Hello my first Thread

[Boot_WB]

Well, I can see I am going to have to revisit my 1.4.5 installation and possibly one or two older versions, because other than the odd game or demo that took over the native hardware, I never got it to open an intuition screen under AGA.

Weren't the early MorphOS incarnations patches onto the OS3.x installation? I seem to (vaguely) remember that MorphOS was developed kinda piecemeal, requiring significant chunks of OS3.x in order to function. Perhaps Franko tried an early 0.x release?

@Franko - you're not thinking of PowerUP (rather than MorphOS) are you?

[Franko]

@ Karlos

BIG OOOOPPPSSS...

I couldn't get to sleep earlier this morning as I wondered why you had said it was not AGA compatible, so I dug out an old HD that I had used the alleged MorphOS on, now I know you'll laugh but... erm... with all the posts & threads I've been reading recently about AROS and MorphOS, I think MorphOS must have somehow been engrained on my brain cell and I've made just a teeny weeny wee totey smidgen of an error here...  but it was WarpOS I was actually talking about and not MorphOS (sound a bit the same, dont they)...

So apologies for any confusion caused and hopefully I won't get lynched by the MorphOS crowd, simple mistake really, any numptie could have made...

(PS: I blame nicholas for inserting his post inbetween posts with the word MorphOS in it...

(so with regard to the above posts please read WarpOS and not MorphOS and direct all comments and complaints to care of : nicholas...)

Oh... someone's at the front door, sorry gotta go now...

[Kronos]

@Karlos

I assume he was useing one of the really really old MorphOS-Betas from 2001 (0.4 or so). Those had no Ambient and AFAIK they also worked on AGA.

[Karlos]

@franko

I did wonder if you meant WarpOS as it does sound superficially similar to "MorphOS", but you seemed quite insistent.

@kronos

I can't even remember getting that version working at all, let alone on AGA.

[Karlos]

@franko

Now that this MOS/WOS mystery has been put to rest, what's your specific beef with datatypes?

I'm a bit surprised to hear them referred to as the "worst thing ever invented for 68K". How is a modular system of file descriptors and corresponding codecs that allows applications to open new formats they couldn't support previously a bad thing?

If anything, my only criticism of them has been that their implementation did not run far enough, support for exporting data in a particular format was often overlooked. As an import mechanism, however, they are incredibly useful.

[tone007]

MorphOS/WarpOS, Datatypes/Bagpipes?

..nah.

[Franko]

@franko

Now that this MOS/WOS mystery has been put to rest, what's your specific beef with datatypes?

I'm a bit surprised to hear them referred to as the "worst thing ever invented for 68K". How is a modular system of file descriptors and corresponding codecs that allows applications to open new formats they couldn't support previously a bad thing?

If anything, my only criticism of them has been that their implementation did not run far enough, support for exporting data in a particular format was often overlooked. As an import mechanism, however, they are incredibly useful.

Just having my breakfast right now...

I'll get back to you on all things wrong with Datatypes shortly...

(At least I can't mix up DataTypes with anything else...

[Digiman]

@ Karlos

I tried those setting as you'd already explained them in an earlier post, but honestly it was still way too slow for me. It's just my own personal opinion on OS4.0, if other folk want to give it a try then don't be put off by my opinion, give it a try at least then decide.

Biggest gripe I have with OS4.0 is Hyperion released it, I bought it brand new, then they only ever released one update for it before abandoning all support for it after only a few months...

Well clearly you need a 24 bit graphics card too when using OS4, AGA is slow compared to the basic PCI graphics cards for PC. AGA is barely faster than old ISA graphics cards which could never run any GUI that fast.

[Franko]

@ Karlos

Right then... DataTypes... where do I start... :rolleyes:

Generally, using Datatypes in comparison to a dedicated self contained util are slow in comparison...

The modular concept of Datatypes is another big no no for me, I prefer code to be one piece (ie: self contained) where possible and not rely on installing lots of extra libraries and other small files scattered here there and everywhere all over your HD...

I know so called self contained utils use various OS libraries and sometime some external ones, but these are usually contained in the ROM and not scattered all over the HD to the same extent that most Datatypes requires.

It's one of my biggest bugbears on the Amiga is a program or util that uses this so called modular approach and is not as self contained as it could be, the likes of MUI or ImageStudio for example and the hundereds of so called modules that they use scattered all over the place...

I reckon my reasons for disliking such things goes way back to the day's when things mostly ran from floppies and if you had 4Meg of fastram this was a luxury (MUI was totally unusable if you had no HD). This was when I first began coding in 68k and I followed the path of what most coders were doing back then, make your prog as small as possible, self contained as much as possible and to run on as basic a system as much as you could.

I know those constraints don't apply as much today, with almost everyone having HDs, plenty of extra ram & accelerators, but it's just a habit and method that has stuck with me to this day. I very rarely use Workbench to do anything and operate mainly from the Cli/Shell and a customised version of DirWork that I made cos I don't like Dopus that much either, but thats another story...

[Karlos]

@ Karlos

Right then... DataTypes... where do I start... :rolleyes:

Generally, using Datatypes in comparison to a dedicated self contained util are slow in comparison...

That depends very strongly on the datatype. On OS3.9, the picture.datatype is capable of using PPC for colour remapping and dithering. That made a big difference on my machine. Coupled with PPC capable datatypes for png, jpg etc. I found that multiview ended up being significantly faster than most "dedicated" 68K image viewers that were capable of viewing such formats directly (Hardly a surprise, considering the performance difference between 68040@25MHz versus 603e@240MHz).

The modular concept of Datatypes is another big no no for me, I prefer code to be one piece (ie: self contained) where possible and not rely on installing lots of extra libraries and other small files scattered here there and everywhere all over your HD...

The whole OS is modular and always has been. If a criticism of datatypes is that it's modular, then you might as well regard the whole OS as the "worst thing ever invented for 68K" for exactly the same reason.

Far from being scattered all over the place, datatypes live in SYS:Devs/Datatypes (descriptors) and SYS:Classes/Datatypes for the actual implementations. Client applications also require SYS:Libs/datatypes.library.

I know so called self contained utils use various OS libraries and sometime some external ones, but these are usually contained in the ROM and not scattered all over the HD to the same extent that most Datatypes requires.

Again, scattered is a big misnomer. The AmigaDOS directory structure is very well organised compared to most operating systems.

It's one of my biggest bugbears on the Amiga is a program or util that uses this so called modular approach and is not as self contained as it could be, the likes of MUI or ImageStudio for example and the hundereds of so called modules that they use scattered all over the place...

MUI classes and libraries pretty much live in the one place on your HD too.

I reckon my reasons for disliking such things goes way back to the day's when things mostly ran from floppies and if you had 4Meg of fastram this was a luxury (MUI was totally unusable if you had no HD). This was when I first began coding in 68k and I followed the path of what most coders were doing back then, make your prog as small as possible, self contained as much as possible and to run on as basic a system as much as you could.

I know those constraints don't apply as much today, with almost everyone having HDs, plenty of extra ram & accelerators, but it's just a habit and method that has stuck with me to this day. I very rarely use Workbench to do anything and operate mainly from the Cli/Shell and a customised version of DirWork that I made cos I don't like Dopus that much either, but thats another story...

You have a BlizzardPPC with 256MB of RAM on it and I strongly doubt you are still using a floppy-only system. I don't see how your criticism of stuff being "scattered" all over your HD really apply any more.

[Franko]

That depends very strongly on the datatype. On OS3.9, the picture.datatype is capable of using PPC for colour remapping and dithering. That made a big difference on my machine. Coupled with PPC capable datatypes for png, jpg etc. I found that multiview ended up being significantly faster than most "dedicated" 68K image viewers that were capable of viewing such formats directly (Hardly a surprise, considering the performance difference between 68040@25MHz versus 603e@240MHz).

Don't like OS3.9 (ask MrMoonlight about that one)... I've had enough of OS3.9 recently to last me a lifetime with that bloated piece of nonsense that is OS3.9

The whole OS is modular and always has been. If a criticism of datatypes is that it's modular, then you might as well regard the whole OS as the "worst thing ever invented for 68K" for exactly the same reason.

I know, but the real workings of the OS is held in ROM and not on the HD, again that's a whole other debate...

Far from being scattered all over the place, datatypes live in SYS:Devs/Datatypes (descriptors) and SYS:Classes/Datatypes for the actual implementations. Client applications also require SYS:Libs/datatypes.library.

Not true, they may live in a directory but unless you've defragged the HD the actual code/data wont all be sitting happily side by side, you'll find blocks of data scattered all over the HD...

Again, scattered is a big misnomer. The AmigaDOS directory structure is very well organised compared to most operating systems.

Agreed it's better than most, but before you defrag your disk run something like ReOrg and see just how scattered your files in any one directory really are...

MUI classes and libraries pretty much live in the one place on your HD too.

I refer you to the above answers...

You have a BlizzardPPC with 256MB of RAM on it and I strongly doubt you are still using a floppy-only system. I don't see how your criticism of stuff being "scattered" all over your HD really apply any more.

I already said in my previous post that it doesn't apply as much these days. I haven't used a floppy in about 10 years and dumped about 4000 of them about 4 years back as I couldn't even give them away...

[Karlos]

Don't like OS3.9 (ask MrMoonlight about that one)... I've had enough of OS3.9 recently to last me a lifetime with that bloated piece of nonsense that is OS3.9

Fair enough, but you have to accept that having your PPC do all the decoding, colour conversion/reduction and dithering to support your old 68K application is a lot faster than your old 68K application doing it all by itself.

I know, but the real workings of the OS is held in ROM and not on the HD, again that's a whole other debate...

Not true, they may live in a directory but unless you've defragged the HD the actual code/data wont all be sitting happily side by side, you'll find blocks of data scattered all over the HD...

That's a pretty irrelevant statement - your system partition is only going to end up defragmented if you routinely delete and add files on it. Even then, you could be using a solid state drive, in which case our objection to fragmentation makes even less sense since seek time is totally unaffected.

My used 3.x installs tend to run entirely from RAD, btw See this 3.9 screenshot. Notice the drive labelled "Booty" ? That's actually a RAD disk that is created on cold boot. My 3,x disk based startup-sequence opens an ASL file requester asking which image to use. There are images (basically lzx archives) from 3.0 up to 3.9 with various configurations. These are then extracted to the RAD, it is made bootable and then the system reboots.

Agreed it's better than most, but before you defrag your disk run something like ReOrg and see just how scattered your files in any one directory really are...

I refer you to the statements above

I already said in my previous post that it doesn't apply as much these days. I haven't used a floppy in about 10 years and dumped about 4000 of them about 4 years back as I couldn't even give them away...

So, you agree that your objections don't really apply any more but still regard modular operating system components as a really bad idea?

Curious

[Franko]

Round & Round & Round we go, where it will end I just don't know... :lol:

Fair enough, but you have to accept that having your PPC do all the decoding, colour conversion/reduction and dithering to support your old 68K application is a lot faster than your old 68K application doing it all by itself.

Sound's nice in theory but to do so would require me using OS3.9 or 4.0 and me no likey that...

(PS: I don't like those CF drives either...

That's a pretty irrelevant statement - your system partition is only going to end up defragmented if you routinely delete and add files on it. Even then, you could be using a solid state drive, in which case our objection to fragmentation makes even less sense since seek time is totally unaffected.

Anything that can help to speed up the use of an Amiga even HD access to files that aren't scattered all over the shop, can only be a good thing so my statement is perfectly relevant...

My used 3.x installs tend to run entirely from RAD, btw See this 3.9 screenshot. Notice the drive labelled "Booty" ? That's actually a RAD disk that is created on cold boot. My 3,x disk based startup-sequence opens an ASL file requester asking which image to use. There are images (basically lzx archives) from 3.0 up to 3.9 with various configurations. These are then extracted to the RAD, it is made bootable and then the system reboots.

I have enough memory to comfortably to run the system from RAD: but due to the fact that I'm always disassembling and rewriting code and generally hacking software to see what can be done with them, RADs not a good option for me as the aforementioned activities can corrupt it...

So, you agree that your objections don't really apply any more but still regard modular operating system components as a really bad idea?
Curious

I've already answered that one twice...

[Karlos]

I have enough memory to comfortably to run the system from RAD: but due to the fact that I'm always disassembling and rewriting code and generally hacking software to see what can be done with them, RADs not a good option for me as the aforementioned activities can corrupt it...

Exactly, which is precisely why I use it as I tend to use 3.x for development and testing. I'd much rather trash a volatile and easily restored memory disk than my actual HD.

[Franko]

Exactly, which is precisely why I use it as I tend to use 3.x for development and testing. I'd much rather trash a volatile and easily restored memory disk than my actual HD.

After all that, you come back with a short two sentence reply like that, where's your gumption man... :lol:

Only kidding...

I get your point about using the RAD: but when you poke about with stuff as much as I do it gets a wee bit tiresome going through all the initial bootup sequences to restore RAD again once it's been damaged. Oddly enough I've never had a major HD corruption happen (fingers crossed)...

[Piru]

@ Karlos

I know iprefs use the ruddy useless things (datatypes) I was meaning for viewing GFX or playing audio, I prefer to use a dedicated util for such things.

I've never read much of the docs for MorphOS and can't tell you which versions I tried as I deleted them all a long time ago, yep still no RTG board.

PowerUP MorphOS has always required a RTG card. I don't know what you've tried but it doesn't sound you have been running MorphOS.

And after reading the thread a bit, indeed you weren't. Yes, indeed WarpUP sucked.