Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Bloatware AmigaOS?  (Read 14198 times)

Description:

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline zhulien

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2006
  • Posts: 31
    • Show only replies by zhulien
    • http://zhulien.kicks-ass.net/
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #89 from previous page: November 21, 2007, 02:20:16 AM »
Quote

AmiGR wrote:
Quote
they go stick bundles of applications INTO THE OS DISTRO itself. Often WITHOUT the option of NOT installing them. This is a real putoff!


Eh? Which distro does not give you the option of not installing the bundled apps? I've worked with RedHat, Debian and Gentoo and I selected what I wanted to install in all of them.


eg: Ubuntu doesn't, Puppy doesn't, Vector doesn't.
 

Offline BigBenAussie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2004
  • Posts: 313
    • Show only replies by BigBenAussie
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #90 on: November 21, 2007, 09:36:04 AM »
Ah.. Guys. You've all gone way off topic.
So I will too. ;-)


Look. Clearly the future is x86 for the desktop. Stuffing around with PPC is clearly a dead end for so many reasons and you will never ever be anywhere near the cutting edge. PPC will only buy us a couple of years more based on the current state of Amiga OS(or alike) development.

That said, the implementation of x86 should be done like Apple, ie, on custom hardware, for the obvious reason of minimising hardware support. So you pick a manufacturer(some unknown Taiwanese for instance) to partner with and rebrand some of their x86 hardware as Amiga, and include an AmigaOS as standard, hopefully in a nice case. That's gotta be too easy.

As for worrying about GPUs and the like, forget it. There are no developer resources to take advantage of it anyway. You couldn't sign console devs to work on it because the return would be too low. The latest GPUs would only come in handy if you could dual boot Windows for Windows games, which is what we're trying to avoid anyway.

My vote would be to partner with the company producing those wedge shaped computers reminiscent of the A500 of old, as you wouldn't be expecting much from them hardware wise, and wouldn't be picked on for not being able to utilise it fully anyway. I think it would be a great stepping stone and maybe I am alone in thinking they are cool.


If you can't get your OS5 ready in time or an x86 port of OS4, you simply use AROS, or you get an OS licence for something that can act as a host for AROS libs, like say QNX(QNX would sit well with Amigans). Think OSX running on BSD. There done. You've got the Amiga API combined with a modern OS with modern features like memory protection etc, you got apps already ported to QNX like browsers and Office stuff, and you've got all this sitting on fully branded and stable Amiga branded PC/Windows compatable computer. And it would eventually run AROS native too if you wanted or even Windows in a virtual machine. How AmigaInc could lose with this approach I do not know.


But now I will go BACK on topic and at last mention my take on OS bloat.
Bloat is a function of abstraction more than anything else. Abstraction is a boon to developers and allows them to design and develop software at a higher level or with a higher level language or API. I'm no expert but generally I imagine more low level knowledge is required for software devs in AmigaOS than most others. Abstraction lends itself to modularisation which also increases the ability to coordinate efforts, which in turn increases developer output, and leads to more ambitious productions. Abstraction typically creates software layers, which can be better maintained, and all this is made possible by the growth in computing power. So while you lose out in terms of speed in most cases you gain by software that is likely to be more ambitious, interoperable, frequently updated, and easily maintained. AmigaOS isn't bloated in comparison, but it probably isn't considered as feature rich either.

Ok. Going back to my happy place.
 

Offline BigBenAussie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2004
  • Posts: 313
    • Show only replies by BigBenAussie
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #91 on: November 21, 2007, 10:01:05 AM »
Why not put a CPU core (PPC or simplified x86), a GPU and a decent amount of RAM all on the same silicon?

Isn't that enough to be revolutionairy? An AmigaOS running decently on a matchbox sized computer.

If only Clone-A could squeeze AGA, some memory and a PPC/680x0 core on it's silicon too we'd be part way there and loving it.

I'm not saying all the RAM needs be on the chip. It'd be like Amiga Chip RAM.

Ok. Going back to my happy place now.
 

Offline nBit7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 143
    • Show only replies by nBit7
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #92 on: November 21, 2007, 10:25:40 AM »
Quote
No-one spends the money to get a Mac to get a Vista machine, people can buy cheaper and more powerful Vista machines elsewhere.


I work at a university.  All of the high end macs that have been purchased this year have been used as solely windows machines.  
This is because they were cheaper than the equivalent PCs from tear 1 suppliers.  However they are XP not Vista.  Apple may have to reconsider their generous educational discounts.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #93 on: November 21, 2007, 11:55:07 AM »
Quote
I would just like to say that I mentioned the A20 line as an example x86 legacy, but I dont know all the details of legacy support for older software. Do you know of any other examples?

Stacked model X87 FPU and FXCH instruction. Both which was fixed(workaround) in AMD's K7 Athlon i.e. hardwired FXCH (effective latency of 0-cycles), hardware translator for FPU stack model to register FPU model.

X87's lack of fused FADD and FMUL instructions i.e. Intel Core 2's fixes this issue by detecting (hardware) dependant FADD and FMUL instructions and fuse the together.

Stack FPU model was dumped in AMD64/Intel64/X64 modes.
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2007, 12:00:38 PM »
Quote
Or is the some architectural reason that would have limited it from the same type of improvements that make the x86 still viable?

RISC hype...

Quote

What were the abilities of the 1993 Pentium or 1995 Pentium Pro in regards to clock cycles?

Like the other P6 class cores(e.g. Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium M, Core1), Pentium Pro has three x86 decoders i.e. 3 X86 instructions per cycle.

Pentium Classic can issue two X86 instructions per cycle (with limitation).

The P6 has partially pipelined FPU (for instruction multiplies). Like Pentium Classic's FPU, 68060's FPU is not piplined.

K7 Athlon has a fully superpipelined FPU.
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline persia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 3753
    • Show only replies by persia
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2007, 12:04:00 PM »
So what about modern PCs and Macs which all use multi-cores, how do they compare with the old style P4s?

Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote
Or is the some architectural reason that would have limited it from the same type of improvements that make the x86 still viable?

RISC hype...

Quote

What were the abilities of the 1993 Pentium or 1995 Pentium Pro in regards to clock cycles?

Like the other P6 class cores(e.g. Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium M, Core1), Pentium Pro has three x86 decoders i.e. 3 X86 instructions per cycle.

Pentium Classic can issue two X86 instructions per cycle (with limitation).

The P6 has partially pipelined FPU (for instruction multiplies). Like Pentium Classic's FPU, 68060's FPU is not piplined.

K7 Athlon has a fully superpipelined FPU.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

What we\'re witnessing is the sad, lonely crowing of that last, doomed cock.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2007, 12:09:06 PM »
Quote

HenryCase wrote:
Quote

downix wrote:
No, '95-'96 would have been post-AAA, Hombre chipset.  AAA was to be 3.0, but CBM put it's development on pause, instead releasing the interim AGA.  When they restarted AAA development, they soon found themselves too far behind the curve, so they began Hombre, slated for release in '95.


Thanks for this info.

Just out of interest, if AAA had been released instead of AGA (i.e. at the same time) how would it have compared, tech specs wise, with IBM-PC compatible and Apple graphics h/w?

About on par with ATI's Mach 32.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Mach

Factor in Intel has 860/960 RISC 3D hybrid chip...
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2007, 12:28:24 PM »
Quote

persia wrote:
So what about modern PCs and Macs which all use multi-cores, how do they compare with the old style P4s?

This is a large topic.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/4
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/5

This refers to Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quads.

PowerPC G4's Altivec implementation was good, but it was throttled by a crap bus and chipsets. If G4 used EV6 bus; the outcome would have been different. Both AMD and Intel have 128bit FP hardware units with plenty of bus bandwidth.
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline downix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 1587
    • Show only replies by downix
    • http://www.applemonthly.com
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2007, 12:37:28 PM »
Quote

BigBenAussie wrote:
Ah.. Guys. You've all gone way off topic.
So I will too. ;-)


Look. Clearly the future is x86 for the desktop. Stuffing around with PPC is clearly a dead end for so many reasons and you will never ever be anywhere near the cutting edge. PPC will only buy us a couple of years more based on the current state of Amiga OS(or alike) development.

There are more chips out there than PPC and x86.  ARM, MIPS, SuperH, and SPARC are all still viable, and each has their own unique strengths that lend themselves to a desktop platform, such as more efficiency, better OP-per-clock ratio, and... they're LICENSEABLE.  You could take them, embed them into a system-on-chip and produce a more cost-efficient system than any x86 machine could hope to be.  Broaden your horizons sometimes, I did and I haven't looked back.  *pets his SPARC*
Try blazedmongers new Free Universal Computer kit, available with the GUI toolkit Your Own Universe, the popular IT edition, Extremely Reliable System for embedded work, Enhanced Database development and Wide Area Development system for telecommuting.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2007, 12:43:10 PM »
Quote

Fully agreed. While, sure, modern day GPU's are more than adequate, truth is, the rest of a PC or Mac's chipset is downright anemic for performance. I build these things every day, and deal with these limitations. Example, the common AC97 sound system that's universal nowadays.

As for AC97 or HDA, Lintel/Wintel/Mactel's chipsets are designed with a modern X86/X64 processor in mind.
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #100 on: November 21, 2007, 12:57:15 PM »
Quote
There are more chips out there than PPC and x86. ARM, MIPS, SuperH, and SPARC are all still viable, and each has their own unique strengths that lend themselves to a desktop platform, such as more efficiency, better OP-per-clock ratio, and... they're LICENSEABLE.

Let's see SPARC IV competes against Celeron/Pentium Dual Core (Core 2 based), K8 Sempr0n and Athlon 64s in the race to bottom(for price).
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline downix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 1587
    • Show only replies by downix
    • http://www.applemonthly.com
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #101 on: November 21, 2007, 01:20:04 PM »
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote

persia wrote:
So what about modern PCs and Macs which all use multi-cores, how do they compare with the old style P4s?

This is a large topic.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/4
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/5

This refers to Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quads.

PowerPC G4's Altivec implementation was good, but it was throttled by a crap bus and chipsets. If G4 used EV6 bus; the outcome would have been different. Both AMD and Intel have 128bit FP hardware units with plenty of bus bandwidth.

Fully agreed, hence why I'm currently modifying the SPARC T1 to use a Hypertransport bus rather than it's current proprietory bus design.  Cuts costs, *and* booses speed.  But, lacking an Altivec-like design of my own at the moment, it's still little more than a design exercise.
Try blazedmongers new Free Universal Computer kit, available with the GUI toolkit Your Own Universe, the popular IT edition, Extremely Reliable System for embedded work, Enhanced Database development and Wide Area Development system for telecommuting.
 

Offline downix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 1587
    • Show only replies by downix
    • http://www.applemonthly.com
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #102 on: November 21, 2007, 01:52:17 PM »
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote
There are more chips out there than PPC and x86. ARM, MIPS, SuperH, and SPARC are all still viable, and each has their own unique strengths that lend themselves to a desktop platform, such as more efficiency, better OP-per-clock ratio, and... they're LICENSEABLE.

Let's see SPARC IV competes against Celeron/Pentium Dual Core (Core 2 based), K8 Sempr0n and Athlon 64s in the race to bottom(for price).

The IV?  Egads guy, get into at least 2005.  Not that I'm one to talk, I run a IIi.

Entry level ATX boards start at under $200 including a 600Mhz CPU.  While performance wise the Core2 is higher at this price point, admitedly, it's not so far ahead that it's a blowout.
Try blazedmongers new Free Universal Computer kit, available with the GUI toolkit Your Own Universe, the popular IT edition, Extremely Reliable System for embedded work, Enhanced Database development and Wide Area Development system for telecommuting.
 

Offline yetihw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2005
  • Posts: 59
    • Show only replies by yetihw
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #103 on: November 21, 2007, 03:43:55 PM »
I've thought the same thing but no little of the OS so I can't answer intelligently; but I loved the way you ended your post......discuss.....made me laugh.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Couldn\\\'t afford an amiga then can\\\'t afford one now.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Bloatware AmigaOS?
« Reply #104 on: November 22, 2007, 10:02:25 AM »
Quote

downix wrote:
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote

persia wrote:
So what about modern PCs and Macs which all use multi-cores, how do they compare with the old style P4s?

This is a large topic.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/4
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/5

This refers to Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quads.

PowerPC G4's Altivec implementation was good, but it was throttled by a crap bus and chipsets. If G4 used EV6 bus; the outcome would have been different. Both AMD and Intel have 128bit FP hardware units with plenty of bus bandwidth.

Fully agreed, hence why I'm currently modifying the SPARC T1 to use a Hypertransport bus rather than it's current proprietory bus design.  Cuts costs, *and* booses speed.
.

Officially, Sun Microsystems is currently evaluating AMD's Torrenza for all Sun platforms.  

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~112780,00.html
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.