Should we really crack IBrowse 2.4???

[desiv]

Oh, something has changed, I closed my order for over 30 copies...

I realize it's way too late, but you could take what would be spent on those 30 copies and offer a "bounty" on what you are looking for feature-wise....

Be it, "add CSS to AWeb" or ?

Just a thought...

desiv

[desiv]

He doesn't want to understand, that's his problem.

To be fair, he wasn't asking for a new version.
He was just asking for someone to take his group's money and sell them keyfiles for the existing version....

I think it's a bit silly that someone couldn't set up an automated system for that, or give the code generator to someone like Amigakit or someone else to handle it.  
But they obviously gave it all up...
Oh well..

desiv

[desiv]

Netsurf isn't perfect, but at least it displays most of www pages right and would be realistic goal, unlike OWB etc.

Interesting, but I always heard you needed a really fast/lots of RAM Amiga to run it?

It has developed to work very low spec machines.

OK..  So, what's your definition of "low spec?"

From what I can see on Aminet:

Requirements:
=============    
* AmigaOS 3.x  
* Picasso / CGX compatible graphic card.  
* 64 MB Ram (128MB for complex sites).  
* 68020+ CPU with FPU, for usable speed 68060 or emulator is required.  

With the ACAs and others out there, 64M RAM isn't out of the question (although saying an 060 for "usable speed" concerns me).
But that 2nd one on the list is going to be a killer.  I don't think many people would consider RTG low spec...  Lots of AGA (and OCS) only Amigas out there...

desiv

[desiv]

Oh you think RTG is too high spec?

I'm not saying it's "too high spec" for the task.
I'm saying there are a LOT of Amiga owners that don't have RTG, and they would consider RTG high spec.

For the common, every-day, media-rich 2012 level browsing people are used to today,..

And I don't expect that...
What I think would be nice would be a browser (new or modified code) that renders existing pages in a much better way, so that more modern sites would be usable.

That doesn't mean that all the features would be supported.
This is a 68000 series architecture...  That's not realistic.

But something that handles the web "better" than the current gen of browsers would be great.

Now, maybe it's not realistic.  It's possible...

And again, I'm not saying RTG and an 060 is "over the top."
I'm only saying that, for a lot of Amiga users, it's not considered "low-spec"...

Jeesh..  Relax!  :-)

desiv

[desiv]

im not a coder, but ive looked at the source once and think....

No offense but...

That's a great quote right there...  ;-)

My guess is that Chris is pretty busy, and might welcome some assistance in porting it to 68k, as long as that port is in line with what he is doing and doesn't cut corners just to get it ported..

desiv

[desiv]

.. Somebody with native English, so it wouldn't be full of spelling mistakes

Wich leads to question

OK, was that on purpose???  :laugh1:

I would support a bounty for Chris and Nova..  ;-)

desiv

[desiv]

er...

... there is certainly no "emulation layer".

But I thought..

MorphOS has a 68k to PPC JIT,

um..

uh..

That is an emulation layer...
One that runs "just in time," but an emulation layer nontheless.

Glad we're back on topic tho...
All this off-topic talk about iBrowse and keys and cracking was getting me worried..

desiv
p.s. Yes, I myself was musing about netsurf earlier in this thread.  I realize the irony.. ;-)

[desiv]

Nope, emulation is when you use software to mimic hardware.

Yes, and that's how they get those 68k commands to run...  In software..

desiv

[desiv]

Nope, the 68k binaries are changed into PPC binaries. This does not involve emulation. Nothing is being run "in software", it's all native.

But that's not how you'd run Shadow of the Beast??
When an app makes a 68k call that doesn't have a PPC equivalent, you have to do that in software...

And if they are "changed" on the fly, then that changing is in software...

And..

aarrghhh!!!!

You got me...

Off topic!!!  Dang it..  
I'm so weak... ;-(

desiv
p.s.  Someone needs to update this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trance_JIT if there's no emulation in MorphOS.

[desiv]

To execute 68k code you dont need an emulator

Interesting statement there.  I think we're just in semantics now..
So, let's leave out the "custom chips."
Are all of the 68k opcodes supported on the PPC?
If so, then I agree...

If not, what does the OS do when an app issues a command using an opcode for a 68k CPU that isn't supported on the PPC?

If it translates it, even on the fly, then (IMHO) it's emulating the 68k CPU from the programs perspective.

Now, I have to say that I don't think in any way that it's a bad thing.
I love emulation.  I love virtual machines.

It sounds like MorphOS is doing "emulation right" in my opinion.
It's using it only when it needs to.

desiv
p.s.  Java is an interesting case.  Most VMs are (again, IMHO) emulators.  Java is, in a way, an emulator..  But, it's not emulating a pre-existing system.  It's emulating a generic "virtual machine" that was created just for the purpose of Java...  Of course, you could say that, since the platform didn't exist, it's not "emulating" anything..  That's a toughy..

[desiv]

edit: the problem is, its open source but i dont know where to look for them.

http://www.yvonrozijn.nl/aweb/index.html

desiv

[desiv]

The programs never see the difference so from programs perspective it is emulating 68k CPU. From the operating system point of view there is no 68k CPU. There is only dynamic 68k translator reading a 68k op-code stream.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking...  

And I think that's incredibly awesome..  ;-)
Very nicely done...

desiv

[desiv]

Could be. Or perhaps rather different views on definitions of the concepts "emulation" vs "translation"?

er..
That IS semantics..  ;-)

Don't worry tho.
Based on what you've said about programs written for 68k Amigas running on MorphOS, I agree that it's emulation.
Thanx!

desiv