Amiga OS4 on old (PPC) Macs

[HenryCase]

Hans_ wrote:
Hyperion have stated that they're committed to expanding the amount of hardware that OS4 will run on. I hope that they can deliver, despite the lawsuits. They have the source code and the expertise, and they don't have to reverse engineer anything.

I hope Hyperion do continue to develop OS4 in the way you describe, but I'm looking for solutions the community can implement to get us out of this legal mess.

How about an OS4 implementation layer for AROS? It wouldn't be as much work as when the AROS team started with OS 3.1 compatibility, as it could be built on top of the existing work. The OS4 SDK has been released, wouldn't an AROS implementation of this be enough to run OS4 apps?

With OS4 support built into AROS we free ourselves from not being able to develop apps for the platform, as well as giving ourselves many more hardware choices. If when the court case is finished, and new OS4 hardware is released, we will have a whole bunch of ready made apps that we wouldn't have otherwise.

Do you think we should start a bounty for OS4 AROS?

[Plaz]

I'm shure a few people are scratching their heads why they didn't release OS4 for Mac in the first place,

I'm sure that AI sees potential in many market places that it would like to keep to itself. What I don't understand about AI is why they don't take advantage of these markets and profit by selling new licenses to exploit markets like these old Macs.

If AI truely was able to write OS5 on it's own, it would do so and make the current lawsuit all about yanking Hyperion's license. Instead they seem to be trying to get the OS4 source as well. Why? Are they unable to write OS5 without it? (many of us think so). Or are they just trying to make sure OS4 source doesn't get out into the wild as moana appears to have done. I agree that OS4 (at least the kickstart kernel) on Mac doesn't help Hyperion's case.

Plaz

[Hans_]

HenryCase wrote:
How about an OS4 implementation layer for AROS? It wouldn't be as much work as when the AROS team started with OS 3.1 compatibility, as it could be built on top of the existing work. The OS4 SDK has been released, wouldn't an AROS implementation of this be enough to run OS4 apps?

AROS was about source-compatibility so OS4 apps won't run unless recompiled for AROS on whatever processor AROS is running on. That's ignoring the endianness issues of-course. As you've already realized, it would also be a big job.

They could replicate the OS4 API, but IIRC, they don't like OS4's new library interfaces concept. Plus it looks as though they're starting to deviate from the 3.1 API and developing their own ones. You could try, but I'd expect considerable resistance from the current AROS devs.

Hans

[Crumb]

@Hans

this could be interesting too
http://thenostromo.com/teamaros2/index.php?number=31

[HenryCase]

@Hans
I would be interested in using AROS as a platform for creating new apps (that would run on AROS and OS4) so recompiling wouldn't be a problem. Anything that makes porting between the two systems would be beneficial. Would the endianness really have that much affect? After all, 68K endianness is different to x86 endianness but that didn't stop OS 3.1 being recreated.

I'd like to ask the AROS devs to see if they are interested, but I'd like to know I wasn't the only one interested in OS4 compatibility in AROS first.

@Crumb
Must have overlooked that bounty before, thanks for bringing it in to this discussion.
Never realised there was an OS4 emulator for MorphOS. At the moment it's not complete but a port of it in its current state to AROS would be a great start, work could be done to improve compatibility later. Here's the current compatibility list:
http://amigazeux.net/os4emu/comp.php

[Hans_]

HenryCase wrote:
@Hans
I would be interested in using AROS as a platform for creating new apps (that would run on AROS and OS4) so recompiling wouldn't be a problem. Anything that makes porting between the two systems would be beneficial. Would the endianness really have that much affect? After all, 68K endianness is different to x86 endianness but that didn't stop OS 3.1 being recreated.

The endianness issue isn't as big as some people think, or as insignificant as others think. Basically, even with source compatibility, some code is endian-specific. This is usually code to load/save data or send it over a network (assuming that you're not writing device drivers). It means that a simple compile won't just get it working. Something like a DVD writer app that communicates with a DVD drive needs slight variations of certain code depending on the processor endianness. Other manifestations of this are the colours of an image being wrong, or audio sounding really noisy.

Hans

[arnljot]

I don't think AROS should divert their limited resources away from the milestones they've already set.

I think the way forward for OS4 is to get the legal issues sorted out. And meanwhile expand to new hardware.

Who ever wins the court case is (to me) almost irrelevant. If Hyperion wins they'll for sure continue the work they've already started and partially proved they're able to do. A bit more uncertain with AINC, but if they win it will be a catalyst for the community and to AINC to do more definitive moves for a future platform. Maybe it would be fantastic news for AROS and MOS? Who knows...

So even the MAC OS4 kernel is tainted fruits, I'm glad its out in one way: It inspired a few folks. But I think that the way forward for us should be emmulation/virtualization (PearPC or own open firmware for macs "faking" an AmigaOne).

---
On a side note I'm glad that AORG is one of the few forums where we can spend time discussing OS4 without being labled as futile/stupid (ref EAB) or lacking geenes (ref Moo Bunny)

I couldn't help but try to explain myself on EAB:
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=383422&postcount=46

[monami]

the last time i tried pear pc. it needed an aweful lot of tinkering with. enough to put anyone off...

[BooBoo1200]

@DBAlex or anyone else Hows it going have you managed to progress any further?

[Fats]

Hans_ wrote:

AROS was about source-compatibility so OS4 apps won't run unless recompiled for AROS on whatever processor AROS is running on. That's ignoring the endianness issues of-course. As you've already realized, it would also be a big job.

AROS was about binary compatibility on m68k and source compatbility for non-amiga CPUs.

They could replicate the OS4 API, but IIRC, they don't like OS4's new library interfaces concept. Plus it looks as though they're starting to deviate from the 3.1 API and developing their own ones. You could try, but I'd expect considerable resistance from the current AROS devs.

I don't see why there would be a big resistance from the developers if somebody makes an OS4 compatible AROS version. The mentality is that each developer should be able to do with the open-source source code what he likes. That is the spirit.
I myself am a core AROS developer and I do plan in the future to make two PPC versions of AROS possible. One binary compatible with MorhOS and one compatible with OS4. First I want to finish the i386 ABI though.
One of the biggest hurdles IMO for true OS4 compatibility is an open-source Reaction implementation.

greets,
Staf.

[Hans_]

Fats wrote:

Hans_ wrote:

AROS was about source-compatibility so OS4 apps won't run unless recompiled for AROS on whatever processor AROS is running on. That's ignoring the endianness issues of-course. As you've already realized, it would also be a big job.

AROS was about binary compatibility on m68k and source compatbility for non-amiga CPUs.

I'd forgotten about the 68k binary compatibility goal. But things have changed since then haven't they?

I don't see why there would be a big resistance from the developers if somebody makes an OS4 compatible AROS version. The mentality is that each developer should be able to do with the open-source source code what he likes. That is the spirit.
I myself am a core AROS developer and I do plan in the future to make two PPC versions of AROS possible. One binary compatible with MorhOS and one compatible with OS4. First I want to finish the i386 ABI though.
One of the biggest hurdles IMO for true OS4 compatibility is an open-source Reaction implementation.

Maybe you should tell some of the more vocal AROS advocates to STFU then. The impression that I got was that AROS developers have no interest in OS4 compatibility at all, see it as inferior, blah blah blah.

Hans

[Zac67]

Does anyone know, how much OS4 for classic and OS4 for A1 actually differ?

While the classic bootloader should be relatively simple (the hardware is initialized by Kickstart and very well known), the completely different hardware might be a large obstacle for running the OS on a Mac.

The A1 bootloader expects a Uboot machine (which we don't have), checks some dongle (we don't have either), but it expects a PCI architecture (yeah!) and brings along some hardware drivers we could need.

So, if the classic version supports a PCI architecture/HAL as well, it shouldn't be too hard to write a new bootloader (essentially what Moana does) and write a stub to adapt the HAL (I have no idea how much OF and Uboot differ here). This may sound naive - and will still be quite a bit of work - but if this is worked on on a scale like AROS, it's certainly doable. Of course we'd need hardware drivers as well, but as soon as the gfx hardware can be used as a simple framebuffer, it would be usable.

The other option you're just talking about, is to make AROS OS4 binary compatible - I guess that's a more complex task.

[persia]

Am I understanding this correctly, that moana only gets to kickstart, workbench can't load?

[BooBoo1200]

Info elsewhere seem to sugest that full Os4 on Mac is possible I like to post a Quote originally posted on EAB the poster said the Info came an anonymous good soul at the bottom it sugests partitioning the HD with workbench but still booting from CD?
 

So, here goes... if this doesn't work, nothing will:

For starters, stop the booting sequence and enter the OF prompt by pressing Ctrl-Alt-O-F *right* after the USB keyboard gets detected.

Now, type exactly that:
boot cd:\\slb

Make sure you use the 'MM_Full_silent_USB' configuration, number 5 probably.

You can update those old kickmodules, but *DON'T DO ANYTHING* to the following files (including kernel files):
battclock.resource-via.kmod
macminiide.device.kmod
dbdma.library
nvram_OF.resource.kmod

If you want to do an iso from those files, you can easly use mkisoft by typing:
mkisofs -v -o -R -D -iso-level 3 -h -part -mac-name
-hfs-bless /l

What's more, you can partition the HDD with workbench on the mini, but it needs booting from the CD anyways.

PS: Got from an anonymous good soul...

Maybe the kickstart is looking for a FFS formated HD but whether this would work with Classic?

[djbase]

Info elsewhere seem to sugest that full Os4 on Mac is possible I like to post a Quote originally posted on EAB the poster said the Info came an anonymous good soul at the bottom it sugests partitioning the HD with workbench but still booting from CD?

The problems is that the Mac OF can not boot from Amiga Partitions so you would need an HFS (or whatever the firmware can read) Partition to load the kickstart. I guess that if you make 2 partitions (one as HFS for the bootfiles, one for OS4) it will boot also without cd.

[BooBoo1200]

Yep thats a good idea - I wonder if its possible to make a dedicated FFS partion under Mac OS/E-UAE like with with WinUae then copy over the Os4 files -Maybe Im going in totaly the wrong direction here? I may have to wait until someone in the know gets a Mac? I dont know if I can wait that long :-P