Thinking to change to the dark side (blue)

[ksk]

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 !

[ksk]

(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.

>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 up overnight, some do, some do not)

[ksk]

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]

@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.

[ksk]

@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". ;-)

[ksk]

@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.

[ksk]

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. ;-)

[ksk]

@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...

[ksk]

@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:

[ksk]

@-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)

[ksk]

@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)

[ksk]

@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).

[ksk]

@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. ;-)

[ksk]

@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.

[ksk]

>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.