New improved intuition.library version from the Kickstart 3.1

[Ball000]

Sorry Olaf I may not have been clear. I was only answering to Kolla's post and his screen-shot of AROS' installer. I am totally convinced that your distribution is perfectly usable on emulators, and polished even. Congratz BTW.

[OlafS3]

Sorry Olaf I may not have been clear. I was only answering to Kolla's post and his screen-shot of AROS' installer. I am totally convinced that your distribution is perfectly usable on emulators, and polished even. Congratz BTW.

ok sorry then for my answer

I am only a little nerved because people seem to search for any reason not to do anything or invest time (even testing would be something). If people would show interest I could perhaps motivate developers to improve Aros 68k, if not there is no reason for anyone to invest time in it. It is a wasted chance then for the 68k community, but then they should stop moaning about the situation because obvious they are happy about it otherwise they would act differently. Thomas has said that he cannot directly contribute because of legal reasons, that is regrettable but nothing can be changed about it. Others could but obviously do not want and try to find excuses why they do not. If people have a alternative but do not help they earn the situation and should stop moaning.

[Minuous]

>Hack&Patch were doing 3.5/9 on the cheap, scamming contributors left and right.

Allegedly. It's odd that no one was ever able to provide any proof of this; if they had had a case they would have been able to sue H&P and get lots of money from them.

>Doing those few actually new tools in 3.5/9 based on just plain GadTools+BOOPSI was no option.

Why not, if they were just doing it on the cheap?

>So they had to find a 2nd class GUI system that could be aquirred at next to 0 cost, and hell did ClassAct fill that bill.

I've never seen any evidence that it was acquired "at next to 0 cost". Do you have a source for this claim?

>The reality even today is that it is 100% possible (and not even hard) to setup a useable Amiga without ever touching ClassAct/ReAction. Try the same without useing MUI (yes even on OS4)...

I don't use any MUI programs, I keep it installed just for trying out new programs but have never found a MUI-based one worth keeping...I can't see how you could possibly have a usable Amiga without ReAction, considering that important OS components require it. At least for OS3.5/3.9.

@olsen:

Yes, I agree that OS3.1 is a big improvement over OS1.1, I don't think anyone is disputing that.

[itix]

If you're asking the user for the usbtrackdisk.device name and unit then why not ask them for the type of ram?

Why ask user? Is user expected to know difference of memory types? If I am streaming MP3 from the disk should I ask user what memory type is optimal for disk access and what memory type is optimal for ahi.device for audio output? And also ask what memory type is preferred for mega.library that could use some sort of hardware decoding?

Asking both devices is the only way to get the most optimal solution. By telling exec what things need to be able to access the ram then you can implement memory protection at the same time.

Or you could just copy the data using memcpy and pretend it's the best way.

It is the best way. It is better than guru meditation or ask user for memory config. This is not MS-DOS.

[itix]

>

>The reality even today is that it is 100% possible (and not even hard) to setup a useable Amiga without ever touching ClassAct/ReAction. Try the same without useing MUI (yes even on OS4)...

I don't use any MUI programs, I keep it installed just for trying out new programs but have never found a MUI-based one worth keeping...I can't see how you could possibly have a usable Amiga without ReAction, considering that important OS components require it. At least for OS3.5/3.9.

OS 3.1 users don't have any OS components using ClassAct/Reaction and I don't know any 3rd party software requiring Reaction. AWeb works with ClassAct, so does DirAction and few other I have tried.

OS 3.5/3.9 had almost no improvements (scsi.device with large hd support was only major improvement there) but just 3rd party software you can download from Aminet for free.

[olsen]

Well maybe you should take a step back to see what really has happened:

Hack&Patch were doing 3.5/9 on the cheap, scamming contributors left and right.
Doing those few actually new tools in 3.5/9 based on just plain GadTools+BOOPSI was no option.
Stuntz was to smart to give MUI away for free.

So they had to find a 2nd class GUI system that could be aquirred at next to 0 cost, and hell did ClassAct fill that bill.

I was there, on the ground, when the decision was made to go with BOOPSI classes instead of either sticking with gadtools or using MUI. Cost may have been a factor, but the plan clearly was to use what the operating system could support out of the box withour resorting to middleware, if you want to call MUI that. Problem was, ClassAct was not as mature as we had hoped for, and additional time was needed to integrate and test it. In retrospect, the usefulness of ClassAct was limited, and investing into upgrading it to become a fully featured user interface toolkit did not pay off. Moving every user interface to MUI would have taken a bigger effort, and user interface work certainly was challenging and arduous at the time.

As for contributors getting the short end of the stick, it's very well possible. This was a small project with limited capital investment. Let's not forget that back in 1998 there was not much faith in an Amiga operating system upgrade popping into existence, and just about everybody who might have contributed to working on the product had cold feet. You had to be somewhat crazy to jump in. I certainly was...

[olsen]

OS 3.5/3.9 had almost no improvements (scsi.device with large hd support was only major improvement there) but just 3rd party software you can download from Aminet for free.

Hey, no fair, that hurts

I'm one of the crazy people who worked their asses off for those "almost no improvements" in OS 3.5.

You casually dismiss the whole effort of rebuilding and fixing most of the disk-based operating system components, including the datatypes, the printing subsystem, preferences, Workbench and its icon system. We even managed to put in bug fixes for ROM-based components. OS 3.5 brought API changes, code cleanup and the original plan was to build upon that in future development work. We even managed to beta test the whole product.

In retrospect, the OS 3.5 update was too little too late, but it certainly was no frivolous attempt at selling basically nothing to the gullible.

Now OS 3.9, that certainly deserves it share of criticism.

[Gulliver]

A simple question to you... What functionality is missing in my distribution?

Your distro is really okay, it does what it says on the tin. The problem is performance, and is something you cant solve (it is an aros based issue).

I have tried it under WinUAE and I liked it and works reasonably well. But it tortures real amiga hardware (performancewise), So you see that is my main gripe with aros: it works reasonably well on x86/x64 and even in 68k emulation, but is as slow as a snail on a real Amiga. And this is not opinion based, it is just reality, that ends up with the fact that users are willing to pay for ancient unsupported AmigaOS versions, than to use the free aros alternative.

I know it is a chicken and egg situation (little money/users/devs = little development). But it is what it is.  

I really wish aros could match in performance 3.1, so everyone could get a better OS, but unluckily this seems so distant...

[itix]

Hey, no fair, that hurts

I'm one of the crazy people who worked their asses off for those "almost no improvements" in OS 3.5.

I know...

You casually dismiss the whole effort of rebuilding and fixing most of the disk-based operating system components, including the datatypes, the printing subsystem, preferences, Workbench and its icon system. We even managed to put in bug fixes for ROM-based components. OS 3.5 brought API changes, code cleanup and the original plan was to build upon that in future development work. We even managed to beta test the whole product.

Unfortunately it is not so useful to end users. Being paid update users dont have much interest on API changes or code cleanup or components he can download from Aminet for free. OS 3.5 introduced GlowIcons (which I already had in NewIcons format) and WB improvements. Latter made me quite curious about to get update but in the end I never could justify price. OS 3.1 with all patches and that stuff was just too good.

But that is just me. Real problem in bigger picture obviously was lack of users.

In retrospect, the OS 3.5 update was too little too late, but it certainly was no frivolous attempt at selling basically nothing to the gullible.

It was developed in difficult situation, no doubt.

[wawrzon]

OS 3.1 users don't have any OS components using ClassAct/Reaction and I don't know any 3rd party software requiring Reaction. AWeb works with ClassAct, so does DirAction and few other I have tried.

OS 3.5/3.9 had almost no improvements (scsi.device with large hd support was only major improvement there) but just 3rd party software you can download from Aminet for free.

aweb.. performancewise ok, but simplistic and completely outdated browser..
dir action, this is really a sort of software completely uncalled for. i wonder if a single person ever used this clumsy, ugly and unreadable another directory manager, while there were already so many good alternatives available.
bah.. i cant really think about much reaction/classact software of any use.. i know its just another opinion..

[kolla]

What I really like with OS3.5/3.9 (dont remember when it came) is AREXX support in Workbench - finally, and the "resize window to fit" menu entry I also like shell improvements and fixes, the H protection flag working again and various other minor things. Regarding preferencs, I could do without the Reaction toolkit, and I really do not see the point in 020+ requirement. From my experience with trying to get as much of OS3.9 as possible to work on (a mighty fast) 68000, it is largely just the preferences programs that require 020+ - that is, resource.library is 020+.

[guest11527]

In that respect, relax. The workbench is perfectly safe (Olsen has it) and the Shell is perfectly safe (I have it, and Olsen has a copy), so those parts are definitely not lost. Reaction is "lost in time and space", somehwere at H&P, I afraid, and it seems unlikely that we'll see sources anytime.

I'm personally missing SetPatch, FFS and Ram-Handler, components that were prepared and updated by Heinz. I'm not sure whether Olsen has the 3.9 versions of them. FFS had a couple of fixes, (ACTION_FLUSH finally working is one of them, ACTION_CLOSE returning proper result codes another, avoiding a memory leak present in 3.1), SetPatch includes a list of bug fixes that have been found (ExAll most notably, probably some stuff in Gfx), and Ram-Handler using memory pools, which is a nice addendum. Unfortunately, FFS misses TD64 support (which would be extremely easy to add, and is really just an annoyance, not a technical challenge).

[OlafS3]

>Hack&Patch were doing 3.5/9 on the cheap, scamming contributors left and right.

Allegedly. It's odd that no one was ever able to provide any proof of this; if they had had a case they would have been able to sue H&P and get lots of money from them.

>Doing those few actually new tools in 3.5/9 based on just plain GadTools+BOOPSI was no option.

Why not, if they were just doing it on the cheap?

>So they had to find a 2nd class GUI system that could be aquirred at next to 0 cost, and hell did ClassAct fill that bill.

I've never seen any evidence that it was acquired "at next to 0 cost". Do you have a source for this claim?

>The reality even today is that it is 100% possible (and not even hard) to setup a useable Amiga without ever touching ClassAct/ReAction. Try the same without useing MUI (yes even on OS4)...

I don't use any MUI programs, I keep it installed just for trying out new programs but have never found a MUI-based one worth keeping...I can't see how you could possibly have a usable Amiga without ReAction, considering that important OS components require it. At least for OS3.5/3.9.

@olsen:

Yes, I agree that OS3.1 is a big improvement over OS1.1, I don't think anyone is disputing that.

You need Reaction? For what?

I use f.e. Simplemail, what Mailprogram do you use with Reaction?

[OlafS3]

Your distro is really okay, it does what it says on the tin. The problem is performance, and is something you cant solve (it is an aros based issue).

I have tried it under WinUAE and I liked it and works reasonably well. But it tortures real amiga hardware (performancewise), So you see that is my main gripe with aros: it works reasonably well on x86/x64 and even in 68k emulation, but is as slow as a snail on a real Amiga. And this is not opinion based, it is just reality, that ends up with the fact that users are willing to pay for ancient unsupported AmigaOS versions, than to use the free aros alternative.

I know it is a chicken and egg situation (little money/users/devs = little development). But it is what it is.  

I really wish aros could match in performance 3.1, so everyone could get a better OS, but unluckily this seems so distant...

Aros devs and (in case of Aros Roms) Toni Wilen are basically idealists, they do things for fun and to get some positive feedback (and perhaps some donations ). When people always say I "would" use Aros 68k but first it must be as fast as AmigaOS on classic hardware, have all the drivers, and of course all patches of aminet then I "would perhaps" use it how motivated do you think they are to invest additional time in it (they all have a bunch of projects already) and others who could jump in and help with it or do at least testing and make logs and send it to Toni say it is still not good enough to use (functionality using it on UAE I would say not true, speedwise running on classic hardware yes it is still not fast enough). I could make a bet with you... it will never be optimized then and there will be never a amigaos successor if nobody helps. I am running it on emulation outperforming a Sam 440 speedwise (and I do not need any optimized libs to do that and there are tons of in my distribution f.e. graphical libs, game libs, Chunky and 3D libs and so on). For me it is perfectly ok now but I think it would potentially of big benefit for all the 68k community, being adaptable and in development unifying everything 68k related. But people seem not to share my ideas.

[biggun]

I think Olaf has a very good point here.

We should not forget this.

This is certainly true for people working on AROS or people like Cosmos.

[wawrzon]

yes, do not forget os4 is extensively funded and even morphos does cost some money.
in comparison people still expect aros to present them just every imaginable feature on a tablet for free and be up to concurrent solutions (which it even mostly is) without them even to lift a finger.