Memory Protection AGAIN

[hardlink]

bloodline wrote:

What is interesting is to give people a greater insight into how AmigaOS works at a fundamental level, it's a facinating topic, and one that I really enjoy thinking about... AmigaOS is the last of it's kind... a living fossil, if more people studied it they would have a better idea of operating system design, for sure!

First off, adding MP to Amiga OS after the launch of the A1000 has been brainstormed and debated for over 20 years by some of the brighest people ever, starting with the original Lorraine developers themselves - and the conclusion that it would break all pervious apps has never changed. I once heard RJ Mical say at an Amiga show that's a big lesson they remembered when they designed the 3DO.

Although MP would be great, the Amiga OS single address space design is one of the things that make it the most facinating OS I've ever used, and the only one I'll devote any time whatsover to when I'm not getting paid for it. I used unix at work before the Amiga came out, and what a breath of fresh air when it did - a machine that is actually FUN, and understandable to the core without devoting a lifetime to it. I still get paid to do unix, and it has gotten even bigger and more complicated, while the Amiga has gotten more fun!

An workable approach to stability was described long ago by Dr. Peter Kittel of CBM Europe, the SAS/C guys, and others: use the tools like Enforcer & dump any badly programmed apps. But I like to be on the edge
 

[Karlos]

and the only one I'll devote any time whatsover to when I'm not getting paid for it.

I know that feeling. I use linux, windows (and previously OSX) all day long at work. Whilst on the linux side a lot of my colleagues are constantly tinkering and spending hours messing around with their systems for fun, I just want mine to work. My choice of window manager, for example, was determined solely on the grounds of whichever one the system first booted into. I have no more passion for current 'modern' OS than I do for a garden spade. They are just tools with which to do work.

If I want to actually have fun, I'll fire up my cranky and quirky old miggy, maybe crash it a few times with some bad code I'm tinkering with and simply not worry that I've ruined my uptime and just get a coffee instead.

[Einstein]

Fats wrote:

People often don't make a distinction between memory protection and virtual/private address spaces.

Don't be so sure

hardlink wrote:

, while the Amiga has gotten more fun!

Loosing data once every x minutes cannot be fun (?), unless one only uses the OS as a single-tasking one, that is only run one app at any given moment 8-)
Yet still, the previous app might have done something nasty, so I change it to: run one app and reboot before the next. :hammer:

[quenthal]

Edit: whoops, misunderstood the discussion :crazy:

[stefcep2]

![/quote]

Loosing data once every x minutes cannot be fun (?), unless one only uses the OS as a single-tasking one, that is only run one app at any given moment 8-)
Yet still, the previous app might have done something nasty, so I change it to: run one app and reboot before the next. :hammer: [/quote]

Fortunately many good programmers learned to program well enough that Amiga crashes are less common the win98se crashes (in my experience having spent years using both) but far more common than winxppro (lots of individual program crashes but NOT ONE system crash in 18 months)

[warpdesign]

I agree, it's the only way to remain truely compatible while freeing the OS from stone age technology.

The thing is: how many OS9.x software people are using with MacOSX now ?

And what do we want ? Being able to run transparently IBrowse which only handles tables, or FireFox in a new clean box ?

I don't get why people are so attached to running software from *stone*! Emulators/Sandboxes are there for that... There's no question of program that asks for memory protection... That's pure nonsense and loss of time...

[Kronos]

@warpdesign

None if you bought your Mac in the past 2 years (cos that would mean x86).

But thats not the question, the question is how many OS9 app (or 68k apps back when PPC was introduced) were people running when the 1st switched to OSX ?

And that was with the Mac market being relativly healthy, a still functioning mother-corp actually investing into it etc.

On the other side, just ask any OS4 or MOS how far he would get without 68k-emu .... sure some might say "no problem", but only till someone had a deeper look into the actual system.

AROS has been going for over a decade now, and it still lacks apps for even some of the most basic task, resulting in virtually 0 real user which then discourages developers from building native apps.

An MP-AOS wouldn't even be compatible on the source level, so instead of a recompile (+ a few patches) we would talk about more or less a rewrite. Not very motivating.

[warpdesign]

But thats not the question, the question is how many OS9 app (or 68k apps back when PPC was introduced) were people running when the 1st switched to OSX ?

Seeing how difficult to make it run (you needed a true copy of OS9.x, etc...), I guess not that much.
And I would add to that: how long did they use it before switching to OSX native equivalent apps ?

And when did developer switch to OSX ? As soon as they saw the benefits from using it...

[bloodline]

warpdesign wrote:

But thats not the question, the question is how many OS9 app (or 68k apps back when PPC was introduced) were people running when the 1st switched to OSX ?

Seeing how difficult to make it run (you needed a true copy of OS9.x, etc...), I guess not that much.
And I would add to that: how long did they use it before switching to OSX native equivalent apps ?

IIRC Apple have OSX out as MacOS Server etc, 2 years before Actually releasing it to the consumer... plus it had it's NeXT heritage, so there was plenty of time to develop for it... And they put in a MacOS classic compatible API (al la Carbon - Probably quite easy due MacOS classic's simplicity), to allow easy porting of existing source code... so I doubt OS9 stuff hung around for too long... I joined the Mac brigade in 2005... so None of my software was ever OS9 or 68k... and a year later I was intel Mac :-)

And when did developer switch to OSX ? As soon as they saw the benefits from using it...

As soon as they could I expect.

[itix]

The thing is: how many OS9.x software people are using with MacOSX now ?

And what do we want ? Being able to run transparently IBrowse which only handles tables, or FireFox in a new clean box ?

It is not fair comparison. Apple sells millions new Macs every year.

[persia]

Mac made the switches as a living vibrant corporation, there hasn't been a living company behind the Amiga in over a decade.  Ideally the transitions would have taken place slowly in the 90's

1) move to PowerPC architecture, provide a walled garden for Motorola users software to run.  
2) upgrades to PPC, walled garden breaks, nobody notices because current software is better
3) New OS with classic emulator, free of memory management, etc problems.  Give this a couple years for software to catch up.
4) Move to Intel hardware with compatibility layer...

Each step takes time, waiting for software to catch up.  Amiga is faced with the daunting task a new OS whilst "building a bridge to the 20th Century."

My professional computer is an Intel Mac, I have no software that's over two years old.  Life goes on.

Unless you are willing to have Classic Amiga handled by a UAE port you can't have a modern OS.

[warpdesign]

3) New OS with classic emulator, free of memory management, etc problems. Give this a couple years for software to catch up.

This OS is there: it's call MorphOS. The only problem is that the focus is made on the classic environment instead of a new envvironment which would benefit of all new features...

4) Move to Intel hardware with compatibility layer...

No, because Intel sucks, and Intel is evil (for me this is ironic...)

[Hans_]

@warpdesign

warpdesign wrote:

3) New OS with classic emulator, free of memory management, etc problems. Give this a couple years for software to catch up.

This OS is there: it's call MorphOS. The only problem is that the focus is made on the classic environment instead of a new envvironment which would benefit of all new features...

MorphOS' q-box has full memory protection? I haven't heard anything about the q-box in years. AFAIK, all the development has been for the a-box (i.e., classic Amiga environment).

Hans

[Einstein]

warpdesign wrote:

And what do we want ? Being able to run transparently IBrowse which only handles tables, or FireFox in a new clean box ?

I don't get why people are so attached to running software from *stone*! Emulators/Sandboxes are there for that...

Kronos gave an enough descriptive answer that I don't see any reason to duplicate.

There's no question of program that asks for memory protection... That's pure nonsense and loss of time...

I did not understand this part, could you be alittle more clear ?

[warpdesign]

MorphOS' q-box has full memory protection? I haven't heard anything about the q-box in years. AFAIK, all the development has been for the a-box (i.e., classic Amiga environment).

That's what I was saying... development is focused on the abox (classic env). And that's too bad, because everything is already the for the memory protection,...

[Einstein]

stefcep2 wrote:

Fortunately many good programmers learned to program well enough that Amiga crashes are less common the win98se crashes (in my experience having spent years using both)
but far more common than winxppro (lots of individual program crashes but NOT ONE system crash in 18 months)

Well even if many amiga programmers made less buggy apps there were/are always bugs to be found, those cannot always be detected by debugging/enforcer, and I'm sure you know why, but I don't have any clue regardig Win9x series, almost no experience with'em, and as far as I have understood people seem to regard it unstable and very volnurable (single user).