what we have. I am not a lowlevel guy but if I understand it right adding what people call "modern" would break everything. 68k software would run on UAE anyway but would it be possible to compile the newer software to it? And right now it is partly easy to port 68k software (as long as it is not hitting hardware or is including assembler parts) to NG, would it still be possible to do that with such a modernized platform? If not what sense it would make for the people (except feeling more amiga than a themed linux)?
-
The Amiga has used preemptive multitasking from day one. It has lots of different processes and tasks. Almost everything including most of AmigaOS works in user space which is much faster than switching to supervisor mode for everything. It's not as secure or crash proof because of it but it is fast and it works well enough when programs don't misbehave.
AmigaOS uses cooperative multitasking with a preemptive scheduler. Where it falls short of the definition of preemptive multitasking is memory protection and task protection. Without both, you're going to have badly behaved programs trashing daemons, other programs or the kernel itself. On UNIX, Windows NT and Linux, for example, the worst a badly behaved program will usually do is coredump with a segmentation fault, vs on the Amiga where it will lock up the system or send it into a guru meditation error. Also, the microkernel model has been shown to not always be the most efficient model around: the Mach microkernel has several design flaws which hinder performance vs the System V or BSD kernel designs, which are both monolithic in design
MIPS has the worst code density of any modern processor. The code size is more than twice that of 68k code. I can understand why you need more memory. Can you even boot your Octane with the same amount of memory as the Amiga 3000? My Amiga 3000 came with 2 (or 3 MB?) of memory and I could do a lot with it. I have a 3000T with a little over 100MB of memory with RTG gfx and I can do just about anything I need to with that while multitasking. I can't imagine 1GB of memory not being enough for 95%+ of users on an Amiga.
The 64 bit hype sells computers. Bloated software sells computers. The desktop computer seems to be disappearing though. I wouldn't say 32 bit is dead for embedded and electrical devices. I know a 68k Amiga could do everything a pad and lower end laptop could do with less memory. Most powerful 68k Amiga computers have 64 or 128 MB of memory with happy Amiga users and you are saying that 4GB of memory is not enough for an Amiga? Maybe it wouldn't be for a MIPS Amiga or even a PPC (has good code density for RISC) Amiga but I can only dream of powerful enough apps for a 68k Amiga with 2GB of memory to ever run out of memory.
My Octane doesn't have a small enough module for me to test that, but the Indy I have will boot with 16MB installed, assuming I run it in serial mode, not via X11. I'm not going to fscking argue about code density, because in the end memory and disk space are cheap, and 64-bit CPUs are no where near the memory ceiling for addressing as of yet. Don't get me wrong, both the 68000 and 65C816 are great CPUs, for their class. Scaling the design up won't work. The 6502 and 65C816 are proto-RISC, and arguably the 6502 and derivatives are more successful than the 68000. That's not to say that the 68000 doesn't have advantages, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUZpF2JLF4s That is done using a Mega Drive, FYI.
But I will quote Simon of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, an idol of mine from my childhood:
"We evolve, beyond the person that we were a minute before. Little by little, we advance with each turn. That's how a drill works...That's your limitation! You sit here closed off, blocking away other lifeforms like some sort of king! That's nobody's limitation but your own!"
If the moment something stops evolving, be it a person, an industry or a piece of software, you limit yourself. Why limit yourself to 32-bit, and only guarantee your obscurity. With the 32-bit limit in mind, you will never be able to, for example, render a 1080p with a high texture resolution: Mathematically, if the textures don't fit into your memory, you're not going to be able to render at that resolution, period. If I am renting out racks of servers, as I have done at previous occupations, (Windows Azure, FYI) all of them had at minimum, 8GB RAM. The render servers? Up to 64GB, and at other datacenters there were 128GB racks. 32-bit is dying for the consumer computer market. For embedded and mobile? Not at all, but then why are people justifying against ARM, the single most used 32-bit architecture these days? ARM64 is out, but its definitely in its infancy. It won't be long, but it will soon creep into the server and the consumer computer markets. The writing is on the wall.
If your texteditor crashes then you loose your work anyhow.
Whether this is on AMIGA-OS or on UNIX it does not matter.
And memory protection does not help here.
Yes, but on UNIX, at least, I don't have to worry about it corrupting my entire running kernel, killing any other processes and threads running, and then have to deal with the potential risk of data loss. It doesn't help that AFFS has no logging or soft updates to deal with the threat of data loss - fsck-type check and repair isn't exactly perfect, nor fast.
First of all - AMIGA OS supports threads.
I never said it did not, I said it wasn't thread-safe. Its like running mod_php with MPM worker on Apache: People do it, but it isn't smart, and furthermore, doing it ups the risk of the web server crashing under load, as mod_php isn't thread safe. It can thread, but as soon as it encounters a lock held by another thread, or a race condition, it is going to crash.
AmigaOS exec kernel has no kernel-level implementation of threading, so the implementations that exist run in userspace, which has been shown to be unstable and be questionable in terms of performance vs a kernel implementation
Your argument is very "simple" but OK lets follow it.
Not happy yet?
Still need more?
What bloated Software do you want to run?
For all I want to do with my computer - 4 GB is enough.
Now you're patronising me. See my above example - in rendering you can't make 5+2=2; mathematics for rendering are as rigid as you get. Furthermore, you can't assume your case, that you'll never need above 4GB, holds up for everyone else here. Don't give yourself that much credit.
Paulone: I find myself nodding in agreement with a lot of what you say - are we running in parallel or something? :)
Bottom line is - I don't have room for a cooperative multitasking, single-user, insecure, outdated and 32-bit only OS in my daily lineup. I have my 3000, for when I'm manic enough to try using it for something or for playing one of the few Amiga games I've found I enjoy, and also for the rose-tinted, watercoloured memories of my youth. Beyond that? its an expensive old hunk of metal and circuits that takes up space in a cabinet near my desk 99% of the time.
-
I talked about the choice of 32 bit 68k for the low end and 64 bit PPC for a high end Amiga with one unified API. Let's let the consumers choose:
1) 68k laptop Amiga for $1000
o CPU speed of a Raspberry Pi or better
o 1GB of memory
o 40GB SSD
o SAGA gfx with chunky
o supports most 68k Amiga software
o battery life of 16 hours
or
2) PPC laptop Amiga $7000
o CPU speed of an i3 or better, 64 bit, 2-4 cores, virtualization support
o 8GB of memory
o 1TB hard drive
o integrated modern gfx card
o 68k software is sandboxed, PPC AmigaOS support is possible, no virtualization software
o battery life of 4 hours
Like Olaf said, it's not just about wants (or even needs in this case) but what is realistic. We could probably realistically have option 1 as it would sell in the thousands. Option 2 would have a few hundred buyers and not enough high end Amiga software to take advantage of it.
I have been programming, debugging, using a web browser and transferring files with SMBFS on my Amiga for the last few weeks with several days of uptime. I have done up to 32 bit gfx editing for a web site using TVPaint, ImageFX and PPaint. I can do a lot with 128MB on a 68k classic Amiga. I could use more speed and a little more memory would be nice but I can't see any way that I would use more than 1GB of memory with current Amiga apps.
Sorry. But in what sort of parallel universe would option 1 sell in the thousands?
Those specs sound plain horrible. Especially at that price range.
Not everyone is buying hardware for vanity. Especially not past the 300 USD bar.
-
I talked about the choice of 32 bit 68k for the low end and 64 bit PPC for a high end Amiga with one unified API. Let's let the consumers choose:
1) 68k laptop Amiga for $1000
o CPU speed of a Raspberry Pi or better
o 1GB of memory
o 40GB SSD
o SAGA gfx with chunky
o supports most 68k Amiga software
o battery life of 16 hours
or
2) PPC laptop Amiga $7000
o CPU speed of an i3 or better, 64 bit, 2-4 cores, virtualization support
o 8GB of memory
o 1TB hard drive
o integrated modern gfx card
o 68k software is sandboxed, PPC AmigaOS support is possible, no virtualization software
o battery life of 4 hours
Like Olaf said, it's not just about wants (or even needs in this case) but what is realistic. We could probably realistically have option 1 as it would sell in the thousands. Option 2 would have a few hundred buyers and not enough high end Amiga software to take advantage of it.
I have been programming, debugging, using a web browser and transferring files with SMBFS on my Amiga for the last few weeks with several days of uptime. I have done up to 32 bit gfx editing for a web site using TVPaint, ImageFX and PPaint. I can do a lot with 128MB on a 68k classic Amiga. I could use more speed and a little more memory would be nice but I can't see any way that I would use more than 1GB of memory with current Amiga apps.
I take one from column A (#1 above) now and one from column B (#2 above) after it has been out for several months and is proven stable with completed drivers, and I have had the time needed to save up the money to buy it.
Perhaps #1 from your post could be done very soon-ish, using FPGA technology and existing laptop components for battery storage and management, plus an LCD screen, but I am not convinced it could be done for only $1,000 US dollars. Maybe 1,000 UK pounds, but who knows, maybe if the people creating it don't ask for a huge markup profit, then maybe $1,000 US dollars is possible. I would suggest 2gb of RAM though, as that would provide us with more room to develop new software that takes advantage of the SAGA video resolutions and features, plus more demanding 68k software, which can take advantage of the increased speed of a Soft-Core 680x0 CPU running at close to Raspberry Pi speeds.
I also agree that such a laptop could sell thousands of units, compared to at best a few hundred PPC laptops meeting your #2 description, and selling for $5,000 to $7,000 and up prices. I can't wait to test how fast LightWave3D v5.03 will run on one of these Phoenix accelerators in one of my Commodore Amiga computers! LightWave3D for 68k runs on both AmigaOS4.1.6 and MorphOS3.7, but has some rendering or display problems that should not exist on an accelerated Commodore Amiga.
What would be the best way to fund the creation of #1? A bounty, a Kickstarter project? A "Do-it-Yourself" design using common off-the-shelf laptop parts (if you can really find laptop parts for sale to "Do-it-Yourself" builders)?
@Blinx123,
It is in the Amiga community universe where you will find 2 to 3 thousand buyers for a 68k laptop as described in #1. There are more Amiga users who remain interested in 68k Amiga software and hardware, than all of the NG Amiga Inspired platforms combined, or at least it appears that way to me and many others. If we will soon have 68k Amiga accelerators and stand alone clones that can provide performance equal to or faster than the SAM440ep, I think that interest will grow even higher for 68k software and hardware. Only time will tell, but thankfully, we don't have much longer to wait, as it appears that progress has been good, and reports seem to indicate that these new FPGA accelerators and stand alone systems will be released within the next 2 to 6 months.
@ Blinx123, Paolone, itix, etc.
This thread seems to have evolved into at least 2, if not 3 or 4 different discussions. The question of should NG Amiga OSes use 64bit memory space, or 32bit memory space, IMO should be a separate question from the running of AmigaOS3.x on 68k and FPGA hardware. I agree with you that if we are talking about the topic of this thread, one OS to unify Amiga users as a possible future choice, then 4gb RAM is not enough. I think any new OS should provide the possibility to expand as far as possible in the future and should not be designed with limitations that are already known, or tied to any single hardware choices. One of the other discussions is about how much is enough, when thinking of improving existing Amiga 68k hardware, software and actual enhancements to AmigaOS3.x for 68k and FPGA hardware. In that discussion, the decision to have 32bit (or even 31bit) memory space, or 64bit memory space is less black or white.
As different as apples and meatloaf to me, but maybe you see all of this differently.
-
I talked about the choice of 32 bit 68k for the low end and 64 bit PPC for a high end Amiga with one unified API. Let's let the consumers choose:
1) 68k laptop Amiga for $1000
o CPU speed of a Raspberry Pi or better
o 1GB of memory
o 40GB SSD
o SAGA gfx with chunky
o supports most 68k Amiga software
o battery life of 16 hours
or
2) PPC laptop Amiga $7000
o CPU speed of an i3 or better, 64 bit, 2-4 cores, virtualization support
o 8GB of memory
o 1TB hard drive
o integrated modern gfx card
o 68k software is sandboxed, PPC AmigaOS support is possible, no virtualization software
o battery life of 4 hours
To be honest I find both way to expensive...
I would rather target something like this:
* 68K CPU with enhanced feature set and instruction providing multimedia acceleration
* 1 GB of fast main memory
My design target would here by to reach 1.5 to 3.0 GB/sec memory copy speed.
This means this 68K system would be about 10 times more powerful in memory than a PowerPC G4 Amiga.
* USB, Network and HDMI connectors
* Amiga Chipset with P96 und truecolor
* Video resolution up to full HD
* SDCard storage
We have the know-how to produce the above today.
The whole could be sold for $300-ish
-
AmigaOS uses cooperative multitasking with a preemptive scheduler. Where it falls short of the definition of preemptive multitasking is memory protection and task protection.
What a very strange definition of preemptive multitasking...
-
We have the know-how to produce the above today.
The whole could be sold for $300-ish
Perhaps in theory...
-
Perhaps in theory...
Hard to say - and depends on what you want. If you want a complete system, professional manufacturer, plus casing, ready to buy in stores - no. I believe Gunnar is more stating what the whole thing would cost as the price of all of its components, probably self-assembly, or as a turbo-board ready to be plugged into an existing machine. That's simpler. FPGAs aren't really that expensive anymore, and it doesn't take much more than this chip plus a bit of glue-logic around it.
Anyhow, the whole discussion shows again that its not so easy to identify what people actually want. Yes, "of course" I want memory protection and a larger addressing space and a more modern Os. However, this creates a machine that would rather require a x64 architecture to run on a PC. It would probably not have much in common with AmigaOs as we have it, though could run old applications in a sandbox. That was basically one option I gave. Given my background, you should really know that I'm all for memory protection and resource management. Just to let you know: The result would only have remote connection to AmigaOs.
The other option is Gunnar's option: It is just stating the fact that it is unrealistic that Amiga will ever become mainstream again, and if you want mainstream features, you'd better get a mainstream machine in addition. If you just want a bit more computing power for the old stuff, this is quite realistic as a hobbist project. It's of course creating a machine that cannot compete in any aspect to a modern system - but what the heck - it's a hobby after all.
Anyhow - make your pick.
-
@Thomas Richter
There has been a lot of talk over the years. Talk, talk, talk. And dreams. But even if "the know-how" would truly be there to actually accomplish this in practice, it still takes *a completely different* kind of know-how to actually take it beyond some basement prototype stage, set up production and marketing the thing at an end-user retail price of $300.
-
AmigaOS uses cooperative multitasking with a preemptive scheduler. Where it falls short of the definition of preemptive multitasking is memory protection and task protection. Without both, you're going to have badly behaved programs trashing daemons, other programs or the kernel itself. On UNIX, Windows NT and Linux, for example, the worst a badly behaved program will usually do is coredump with a segmentation fault, vs on the Amiga where it will lock up the system or send it into a guru meditation error.
AmigaOS is pre-emptive and not co-operative. You can't just redefine the terminology.
On Unix, Windows NT & Linux you can take down the entire machine from software.
I would quite like to see a modern x86 or an ARM on an A1200 accelerator card.
It's kinda interesting to have AGA for an A500, although I don't know if I'd actually buy one.
-
Uhh guys I'm not redefining any terminology: preemptive multitasking by definition requires the OS have the ability to cull tasks that overrun other tasks, or hijack the scheduler, as one can effectively do currently with the forbid() system call.
It has been described as preemptive multitasking, but the de facto definition of preemptive multitasking requires the OS to be able to protect tasks against each other. Task protection and memory protection are two different things, but they're both integral to stable systems.
Furthermore, I never said other OSes can't be taken down from software, but there are countermeasures which can be applied to enforce that. On Linux, for example, cgroups effectively isolate and control processes in such a way that the OS can't be resource starved. UNIX and Linux further use ulimits, privilege separation and permissions to act as countermeasures. This is in addition to memory and task protection.
What I'm trying to say is, the AmigaOS is a fossil, effectively. If it ever is to stand a chance of being a stable, secure,general use OS it will need to evolve and break compatibility if needed. If your proprietary binaries can't keep running, then get the developer to update and fix them or else release the source code under a proper licence like the MIT, BSD or ISC licence so others can continue and if needed, fork it.
-
To be honest I find both way to expensive...
I would rather target something like this:
* 68K CPU with enhanced feature set and instruction providing multimedia acceleration
* 1 GB of fast main memory
My design target would here by to reach 1.5 to 3.0 GB/sec memory copy speed.
This means this 68K system would be about 10 times more powerful in memory than a PowerPC G4 Amiga.
* USB, Network and HDMI connectors
* Amiga Chipset with P96 und truecolor
* Video resolution up to full HD
* SDCard storage
We have the know-how to produce the above today.
The whole could be sold for $300-ish
I would not want to add any new ideas or demands to delay your Phoenix accelerator projects, but it sure would be great if the Apollo Team, or someone else that has the engineering and design talent, would take the next step and create an FPGA based 68k Amiga laptop. It is one hole in our available hardware that is only filled by AROS and MorphOS users, and at least for me, a portable system is much more useful to most peoples lifestyles these days, more than a desktop system, though I am not advocating that everyone switch to using laptops or tablets (personally don't like tablets myself), or abandoning the creation of Phoenix accelerators for all or most models of the original Commodore Amiga computers. After production and sales of Phoenix accelerators, and maybe even stand alone desktop systems, it just would be great to have a laptop option available.
It is just so much more convenient for myself anyway, to use a laptop and be around other family members and friends, instead of being alone in another room with my desktop system, or being unable to use my preferred platform except through emulation when I am traveling, because there is no Amiga 68k laptop option available.
Your cost estimates are impressive and admirable, but don't under estimate hidden costs. It is better to estimate the costs a little higher than actual and then be able to deliver a product at a lower than anticipated price, instead of giving the impression that a lower price will be possible, and then having to raise the actual selling price to an amount that is higher than your original estimates and be criticized for making the original low estimates.
@TeamBlackFox,
I think that users or programmers in the Amiga community who think that any of the 4 different directions the Amiga has survived in will ever become competitive again with any mainstream platform, are seriously delusional, or hopelessly out of touch with reality, IMHO. I don't think you believe that the hobby OSes that have sprung up since the demise of Commodore and all other companies who have come and gone, who purchased the rights to the Amiga API since Commodore went bankrupt, plus AmigaOS3.x, which has fallen to the status of a hobby OS, due to a lack of support and slow development to provide any current modern features, will ever be able to compete with mainstream OSes. It is doubtful that any of these hobby OSes will even be able to compete with any Unix, or Linux based niche distributions, which have many more programmers available to work on upgrading them than any of the Amiga Inspired OSes. I only bring this up, because several statements in this thread have compared what we currently have and what some users believe we should strive for in the future, to mainstream OSes. No doubt, we should learn from platforms which have much greater resources, and strive to copy as many features and improvements as we can from them to our tiny niche OSes, but if some of those features and improvements comes at the cost of throwing away all or most of what makes an Amiga Inspired OS related to our Amiga legacy and heritage, then why even bother? If we have to give up almost all legacy support, then why not just abandon any connection to the Amiga and use the mainstream choices available to us?
If we instead wish to continue working toward an improved Amiga Inspired OS, some compromises must be made with the understanding that we will never be able to compete with mainstream OSes, but we can provide "Better" Amiga Inspired OSes, than we currently have available to us. That is where we fall into 4 different directions where people think their direction is the right choice for themselves and several others and why we can't, or won't be able to ever agree on one unifying OS that satisfies all remaining Amiga users and programmers.
-
Amigadave,
My point exactly. People are delusional to compare it to other OSes favourably, especially in its current state. On the same hand I'm not denying UNIX and workalikes as a whole don't have a very different set of problems from AmigaOS, namely the fact that there is a massive undertaking to remove a boatload of retrospectively bad design decisions, from the System V init daemon, to the X11 protocol of over 20 years ago and implementations, to newer mistakes such as HAL, systemd, udev and Weston which the community is dealing with in very divisive manners. What I do know is that they're much more advanced, even in the state of division that plagues the communities.
My comments are more to people who think, in an asinine manner, that the AmigaOS can be satisfactorily used as a daily driver without serious limitations. I looked into it years ago, when I had my 3000UX ( Amiga UNIX is a pile of garbage, in retrospect ) and discovered that there is a tone of poorly written implementations out there of various programmes, so one has to spend a lot of time auditing, writing dirty hacks and modifying the machine's underlying OS. Which I'll admit, is fun at time, but to use the now antique computers as daily drivers of any kind is pretty asinine. The only reason I can still run IRIX for example is because the UNIX APIs for a lot of things are cross platform, and one can replace old, proprietary libraries and OS parts with new equivalents that are open source. Also since IRIX is almost 10 years ahead of AmigaOS in terms of development, since OS 3.x ground to a halt ~2000-ish while IRIX still was regularly patched until the SGI bankruptcy in 2009-10.
Finally as a refrain to the original topic, I like the state of how things are now in the community: There are well-defined differences between each major project and its goals, and their user bases. Nothing wrong with a little bit of choice now!
-
I would not want to add any new ideas or demands to delay your Phoenix accelerator projects, but it sure would be great if the Apollo Team, or someone else that has the engineering and design talent, would take the next step and create an FPGA based 68k Amiga laptop. It is one hole in our available hardware that is only filled by AROS and MorphOS users, and at least for me, a portable system is much more useful to most peoples lifestyles these days, more than a desktop system, though I am not advocating that everyone switch to using laptops or tablets (personally don't like tablets myself), or abandoning the creation of Phoenix accelerators for all or most models of the original Commodore Amiga computers. After production and sales of Phoenix accelerators, and maybe even stand alone desktop systems, it just would be great to have a laptop option available.
A 68k laptop is my dream but it is quite a bit more work to make with quality and it really needs high enough production numbers to make it worthwhile. A small tower board makes more sense although it may be possible to make it in a shape that would fit in an existing laptop shell. My point with the laptops in general was to show how much more difficult and costly it would be to make a modern competitive laptop compared to a fun but still useful 68k netbook/laptop.
Your cost estimates are impressive and admirable, but don't under estimate hidden costs. It is better to estimate the costs a little higher than actual and then be able to deliver a product at a lower than anticipated price, instead of giving the impression that a lower price will be possible, and then having to raise the actual selling price to an amount that is higher than your original estimates and be criticized for making the original low estimates.
I think Gunnars estimates may be a little low but not that far off by looking at the Mist and fpga Arcade. I wish these boards would put more memory on board.
Amigadave,
My comments are more to people who think, in an asinine manner, that the AmigaOS can be satisfactorily used as a daily driver without serious limitations. I looked into it years ago, when I had my 3000UX ( Amiga UNIX is a pile of garbage, in retrospect ) and discovered that there is a tone of poorly written implementations out there of various programs, so one has to spend a lot of time auditing, writing dirty hacks and modifying the machine's underlying OS. Which I'll admit, is fun at time, but to use the now antique computers as daily drivers of any kind is pretty asinine. The only reason I can still run IRIX for example is because the UNIX APIs for a lot of things are cross platform, and one can replace old, proprietary libraries and OS parts with new equivalents that are open source. Also since IRIX is almost 10 years ahead of AmigaOS in terms of development, since OS 3.x ground to a halt ~2000-ish while IRIX still was regularly patched until the SGI bankruptcy in 2009-10.
My 3000T with CSMK3 68060@75MHz, Mediator with Voodoo 4 and ethernet and mostly standard AmigaOS 3.9 feels like it's almost as fast as my older 2.3GHz Pentium M laptop with Windows XP. My Amiga doesn't pause for several seconds with low CPU usage and in general feels more responsive. The laptop is faster after it gets up to speed but I would be quite happy with the speed and memory of my 68060 Amiga in a laptop. The worst problem is not the AmigaOS which is quite useable even today but rather the lack of more modern apps. My Amiga is stable which is different than secure, cooperative or not. Yes, programs have to cooperate in behaving but I simply stop using what doesn't. It's not that big of a handicap. I would like to see partial memory protection as we could have most of the benefits of memory protection with the speed of shared message passing. A 68k compatible Amiga will never be a high security OS necessary for servers and workstations but most users don't need it. Users seem to like the idea of security until they realize they lose freedom and end up with Windows Vista annoyances. I prefer a fun computer to be on the freedom end of the freedom vs security scale. I wouldn't mind having a more secure high end Amiga for more serious work but it would be a lot more effort to create. My laptop analogy was to show how much more effort this would be. I believe it would be better to sell fun computers to the masses instead of high end computers to the classes. If Amiga APIs were more similar then expanding the Amiga to the masses would help the classes with their lack of software problem.
-
Uhh guys I'm not redefining any terminology: preemptive multitasking by definition requires the OS have the ability to cull tasks that overrun other tasks, or hijack the scheduler, as one can effectively do currently with the forbid() system call.
No, it doesn't require that at all; preemptive multitasking is about task scheduling, nothing to do with memory protection. See eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_(computing)
-
A 68k laptop is my dream but it is quite a bit more work to make with quality and it really needs high enough production numbers to make it worthwhile. A small tower board makes more sense although it may be possible to make it in a shape that would fit in an existing laptop shell. My point with the laptops in general was to show how much more difficult and costly it would be to make a modern competitive laptop compared to a fun but still useful 68k netbook/laptop.
I think Gunnars estimates may be a little low but not that far off by looking at the Mist and fpga Arcade. I wish these boards would put more memory on board.
$300 for the system is not low.
Very similar FPGA systems as I did describe
* 1 GB memory
* video out,
* SDCard,
and an FPGA actually twice as big
and twice as expensive as we need.
= the complete systems were sold for a retail price of $99.
This means is absolutely possible to produce such a system for less than $100.
-
Here's where we left off. Quickpak wanted to develop high end workstations.
http://www.amigahistory.plus.com/quiky.html (http://www.amigahistory.plus.com/quiky.html)
Their migration path was the DEC-Alpha.
I was doing a search for when the PowerPC was adopted. I remember not everyone was happy with that.