28-Mar-2024 20:10 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 126 items in your selection (but only 76 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 126]
[News] Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statementANN.lu
Posted on 31-Oct-2001 15:50 GMT by Teemu I. Yliselä126 comments
View flat
View list
Alan Redhouse of Eyetech clarified some of the confusion surrounding their latest AmigaOne statement in a comment here. I've posted it again below for those who don't read the comments section.

I try to use the clearest possible English in the status update but I have obviously failed to get the message across properly to everybody :(

Nowhere in my update does it say that OS4.0 had not started - and of course quite a lot of work *has* been done - but that the original plan required funding for OS4.0 to be *FINISHED*, and Amiga Inc had other priorities with their restricted funding. Bill has made no secret of the financial constraints that Amiga Inc were under at his public presentations at St Louis and Sacramento this year.

What I said is that WE decided to put development of the A1 on ice UNTIL we had a guarantee of a FINISH date of OS4.0. Of course development did not suddenly halt immediately, as we were all expecting Amiga Inc to obtain funding 'any day now'. But eventually other revenue-earning priorities took over.

I have absolutely no difficulties with any of Amiga's decisions or actions. They are exactly the same sort of business decisions that I would have made in their position.

We went into the AmigaOne project with our eyes wide open knowing the risks associated with events outside our control, and in no way hold Amiga Inc responsible for OUR decision to suspend development of the A1. In fact - again as I said in our update - we have all been trying very hard to obtain an all round satisfactory resolution to an OS4.0 completion date that would allow us to complete the A1 development and roll out into production. And no, there is no point in announcing that a potential crisis exists whilst there is still very real progress towards a resolution being made.

We obtained the agreement in principle earlier this week. This obtained, I wanted to set the record straight immediately to dispel some of the rumours and make sure that nobody made long journeys to WoA-SE on false expectations. As it is WoA-SE attendees will witness an historic contract signing.

Much of OS4.0 was planned to be implemented using the CSPPC in parallel with the development of the AmigaOne hardware. The decision to expand the market for OS4.0 was an integral part of the 'no upfront cost to Amiga' part of the agreement.

Hope this helps

Alan

Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 51 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Menthos on 01-Nov-2001 13:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Brecht [darklite]):
"MorphOS is as much AmigaOS as AmigaOS4 is.
If Windows would be developed by, say, H&P, wouldn't it still be Windows?"
This must be the lamest argument I have ever heard!!!
If Transmeta would make an processor running INTEL-processor-code would it be an Intel processor?
AmigaOS is what Amiga says it is. Everything else is just Amigacompatible...
Face it!!
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 52 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 13:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 51 (Menthos):
>If Transmeta would make an processor running INTEL-processor-code would it be an Intel processor?
No, but it would be an x86 CPU, that's my point.
>AmigaOS is what Amiga says it is. Everything else is just Amigacompatible...
Face it!!
If it's compatible, it's Amiga.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 53 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by dark ness on 01-Nov-2001 13:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (AdmV):
You're right.
Even if I appreciate what M. Redhouse did, maybe is it time to AmigaInc as the 'team leader of the AOne project' to agree/disagree with what have been said about the AOne delay/new contract.
"Whenever Amiga One news happens, it appears here first."
[http://www.amiga.com/products/one/news.php]
/* quote to Dave :
i didn't use the word 'actor' this time. hope you appreciate. ;p
*/
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 54 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 01-Nov-2001 13:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (Brecht [darklite]):
"If it's compatible, it's Amiga. "
????
I can run Amiga apps on laptop with Amigaforever3 but it is dog slow.
Is it an Amiga. NO WAY! It's an insult.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 55 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 13:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (Brecht [darklite]):
No, if it runs all AmigaOS software 100%, and it has a licence from Amiga Inc. to be labelled "AmigaOS-compatible" then it is "AmigaOS-compatible". However, Amiga Inc. do not run such a scheme. It is not an Amiga (it cannot play Banshee, or whatever, for example) by any stretch of the word. AmigaOne is not strictly an Amiga unless you connect it to legacy hardware. AmigaOne is Zico compliant, hence it is (one of) the new platform(s) for running AmigaOS, conforming to the Zico specification as laid down by Amiga Inc. Pegasos may also conform (most likely) to Zico specification, so AmigaOS 4.2+ will run on it (given drivers, etc).
So in reality, it is MorphOS with a layer/emulation/API/library/whatever that enables it to run AmigaOS 3.9 and below applications unofficially.
FreeBSD is FreeBSD, it is not Linux. However, it can run Linux applications. MorphOS is MorphOS, it is not AmigaOS.
The Zico specification is the new Amiga.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 56 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 13:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (priest):
>I can run Amiga apps on laptop with Amigaforever3 but it is dog slow.
Is it an Amiga. NO WAY! It's an insult.
So is an a500 with 680000 at 7Mhz.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 57 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Nov-2001 13:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (John Block):
"Amiga.com is about the positive things Amiga are doing, they have achieved
a lot."
Yup, indeed they have.
They've released a half-finished SDK, with updates which were promised "within weeks" over a year ago STILL not out.
They've released AmigaDE (so we can all now play PDA games on a PC).
They've, ummm, well, umm... Oh yes! They've repeatedly and deliberately lied to us all to piss us off so we'll leave them alone to concentrate on their PDA-OS.
And that is about it.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 58 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 13:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 55 (Graham):
>No, if it runs all AmigaOS software 100%, and it has a licence from Amiga Inc. to be labelled "AmigaOS-compatible" then it is "AmigaOS-compatible".
That's a political issue, not a technical one.
>However, Amiga Inc. do not run such a scheme. It is not an Amiga (it cannot play Banshee, or whatever, for example) by any stretch of the word.
060 cpu's make are incompatible with some apps/games. Does that make an 060 amiga not an amiga? UAE is in many ways more compatible to Amiga than Amiga hardware, because you can easily switch kickstart roms or the cpu type.
>AmigaOne is not strictly an Amiga unless you connect it to legacy hardware.
Again, a political issue.
>AmigaOne is Zico compliant, hence it is (one of) the new platform(s) for running AmigaOS, conforming to the Zico specification as laid down by Amiga Inc. Pegasos may also conform (most likely) to Zico specification, so AmigaOS 4.2+ will run on it (given drivers, etc).
>The Zico specification is the new Amiga.
And your average PC is Zico compliant, will it run OS4.2?
>So in reality, it is MorphOS with a layer/emulation/API/library/whatever that enables it to run AmigaOS 3.9 and below applications unofficially.
>MorphOS is MorphOS, it is not AmigaOS.
OS4 uses an emulation layer to run 68k Amiga applications.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 59 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 13:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (Brecht [darklite]):
- So is an a500 with 680000 at 7Mhz.
68000.
At the time that was fast, and it was an official Amiga. Now Amigas can run Payback and the like without problems - an A500 can't - yet it isn't any less an Amiga, just an older version conforming to an older Amiga specification (if you think of it that way - OCS, ECS, AGA for example). The modern Amiga specification is Zico (even if it isn't concise enough to actually dictate which chips are supported, e.g., Lucent Firewire controllers, Promise IDE controllers, etc). AmigaOS runs on Amigas. Linux runs on Amigas as well, that doesn't make it AmigaOS. MorphOS runs on Amigas, that doesn't make it AmigaOS.
There are trademark issues here. If MorphOS users continue to say that MorphOS is an Amiga, or AmigaOS, then AmigaInc (owners of the Amiga trademark) can protect their trademark if they choose to. Best to say that MorphOS can run AmigaOS software, and leave it at that.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 60 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Emmanuel Lesueur on 01-Nov-2001 13:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Brecht [darklite]):
Brecht writes:
B[> Amithlon has the option of running CPU native code,
This has been told a lot, but I'd like to know if that's
true (because with UAE, you *can't* really do that).
So, say I have the program below:
---8<------
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) { printf("Hello, world!\n"); return 0; }
---8<------
and I want to have the fastest hello world program ever,
running under AmigaOS. How do I compile it for x86 ?
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 61 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 14:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (Brecht [darklite]):
Windows runs on PCs. Will it run on a XT? No. Hardware standards change while the name stays the same. The same goes for the Amiga.
Zico is not specific enough - AmigaInc should fix that. However, it is the new Amiga specification is essence, even if it is a bit out of date and not concise enough.
AmigaOS 4 does not run AmigaOS3.9 and below in an AmigaOS emulator. AmigaOS 4 contains a 68k emulator internally, but that is it.
AmigaOS 4 contains 20% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k
MorphOS contains 50% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k and API
Amithlon contains 80%-100% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k, API, Drivers
UAE is 100% an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k, API, Hardware
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 62 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 14:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 60 (Emmanuel Lesueur):
>> Amithlon has the option of running CPU native code,
>This has been told a lot, but I'd like to know if that's
true (because with UAE, you *can't* really do that).
Amithlon is so much more (or less - because of removal of obsolete stuff) than UAE.
>So, say I have the program below: ...
and I want to have the fastest hello world program ever,
running under AmigaOS. How do I compile it for x86 ?
AFAIK, you have to compile it with a special version of GCC under linux. I guess it adds some 68k code at the beginning to let Amithlon know x86 code follows.
How is the execution of PPC apps done in MorphOS?
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 63 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Emmanuel Lesueur on 01-Nov-2001 14:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (priest):
priest writes:
p> I would quess the situation will eventually be so that OS4.2/4.5 will
p> be fully native PPC, while MorphOS quys still do not have the access
p> to AmigaOS source code to re-compile it.
We don't really need those sources. Having them would have saved
some time, but we can do without them. With what we already recoded
and the AROS parts we ported, we are closer to having a full PPC
OS that what you may think. By the time 4.0 is on sale (if ever), we'll
have most if not all of the OS replaced.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 64 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 14:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (Graham):
>Windows runs on PCs. Will it run on a XT? No. Hardware standards change while the name stays the same. The same goes for the Amiga.
Ok, for you an Amiga is a product that carries the name 'Amiga'. For me it's something that continues the Amiga 'tradition', like MorphOS does with the OS.
Let's just agree on that :)
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 65 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 14:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (Graham):
>AmigaOS 4 contains 20% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k
MorphOS contains 50% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k and API
Amithlon contains 80%-100% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k, API, Drivers
UAE is 100% an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k, API, Hardware
Autch, it's dangerous to post stuff like that :)
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 66 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 14:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (Brecht [darklite]):
Okay. As long as you agree with my points at some level as well!
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 67 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 14:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (Brecht [darklite]):
Still trying to place AROS.
I think: AROS is (will be) a 100% AmigaOS (pre Zico) rewrite/clone? That can run 68k apps if running on a 68k series processor, but otherwise is (will be) only source compatible.
Where does a clone become an emulation? When it is running on top of another OS I think. So AROS is also an emulation of AmigaOS when it is running hosted on Linux. Getting complicated now though... :)
You can vary the percentages if you want to, btw. They were pulled out of thin air to just demonstrate things...
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 68 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 01-Nov-2001 14:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (Brecht [darklite]):
>>I can run Amiga apps on laptop with Amigaforever3 but it is dog slow.
>>Is it an Amiga. NO WAY! It's an insult.
>So is an a500 with 680000 at 7Mhz.
But the speed on A500 was solid and it delivered pleasant behaviour, unlike AF3. The behaviour of AF3 (yeah, very old UAE) fluctuates greatly depending of what is being done and what windows is doing beneath it.
(hmmm... I can remember myself calling the basic A500 as lAmiga (lame Amiga) though... That was after I bought an Amiga with HDD.)
We come back to the point that people value different things in Amiga. For me it is not just application compatibility.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 69 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 14:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Brecht [darklite]):
>>>>>How does MorphOS differ from OS4 other than not having the name 'AmigaOS'?
>>>>OS4 is just the first step towards a completely different goal, read more about it on Amiga.com...
>>>With the goal being OS5? OS5 will still be a PPC OS, just like MorphOS *IS*.
>>I said: "READ MORE ABOUT IT ON AMIGA.COM!"
>Again, you cannot give any decent argumentation. What am I supposed to be looking for on amiga.com?
The technical update regarding AmigaOS4.x/5/DE. You can find it here: http://www.amiga.com/corporate/041201-techupdate-A.shtml
>OS4 is a migration path to a PPC native AmigaOS, just like MorphOS is.
Until AmigaOS4.5, yes. AmigaOS5 is reaching for hardware independancy, it will run on x86 as well as PPC.
>>>>(I'm tired of trying to state "facts" around here since everyone will flame every single detail that is besides the point anyway...)
>>>The problem is that you always seem to be totally ignorant about the facts and miss (deliberately, I'm starting to think) 90% of all points made.
>>Forget about the facts, what's your point?
>MorphOS is as much AmigaOS as AmigaOS4 is.
They are similar, yes. But the two options are going in different directions in the future.
>If Windows would be developed by, say, H&P, wouldn't it still be Windows?
M$Windows will always be M$Windows, H&PWindows would be H&PWindows. I don't see your point.
>>>>AmithlonEmulator. What is there to argue about?
>>>You just don't want to listen to what others have to say, that makes a mature discussion impossible.
>>Ok, let's make the discussion simple enough for a 3year old to understand.
>Now you're trying to intimidate me because you fail to support your views with decent argumentation.
What's this supposed to lead to? Atleast I'm trying to make a point wich you just neglect by saying that I'm not listening... *shaking my head in disbelief*
>>True or false, Amithlon is an emulator?
>It's not that simple.
Yes it is. :-P
>If you answer yes to this question, you'd have to answer the same to:
>Is MorphOS an emulator?
No, it's an OS that has the ability to emulate a 68k processor in order to be backwards compatible. That doesn't make the entire OS an emulator. It's just one of the OS features.
>Is AmigaOS4 an emulator?
See above.
>Amithlon has an 68k emulator for backwards compatibility, just like AmigaOS4/5.
Amithlon is an emulator, period. Taken from Amiga.com:
"Amiga was able to demonstrate a prototype of an x86 emulator for 68K for the AmigaOS3.x series. This product, codenamed Amithlon, provides only RTG compatibility and is being targeted at providing a first step from x86 towards the AmigaOne."
"Amithlon has the option of running CPU native code, just like AmigaOS4/5."
No, Amithlon has an x86 API wich isn't the same thing as running the software on a real x86 native OS.
"Amithlon has native hardware support, just like AmigaOS4/5."
So? The still doesn't make it a *natively* running OS.
Brecht, give it up, ok? Amithlon isn't an OS, it's an emulator!!! AmigaOS4.x/MorphOS is something completely different and obviously you don't have the competence to understand why and you're only making a fool out of yourself. For your own good, drop it.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 70 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 14:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 69 (Samface):
>>If Windows would be developed by, say, H&P, wouldn't it still be Windows?
>M$Windows will always be M$Windows, H&PWindows would be H&PWindows. I don't see your point.
MorphOS is AmigaOS, except that it's not developed by AInc.
>What's this supposed to lead to? Atleast I'm trying to make a point wich you just neglect by saying that I'm not listening... *shaking my head in disbelief*
You constantly miss the point.
>>Is MorphOS an emulator?
>No, it's an OS that has the ability to emulate a 68k processor in order to be backwards compatible. That doesn't make the entire OS an emulator. It's just one of the OS features.
>"Amithlon has native hardware support, just like AmigaOS4/5."
>So? The still doesn't make it a *natively* running OS.
The fact that Amithlon emulates the OS too makes no difference as it's not visible to the developer/user. It can be used a a transition path to OS5 for x86. And no, you cannot just recompile OS5 for PPC source to magically boot on x86.
>Amithlon is an emulator, period. Taken from Amiga.com:
Did Amiga Inc. create Amithlon? I didn't think so, therefore they have no right to say what it is supposed to be.
"Amithlon has the option of running CPU native code, just like AmigaOS4/5."
No, Amithlon has an x86 API wich isn't the same thing as running the software on a real x86 native OS.
>Brecht, give it up, ok? Amithlon isn't an OS, it's an emulator!!! AmigaOS4.x/MorphOS is something completely different and obviously you don't have the competence to understand why and you're only making a fool out of yourself. For your own good, drop it.
There's nothing to give up. You are the ignorant one.
MorphOS runs AmigaOS in emulation on the Quark kernel, not AmigaOS. No different from Amithlon. But this neither makes a difference to the user/developer.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 71 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 15:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 70 (Brecht [darklite]):
If this doesn't convince, nothing ever will. Taken from Amithlon.net:
"So what is it? Emulation, or native AmigaOS?
It is "just" an emulator. It boots up (from a CD, although other boot methods are possible), then starts an m68k emulator task, sets up the hardware for it, loads the rom images into memory, and then pretty much hands control over to the emulated 68k, which just runs like it would in any "real" Amiga."
And here's more:
"Yeah, so what about native x86 AmigaOS?
Short answer: There isn't one."
Read all about it here: http://www.amithlon.net/amithlon_faq.shtml
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 72 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by HammerD on 01-Nov-2001 15:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (AmiDelf):
Amiga Inc. IS getting money - for the ROM license and the OS license. For each copy sold.
HammerD
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 73 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by HammerD on 01-Nov-2001 15:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Graham):
Amithlon does have Amiga OS side native drivers for networking and sound (and perhaps other things - but I'm not sure which yet because my copy hasn't arrived yet).
But I would agree, it is still an Emulator of the Amiga OS - for the most part - as will be MorphOS (with some native parts), and Amiga OS 4.x (which again will be part-emulator...)
HammerD
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 74 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 15:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 70 (Brecht [darklite]):
>>>If Windows would be developed by, say, H&P, wouldn't it still be Windows?
>>M$Windows will always be M$Windows, H&PWindows would be H&PWindows. I don't see your point.
>MorphOS is AmigaOS, except that it's not developed by AInc.
No, AmigaOS is AmigaOS and MorphOS is MorphOS. The internal workings are different (more than noticable by the user) and there's a reason for it, they're both going different directions in the future.
>>What's this supposed to lead to? Atleast I'm trying to make a point wich you just neglect by saying that I'm not listening... *shaking my head in disbelief*
>You constantly miss the point.
You're constantly going in circles without making a point.
>The fact that Amithlon emulates the OS too makes no difference as it's not visible to the developer/user.
Yes, the difference would be in speed and stability compared to native code.
>It can be used a a transition path to OS5 for x86.
Will applications developed for Amithlon run on AmigaOS5 on PPC? Well, atleast I know applications developed on AmigaOS4.2 with AmigaDE will run on AmigaOS55 ontop of "whatever" processor.
>And no, you cannot just recompile OS5 for PPC source to magically boot on x86.
Unless you're a professional developer yourself, drop the subject. All I know is that their plan includes making AmigaOS5 run on x86 as well as PPC.
>MorphOS runs AmigaOS in emulation on the Quark kernel, not AmigaOS.
With the intention of replacing module by module until it's native PPC all over. AFAIK, Amithlon was never intended to be anything else but an emulator. The x86 API is only for speed improvement for specific applications.
>But this neither makes a difference to the user/developer.
Probably not to an ordinary classic 68k Amiga user, but I wouldn't recommend it as a development platform.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 75 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 15:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 71 (Samface):
>If this doesn't convince, nothing ever will. Taken from Amithlon.net:
>"So what is it? Emulation, or native AmigaOS?
>It is "just" an emulator. It boots up (from a CD, although other boot methods are possible), then starts an m68k emulator task, sets up the hardware for it, loads the rom images into memory, and then pretty much hands control over to the emulated 68k, which just runs like it would in any "real" Amiga."
Ever wondered why 'just' is between "'s?
>And here's more:
>"Yeah, so what about native x86 AmigaOS?
>Short answer: There isn't one."
Keep reading... You're ripping things out of their context.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 76 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Jürgen Lange on 01-Nov-2001 16:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (AmiDelf):
H&P have to pay licenses for the OS and Kickstart ROM.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 77 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 16:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Samface):
>No, AmigaOS is AmigaOS and MorphOS is MorphOS. The internal workings are different (more than noticable by the user) and there's a reason for it, they're both going different directions in the future.
Let's just drop this, as in the end it's only a matter of opinion.
>>You constantly miss the point.
>You're constantly going in circles without making a point.
No, I'm constantly going in circles trying to make you understand some ancient point :p
>>The fact that Amithlon emulates the OS too makes no difference as it's not visible to the developer/user.
>Yes, the difference would be in speed and stability compared to native code.
I say there is none (a very minor), you say there is... this wil get us nowhere. Let's just both try out Amithlon, shall we?
>Will applications developed for Amithlon run on AmigaOS5 on PPC? Well, atleast I know applications developed on AmigaOS4.2 with AmigaDE will run on AmigaOS55 ontop of "whatever" processor.
PPC apps developed for OS4 will not run on x86 OS5. That's why I think we need an x86 OS (with the help of Amithlon) at the same time as OS4, being source-compatible.
>>And no, you cannot just recompile OS5 for PPC source to magically boot on x86.
>Unless you're a professional developer yourself, drop the subject. All I know is that their plan includes making AmigaOS5 run on x86 as well as PPC.
I know enough to be able to say that. I'm afraid their plan is another promise that they cannot keep.
>>MorphOS runs AmigaOS in emulation on the Quark kernel, not AmigaOS.
>With the intention of replacing module by module until it's native PPC all over. AFAIK, Amithlon was never intended to be anything else but an emulator. The x86 API is only for speed improvement for specific applications.
Oops, I meant to say "... Quark kernel, not exec".
"replacing module by module until it's native PPC all over." yes, modules, but not the Quark kernel, same for Amithlon.
Please ask Bernie and Frank what their intention was, as you're just guessing.
>>But this neither makes a difference to the user/developer.
>Probably not to an ordinary classic 68k Amiga user, but I wouldn't recommend it as a development platform.
But then you don't know anything about software developement.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 78 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 16:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 75 (Brecht [darklite]):
I've already read it, all they say is that "this is so great because it can run native x86 code... blah, blah...". The ability to run native x86 code isn't something new, UAE does that too. The only difference is that Amithlon is faster because they've removed the classic Amiga custom chipset emulation, big deal.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 79 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 16:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 73 (HammerD):
>- Amithlon does have Amiga OS side native drivers for networking and sound
Yes, an AmigaOS driver that interfaces with the Linux driver underneath, not directly with the hardware. Hence support for any ethernet or audio hardware.
I think the above is true anyway. It would be similar to the uaegfx driver in UAE!
I think that Amithlon is an emulator. SamFace thinks Amithlon is an emulator. Running x86 code requires some special code in the binary to switch to x86 (something to tell the emulator - possibly an illegal 68k opcode - to switch to x86 mode until an illegal x86 instruction is reached?). The writers of Amithlon called it an emulator. Amiga call it an emulator. amithlon.net call it an emulator.
Can we leave it there?
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 80 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 01-Nov-2001 16:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Samface):
"True or false, Amithlon is an emulator?"
False. Amithlon _includes_ an emulator. So do AmigaOS 4 (as planned)
and MorphOS.
They differ mainly in the boot kernel used.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 81 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 16:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 80 (Don Cox):
"False. Amithlon _includes_ an emulator. So do AmigaOS 4 (as planned)
and MorphOS."
*WROOOOONG!* It *IS* an emulator! Read my earlier posts. Or, why not got to Amithlon.net, they'll tell you the same thing.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 82 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Ralph Schmidt on 01-Nov-2001 16:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 67 (Graham):
My god people..ignorance in your private life might be helpful...but in
a public forum when you argue based on your not made research makes you
look really foolish.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 83 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 16:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 78 (Samface):
It's a completely different x86 API. The Amithlon API is way more powerful. Stop saying something sucks just because you don't know sh*t about it.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 84 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 16:30 GMT
Difference between AmigaOS4 and Amithlon:
AmigaOS4 will have a 68k emulator as a temporary solution while porting the entire OS to PPC and later on the x86 too, as well for backwards compatibility with old 68k apps. Amithlon *is* an emulator itself and use it as *the* solution.
See the difference?
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 85 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 16:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 79 (Graham):
>Yes, an AmigaOS driver that interfaces with the Linux driver underneath, not directly with the hardware. Hence support for any ethernet or audio hardware.
You are wrong. The drivers are native, they access the hardware through a pci library (which probably interfaces with the linux pci driver). That's why only a small number of sound/network cards are supported at the moment.
>I think the above is true anyway. It would be similar to the uaegfx driver in UAE!
I think the P96 drivers use the linux framebuffer device, but that's not true for the other drivers. I think it would be possible to write drivers that don't need the linux fb device though.
I think that Amithlon is an emulator. SamFace thinks Amithlon is an emulator. Running x86 code requires some special code in the binary to switch to x86 (something to tell the emulator - possibly an illegal 68k opcode - to switch to x86 mode until an illegal x86 instruction is reached?). The writers of Amithlon called it an emulator. Amiga call it an emulator. amithlon.net call it an emulator.
Now you're just guessing wildly. The point is that it works, and it works fantastically. Sure, it's an emulator, but at the same time it's so much more.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 86 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 16:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 80 (Don Cox):
Good luck Don, having a chat with samface.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 87 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 16:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 84 (Samface):
>AmigaOS4 will have a 68k emulator as a temporary solution while porting the entire OS to PPC and later on the x86 too, as well for backwards compatibility with old 68k apps. Amithlon *is* an emulator itself and use it as *the* solution.
No 68k emulation in OS5? Man, that sucks :(
In Amithlon, the 68k emulation is also there for backwards compatibility, and only that. Why on earth would they remove custom chip emulation if it's just an emulator?
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 88 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 16:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (Ralph Schmidt):
Shut up Ralph. Read the whole thread first. Gawd, talk about jumping into an argument where most of the people are actually agreeing at some level and disagreeing at a semantic level. As Brecht says, if it works, then what does it matter?
I was just placing AROS, AmigaOS, MorphOS, Amithlon on a scale of emulators for AmigaOS. I said that I was willing to be politely corrected, as I don't know everyhting about MorphOS. Then you come on here flaming away arrogantly like you usually do, insulting left right and center whilst not answering any questions or providing any information.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 89 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 17:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 87 (Brecht [darklite]):
Amithlon is a fast AmigaOS emulator - i.e., only OS compliant programs can run, nothing that hits the hardware can. This gets it great speed, at the expense of compatibility. The ability to run x86 stuff is not a hint at a future x86 OS, just a way of optimising that RC5 client some more, or improving Quake, etc to the best ever FPS for an Amiga...
Thanks for explaining the PCI/Network/Audio stuff for Amithlon, btw. Makes sense now, and shows the power of Amiga device drivers and libraries yet again, and the ingenuity of people within the Amiga community.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 90 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 17:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 87 (Brecht [darklite]):
"No 68k emulation in OS5? Man, that sucks :("
I don't know if I should cry or just simply scream out loud. All I said was that AmigaOS4 uses 68k emulation as a temporary solution, that doesn't mean they'll remove the emulator as soon as the OS is PPC native, old 68k apps will still be able to use it. AmigaOS (no matter version) will *always* be backwards compatible. AmigaOS4.x will have a 68k emulator, AmigaOS5 will be 64-bit and run AmigaOS4 in a sandbox, including the 68k emulator. You can't possibly have read the technical update on Amiga.com that I told you about. Please do and you won't have to make such a fool out of yourself all the time.
"In Amithlon, the 68k emulation is also there for backwards compatibility, and only that."
No, it's their solution to make the AmigaOS run on x86. Amithlon is what makes the AmigaOS and old 68k apps able to run on x86 hardware without modifying the source code, it *is* an emulator. Yes, it's fast and powerful, but still an emulator. Enough about this already...
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 91 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 01-Nov-2001 17:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 90 (Samface):
>I don't know if I should cry or just simply scream out loud. All I said was that AmigaOS4 uses 68k emulation as a temporary solution, that doesn't mean they'll remove the emulator as soon as the OS is PPC native, old 68k apps will still be able to use it.
"TEMPORARY SOLUTION". That's what you said dammit. If they're not gonna remove it, it's not temporary. But obviously it was just human error, now say you were wrong and I'll forgive you ;).
And I couldn't care less about reading plans about OS4 and 5, as they'll be changed and overhauled over and over. I'll believe something when it's out.
>No, it's their solution to make the AmigaOS run on x86. Amithlon is what makes the AmigaOS and old 68k apps able to run on x86 hardware without modifying the source code, it *is* an emulator. Yes, it's fast and powerful, but still an emulator. Enough about this already...
I disagree. I'll let the others have a try at it, but I'm sick of it.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 92 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Emmanuel Lesueur on 01-Nov-2001 17:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Brecht [darklite]):
Brecht writes:
> AFAIK, you have to compile it with a special version of GCC under
> linux. I guess it adds some 68k code at the beginning to let Amithlon
> know x86 code follows.
Yes, that's the theory and what I've heard too. However I have yet
to see anyone actually having done that with some real-life program.
Having the emulator recognize x86 code at program startup is not
what is complicated. The thing is that to make it possible for a
stripped down UAE to execute x86 programs transparently, you need:
- to add some mechanisms to switch on the fly between native
code and emulation (the native program uses emulated libraries)
- to do that on a per-task basis (*not* globally, which is what UAE
does), and thus:
- to replace exec's scheduler and task handling functions by
ones that are aware not only of 68k code, but also of x86, and
can save/restore x86 contexts.
This is more complicated that it sounds, there are tricky issues.
E.g., think about interrupts. The emulated interrupts must be able to
interrupt also native code.
Also, assuming all that is possible with Amithlon, you need some
work in the compiler and link libraries to be able to generate
those x86 executables without too much hassle:
- you need a working libc.a (a port of libnix ?)
- a modified version of gcc that can solve the endianness issue:
any access to a system structure must be done as big-endian, so
unless you have a gcc that can do the byte swapping automatically,
you'll have *lots* of things to add manually to your programs.
All this is possible to do, but the question is: has it already
be done ?
> How is the execution of PPC apps done in MorphOS?
The type of code is detecting during load time, depending on the
type of file (ELF/hunk).
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 93 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Nov-2001 17:25 GMT
thye should be sued fro calling amigaone what they called it . dam its old and outdated shame though. merlancia is on the right track . they aernt expensive and are ppc based as well as using other chips . morphos is better then you think. secondy bplan is the exact sme thing aas eytechs shity computer . its based on shared bus topology. amiga was made becasue it wasnt shared bus topology amiga is better then that. bplan eyetech are exactly the same.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 94 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 17:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 91 (Brecht [darklite]):
>"TEMPORARY SOLUTION". That's what you said dammit. If they're not gonna remove it, it's not temporary.
*/me is banging my fingers real hard on the keyboard now*
As a temporary soultion for the *OS*, permanent solution for backwards compatibility with old 68k applications. I think you *are* getting a kick out of picking on not relevant details.
>And I couldn't care less about reading plans about OS4 and 5, as they'll be changed and overhauled over and over.
Then don't talk about things *you* obviously don't know sh*t about. Why are you saying that AmigaOS4/5 is this and that if you even don't know anything about it?
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 95 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Ralph Schmidt on 01-Nov-2001 17:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 88 (Graham):
@graham
>I think: AROS is (will be) a 100% AmigaOS (pre Zico) rewrite/clone?
>That can run 68k apps if running on a 68k series processor, but otherwise is (will be) only source compatible.
o zico is not a HAL definition
o zico is not an OS definition
o zico is not a system architecture definition
so it has absolutely nothing to do with post,pre,middle AmigaOS as it
defines nothing where and how AmigaOS can run on hardware X.
What it realls means..
o zico is some list of pci/agp units ainc wanted to support and using
this name is a disgrace for the great brasilian footballer.
The whole PR desaster lead to people using this "term" as the holy
bible of future amigaos system and hal architecture because they
hadn`t understood the issue.
-> *no* research
>Comment 50
>I mean that basically in AmigaOS4, the 68k emulator is a core part of the OS, whereas in MorphOS, Amithlon, AmigaOS5? is actually a program with
>an AmigaOS API wrapper running on top of the underlying OS.
*WRONG* for MorphOS
-> *no* research
>Comment 59
>There are trademark issues here. If MorphOS users continue to say that
>MorphOS is an Amiga, or AmigaOS, then AmigaInc (owners of the Amiga trademark)
>can protect their trademark if they choose to.
1) MorphOS *users* can claim that as long as they want..how should AInc
stop them ? Sue each user claiming that ?
2) We don`t claim it.
>Comment 61
>AmigaOS 4 contains 20% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k
-> *no* research
>MorphOS contains 50% of an Amiga (pre Zico) emulator. - 68k and API
-> *no* research..for the forseeable time no AmigaOS release will
reach the level of native code inside MorphOS because it requires
a working ppc mixed mode exec.
4.0 was just some emulation boxed running in a WarpUP task.
PPC programs aren`t part of the AmigaOS enviroment but of the
WarpUP enviroment. That are *important* system differences.
Do you know what`s true arrogance ? To discuss a topic with the
*ignorance* to not check your facts and just babble away just for
the sake of it.
And yes..this is a flame and you deserved it.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 96 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 01-Nov-2001 17:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (Ralph Schmidt):
"4.0 was just some emulation boxed running in a WarpUP task."
Huh? Was? WarpUP? Are you spreading rumours like "AmigaOS4 is no more" again, Ralph? Besides, I thought they where making a new kernel for the AmigaOne, not just a modified version of WarpUP... Well, it's good to have you supplying us with the "real" facts, Liar(e). :-P
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 97 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Georg Steger on 01-Nov-2001 18:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 92 (Emmanuel Lesueur):
Hello Emmanuel,
>~ x86 native code in Amithlon, interrupts, exec scheduler, etc.
Yes, they seem to have implemented it really in the "correct"
way, ie. no problems with interrupts/multitasking, etc. Here's
what Bernd Meyer said when I asked him basically the same question
on www.amiga-news.de back in September:
-->8-------------------
Bezueglich Multitasking von x86 Code: Unter Amithlon laeuft x86 Code vollstaendig unter der Kontrolle des AmigaOS Schedulers. Eines
unserer Beispiel/Testprogramme hat eine mehrere Sekunden lange Busy-Schleife in x86 Code --- und AmigaOS laeuft weiter, als waer
sie in 68k Code. Wenn durch ein externes Event (z.B. Mausklick) ein hoeher-priorisierter Prozess lauffaehig wird, wird der x86 Prozess
sofort schlafen gelegt, und der hoeherpriorisierte AmigaOS Prozess laeuft.
Ich hoffe, das war soweit klar --- soweit es AmigaOS und Scheduling angeht, sind x86 Prozesse identisch mit 68k Prozessen (und ja,
das *war* hoellisch schwer hinzukriegen, und *hat* viel Debugging gekostet. Aber was anderes kam fuer mich einfach nicht in Frage :)
-->8-- translation ----
Regarding multitasking of x86 code. Under Amithlon x86 Code runs completely
under control of the AmigaOS scheduler. One of our example/test programs has
a several seconds long busy-loop in x86 code --- and AmigaOS continues running,
just like if it (the busy-loop) was in 68k code. If, through an external event
(for example mouse click) one higher-priority task gets runnable, then a x86
task gets sent to sleep immediately, and the higher-pri AmigaOS task will run.
I hope this was clear so far --- as far as AmigaOS and Scheduling is concerned,
x86 tasks and 68k tasks are identical (and yes, implementing this *was* difficult
like hell, and *has* required lots of Debugging. But something different was
out of question for me)
-->8-------------------
About compiling x86 native code: IIRC they said you need
to compile them under Linux. But they probably do not (yet)
have a special compiler which helps with the endianess issues.
At least, in that question I asked back in September I also
wrote down a little (ugly -> lots of endianess issues) source
example, asking how/what would have to be changed in the source
to compile this into x86 native code. And Bernd responded, that
this will be explained/documented in the finished product, but
that generally it does not really make sense to compile *that* kind
of code (struct NewWindow nw; setup nw; winOpenWindowTags; x = win->LeftEdge)
x86 natively.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 98 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by PaulT on 01-Nov-2001 18:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 94 (Samface):
68K emulation is a "temporary" solution. The solution is to the problem of people still wanting to run old software when they get their new OS and new hardware. The temporariness is that once they've gone through a couple of revisions of the new OS, and once there is _actually_ new hardware (probably PPC based) that has been sold to those who are serious about continuing with the Amiga, then after 5.0 or so Amiga Inc will be justified in NOT SUPPORTING 68K applications any more. It will be strictly optional, and will migrate into a market niche. Just like x86 support is right now a market niche.
New hardware? IMHO, at this rate, there will be either a MorphOS or bplan solution such as a separate PPC platform before AmigaOne comes out. Heck, maybe EVERYthing will be ported to x86. Even the PPC software will be ported to run on 5 GHz Intel/AMD machines to run at a decent rate. About then, the AmigaOne will finally be released.... <twisting the knife some more>
I second the motion: Bill, come out of the closet HERE and confirm what Eyetech / AR is telling us. We want to believe that there is at least a new plan, rather than more silence.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 99 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Alcemyst on 01-Nov-2001 18:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Samface):
im with you on all the points you made.
ill wait for A1 with OS4 or Bplan with AOS4.2
or i will leave the Amiga totally
Amithlon & AmigaOS-XL will not help the Amiga WH ppl or the SW ppl.
as they are just a really good UAE, ok technicly they are more in some
terms. but i wonder how many ppl have UAE & dont have or use a real
amiga & how many of them buy Amiga SW to use on them & i do mean since
haveing UAE not just useing apps games you had before you went PC &
stoped useing the Amiga. not many & the same will go for Amithlon &
AOSXL. may be the ppl who still use there Amigas as well as useing a
PC will by news Amiga SW for Amithlon & AOSXL to run on a laptop, wich
is the only way to run AmigaOS on a laptop atm.
as far as i can see only the user will benefit for the speed up.
& that is a short term benefit as you can only move forward with new
SW & no mainstream SW house will bother with making apps for them on
x86 HW as you can just boot into windows & run that version.
& just look at linux to see that, very few mainstream SW houses are
making any money with it except the linux distro houses.
& there are alot of linux users.
if linux had its own HW then ppl would buy the linux version as they
could not just boot into windows. but there are progs that will let
you run Windows SW on linux directly.
just what would happen to the Amiga SW houses or programers if there
was an app for AmigaOSXL & Amithlon that let you run windows apps on
them with out duel booting..bye..bye Any new AmigaSW.
coz even i would be tempted, as there are many ppl already tempted
away from the Amiga.inc line of things.
A million ppl who all know better & all had off in a million deferent
directions will leave us with nothing.
Amiga.inc is not there for your benefit there are there for the own
benefit like 99% of companys on this earth.
if you owned a company you would run it to how best it would be for
you. you would not go out of your way to please the customer in a
way that would harm your company.
every one is looking at the situation that will most benefit them &
there needs, but that need may not benefit Amiga.inc in the direction
they want to go.
& what is said in the posting speaks for them selfs.
some want Amiga.inc to go opensource with AmigaOs, some want Amiga.inc
to get together with MorphOs team, some want Amiga.inc to go with
AROS. some want A1. some want native 86x AmigaOs.
now it would be real hard to please all those PPL right now wouldnt
it. may be in tim,e but that all costs money that they dont have. &
they have to do whats best to for them ATM like it or not that life. i
cant please my boss by doing alot of Overtime & please the wife by
being home early can i ? its one or the other.
Amiga.Inc have there direction if you dont like it leave them. dont
try to make them go your direction, as your direction is not someone
elses, as every one wants amiga.inc to go in many diferent dircetions.
ppl should just make there choice to go with Amiga.inc or not.
to go Morphos or not or what ever.
dont try to force someone to be someone else as you can never truly do
that, all you can do is act like them.
Eyetech clarifies AmigaOne statement : Comment 100 of 126ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 01-Nov-2001 20:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (Ralph Schmidt):
I apologise for the language in this post, however the recipient does not understand any other language.
Please go away (calmed down and rewrote original wording) Ralph. It is your attitude that puts me off MorphOS every time I start thinking positively about it. Now I hope it fails and you end up living homeless on the streets.
1) I said I didn't know everything about MorphOS, and that I was willing to be politely corrected. You aren't polite, you are a RUDE ARROGANT AND NASTY person.
2) I said that the numbers were just random, pulled out of thin air just for comparison purposes.
3) Zico is a definition of the hardware that the next generation Amiga would contain. I said it was out of date and not concise enough, yet it is clearly a definition of what would be in the next Amiga. A pretty obvious definition, yes. But people here were arguing that an Amiga was defined as some 68k machine with AGA (in essence) and I was pointing out that the definition of a computer's hardware changed over time.
4) And you don't know about AmigaOS 4 either! WarpUP task indeed! exec is native PPC, and runs a 68k emulator as one of the first tasks which then finishes loading the OS and running applications. Apps can be 68k and PPC. OS parts can be 68k and PPC. Mixed mode, as you like to point out.
5) I am allowed an opinion. I was being quite positive about bPlan and MorphOS in the last week or so. I won't be again because of the arrogance that you continually show.
6) Maybe you should tell your users that MorphOS has nothing to do with the Amiga name, and is not the follow up to Amiga OS 3, and that they shouldn't refer to it as such.
Anonymous, there are 126 items in your selection (but only 76 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 126]
Back to Top