New Kickstart 3.9.1 68k on the way

[olsen]

The reason why I'm against that ROM-idea is simply because it does not allow users to exchange components. If I have to fiddle-open my machine every time I'm updating a component, chances are better than even that I'll break the ROM socket at some time. A minimal bootstrap ROM could be very stable and would not require a lot of updating. Everything else can be placed on flash, and can be upgraded easily by writing on a regular file system.

The reason why I am skeptical of moving components and in an out of ROM space is that the approach is beholden to 1980'ies/1990'ies design constraints which no longer apply today.

When the original Amiga was designed RAM was still very expensive, the 68000 CPU was in the sweet spot of being both fast and not too expensive (as compared to the 68010/MMU or 68020/MMU combination which Sun Microsystems used in the Sun 2 and Sun 3 workstations), and the common storage medium was the Sony 3.5" double-sided floppy disk.

Loading the ROM operating system components from disk was expensive: the memory required (256 KBytes) cost real money back in 1986. Commodore had to work on producing a cost-reduced design, and switching to a ROM was inevitable.

Loading operating system components from floppy disk was slow (even on the original 64K Apple Macintosh, which arguably had even worse disk performance than the Amiga, at half the storage space -- did you know that it would either compress data in memory or swap it to disk in order to make that 64K memory budget possible, at the expense of killing system performance?), which meant that you could get a performance boost out of sticking as much into the Amiga Kickstart ROM as possible. And this is exactly what happened. Consequently, the Amiga had one of the largest ROMs for personal computers at the time.

Today we have much cheaper, and more RAM available. The primary storage device is no longer the floppy disk, but a hard disk or SSD. Thanks to the modular design of the Amiga operating system almost everything in the ROM can be replaced later at run time at the expense of committing it to RAM. It's technically possible to have your Amiga load replacements for the components in ROM once, reboot, and then run with all new components. This will survive a warm reboot, and it even works on a machine which has no MMU.

So... why cram everything into the ROM? To save the initial cold boot, load and reboot? Your Amiga can probably do this more quickly than you can say "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious".

[guest11527]

Loading operating system components from floppy disk was slow (even on the original 64K Apple Macintosh, which arguably had even worse disk performance than the Amiga, at half the storage space -- did you know that it would either compress data in memory or swap it to disk in order to make that 64K memory budget possible, at the expense of killing system performance?), which meant that you could get a performance boost out of sticking as much into the Amiga Kickstart ROM as possible.

Actually, the "Inside Macintosh" sit here in the bookshelve, I did some programming on the 68K Macs back then. The system design was quite ingenious for its day. It not only had a memory defragmentizer without an MMU due to double indirection, it also loaded almost all program components dynamically from disk, as you say. Thus, if you had a requester or dialog in your program, you wouldn't fill out a structure and call a system function as you would on the Amiga. Rather, you would specify the resource Id of the requester, and the system would load the necessary definition from the resource fork of your program from disk. Which meant that you could edit programs even without having access to the source code by the Mac "ResEdit" program - it showed all requesters, dialogs and menus. In case the resource was no longer needed, it would be swapped out as you say, by the memory manager, dynamically.

Unfortunately, it was designed as a single-threaded Os, no multitasking, and the MultiFinder which came later was all a big hack which even un-did on every task switch the Os patches a program might have installed. Urgh.

Anyhow, back to the discussion. On my A2000, the double reboot is only a small anoyance, mostly because the system components that are also installed in it require some time for initalization. Essentially, the SCSI part goes through a delay loop that allows disks to spin up, and that takes probably two seconds. As you say, this all goes away on more modern hardware (FPGA, SSD) with specialized components, so it's really not much of an issue, and nothing that justifies a massive attack on the system.

All this aside, updating the system components or recompiling parts of them with more modern (ehem) compilers would still be something that would be worth trying. Moving windows partially off-screen is really a no-brainer with the new layer functions, cleaning up the intuition menu handling to allow a really integrated "Magic Menus" would be doable easily. Whether that's 20msecs faster or slower is nothing I would bother about, but there are so many small, tiny improvements that could be made almost immediately - it is a shame that these parts are "locked away". Even the FFS could be speed up by using a smarter block allocation algorithm, and all the "NSDPatch" madness could also be avoided just by having an auto-detection algorithm for the supported device extensions.

[crasbe]

it is a shame that these parts are "locked away". Even the FFS could be speed up by using a smarter block allocation algorithm, and all the "NSDPatch" madness could also be avoided just by having an auto-detection algorithm for the supported device extensions.

Haven't you been able to contact Heinz Wrobel? Jens spoke to him quite "recently".. well... two years ago. However, you might want to ask him for an email adress or a telefone number? http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35803

[olsen]

Haven't you been able to contact Heinz Wrobel? Jens spoke to him quite "recently".. well... two years ago. However, you might want to ask him for an email adress or a telefone number?

Contacting Heinz is not the problem, trust me. Having known Heinz since 1995 (we met on what developed into a consulting gig for what became Amiga International GmbH), I expect him to lend his support only to project work which proves to be legally and technically on sound foundations.

His work on the Amiga operating system components, which includes the FFS, the mass storage drivers and more, builds upon existing code which is not owned by him. How the rights of the owners affect what he could do with his work needs to be clear before he could be expected to lend a hand.

[matthey]

No, the mandelbrot computations only use add,sub and multiplication. Thus, MuRedox makes no difference here. The only traps that may occur are due to non-normalized results where the FPU requires some help. IEEE uses the same instructions, but includes software overhead to load the numbers from the CPU registers into the FPU registers and back. While that makes typically no difference (the called function is long, the register ping-pong is short - intuition!) it makes a difference here. The called function is short (a single add, or sub, or mul) and the overhead is large compared to the actual function.  For your average all-day purpose, it will hardly make any difference, indeed. But for that purpose, you don't need an FPU in first place either.

I thought that mandelbrot used 6888x logarithm instructions but I see that the basic algorithm uses mostly normal fp math.

Do you mean, it uses IEEE for compiling  - or IEEE for the running program? The latter is switchable, but the former is pretty critical. To parse floating point constants in C code correctly, you need a *higher* precision than that used for computing in the program (otherwise, you get an additional loss in the compilation phase you want to avoid). For optimizing, you should run in the C compiler exactly the same computations as the code would have performed, so that's not good news either. Gcc has its own math library for emulating various FPUs and math models, and yes - for good compilation and optimization, this is really required.

This may be true for compiling direct FPU code with the IEEE library using version of vbcc but not so for when compiling IEEE versions of programs where the lower precision becomes the standard precision. Yes, it would be good to make direct FPU using compiles of vbcc available as well. I will suggest this when the new version is finalized. I could always make publically available unofficial compiles of the new version of vbcc as well.

Most versions of GCC compiled code open the IEEE double precision math libs (mixing IEEE lib and direct FPU code) which auto changes the FPCR to double precision rounding. GCC also likes to use the FD and FS instructions which are good for IEEE compliance but precision is less than the 68k FPU supports. Vbcc uses regular F instructions even for 68040 and 68060 FPU libraries so the code will execute on 68881-68060. This gives extra intermediate precision and backward compatibility at the cost of IEEE compliance but the extra precision may be lost at function calls where double precision fp values are passed to functions (except where inlines can maintain extended precision). The FPCR rounding precision can be changed to double precision using C99 functions for better IEEE compliance. Vbcc 68k may eventually get fp register passing libraries with full extended precison as the overhead of passing extended precision values on the stack is expensive. My point is that there isn't any current 68k compiler that I am aware of which is capable of maintaining full extended precision. You will get considerably less with direct compiled code or with the IEEE libraries.

True, except that handling of the files or exchanging modules within the kickstart is harder, i.e. the overall user experience is not quite as good for updates. Otherwise, when I remember the Natami here, it booted so fast it made no difference whether it went through another reset or not, so I don't need an updated rom for this machine in first place. Protecting modules can be done easily by MuProtectModules, no need for a ROM actually.

There is more effort in compiling kickstarts for developers but the result is easy to distribute (like any archive) and there should be less install and corruption issues. The new fpga hardware will initially not have MMUs but they can still have MAPROM support with write protection.

[vxm]

A tool for managing some recurring problems (eg failures boot drive) would be welcome in the kickstart. Maybe the integration of tools such as COP or HRTMon could be useful.

[Gulliver]

All this aside, updating the system components or recompiling parts of them with more modern (ehem) compilers would still be something that would be worth trying. Moving windows partially off-screen is really a no-brainer with the new layer functions, cleaning up the intuition menu handling to allow a really integrated "Magic Menus" would be doable easily. Whether that's 20msecs faster or slower is nothing I would bother about, but there are so many small, tiny improvements that could be made almost immediately - it is a shame that these parts are "locked away". Even the FFS could be speed up by using a smarter block allocation algorithm, and all the "NSDPatch" madness could also be avoided just by having an auto-detection algorithm for the supported device extensions.

Just shut up, and take my money

Seriously, I would pay for this, and I believe many will too.

[wawrzon]

again, all this is a neat thing to hear and my opinion, that it should have been done, as well, but as we know it will never happen nor be a computable risk to invent work into, since there will never be a solution to guarantee a legal base for all these undertakings.

btw with aros(68k) layers implementation you can move windows off screen , no problem. the only limitation for this on unexpanded amigas without rtg card may be low chip ram at times.

[bloodline]

again, all this is a neat thing to hear and my opinion, that it should have been done, as well, but as we know it will never happen nor be a computable risk to invent work into, since there will never be a solution to guarantee a legal base for all these undertakings.

btw with aros(68k) layers implementation you can move windows off screen , no problem. the only limitation for this on unexpanded amigas without rtg card may be low chip ram at times.

AROS also has non-blocking right mouse menus.

[guest11527]

again, all this is a neat thing to hear and my opinion, that it should have been done, as well, but as we know it will never happen nor be a computable risk to invent work into, since there will never be a solution to guarantee a legal base for all these undertakings.

Who knows... My personal guess is that Hyperion will sooner or later notice that they're riding a dead horse, and that there's probably more money in the vintage market - which will probably happen as soon FPGA upgrades will become available. (Leaving obvious jokes about "dead" aside). But maybe that's only me. Until then, I'll be here and wait.

[wawrzon]

@thor
and you are really sure that they are at all actually in a position and beyond that the only ones who can make legal claims about any work you might invest into amiga sources? have you been presented enough evidence to verify this?

besides the stubbornnes with which they have refused any support for amiga in the past doesnt make me think they might reconsider without actually losing the face and they know it.

also, they will want to apply the same market strategies to amiga they have been maintaining with os4, low volumes, high prices, no honest communication, when its done, two weeks, pay in advance and then we will see, half done and abandoned work on the way, broken or useless hardware of only limited capabilities.. all that kind of things. it all doesnt make me exactly wait to throw money at them just for them finally admitting people like me were right all along.

[Gulliver]

@thor
and you are really sure that they are at all actually in a position and beyond that the only ones who can make legal claims about any work you might invest into amiga sources? have you been presented enough evidence to verify this?

besides the stubbornnes with which they have refused any support for amiga in the past doesnt make me think they might reconsider without actually losing the face and they know it.

also, they will want to apply the same market strategies to amiga they have been maintaining with os4, low volumes, high prices, no honest communication, when its done, two weeks, pay in advance and then we will see, half done and abandoned work on the way, broken or useless hardware of only limited capabilities.. all that kind of things. it all doesnt make me exactly wait to throw money at them just for them finally admitting people like me were right all along.

It doesnt matter if they have the evidence or not. Reality shows that about a week ago they allowed a remastered AmigaOS 3.1 kit to be sold, and no one had proof that they could legaly challenge that action (you can now buy this version at AmigaKit). And most importantly, if I am not wrong, I believe they still have a lawyer that doesnt charge a single penny, and is willing to go all the way (Ben Hermans).

I for one, dont care what happens to OS4. It is just another product, that I have tried, and I do not find it interesting all. But on the contrary, a new or recompiled OS for real Amigas sounds really tempting for me.

And most importantly, Hyperion is just like any other company, driven by profit. So if OS4 doesnt give them enough revenue, maybe a 68k AmigaOS might, and it is not a bad move, it is the way that business are (you choose the product you find its more profitable).

Hyperion may not be the company with the best rep out there to do this, but this is certainly better than having nothing at all (because that is what we have now).

And please, lets not talk about Aros on a real Amiga, because for the time being it is just a pain inflicting OS for our Miggies. Maybe that can change in the future, but not now.

[olsen]

@thor
and you are really sure that they are at all actually in a position and beyond that the only ones who can make legal claims about any work you might invest into amiga sources? have you been presented enough evidence to verify this?

besides the stubbornnes with which they have refused any support for amiga in the past doesnt make me think they might reconsider without actually losing the face and they know it.

Please - this is speculation.

How about the following story: you want to build a business by creating a new product which runs on contemporary computer hardware, as opposed to machines which were last manufactured almost 10 years ago, and you invest capital both in porting the old operating system to the new hardware, and you work with the people who make that hardware so you could sell the result. The beginning and the end of this process involves considerable risk, and there is only so much risk your enterprise can tolerate.

Now throw in unhappy events such as software development taking much longer than expected (um, this is an industry-wide problem, actually), a major falling out between the software and hardware partners, expensive and prolonged lawsuits to make everybody miserable, a financial crisis, a recession, you get the picture.

AmigaOS 3.1 for 68k machines was not considered a viable product. There was nobody who could have developed it, provided support, documentation, etc. There was nobody who would have wanted to buy it in sufficient numbers to even sustain development, support, etc.

The situation seems to have changed by now. But given the twisted history of the Amiga as it happened in the last 20 years, it would still need capital and manpower to "resuscitate" AmigaOS 3.1 for 68k, which entails quite some risk.

If there is a genuine appetite for an updated AmigaOS 3.1 for the 68k platform ("classic", emulated or reborn in FPGA), it's up to you (well, not you personally: I mean everybody who would want to see such a project happening) to state what they want from it and let Hyperion know that there is sufficient demand for it.

We can swap stories and speculate all day on this forum. But nothing tangible will happen until you convince the people who can make it happen.

[guest11527]

and you are really sure that they are at all actually in a position and beyond that the only ones who can make legal claims about any work you might invest into amiga sources? have you been presented enough evidence to verify this?

No, I haven't. But I'm not a lawyer in first place, so you're probably expecting a bit much from my side. One way or another, if you attempt such a project, you want at least somebody at your side that can defend your position, and it has been shown that they can, all legal uncertainties aside. If you have other recommendations as for whom to approach for such a project and who could provide licenses - and more important - legal backup, I'm happy to hear them.

besides the stubbornnes with which they have refused any support for amiga in the past doesnt make me think they might reconsider without actually losing the face and they know it.

The sole purpose of a company is not keeping their face. The sole purpose is "making money". As soon as there is a chance for making a profit, they would be stupid not to take it. The problem is: Activities like this one - ripping Os components and publishing an "Os" - is showing the unwillingness of the community to invest money into any new Os, hence makes the whole project less likely, not more likely. I believe I said this before. The best you can do is probably setup a web page where you collect voices for such a project, and more specifically, how much individuals would be willing to invest.

also, they will want to apply the same market strategies to amiga they have been maintaining with os4, low volumes, high prices, no honest communication, when its done, two weeks, pay in advance and then we will see, half done and abandoned work on the way, broken or useless hardware of only limited capabilities.. all that kind of things. it all doesnt make me exactly wait to throw money at them just for them finally admitting people like me were right all along.

It's a small market, so I don't think we can expect "bugdet prices". After all, some people also want to get paid, and rightfully so. The problem I have now is that they sell a "low end product" for "high end prices", and -even worse- a product I'm not at all interested in. At least a couple of factors would have to change: Better engagement in the community would help to lower prices by using man-power that is available for little money right here. And, from the side of the community: Respect for the legal constraints. There is certainly no market if some people believe that AmigaOs is essentially "free to take".  

As always, every story has two sides, and there are certainly matters that have to change at Hyperion, but the same goes for this community as well, this thread is exactly a demonstration this problem.

[olsen]

It doesnt matter if they have the evidence or not. Reality shows that about a week ago they allowed a remastered AmigaOS 3.1 kit to be sold, and no one had proof that they could legaly challenge that action (you can now buy this version at AmigaKit). And most importantly, if I am not wrong, I believe they still have a lawyer that doesnt charge a single penny, and is willing to go all the way (Ben Hermans).

I learned that the issue of who owns what and what they can do or cannot do with what they at some point obtained a license for is rather murky for the Amiga in general.

For example, when Amiga Technologies GmbH was slowly starting to bring back Amiga hardware (both from parts made in 1993 and stacked in the Philippines and from new components manufactured), we tried to get the developer material into shape, too. The end result, published after Amiga Technologies GmbH had gone bust, was the Amiga Developer CD 2.1 (1999). But before we went along this path, we actually tried to either get the documentation back into print, or at least obtain the rights to publish it. Turns out that the contracts Commodore signed with the original publishers (Bantam books and Addison-Wesley) were poorly made. It certainly didn't help that nobody at these publishers knew that they used to publish that stuff, although they did still own the publication rights.

When ESCOM went under and the Amiga assets were acquired by Gateway 2000 the new owners didn't realize that they had bought an entire culture along with that important patent on serial communications between computer keyboard and computer (they only wanted a banana, but what they got was the whole jungle, plus a gorilla holding that banana). Contracts made by previously existing legal entities (Commodore, ESCOM, etc.) were not necessarily carried over, licenses were not necessarily revoked, not even all contracts covering licenses, etc. were known.

Which boils down to the fact that multiple parties still have rights to use the Amiga operating system in commercial products, and unless they slug it out in a drawn-out expensive legal match, or buy out everybody else, we'll never see a single entitity controlling everything.

[wawrzon]

It doesnt matter if they have the evidence or not. Reality shows that about a week ago they allowed a remastered AmigaOS 3.1 kit to be sold, and no one had proof that they could legaly challenge that action (you can now buy this version at AmigaKit). And most importantly, if I am not wrong, I believe they still have a lawyer that doesnt charge a single penny, and is willing to go all the way (Ben Hermans).

I for one, dont care what happens to OS4. It is just another product, that I have tried, and I do not find it interesting all. But on the contrary, a new or recompiled OS for real Amigas sounds really tempting for me.

And most importantly, Hyperion is just like any other company, driven by profit. So if OS4 doesnt give them enough revenue, maybe a 68k AmigaOS might, and it is not a bad move, it is the way that business are (you choose the product you find its more profitable).

it depends on purpose. once they try to insist that they are viable commercial company. at other times they play poor or try to portray themselves as charity or act as community driven project. a true chameleon. all depends on purpose and context.

Hyperion may not be the company with the best rep out there to do this, but this is certainly better than having nothing at all (because that is what we have now).

i am opposite  opinion. im happy as long as that kind of companies stays away from amiga. look at what they did to os community and market over the years, now after it barely exists anymore the traditional amiga looks attractive out of the sudden. as example what is to be expected you can look at groundbreaking hardware proposals in the queue, do i need to be more specific?

And please, lets not talk about Aros on a real Amiga, because for the time being it is just a pain inflicting OS for our Miggies. Maybe that can change in the future, but not now.

i respect your work and opinion. i realize that without effort put into that it isnt a solution for an end user at this time, but it is a safe haven. now, things get done, as example: last week deadwood and phx worked together and got vasm so far that it is suitable to compile aros asm inlines, and aros source has been updated to be able to make use of it.
i just have realized is that one needs to get more involved if someone need something. i prefer to invest some time and work and try to learn something instead to invest money in uncertain projects.