AmigaOS 4.0 for 68k: a viable option forward?

[Atheist]

codenetfx wrote:

Since Amiga OS is closed-source, with two companies behind OS and Amiga trademark in a deadlock (isn't that ironic? OS knew how to do multitasking 20 years ago and people owning it are in deadlock), we have two options:

Hi codenetfx,

Yes, I agree. And I agree with the glacier stuff too.

codenetfx wrote:

2) Find an alternative with an open-source OS (AROS, for example), build "classic amiga" environment within in with WinUAE and maintain the list of compatible hardware (Motherboards, graphics cards, etc.)

Too complex, AOS inside AOS? Can the inside one communicate with the outside one?? x86 HW is constantly changing, can AROS keep up?

codenetfx wrote:

With these thoughts, another question. Which one of the open-source "flavors" of Amiga OS-compatible OSes would be the best foundation for this. AROS or something else?

Don't need anything new, it's all available right now!!!

AOS "as-is"! (Doesn't need to be open sourced.)

Dead lead weight Amiga Inc. Del. can NOT stop NatAmi, in ANY way, shape or form.....

NatAmi with AGA extensions, could keep us going for 20 more years, really.

Remember; ANY NatAmi model that is acquired is ONLY a slow version of what IS possible. What's the limit? 3 GHz is the limit!


Amiga could return to it's roots through NatAmi..... HW and SW in harmony. (Or as close as one could get.)

and who's in charge? Y O U !

[Atheist]

codenetfx wrote:
@Atheist

However, I am interested in NatAmi although I do not understand your claim about its scalability up to 3GHz. Can you provide more details? Since NatAmi is based on MC68060, how do we get to 3GHz (in theory)?

Hi codenetfx,

When I was quoting the 3 GHz, I was saying so as in "3 GHz is not an unattainable plateau". 3 GHz components have been made, they work. We could have the same, eventually. I wasn't going out on a limb and saying, "hey man, we're getting shiny new 5.734 GHz CPUs before intel and AMD can scratch their bum tomorrow", when NO ONE has such parts working reliably. They don't, neither could we have them too.

[Atheist]

bloodline wrote:

We should consider the Amigas' strengths and capitalise on them. They are;-

Efficient AmigaOS, small, fast and adequate.

Antiquated, unstable, insecure, single user, nonPOSIX and no modern software.

Hi bloodline,

Antiquated? Can you explain that?

Single user? YES single user!!! Who brain washed you? Because bill gates SAYS "multi-user is da bomb" Single user is WRONG/FORBIDDEN/BLASPHEMY? I must have missed that memo.

NonPosix? Why do I want "posix", okay, what is "posix" and why do I need it? Never needed it before. (At least I don't think so.)

Who can make modern SW on a computer that's too slow to run it? A 68000 can encode and decode MP3, BUT it's not FAST ENOUGH to. (Ray tracing was slow, BUT Amiga COULD do it. Doesn't mean that, "oh it takes four hours to make a frame, guess we'll leave it to people who own mainframes in their garage.") If there was a 400 MHz 68000, it's probably enough to do it. Motorola stopped making faster 68000 CPUs, so we don't have fast Amigas. An Amiga 2000 could play MP3 too (with no accelerator card!!!). If there was a 700 MHz 6502, an Apple ][ probably could too!

Make modern HW available, and the old SW may be fast enough to do anything that is possible today, even unaltered.

NatAmi60 --- "for great justice!!!! - AYBABTU :-D :-D :-D

bloodline wrote:

Known hardware, few incompatibilities from unknown hardware or drivers.

Stuck on 20 year old technology... it is going to appeal only to Retro Gamers at best.

All we need is new hardware to replace ageing or dead hardware.
Amigas' should appeal to anyone who wants a system to work without trouble or a pile of manuals a metre high.

But we are not going to appeal to anyone who wants to use a computer to do anything that one expects from a computer now.

Well, we are a couple notches below, even with NatAmi60, but it's a better system, that's why we're going that way.... Also, NatAmi60 is NOT the highest level that can be achived, the MHz can still go higher, and we WILL be in their league then, but with smaller OS, smaller productivity SW size, quick responsive feel, etc. etc.

And just general "fun" factor, it's hard to explain.

Macintoshes are more like an appliance now, a refrigerator or microwave oven. PCs are incomplete hodge-podges. Never know if it will be reliable, and you can't manipulate things without them just stop working. Linux, hard to fathom, and constantly in revision, trying to keep up with drivers eternally.

[Atheist]

bloodline wrote:

Atheist wrote:

An Amiga 2000 could play MP3 too (with no accelerator card!!!). If there was a 700 MHz 6502, an Apple ][ probably could too!

No it can't. To play an MP3 you need to decode it in realtime, no 68000 could ever do that. My 68040 could do some weird low quality thing... but it was horrible. the 6502 can't scale to 700Mhz, the design doesn't allow it.

An Amiga at only 7.14 MHz could play an MP3 if:

1. It had 256 Megs of ram, and decoded (by that I mean decompresses it) the file into ram: (disk)
2. 256 Megs of ram is not possible ONLY because of the 16/32 bit nature of the 68000 CPU itself, not an AOS issue.
3. It would need 256 Megs of chip ram. Not possible STRICTLY due to the OCS not being able to control more than 512K of ram.
4. AOS can't play MP3, so the file then should have to be converted to a file that OCS could play. Store it in ram: disk, and load into chip ram and play.

Voila!

- edit -
Hmmm, I guess it couldn't get to 44 KHz though. :-(
- edit -

[Atheist]

bloodline wrote:

Playing is not the same as offline decoding.

1. The amount of RAM is irrelevant. An average 3.5min MP3 decoded to a Stereo 8bit 20Khz IFF audio file would only take around 10megs or ram.

2. The 68K address space allows for 4GigaBytes... the 68000 and the 68020 only have 24 address alines which limits them to 16meg addressable.

3. What does OCS have to do with this?

4. Do you know how long it would take for a 7Mhz 68k to decode an MP3 to an 8bit audio file? And given the lack of FPU... I would suggest days... You like to wait several days with your A2000 doing nothing but decoding an MP3 to a crappy 8bit 20Khz sample just before you can play it?

Hi bloodline,

I thought that a file that big would HAVE to be in CHIP ram, and OCS can't control more than 512K. Also, the 68000 can't control more than 16 Megs, and in the case of OCS, max ram is 8.5 Megs. BUT, if there was a 68000 that has 32 bit pins in/out (NOT the 68020 core) and was working at 7.14 MHz it COULD play a converted, ram resident, MP3 file!

Are you sure 20 KHz is max playback?

Pretty good for an obsolete machine, huh?