Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: pablotinch on April 02, 2004, 06:32:53 AM
-
Thinking to change to the dark side (blue)
Like 2 year ago I got a new Amiga g3, was so happy, but now I so depress an angry to
, everybody (Amiga Inc, eyetech and of course the incompetents of Hyperion no offense.
So because I don’t wan to waste more time , and just tired to run Linux in the Amiga which I never use because I run Linux in the pc , ( because is better )
I really would like to use something close to the Amiga and a new platform I am thinking to change to the Pegasus and I have questions.
1) Did anybody have the chance to see any demo of os4 and compare to morphs?
2) Is any chance that the guys from eyetech get tire of the wait and some how license morphs to run it the amigas?
3) If someday os4 get release, will be close or better to morphs or I just will be like a very first edition of the morphs or a beta?
4) Who is in the same situation, and what would you guys do?
5) Anyone can try to convince me to change to the Pegasus platform?
Don’t take this in the wrong way , I just want to be happy
-
Yes, come to the Dark side. Join the Black Trolls.
Assert your feelings, you know them to be true.
(http://aros-exec.org/uploads/starwars.gif)
-
Change is a good thing, but not always:) Have you even tried morphos? If not try it before you decide what to do, as far as when os4 gets released, and will it be as good as morphos goes, ....well nobody knows for sure wjen it will be released, but hopefully it will. Morphos is ok, since you have an amiga and a pc running linux, maybe you should wait a bit longer and see what you think when os4 does finally get released.One thing i have noticed is that since i have 3 amigas, a pc and a powermac that my love always falls back to my miggy. Windows of course sux, mac os9 and x are good in some ways but not in others, morphos is well to me another ostrying to be an 'alterative' os, but offers little overall. Linux is good for servers, but not that good for other things, and other oses like beos and stuff are... well dead:)My opinion is give it a few more months and then decide (maybe take vacation) and enjoy your current amiga and linux running pc. Do you need another os right now? Or does what you have do the job and then some? I wont lie and say that amiga and amigaos will be on top by 2005, but hey one thing about amiga is, you never know what to expect or believe:)
-
Hi Pablotinch,
"eyetech and of course the incompetents of Hyperion no offense"
Interesting statement, I think they should take offense to it. Certainly MorphOS is "available" if you wish to purchase it's dongle the Pegasos. I put available in quote because I'm unsure the amount of stocks dealers currently have, I've not seen anything to suggest many are available. If you have a Classic Amiga with a PPC card OS 4 will run on that system, I'd guess it's release date would be very near the AmigaOne release.
to your questions:
1) I've used both at different times over the last year. Since the term better is subjective I'll say they will be different. Both systems should run the same 68k Amiga applications. It's clear that the developement teams have taken different paths toward their end product, which neither team has reached or will for another few years. As such MorphOS has some newer technology then OS 4 and OS 4 has some newer technology then MorphOS. When OS 4 is finally released a more accurate technical comparison can be made.
2) I doubt it, Eyetech has access to LinuxPPC to power it's hardware and with OS 4 and they have no business need for MorphOS that I can see.
3) I'd imagine when OS 4 is actually released it should be close to MorphOS today or a bit ahead, OS 4 already has a native integrated TCP/IP stack for example. Again there will be differences, in terms of user experiance I'd expect OS 4 to be at least as stable as MorphOS is now.
4) I've been waiting till OS 4 comes out before making my decision. I've got lots of things to keep my self busy so I can aford to wait.
5) If you have the cash buy a Pegasos, why not? I know a few people who were quite happy with there BeBoxes ;) And why do you need to "change" as you mentioned you currently own a PC with linux, you can own more then one computer :)
I will say either platform, MorphOS or OS 4, will need your money to survive. If you decided to wait before choosing be sure and purchase as much native software as you can. Without your dollars your platform of choice will certainly not survive!
Bill "tekmage" Borsari
-
The dark side isn't [color=0000FF]BLUE[/color]
-
"incompetents of Hyperion no offence"? If I was Hyperion, I'd take offence.
Anyway, since you no doubt qualify for the earlybird, why not see if the developer pre-release comes out any time soon? Work on the CD is progressing well. I wish I could say more, but i'm under NDA :-(
-
1) Not me. People that are using either one or both seem quite pleased.
2) No.
3) Originally OS4 supposed to have a lot more features than MOS. A lot of time has passed since and I'm not sure how it ends.
Some people claim MOS is stable nowdays. Also AOS users say that application crashes are often not able to take the system down.
I think AOS4 got some basic stuff "free" from AOS3.x, while that stuff needed to be developed from scratch to MOS.
I'm sure both will be amigalike.
4) I'm in wait & see.
But, nowdays it feels that supporting Genesi equals to killing AmigaOS. I love AmigaOS.
The worst thing Buck has done is that he attacked AmigaOS. (his actions in court)
I hope McEven never ever has the chance to mess with AOS future.
The same development would be good between Buck & MOS.
I'm considering to update to CSPPC. Then I might be able to try & test & compare MOS, AOS4, AOS3.9 etc on the same box.
((Even though I do not anymore trust in Genesi enough to believe there will be official MOS for CSPPC ever....))
5) Not me !
-
MOS "itself" is IMO at least as stable as AOS 3.x.
Also AOS users say that application crashes are often not able to take the system down.
This is also common with MOS/AOS 1-3.x, depends on how the app bombs whether or not it crashes the OS completely.
Anyways, my advice is that the Pegasos (using MOS) is a great hobby system, and lots of fun if you're looking for an amiga-like system "with a twist" of something unique.
Also I would say to buy any of these systems (A1/Peg) for what they can do today (or RSN), because, although hopes are high, the future isn't exactly promised.
-
Have you considered using MacOs9/X under MacOnLinux while waiting for Os4?
Varthall
-
I made the decision to switch to blue. I'd waited for OS4 for ages, and made a promise to myself that I'd only wait as long as May, 2003, to buy an AmigaONE. OS4 didn't arrive and didn't look like arriving soon so I gave up on the idea. I was set to get a PC with the money I'd saved, until Phenix came along and offered me a Pegasos for £200. It was too good to refuse. Since then I've had absolutely no regrets. MOS is everything I wanted and expected from a modern PPC AmigaOS, and the Pegasos hardware is brilliant - even with Articia.
A lot of people seem to believe that getting MorphOS or supporting the people behind it attack AmigaOS. They should realise that AmigaOS was last released in 1993 by Commodore. You can't attack it because it's dead. The current AmigaOS 4 is simply a PDA content company mistitled Amiga Inc and Hyperion's vision of AmigaOS. It is no more or no less bPlan's vision of it, or Bernd Meyer's vision of it, or AROS's vision of it.
-
As you seemingly made your decision without knowing either alternative, now do something different for a change. Try out MorphOS, and see if you like it. MorphOS started with a huge emotional handicap, most of the community hated it. (and some still hate it today) AmigaONE sales are generated by the Amiga name. Pegasos sales are generated by either ppl being fed up with the other alternative, or (magic!) they try MorphOS out and fall in love. If you don't like MorphOS, you can still stick to your purchased AmigaONE and see what happens.
Both OS4 and MorphOS has internal beta for the Cyberstorm and BlizzardPPCs, yet unreleased.
pablotinch wrote:
1) Did anybody have the chance to see any demo of os4 and compare to morphs?
There are differences. The HW was almost identical, the approach is slightly different. OS4 will have Picasso, Reaction, Warp3D, Nova, MorphOS has CGX, MUI, Rave3D, JunGL.
I won't say that using an OS4 like skin will make feel like using OS4. There are features in MorphOS which will not be available till OS4.2, 4.3 and a few years, and yes, there are some AmigaOS features which are still lacking in MorphOS and are under development. That's why you have to try it out.
I presume no one from the red camp blamed you when you have bought your AmigaONE without trying AOS4 out... I say, do try out what you'd like to purchase.
2) Is any chance that the guys from eyetech get tire of the wait and some how license morphs to run it the amigas?
Given the hostility (Eyetech starts spreading ArticiaS Pegasos is buggy, then Genesi fighting back) it's very unprobable.
3) If someday os4 get release, will be close or better to morphs or I just will be like a very first edition of the morphs or a beta?
In many areas the two projects are similar. In some areas OS4 has some features MorphOS doesn't, again in other areas OS4 is years behind.
4) Who is in the same situation, and what would you guys do?
I don't blame you. In 2001 august I awaited and believed the release of AmigaONE/OS4. Things have changed since then.
5) Anyone can try to convince me to change to the Pegasus platform?
Again. Try it out.
-
pablotinch wrote:
Thinking to change to the dark side (blue)
1) Did anybody have the chance to see any demo of os4 and compare to morphs?
2) Is any chance that the guys from eyetech get tire of the wait and some how license morphs to run it the amigas?
3) If someday os4 get release, will be close or better to morphs or I just will be like a very first edition of the morphs or a beta?
4) Who is in the same situation, and what would you guys do?
5) Anyone can try to convince me to change to the Pegasus platform?
Don’t take this in the wrong way , I just want to be happy
I know how you feel! I just sold off my Amiga and got me a G4 Pegasos II AFTER I used MorphOS for the first time. I would have to say the demo of OS4 I last say, though a real early one was not as nice as MorphOS. It didnt run near as many classic apps as Morph does. My main selling point on the Pegasos is the hardware is more modern. I didnt want to get a computer thats as old as the A1 is now. I am sick of Amiga Inc. They are not making good business decisions as it is, and I think they will go under soon. The Peg is less money then then A1 and its faster too. If you like using an Amiga and want the look and feel NOW on a system with more and more software being ported to it, get a Peg.
-
[deleted. don't really want to provoke]
-
Yeah, strangely enough after distributing their flyers saying Articia is buggy, they then claimed it wasn't. Then they claimed the bugs that weren't present had been fixed by Mai and IBM. Then they claimed it was Linux's fault...
-
@pablotinch
Hi!
If you can afford it and you can find one available for delivery, why the heck not? Put all the squabbling and internal politics of the Amiga community aside and the Pegasos + MorphOS is one impressive system for an old Amiga user. IMO don't look at it as making some incredible plunge or breaking an unwritten oath(:-P), they are all just products that are either available, not available, or semi available.
Let me just make one suggestion though. [color=CC0000]DON'T PREORDER[/color] a Pegasos. If you can find a dealer with one in stock, then that's a green light go ahead. But from my own comfort level I wouldn't recomend paying up front right now if they are not in stock.
-
redrumloa wrote:
Let me just make one suggestion though. [color=CC0000]DON'T PREORDER[/color] a Pegasos. If you can find a dealer with one in stock, then that's a green light go ahead. But from my own comfort level I wouldn't recomend paying up front right now if they are not in stock.
That goes for everything in Amigaland really. If people haven't learned not to preorder anything (well, not prepaying that is) by now, they must not be too intelligent (I learnt my lesson with the FusionPPC debacle :-x).
-
odin wrote:
That goes for everything in Amigaland really. If people haven't learned not to preorder anything (well, not prepaying that is) by now, they must be not too intelligent (I learnt my lesson with the FusionPPC debacle :-x).
I completely agree. My lesson came from the Phase5 G4 cards :-) Luckily there are numerous dealers with Pegasos II stock.
-
@red
"PreOrdering" was never a problem, prepaying is :-D
There is surely no problem to pre-order at most of Genesi's distributors, as long as they don't ask any upfront money.
PrePaying is something I never did, and never will do.
-
(I hope I'm not trying to pretend I'm unbiased. :) )
@KennyR
>A lot of people seem to believe that getting MorphOS or supporting the people behind it attack AmigaOS.
Look at what Buck is doing. Don't you think he is a threat to AOS?
IMO: It is important that AOS is protected from being locked to a single HW manufacturer YET again.
Now, how would you prove that none of the $$$ given to Genesi is not used against AOS by Buck?
> They should realise that AmigaOS was last released in 1993 by Commodore.
> You can't attack it because it's dead.
Pretty ridiculous thinking.
>The current AmigaOS 4 is simply a PDA content company mistitled Amiga Inc and Hyperion's vision of AmigaOS.
>It is no more or no less bPlan's vision of it, or Bernd Meyer's vision of it, or AROS's vision of it.
Also you know that AOS4 is the evolution of AOS. Partly based on the same code. Same 68k binaries even.
Current MOS is a clone of AOS3.x for PPC + "extensions".
In the ideal world we would have a community parlament deciding of AOS development ...
closest to that is AROS. But too bad, aros is still half decade behind those others...
(depends on the manpower put to the development, ofcourse)
Interesting difference between AOS and MOS is that MOS is for advancing Pegasos sales, made by the HW company.
AOS is developed separately from the HW company, aimed to run on multiple HW platforms.
@Warface
>MorphOS started with a huge emotional handicap, most of the community hated it.
IMO, almost everybody loved MOS in the beginning. It was the AOS kind of OS / enchancement kit for AOS, while AInc was inventing the wheel again... raping the name perhaps.
When AOS development was restarted things changed. AOS was back.
>AmigaONE sales are generated by the Amiga name.
Right. And people's wish to support AOS development. (the licence of AOS4 is paid with every earlybird board)
> Pegasos sales are generated by either ppl being fed up with the other alternative, or (magic!) they try MorphOS out and fall in love.
Pegasos is for instant sex, kind of. :P
>There are features in MorphOS which will not be available till OS4.2, 4.3 and a few years,
I do not seem to remember or know those. Would you care to list them?
>... in other areas OS4 is years behind.
I would like to see that list...
But yes. Try it out is the key.
(advising anybody to wait is dangerous business, every Amiga company + Genesi looks like they are going titts (http://www.aprilf.ool) up overnight, some do, some do not)
-
(I hope I'm not trying to pretend I'm unbiased. :) )
Ha! You sure don't look unbiased :lol:
Look at what Buck is doing. Don't you think he is a threat to AOS?
No more than the very credible damage McEwen did to Genesi' sales. "We will shut you down", "morphOS is based on illegal source code" is what created the major rift we have today and is also the reason for Buck's over-the-top legal reaction. It certainly caused a major loss of sales for Pegasos boards.
AOS is developed separately from the HW company, aimed to run on multiple HW platforms.
This is the exact same thing as the Pegasos. AOS runs on exactly the same number of hardware platforms as MOS, 2. Whether either OS will make the leap to a third hardware platform is highly debatable and probably unlikely.
Just playing devils advocate:-)
-
Amiga Inc, eyetech and of course the incompetents of Hyperion no offense.
What did you really expect? there is no professional companies left in this market. finding a half decent Amiga company is very challenging and time consuming.
Don’t take this in the wrong way , I just want to be happy
Your worst mistake was purchasing the earlybird Teron board, the best thing to do now is waste no more money on promised products from two bit Amiga companies because they can not and never will be trusted.
Pick whats best for you and judge from your own eyes instead of peoples biased opinions on product X, you could get Amithlon for the true Amiga experience on good/cheap hardware.
So the world may know.
-
pablotinch wrote:
Thinking to change to the dark side (blue)
There are no 'dark sides'. There are only computers. Computers are a interesting mix of plastics, semi-conductors and bits of flimsy metal which get the job done you want done. If your main motivation in using your computer is to belong to a certain 'camp', you're using the computer for the entirely wrong reason. Take a few deep breaths and let go of this rather kinky and adolescent fetish: your identity is not derived from your computer.
5) Anyone can try to convince me to change to the Pegasus platform?
Don’t take this in the wrong way , I just want to be happy.
Doesn't sound like you're happy, and I'm fairly sure that you're looking for arguments which make you feel less guilty about thinking to 'join the Dark Side'. So instead of burdening your mind with this silly nonsense, go out and locate a Pegasos dealer. Play with the Pegasos and see if it meets your demands. If not, you can relax in the satisfaction you have resisted Temptation and wait for OS4. If it does, go ahead and buy it. Even if you're still wracked by doubt as to whether you made the right purchase (since you cannot compare to OS4 right now) do you expect OS4 to be so much better as to make a difference? Keep in mind that if it's 'better' you're after, you're better off with your PC.
My $0,02.
(I have never, do not, and most likely will not own, nor have I ever sat behind, used, or seen an AmigaOne, Pegasos, or Pegaos-II. PCs are fine by me.)
-
Now, how would you prove that none of the $$$ given to Genesi is not used against AOS by Buck?
Bill Buck is bigger threat for MorphOS than AmigaOS (judging by recent mistakes).
-
ksk wrote:
I do not seem to remember or know those. Would you care to list them?
Mainly I think about the 24 bit internal system from ground up, and their 3D system, of which ATM only the Warp3D wrapper is publicly available.
-
I was really unsure whether to post in this thread, but then I thought why not. :-)
I think its fair to say that people from both camps (sides sounds so much more combative!) will advise you to go for their respective solution. Both will also say :
'yes there are differences between the two, they are both roughly the same.... but my team is better!!!'
Both solutions have had there ups and downs, and I think having coming this far business wise there isn't too much to choose between them.
As a few have said make up your own mind, try out each solution and make your choice. No amount of pursading by either camp can prove better than first hand experience.
(For reference I have an A1)
Rassilon
-
hmmm, I preach some more ...
@redrumloa
>>AOS is developed separately from the HW company, aimed to run on multiple HW platforms.
>This is the exact same thing as the Pegasos.
No it is not.
AOS4 is developed by Hyperion. It will be sold by Hyperion.
The initial HW was "arranged" by Eyetech & AInc.
The official strategy is to run AOS on multiple third party HW platforms. (a1 is the first one, then BPPC&CSPPC, Elbox and even Matay (and some even more minor candidate) seem to be waiting for the OS release as well as the KMOS financier)
MOS is developed by bplan.
Pegasos was developed by bplan.
The official strategy is to run as many OS on top of pegasos as possible and perhaps produce games with MOS powered launcher for Mac.
Modern MOS has not been released for BPPC/CSPPC because it would affect pegasos sales.
Already phase5 protected themself against other potential HW manufactures with PowerUP.
As far as I see. It's not the same thing.
>AOS runs on exactly the same number of hardware platforms as MOS, 2.
Let's look at the released versions.
AOS4.x runs on 0 platforms.
MOS1.x runs on 1 platform since y2002. No change after release.
>Whether either OS will make the leap to a third hardware platform is highly debatable and probably unlikely.
Wich one is more unlikely. Red pill or blue Bill is not needed to see that. :lol: (IMHO ofcourse)
-
ksk wrote:
>A lot of people seem to believe that getting MorphOS or supporting the people behind it attack AmigaOS.
Look at what Buck is doing. Don't you think he is a threat to AOS?
IMO: It is important that AOS is protected from being locked to a single HW manufacturer YET again.
No, I think being able to run OS3.x emulated on a PC for a fraction of the price with 99.9% compatibility with Amiga software (far more than MOS or OS4 manages) is the biggest threat to any business venture with the name AmigaOS, not Bill Buck. I think you've totally blown up this guy's significance, and indeed AInc's significance, and the bickering and legal spats between the two of them.
What Buck is doing is called competition, and this magical thing is best for the consumer in ALL cases. If OS4 cannot deal with competition then maybe it's better it died at birth.
>The current AmigaOS 4 is simply a PDA content company mistitled Amiga Inc and Hyperion's vision of AmigaOS.
>It is no more or no less bPlan's vision of it, or Bernd Meyer's vision of it, or AROS's vision of it.
Also you know that AOS4 is the evolution of AOS. Partly based on the same code. Same 68k binaries even.
Current MOS is a clone of AOS3.x for PPC + "extensions".
Yeah yeah, heard it all before. Then from the same people I hear that MOS is based on stolen source code. I wish people would make up their minds.
Truth is probably that the 68k asm was entirely useless to Hyperion. The autodocs would have been much more useful in making a PPC AmigaOS clone - and that's what it is, not a port. MOS is more compatible with OS3.x, so doesn't really make my thinking ridiculous. Yours, on the other hand...
OS4 is no evolution. It's the same as MOS - a PPC clone of OS3.x with 'extentions'. Funnily enough though, MOS's extentions make it more backward compatible. Whaddya know, eh? Must be that stolen source code.
-
Modern MOS has not been released for BPPC/CSPPC because it would affect pegasos sales.
Think this way: releasing MorphOS for BPPC/CSPPC could ruin classic OS4 sales :-D
(Edit - 2nd quote removed)
-
pablotinch:
as has been said what is most important is getting your hands on whatever is out there and playing with it.
It was only after I actually saw MOS in person that I was impressed with it. and while it's not perfect, it feels as much like an amiga as WinUAE does.
i'm dying to see OS4. here is ImageFX on OS4 (http://www.novadesign.com/exoops/modules/xgallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=AmigaOS4).
Who do I have to kill to get my hands on that??? :roflmao:
and people like tokai (http://www.christianrosentreter.com/releases/index.php?lang=en) have been making some very cool programs that work on MOS.
and don't forget AROS (http://www.aros.org/), of course.
Amiga is not hardware, or a company under some guy called "bill" (why is everyone called "bill"???). Amiga is US. People who don't want to settle for just Windows. Because it's just Not good enough.
there's no such thing as "the dark side". unless you mean gates! :lol:
-
@Cymric
I partially disagree and partially agree...
I partially disagree because I don't think there is anything wrong in giving some weight to the "camps". Camps might not be the users but the companies involved, and you do only good if you also consider each companies actions in your choice. Not saying anyone is better or worse though, I think BOTH have their things... One thing to consider is that AInc. is not related to the OS anymore though, so the companies to consider would be Genesi on the blue side and Hyperion, Eyetech, Mai and KMOS (also maybe Elbox too...) on the red camp.
"I didnt want to get a computer thats as old as the A1 is now"
@Acill
"...I didnt want to get a computer thats as old as the A1 is now..."
Oh yeah, the specs of the A1 are so much worse :lol:
The A1 has USB1.1 and doesn't have firewire, Pegasus has USB2.0 and Firewire onboard. On the plus side the A1 has more PCI slots and a 2x AGP slot not 1x (if you want to play demanding games, if they ever exist in the future).
@pablotinch
I'd say, hang on a bit more.. It's not like waiting in the darkness anymore because the AOS4 demos are improving show to show and the last ones are, from what has been reviewed, good.
You'll then be able to compare both products too, wich is also a factor to consider.
[EDIT]
Well, if you're a rich guy, you could get both :-D
-
MOS1.x runs on 1 platform since y2002. No change after release.
MorphOS do run on CyberstormPPC and BlizzardPPC. With your reasoning:
AOS4 runs on 0 platform since y2001. Not even available for purchasers of the AmigaONE boards, no change even after years. Not even in a public Beta form. There is currently no way to purchase AmigaOS4.
-
Oh wow where to start.
The official strategy is to run AOS on multiple third party HW platforms. (a1 is the first one, then BPPC&CSPPC, Elbox and even Matay (and some even more minor candidate) seem to be waiting for the OS release as well as the KMOS financier)
Only A1 and classic-PPC systems are under development. Elbox doesn't have any capable hardware and even if they did Hyperion has confirmed nothing is under development. Matay is no longer in the picture. Also you seem to have missed how many legitimate dealers who approached Amiga Inc about licensing and were either turned down or were never responded to. Hell I would probably license OS4 for Pegasos if I didn't already know i was wasting my time. Maybe KMOS will show a different face than Amiga Inc, we'll see. That whole deal is just so bizzare I have to see how it plays out.
So basically NO, cutting out Amiga Inc's fluff talk AOS is targetted at 2 platforms only. A1 & classic PPC. Same as MOS, though it is speculative for sure whether MOS will ever be released for the classic.
MOS is developed by bplan.
No it's not, it's developed by MorphOS.
As far as I see. It's not the same thing.
IMHO it is. Until, either of them breaks out and supports a 3rd platform anything else said on either side is fluff. That includes Buck saying he wants MOS running on Mac, just fluff.
Oh and the only pills I take are multi-vitamins:-D
-
@KennyR
>No, I think being able to run OS3.x emulated on a PC for a fraction of the price with 99.9% compatibility with Amiga software (far more than MOS or OS4 manages) is the biggest threat to any business venture with the name AmigaOS, ...
For those people who only need AOS3.x level of functionality & apps, that's true. (even though legally obtained AOS3.x PC bring revenue towards AOS) More so when AOS4 parts get into AmigaForever (too bad that berniethlon with AOS4 stuff hit the brick wall).
Surely you do not see MOS in any better situation as AmigaOS clone in this matter ... ;-)
>not Bill Buck.
I think Buck clearly described how he is searching for the control of AOS development with the court case.
Helping him would not be sensible thing to do. There is no way it would be a good thing. Not to a AOS fan at least.
It would be like McEwen in control again, except worse. ;-)
> I think you've totally blown up this guy's significance, and indeed AInc's significance, and the bickering and legal spats between the two of them.
So Buck is not interested in controlling AOS?
Perhaps you have not paid attention in what he is posting in forums.
-
@Warface
>>MOS1.x runs on 1 platform since y2002. No change after release.
>MorphOS do run on CyberstormPPC and BlizzardPPC.
Where can one download the release?
I did not know it was publicly available.
>With your reasoning: AOS4 runs on 0 platform since y2001. Not even available for purchasers of the AmigaONE boards, no change even after years. Not even in a public Beta form.
Well, you did not get it.
As I said AOS4 is not released yet.
I thought MOS1.x neither is released for classics.
>There is currently no way to purchase AmigaOS4.
Right, it came "virtually" with the earlybird board. :-D :-D
I have it too. (disquised in PartyPack) :-D
btw. there is currently no way to purchase "MOS". ;-)
-
All that matters to me is the fact that my Pegasos runs more programs, many times faster, and with much less hardware / software hassles, and at a quarter of the cost, as my old Amiga 4000/CSPPC/Mediator system.
If you want a modern, good-looking, fast, Amiga-compatible OS, then get a Pegasos with MorphOS. This is my advice. Put it this way, I haven't yet spoken to anyone who bought a Pegasos and wasn't pleased with it. There's nothing stopping you from having both a Peg and your A1.
-
@ pablotinch
If you got the money and wants some fun, then why not? IMHO, you will hardly regret it! :-)
-
redrumloa wrote:
Let me just make one suggestion though. [color=CC0000]DON'T PREORDER[/color] a Pegasos. If you can find a dealer with one in stock, then that's a green light go ahead. But from my own comfort level I wouldn't recomend paying up front right now if they are not in stock.
BTW, yet another production run was finalized this week (http://www.morphzone.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1835&forum=2)! :-)
-
@redrumloa
>Also you seem to have missed how many legitimate dealers who approached Amiga Inc about licensing and were either turned down or were never responded to.
??
I thought only Buck was "turned down" by Fleecy.
Who else were turned down?
( IIRC, they accepted Merlancia even )
>Maybe KMOS will show a different face than Amiga Inc, we'll see.
Right. But I would not be too surpriced if Buck and Garry are not the best of friends any more...
Garry's words:
"There are some deals you simply can't do. There are, of course, limits to this. Let's say for example Intel (no, we don't have a deal with Intel) wants to buy 10 million units of something that competes with a current partner selling 10,000 units. Generally something can be worked out. Finally, is there a business history with a potential partner? What is their reputation in the market? Are they managed by people that you would like doing business with? Given just this criteria, I can't envision anything that Genesi and KMOS have to talk about. Sometimes life is just too short."
>So basically NO, cutting out Amiga Inc's fluff talk AOS is targetted at 2 platforms only
Same for the MOS, but that is even proven by the history. (IMHO)
>>MOS is developed by bplan.
>No it's not, it's developed by MorphOS.
;-) MOS = SchmidtOS
Ralph was/is part of bplan.
Now they all are part of Genesi.
>Oh and the only pills I take are multi-vitamins
I thought that about myself. Then I did a reality check. :-D
IMO: AOS4 seems more independant from any HW platform than MOS.
Let's see what happens.
-
@ Warface
MorphOS started with a huge emotional handicap, most of the community hated it. (and some still hate it today) AmigaONE sales are generated by the Amiga name. Pegasos sales are generated by either ppl being fed up with the other alternative, or (magic!) they try MorphOS out and fall in love.
I agree. IMHO, the A1 is sold because of "the name" and dreams/fantasies. The Pegasos is sold on its tangible merits (and dreams/fantasies ;-)).
-
People have different reasons for their decisions.
To me:
MOS0.4 looked interesting.
When intent AOS seemmed the only thing coming from AInc, MOS looked even better.
After AOS development was restarted (announced), I wanted to see the success of the old ass kicking AOS.
I saw the disadvantages of MOS strategy.
After it became obvious that AInc was getting nowhere and AOS4 development by Hyperion missed it's release dates, MOS again seemed like the only hope.
Genesi looked better than AInc. Genesi MOS seemed equall option with Hyperion AOS.
Pegasos looked better than A1.
Buck happened & proved a lot of my worst expectations.
I know MOS kicks *ss but it's not enough...
AOS is now my main hope for the continuation of FUN, then aros.
I should preach that AOS is the only right option... But I really can not.
Make up your own minds. Try to see the whole picture etc.
Arguing can be fun, but ... we might look a bit retarted. (http://www.boldra.com/images/incoming/?f=arguing_on_internet.jpeg) ;-)
-
ksk wrote:
Right, it came "virtually" with the earlybird board. :-D :-D
I have it too. (disquised in PartyPack) :-D
Exactly that's the state what the original poster is fed up with. Add to that, OS4 won't be better than MorphOS by default. MorphOS has proven it's abilities, which task is still ahead of OS4, and IMHO currently no one can safely claim that it will perform an inch better than MorphOS. On the contrary, it seems from the rate of development it will be quite some time before OS4 can catch up - and MorphOS developers ain't fiddling their fingers neither.
-
Who do I have to kill to get my hands on that???
I have to say that IFX looks great on OS4. What we need is a campaign to get Nova to do a tiny update so that all of their bespoke gadgets use the new system (you'll see the Pallette window looks kinda odd).
Fingers crossed there will be some positive OS4 news from Gothenburg tomorrow
:-D
-john
-
ksk wrote:
I saw the disadvantages of MOS strategy.
Care to tell us what were the disadvantages of the MOS strategy compared to the AOS4 strategy?
-
@Jose
No, the Peg does have no USB2 onboard, only 1.1.
But it has FW, a actually working onboard-audio, and in the case of the
Peg2 it also has DDR-RAM (yes that makes a difference in real life)
and a 1GBit-ethernet.
Both A1 and Peg have AGP-slots hacked out of somesort of PCI-bus
(PCI-66,PCI-X, or whatever, I have lost count :-o ). The only difference
is that the A1/Peg1 has this hack intregrated into the NB while the Peg2
uses some extra circuits for it.
Sure it may be AGPx1 vs. x2 on spec, but the Articia just isn't capable
of substaining a bandwidth high enough to even reach x1 over a longer
perios, negating all added performace it might get from x2. And even
most of todays PC-games won't run noticeably slower when you just reduce the AGP-factor. When do you expect to see such games in
Amiga-land ? 2010, sounds realistic ..... :-( :-D :-P
-
Well I have a strange feeling that if AOS4 doesn't get released for Pegasos 1-2 then MorphOS will be equiped with a transparent compatibility layer that will enable API-friendly AOS4 apps to run. Something in the sense of WINE for Linux... API copyrighting isn't possible, right?
--EDIT-- More like the current A/Box will be expanded so it will be able to run AOS4/PPC compiled programs apart from AOS3.9/68K ones.
-
@Van_M
How many OS4-only apps are there ? (or better will be)
AudioEvolution, some gameports from Hyperion, and ?
Don't see that someone from the MOS-team would waste lots of time for that.
-
-->How many OS4-only apps are there ? (or better will be)
well I guess, in a couple of years after its release it will have equal amount of apps as MorphOS. I also think, doing some further work on the Abox wouldn't be such a terrible waste of time. The result would be an all-in-one unified solution for anyone willing to return in the amiga community (if anyone is going to).
-
@Van_M
It doesn't matter how many apps there will be for OS4, but how many
that are ONLY available for OS4, and sofar the ones I listed are the
only ones announced that way (not counting small SW-tools and suchlike).
It is certainly better to invest that time in something looking forward.
-
@Warface
>On the contrary, it seems from the rate of development it will be quite some time before OS4 can catch up -
So you say again.
Show me the list of things there is in the MOS(for advanced users)1.4 that is not available in the AOS4.0 internal beta?
Or in 1.5.
MOS does have advantage in maturity, on many parts, though.
UPDATE: Now I spotted your mention about those MOS things.
"Mainly I think about the 24 bit internal system from ground up, and their 3D system, of which ATM only the Warp3D wrapper is publicly available."
That is not much. Also AOS4.0 will have 3D.
The old WB might be a handicap. Especially if Ambient is more solid&stable.
> and MorphOS developers ain't fiddling their fingers neither.
But I think it is still lacking things that are available on AOS3.9.
Things that AOS4 was/is going to have immediately at the launch.
>Care to tell us what were the disadvantages of the MOS strategy compared to the AOS4 strategy?
It was y2001-y2002 back then.
- MOS and Peg were being done by the same company (products tied together)
- MOS was heading towards Abox instead of Qbox & own merits
- AOS was being done by a SW-only company, targetted to multiple HW platforms (there was HW agreements even)
- AOS had roadmap forward instead of sidestepping via some other OS emulation.
Not much have changed since...
Except that the blue camp got their own "information" minister & huge amount of EMPTY promises.
(at this rate they catch up with AInc {bleep} amount)
MOS have almost finished it's sidestep. But the next step is unclear. Will it be another sidestep to AOS4 emulation?
AOS4 has got new features described later in the roadmap and lost the DE part of it. And it's yet to be released...
-
@Kronos
&
@Van_M
It is good to see that most applications will be available for both/all Amiga-like platforms.
(even though fanatics tried/try to insist otherwise)
It's superb that application developers seem to be above all the dirt.
I could (pay someone to) kiss their sweet asses. Any volunteers? :lol:
-
I'd like to point out that every customer who ordered a peg for the first time got their "pre-order" pegasos. Genesi is very committed to customer satisfaction. They have an irc channel for Morphos support where the actual developers give support. Sometimes you can even talk directly with bbrv the owners of the company. The community has many helpful people and there is the nice Morphzone website with tons of information. This is phenomenal support.
It took me 3 weeks to get my pegasos1 a year ago but I didnt mind the wait. Especially since it was just over $300 and I got a bunch of great FREE software. Pro Station Audio, MorphED, Birdieshoot, Feeble Files, Software Tycoon, Fx Paint Lite, Image Fx lite, etc etc.. There are also tons of MorphOS NAtive PPC software and ports are coming weekly.
This whole foolishness of "the dark side" needs to stop. The MorphOS community is what the Amiga community used to be in the late 80s. Fun, accepting, and creative. Every amiga person who gets a Pegasos LOVES it. Not only that, but there is tremendous Linux support. Unlike on the AmigaOne which has lousy support all around and no OS in sight.
Also, all updates of the MOS operating system are FREE.
With a Pegasos2 you have everything you need for ANY computing application (except for Video Editing which is being worked on) I use my PEgasos2 G4 with MorphOS for Amiga compatiblity, and MOS native apps - I use Linux for cool PPC Linux apps as well as running Open Office so I can view and use MicroSoft Word docs, PowerPoint Presentations, Excel spreadsheets and more - I also have Mac OSX Panther running through Mac On Linux and this allows me to also use all the OSX Apps (again with M$ apps if you'd like) I use Internet Explorer, Mac sound apps, Games, etc...
An all in one computer. I built it for less than $900. (Almost the cost of the A1 board Alone) That is pretty impressive and the community is very supportive and friendly. Genesi and Bill Buck stand by their products.
Now, Hyperion is doing a stand up job with OS4 but its a monumental task. I have a lot of respect for these guys, but the reality is they will have a hard time catching Morphos. Also, it is common knowledge that the Pegasos2 is a much better technology than the Amiga 1 board.
As an Amigan would you rather have a board that was designed by Phase 5 Engineers (who brought PPC to the Amiga) or by some overseas company (MAI - Teron Amiga 1) with faulty hardware? This is the facts, not FUD. On the A1 with Articia there are documented DMA problems, the sound doesnt work, and other issues. Of course, this is expected in 1st generation hardware and its an OK reference platform, but like the OS4 vs MOS they have a long way to go to catch PEgasos..
magnetic
:-)
-
@-D-
>> Also AOS users say that application crashes are often not able to take the system down.
>This is also common with MOS/AOS 1-3.x, depends on how the app bombs whether or not it crashes the OS completely.
Ofcourse, but if AOS4.0 memory protection for SW code & unused memory is working (& the automatic stack enlargement). The difference to AOS3.x stability should be big.
Actually... I think I have not heard of such things for MOS yet. Perhaps they are not planned because abox & new apps will be boxed in a few years time???
(the biggest stability threat to AOS is that it is young since it rebirth, even though it contains some well tested legacy stuff)
-
But I think it is still lacking things that are available on AOS3.9.
Things that AOS4 was/is going to have immediately at the launch.
ARexx, Installer, TCP/IP, .. ›*HOPEFULLY in 1.5*
- MOS and Peg were being done by the same company (products tied together)
- MOS was heading towards Abox instead of Qbox & own merits
- AOS was being done by a SW-only company, targetted to multiple HW platforms (there was HW agreements even)
- AOS had roadmap forward instead of sidestepping via some other OS emulation.
Not much have changed since...
1. So ?
2. Whaat ?
3. Whaat ?
4. Whaat ?
Somehow you seem Pro-OS4 but your listed resons just dont
expalin why.
-
ksk, AmigaOS4 will not have the memory protection you seem to expect. I've never used it, and how do I know? Am I spreading FUD? No. It's a matter of the Amiga API. And the fact that it uses a shared memory address space.
OS4 keeps to the Amiga API for legacy. It has to, or it would just be a new OS with nothing in common but the name. But the downside of this is that real memory protection cannot be implemented, because AmigaOS was never designed for it. Amiga tasks and processes can be redesigned to care for MP, but in doing so it changes their structure and destroys compatibility. Sure you could use the MMU to hard-protect every task, and have linked lists track every resource, but the nature of shared addresses space (virtual or not) makes the overhead of this just too much to be practical.
QBox and Windows both took the sandboxing away to get around this problem (the 16 bit Windows layer *still* has no real MP). OS4 did not. Whatever memory protection OS4 will have, don't expect it to give you the peace of mind using bad apps under Linux or Windows will give you. It's just impossible to do without abstraction - sandboxing. OS4, like MorphOS ABox and AROS, will always suffer the "Bad app brings down whole system problem". It's a conceptual impossibility to prevent it, although you can lessen its impact in certain ways.
-
I purchased a PegII G4. I really enjoy using it.
I pre-ordered though ultraspec, they were terrific to work with. They did not charge my card until after the board was shipped.
It does most of the items I needed very well - runs checkitout, ibrowse, miami, addresser, sbase, final writer, turbocalc, simplemail.
The only program I have not yet been able to get to work is Organizer.
Enjoy.
Matt
-
Ofcourse, but if AOS4.0 memory protection for SW code & unused memory is working (& the automatic stack enlargement). The difference to AOS3.x stability should be big.
Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability, but is
nice for debugging.
Stackenlargement would possibly be able to get around
a few badly programmed pieces of code.
-
But sure, MOS protects unused mem and core OS libraries.
-
@magnetic
"no OS in sight."
:-o Perhaps an overstatement when some already have it.
But a load of valid points.
It's easy to believe that the support is a little bit easier to get. (also when you make your own HW you know how to make it work, instead of trying to learn a foreign HW)
Is your kind of use currently possible without adding missing pieces from AOS3.x?
(IIRC half a year ago AREXX and some other stuff had to added)
-
@blubbe
>Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability,
Yes it does.
The app with the "fuzzypointer" is more probably detected & killed before it messes up the memory of other apps/OS.
>but is nice for debugging.
Yes it is.
That also improves general stability.
>Stackenlargement would possibly be able to get around
a few badly programmed pieces of code.
According to Hyperion that's very common reason for SW crash. Time will tell how it affects.
>But sure, MOS protects unused mem and core OS libraries.
Nice. And nice to know now. ;-)
+++++++++++++
>>1.- MOS and Peg were being done by the same company (products tied together)
>>2.- MOS was heading towards Abox instead of Qbox & own merits
>>3.- AOS was being done by a SW-only company, targetted to multiple HW platforms (there was HW agreements even)
>>4.- AOS had roadmap forward instead of sidestepping via some other OS emulation.
>1. So ?
No competition & HW alternatives. High prices. Risky. See x86 success vs apple success ...
>2. Whaat ?
Well it was. Initially I thought they were building memoryprotected boxed system (I believed the hype, stupid me). Instead they were building Abox and everything was being put in it. MOS was "just" going to grab AOS market. HUGE disappointment to me.
>3. Whaat ?
See 1.
>4. Whaat ?
It was that way. Then. IMO, more appealing. The AOS I know & love being developed forward. Connection to "world fastest growing industry" even, as those fellow work mates @ Linköping said.
>Somehow you seem Pro-OS4 but your listed resons just dont
expalin why.
There's really no use of explaining or was there? People see these things differently. Some do not see (not meaning any person particularly).
-
@KennyR
>AmigaOS4 will not have the memory protection you seem to expect.
It does/will.
>I've never used it, and how do I know? Am I spreading FUD?
Yes. Or you simply did not know. Believe in religion?
>But the downside of this is that real memory protection cannot be implemented, because AmigaOS was never designed for it.
The full memory protection can not be implemented.
But partial can.
AOS apps need to be able to access other apps memory for fast data transfers.
And AOS apps need to have access to some OS memory areas.
I think there is no other restrictions.
In a result, those things that I mentioned can be protected.
>Amiga tasks and processes can be redesigned to care for MP, but in doing so it changes their structure and destroys compatibility.
Someday (after AOS4.1?) it might be possible to have more protection for new apps. Even in that case old 3.x apps might need to be recompiled / be run in a box.
> Sure you could use the MMU to hard-protect every task, and have linked lists track every resource, but the nature of shared addresses space (virtual or not) makes the overhead of this just too much to be practical.
Your previus information vas not valid. But that last one (above) is new to me. Hmmm... I do not figure yet how it would be any harder than in any other resource tracked systems.
Detailed explanation somewhere?
>QBox and Windows both took the sandboxing away to get around this problem
We all know how "fast" Windows/Linux is. QNX & BeOS are good examples that memory protection / boxing does not necessarily slow down the system. (I think, @ work & so far it kills the application, we have extremely tight realtime requirements...)
>(the 16 bit Windows layer *still* has no real MP).
Same for current MOS. (yes, I'm teasing)
>OS4 did not. .... although you can lessen its impact in certain ways.
Right!
That's what I said. I think. ;-)
Did you know MOS already had similar (not identical) protection than AOS4?
I did not. Now we both know. ;-)
-
Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability, but is nice for debugging.
At least with standard Exec Memory Lists unused/free memory is not really completely unused. Because the unused memory chunks are linked together through MemChunk structs. So code like this:
Forbid();
FreeMem(mem,100);
*mem = something;
Permit();
can cause trouble (it's bad/stupid/ugly anyway). The Forbid() protection does lock other memory allocations, that's true, but after the FreeMem() the first 8 bytes at address might be in use for the unused-mem-chunk-linking.
-
>Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability,
Yes it does.
The app with the "fuzzypointer" is more probably detected & killed before it messes up the memory of other apps/OS.
Whos going to kill it ? there is no resourcetracking
in either AOS4 or MOS. Atleast not for old apps.
More likely the user gets a window dispalying
erronuos accesses to memory and may decide to
quit the app before it does anything more dangewrous.
(me would delete the app and forget about it :)
But as I said, it doesnt improve stability or
in any way protect against apps crashing the system.
According to Hyperion that's very common reason for SW crash. Time will tell how it affects.
Well, they should know :) Okey, there is more apps that does this. But using wrong pointers is a *much* more common problem. They say this because theyve just implemented a feature that is_supposed_to_fix_this. if they didnt, they wouldnt say it. simple.
-
A few notes:
There are several problems preventing MP on AOS:
Lots of OS-structures that need to be directly written to (and lots of SW
that does it on sructures that do have a "save" API), and allmost all
structures are open for reading.
Message-ports, those are used for Intuition, Arexx and other purposes.
2 Tasks that interact via these can't be protected against each other.
Problem that allmost all apps interact wiith these with the kernel ....
BOOPSI :-o there is just no way for the DOS-loader to see where the app
ends, and where custom-classes defined in the same file start. And there
is no way to know if both parts may share global variables.
Lots of OS-functions to expect the app to pass a pointer to data, which
might not be copied to OS-memory.
None of these can be changed without having some sort of box (and remember
those are bad, real bad :-P ), and none of them could be just recompiled
to an new APi without some major changes in the app code.
Thats why R.S. decided from start that there had to be provisions for
a clean cut.
-
At least with standard Exec Memory Lists unused/free memory is not really completely unused. Because the unused memory chunks are linked together through MemChunk structs. So code like this:
Forbid();
FreeMem(mem,100);
*mem = something;
Permit();
can cause trouble (it's bad/stupid/ugly anyway). The Forbid() protection does lock other memory allocations, that's true, but after the FreeMem() the first 8 bytes at address might be in use
Well, this is true, exec keeps track of free memory
by linking free memoryblocks. Question is if this is
considered when blocks are marked as free.
Edit: ok, I see how it could improve stability now.
-
@blubbe
>>Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability,
>Yes it does.
>The app with the "fuzzypointer" is more probably detected & killed before it messes up the memory of other apps/OS.
>Whos going to kill it ?
You answered yourself by:
>More likely the user gets a window dispalying
erronuos accesses to memory and may decide to
quit the app before it does anything more dangewrous.
>(me would delete the app and forget about it :)
Right thing to do. In this case possible because of AOS4/MOS? memory protection.
>But as I said, it doesnt improve stability or
in any way protect against apps crashing the system.
?????????????????????????
Isn't "quit the app before it does anything more dangewrous" an improvement?
I give up.
-
>But as I said, it doesnt improve stability or
in any way protect against apps crashing the system.
?????????????????????????
Isn't "quit the app before it does anything more dangewrous" an improvement?
I give up.
The access could as well have been to *allocated* memory
like say, some OS structure and we would have a direct DEADLY HIT, with immediate crash as result.
-
ksk wrote:
Someday (after AOS4.1?) it might be possible to have more protection for new apps. Even in that case old 3.x apps might need to be recompiled / be run in a box.
You can't change the way apps run without breaking compatibility, I told you.
We all know how "fast" Windows/Linux is. QNX & BeOS are good examples that memory protection / boxing does not necessarily slow down the system. (I think, @ work & so far it kills the application, we have extremely tight realtime requirements...)
Apples and oranges. QNX and BeOS are not shared memory address systems. They use the Unix way of packaging each task into discrete memory areas like virtual machines. They can't physically overwrite each other's data. AmigaOS is not like that. Nothing that can have any compatibility with AmigaOS can be like that - without sandboxing.
Your previus information vas not valid. But that last one (above) is new to me. Hmmm... I do not figure yet how it would be any harder than in any other resource tracked systems.
Can you mention any resource tracking OS's that store allocated memory as linked list nodes? I don't know any. Such a thing is not practical.
-
>The access could as well have been to *allocated* memory
like say, some OS structure and we would have a direct DEADLY HIT, with immediate crash as result.
Yes, yes.
Let's say you have 1Gb of RAM.
You have one or a few new/old application running & 100Mb allocated memory.
If you do not have memory protection at all you have almost 0% chance of detecting random memory corruption done by dodgy SW.
If you have memory protection the popability of detecting it is almost 10/1.
IMHO: That is an improvement. (even though it's still like playing "the russian rulet" when comparing to Linux MP)
Another viewpoint:
You said that it's good only for "debugging". Who will "debug" those thousands of legacy apps? Users.
-
Yes, yes.
Let's say you have 1Gb of RAM.
You have one or a few new/old application running & 100Mb allocated memory.
If you do not have memory protection at all you have almost 0% chance of detecting random memory corruption done by dodgy SW.
If you have memory protection the popability of detecting it is almost 10/1.
IMHO: That is an improvement. (even though it's still like playing "the russian rulet" when comparing to Linux MP)
Another viewpoint:
You said that it's good only for "debugging". Who will "debug" those thousands of legacy apps? Users.
Yes, they will *DEBUG* it. And MAYBE, they are kind enough
to report the bug before deleting the proggy :-)
Edit: if the author is still "present".
-
On the A1 with Articia there are documented DMA problems
It appears as if that issue has been settled at last, for OS4 (http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1362) :-D
-
@KennyR
>>ksk wrote:
>>Someday (after AOS4.1?) it might be possible to have more protection for new apps. Even in that case old 3.x apps might need to be recompiled / be run in a box.
>You can't change the way apps run without breaking compatibility, I told you.
You told the mem protection I described would not be possible.
On that post that you quoted I most likely was wrong in the "recompiling" part. AOS apps most likely require to be run "be run in a box", modifications might be too big otherwise. IIRC, Hyperion had something planned for 4.x apps & MP ...
>QNX and BeOS are not shared memory address systems.
I know. I did not say they were.
They were just my examples of how MOS with Qbox might be a good OS, even though Windows/linux suck in RT multimedia.
>Can you mention any resource tracking OS's that store allocated memory as linked list nodes?
No. I believe I have never examined the OS's way of "storing the memory"... (except some RTOS) That kind of information would be interesting to read & learn, though.
-
>Yes, they will *DEBUG* it. And MAYBE, they are kind enough
to report the bug before deleting the proggy
>Edit: if the author is still "present".
AOS ja MOS communities together could build a database of information about those dodgy apps anyway ...
-
@alx
There's no MAI without AOS4 ? 8-)
-
@ksk
>Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability,
Yes it does.
The app with the "fuzzypointer" is more probably detected & killed before it messes up the memory of other apps/OS.
How exactly?
The memory used by other apps/OS is *allocated*, thus the hit will not be detected. Apps/OS will crash.
Protecting unused memory is only improving stability due to the fact that the memory freelist is (partly) protected. Not everything can be protected however, due to MMU page size aligment restrictions. Full memory list protection would require totally new memory subsystem.
This kind of partial "memory protection" is far for perfect, and it's debatable if it's worth the effort anyway. Most of the fatal hits are specifically to *allocated* memory (used memory by other apps/OS). It is going to catch only a fraction of the critical hits (freelist mc_Next or mc_Bytes).
Certainly I would not call this Memory Protection, because it is not.
-
I missed this :)
>1. So ?
No competition & HW alternatives. High prices. Risky. See x86 success vs apple success ...
>2. Whaat ?
Well it was. Initially I thought they were building memoryprotected boxed system (I believed the hype, stupid me). Instead they were building Abox and everything was being put in it. MOS was "just" going to grab AOS market. HUGE disappointment to me.
>3. Whaat ?
See 1.
>4. Whaat ?
It was that way. Then. IMO, more appealing. The AOS I know & love being developed forward. Connection to "world fastest growing industry" even, as those fellow work mates @ Linköping said.
>Somehow you seem Pro-OS4 but your listed resons just dont
expalin why.
There's really no use of explaining or was there? People see these things differently. Some do not see (not meaning any person particularly).
1. how is it different from Genesi ? High prices ??!??
Risky, sure, what isnt.
2. now I forgot what the initial question was, but
I fail to see what negatives you see in this.
"Huge" dissapointment that it is compatible ? Let me repeat, Whaaat ?
4. I just dont have a clue.
-
Yes it does.
The app with the "fuzzypointer" is more probably detected & killed before it messes up the memory of other apps/OS.
Sorry, but it's not as simple as you make it sound. For one, you can't just kill the culprit task, if you do, you risk to really damage the rest of the system, as that task might be holding information that another task has got a pointer to, for instance, or it might be holding a semaphore (and no, you can't safely just release the semaphore, as that might leave the data it was protecting in an incoherent state), or whatever else can come to your mind.
-
@piru
>How exactly?
I'm not going to go over it YET again.
>The memory used by other apps/OS is *allocated*, thus the hit will not be detected. Apps/OS will crash.
It does not change anything!
The propability of OS detecting misbehaving application becomes better when it detects access to unused memory (perhaps before it hits some used memory).
(uninitialized pointer is not the only case, accidental use of freed memory seem to happen often in OO code)
(and AOS is not the only OS using that kind of partial MP methode, I know a few million of users elsewhere for that kind of memory protection system (also using some other tricks))
>is far for perfect,
I'm not saying it is perfect. I never will.
It's just better than not having any protection at all.
> and it's debatable if it's worth the effort anyway.
:-) I kind of expected that kind of answer. I rather have it than not.
-
@blubble
1. Oh my. Read again.
2. "dissapointment that it is compatible" nope.
4. well, the roadmap looked better, the rest is history.
There's no use in going around with this matter. MOS has looked as good option, then bad, then good, then politics ...
@falemagn
Then do not kill it. But surely you rather know something/anything about the memory corruption proceeding in your system than just crash and loose all data.
-
Then do not kill it.
Not killing it is no real solution either, because the alternative is just freezing it, which again may cause all kind of troubles, although the chances troubles may happen are lower than in the case the task were killed.
But surely you rather know something/anything about the memory corruption proceeding in your system than just crash and loose all data.
Sure, but then, it's not really "memory protection", it's just another situation in which the classical "suspend or reboot" requester pops up.
-
magnetic wrote:
Also, it is common knowledge that the Pegasos2 is a much better technology than the Amiga 1 board.
magnetic
Oh dear, what was being said here:
http://www.amiga.org/gallery/photo.php?lid=1714&cid=37
:-P
-
Watch it guys. Don't go down that road. There will be a flag on that play.
Not to mention that this has all gone way off topic.
-
by ksk on 2004/4/2 18:33:51
@Warface
>On the contrary, it seems from the rate of development it will be quite some time before OS4 can catch up -
So you say again.
Show me the list of things there is in the MOS(for advanced users)1.4 that is not available in the AOS4.0 internal beta?
Or in 1.5.
MOS does have advantage in maturity, on many parts, though.
Well, look at it from my perspective for a moment. I had a Radeon display when the Radeon driver development started for AOS4, read all the stuff about how troublesome it is, read the first news when it gave picture, that there are still issues with some Radeons in case of the AOS4 beta.
I read now that they have a working IDE DMA driver, when I got that for ages.
I will read with the same anticipation in a JIT boosted IBrowse when their JIT will be finally implemented.
Watching from a fully 24 bit desktop as 24 bit icon system will finally reach OS4. That there will be OpenGL support.
And I don't know since when MorphOS and it's Graphic system is 100% PPC native...
See my problem? Not that I believe that OS4 won't be ready one nice day, I'm pretty convinced that it will be feature complete. The matter of fact, I believed in 2002 november, that it's closer to being that than I believe now, because it was the general impression. People were told to be patient, wait just a little longer, only some smaller bits are remained to finished, and the rest is just polishing.
It turns out, even very basic tasks are still to be finished. Which I use every day since I don't know when...
UPDATE: Now I spotted your mention about those MOS things.
"Mainly I think about the 24 bit internal system from ground up, and their 3D system, of which ATM only the Warp3D wrapper is publicly available."
That is not much.
That is much. And will take considerable time to reimplement all internal 8 bit or planar stuff. Just look at how much time is consumed by seemingly trivial tasks. And there is not only one, I bet there is a considerable TODO list lying ahead.
-
@ksk
The memory used by other apps/OS is *allocated*, thus the hit will not be detected. Apps/OS will crash.
It does not change anything!
Oh yes it does. The apps/OS will crash. Prove me wrong instead of yelling "It does not change anything!".
The propability of OS detecting misbehaving application becomes better when it detects access to unused memory (perhaps before it hits some used memory).
This is true, however very rare. Only very large hits will be detected, and usually it is already too late then (freelist or other allocated memory is trashed).
MMU pagesize is 4096 bytes, minimum. This is the granularity the memory protection can be set. As long as MMU page has any used memory, it cannot be made write protected (or invalid, if using new memory system that separates free memory and freelist).
What is the typical free memory hit? 99% of the time it's buffer overflow. The application will overwrite memory past the allocated area. Unless if the end of the allocated memory chunk is exactly at the MMU page border (aligned by 4096), the hit will go 100% unnoticed by MMU, and free list or other allocated memory will be trashed.
Other typical case is memory allocated by the application (or someone else) that is then freed but your app still accesses it. Catching these will ONLY work if the whole MMU page worth of memory is made unallocated. If any of the memory within the MMU page is still in use, the MMU page cannot be marked write protected (or invalid). Most of the time the hit will go 100% unnoticed again, and it's too late. You've already trashed other allocated memory or freelist.
(uninitialized pointer is not the only case, accidental use of freed memory seem to happen often in OO code)
Catching these will only work if the freed block is very large and the accessed are hits MMU page that is all free. Quite unusual, since typically the access happens to beginning or end of the block, which are unlikely to be all free memory.
(and AOS is not the only OS using that kind of partial MP methode, I know a few million of users elsewhere for that kind of memory protection system (also using some other tricks))
Really? I haven't heard of such systems. Care to list some?
It's just better than not having any protection at all.
If the protection has a performance penalty, it doesn't really give protection, *and* it gives programmers false sense of security... I am not sure if it's good.
Just take a look at some of the sloppy coding practices used in "protected" environments.. No checking of allocated resources, they rather crash and let the system clean up the resources than catching the condition themselves. I am not claiming such programming practices will automatically be adopted because of this, but is it more likely? IMHO yes.
I rather would see true memory protection than such limited hack that has little to nothing to do with Memory Protection.
What I would like to see most, however, is adoption of proper and good programming practices. But that is not going to happen.
-
Quote:
---------------------------
If your main motivation in using your computer is to belong to a certain 'camp', you're using the computer for the entirely wrong reason.
---------------------------
Just some additional thoughts on this statement:
For wide parts of the (amiga-)computerized parts of my generation (I popped out in '77), I'm sure the demoscene was the main motivation for using the Amiga. For many, and while the Amiga was a top notch mix of electronics, wrapped in plastic ("she's dead; wrapped in plastic"), games was a good motivation too.
Now, understand this: you play a game, and you use a computer, but you belong to a demoscene.
You live within it. For a lot of us who have been called nerds in our youth, it was the feeling of belonging to this big everpresent aura of the demoscene, that made us use the computer. That's why, you had a "scene-life", and always refered to real life as "real life". I say had, because today it's more like an abandoned ghost town, the amigascene.
Anyway, the main motivation I have for turning on my Amiga nowadays, is for tuning in with this community I feel that I belong to. I've always gone along with the Amiga, for that reason, to belong. Je suis à ma place, I think in french. I suppose that's why people still spend time with their C64's too, and Atari's etc. It's just another hobby with its hobbyist community, and if that's ones motivation for using a specific computer, I think it's an entirely legit reason.
-
Lets remember to keep things on topic. This thread isdrifting away from what the original poster wanted info on. He was looking for advice on moving to the Pegasos, and why he should over other systems. Lots ofgood info, but lets not scare him away from what he was looking for.
-
Now, understand this: you play a game, and you use a computer, but you belong to a demoscene.
You were in the scene? What group were you in?
I was a musician for a norwegian group called "Deadline" back in 89/90
When the scene was at its biggest :-)
-
restore2003 wrote:
I was a musician for a norwegian group called "Deadline" back in 89/90
Cool! Check your pmail :hat:
-
@Piru
That MMU page limitation reduces that free memory protection usability. Thank for pointing that.
(and now that you mentioned it, that can be circumvented in our embedded situation, but most likely the same does not work in desktop...)
>>...I know a few million of users elsewhere for that kind of memory protection system (also using some other tricks))
>Really? I haven't heard of such systems. Care to list some?
I can not. But if you use a cell phone, preferably 3G. You most likely are using it.
>Just take a look at some of the sloppy coding practices used in "protected" environments..
Right.
(lucky that MOS with Qbox & MP is not yet usable) ;-) ;-)
>I rather would see true memory protection than such limited hack that has little to nothing to do with Memory Protection.
Ofcourse. Especially if the OS still remains efficient/flexible also for multimedia/realtime needs.
@Warface
>And will take considerable time to reimplement all internal 8 bit or planar stuff.
Most likely yes. I think Hyperion might have pretty good competence for that (higher than the original OS building competence).
Hopefully that is partly done when getting rid of all legacy dependant parts. And IIRC in some parts AOS was already capable of handling 32 bits per pixel.
((yet again, this is a place where co-operation would have been very productive, without a few too big egos ...))
-
Here I thought this thread was about switching to Windows. And I had to put in my $0.02 worth plus an extra quarter or two. But its not. :-o
Myself: I own neither. I have helped in building a Pegasos and a AmigaOne. Since OS4 is not available for the AmigaOne, a fair comparison is not possible. I do however like Morph OS for what it is.
But I refuse to buy either until OS4 is available for testing, not to mention the release of the A1Lite. :-D - :angel:
Until Then: Amiga OS 3.1 & 3.9, BeOS, Mac OS 9, Mandrake, OS X, Red Hat and posibly SkyOS in the near future will have to do. Not to forget AROS in Linux. Man, I can't wait for AROS to mature into prime time. :banana:
-
Hum,
I`m just downloading a security patch for winAmp
(there`s a big hole there!) better to patch it up quick! (http://download.nullsoft.com/winamp/client/winamp503_full.exe)
And yesterday i had to scan my whole system for the w32, wormy, bangle a-f variants etc viri (just a precaution)
And the day before that i had to patch up `blackice firewall`
and before that `zone-alarm` and before that....(etc)
[And one day i know they`ll get me....]
:-)
-
I`m just downloading a security patch for winAmp
Call me old fashioned, but I fail to see how a mediaplayer could have security flaws.
-
And yesterday i had to scan my whole system for the w32(insert variant here)
And the day before that i had to patch up `blackice firewall`
and before that `zone-alarm` and before that....(etc)
yep, been there, done that, happy to report Im currently 100% micro$haft free at this time.
(thanx to my maxtor (/dev/hdg1) finally crapping out.
blissful omen perhaps?
-
Call me old fashioned, but I fail to see how a mediaplayer could have security flaws.
WinAMP connects to the internet to download track titles for CD audio.