01-Dec-2021 14:45 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 230 items in your selection (but only 80 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 230]
[News] Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressionsANN.lu
Posted on 07-Dec-2002 19:27 GMT by Diermar Eilert (Edited on 2002-12-08 02:55:19 GMT by Christophe Decanini)230 comments
View flat
View list
It took place in a large congress room in Aachen's Eurogress. At 16:00, it was pretty crowded in terms of visitors ...

---

Just a few words about the Amiga Retro event today, I've been there for an hour or so this afternoon:

It took place in a large congress room in Aachen's Eurogress. At 16:00, it was pretty crowded in terms of visitors, maybe 100-200 people, but pretty empty in terms of dealers. If you mentally subtract Thendic, who took up 50% of the space, the whole affair would have fitted into a grocery store. Well, I guess that reflects the state of the market.

I saw one Amiga One. Maybe there were more, I didn't look hard. The one I saw didn't do anything to get exited about (a pc-style box, obviously no AmigaOS 4, bulky mainboard).

The Thendic people were at the center of attention, having something exiting to show. I don't know how many Pegasos boxes they had with them, but there were lots of them for trial. Morphos looks great, their Ambient workbench is visually stunning. A large amount of money must have gone into the direction of designers, the icons are all ultra-professional, 3D, 24bit, raytraced. If you are ever going to write software for Morphos and plan to have equally good icons, you have your work laid out for you ;-) The overall design reminds me of NeXt. Nevertheless, everything is still quite basic in terms of operating systems: I didn't see a file manager or other things I would expect with an OS. For example, an equally well-designed "Start" bar would have been nice.

Unfortunately, their boxes only had PPC native software installed or I was too dumb to find regular 68K software. I've tried for twenty minutes to find a bug, cause a crash etc. but no luck: Morphos looks fine to me with that selection of software. I would have rather testet it with "normal" software though.

Some Pegaos boxes were open, you could see the April fix and the small mainboard. It's a micro-atx-sized board, you probably have to see it to realize how small it is. If mainboards were sold on optical merits, the Amiga One would be dead. I don't understand why Tendic choose a big aluminium case for it: yes, it looks nice but if you have such a small mainboard, why not advertise the possibilities of small dimensions ?

Conclusion: Pegasos/Morphos is much more advanced than I though before. If it's all pure PPC, the worst is clearly over for them. They seem to have a nice usable small OS. What's left for them to do is to provide more "middleware" to get rid of the basic feel. I mean the small tools that normally ship with an OS: file manager, calculators, whatever. Nothing complicated.

Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 151 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by dammy on 08-Dec-2002 16:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (Mike Bouma):
Mike, your not going to take my offer of peace? See:
http://flyingmice.com/squid/moobunny/amiga/messages/81220.shtml
Well?
Dammy
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 152 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Christophe Decanini on 08-Dec-2002 16:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 77 (Mike Bouma):
"With regard to the current MorphOS/ABOX approach, without ABOX there is almost nothing. No Amiga(-like) libraries nor applications, so IMO this approach is very similar to for instance Amithlon."
This is bullshit Mike. The ABOX is a complete AmigaOS API rewritten for the PPC whereas Amithlon BOX is "just" a 68K emulator.
If I understood well the AmigaOS4 concept all code is considered to be PPC (68k is translated to PPC). I don't know how they would protect existing 68K code that share memory space with other apps or with AmigaOS.
What Thomas said is that new apps would benefit from memory protection, not older ones (which is only what we have now and what we will have for a long long time until everything is replaced).
The box concept is the one choosen by Apple for example to run MacOS applications into OSX.
We had no chance so far to test how in the OS4 theory would work in practice. So, again time will tell.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 153 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 08-Dec-2002 16:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 151 (dammy):
ahh, your virtual "war" thingy again...
If that would mean that I would need to roll over and die, or agree to everything you say, or that I'm not allowed to speak my opinions, then no way.
If you mean that we should respect eachothers opinions, will not start swearing, resort to name calling or otherwise childish behaviours. Then you are on.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 154 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 08-Dec-2002 16:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 142 (Mike Bouma):
Mike Bouma wrote:
[about memory protection]
"Now a little harder, what about WarpOS software, will AmigaOS (w/MP)
be able to remain compatible with WarpOS software? I don't see any
problem if this is handled similarly as currently. The same goes with
regard to simple 68k programs. Complex bad behaving ones will be very
difficult, but I am not an AmigaOS designer.."
If you don't see any problem, that's probably because you're not an
AmigaOS designer. As Thomas tells you, it has to be turned off for "a
lot" of older programs.
This is the same for MorphOS by the way. Exactly the same. You can
protect memory - but you can't do it with old apps without breaking them.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 155 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 08-Dec-2002 16:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 152 (Christophe Decanini):
> The box concept is the one choosen by Apple for example to run MacOS
> applications into OSX.
In the case of Amithlon/MorphOS this box takes over the entire system. It would be possible to reimplement large parts of AmigaOS within Amithlon with x86 native versions as well. I never said they were identical, they are only similar in approach.
Currently MorphOS offers some advantages over Amithlon (i.e. PPC Amiga software compatibility, better default GUI look, etc) and Amithlon offers some advantages over MorphOS (huge scala of widely available hardware to choose from, still alot more stable, etc)
And by the way, many people who were defending MacOS when it was still hideously inferior from a technical perspective, still refuse to migrate to MacOS X because it uses a Mach kernel. These advocates see this as admitting their defeat for everything they have "fought" for... ;)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 156 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 08-Dec-2002 17:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 154 (Johan Rönnblom):
> If you don't see any problem, that's probably because you're not an
> AmigaOS designer
What I was trying to say, I don't see any problem to implement such compatibility. That does not mean it is easy. There are always going to be problems down the road, but I believe not impossible to overcome ones with regard to my example.
> As Thomas tells you, it has to be turned off for "a lot" of older programs.
Yes "a lot" was exactly my wording with which Alkis did not agree to. And I was replying to Alkis regarding this.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 157 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 08-Dec-2002 17:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 155 (Mike Bouma):
> Currently MorphOS offers some advantages over Amithlon (i.e. PPC Amiga
> software compatibility, better default GUI look, etc) and Amithlon offers
> some advantages over MorphOS (huge scala of widely available hardware to
> choose from, still alot more stable, etc)
It is sooooo easy crash Amithlon... trash some innocent memory and emulation
hangs. It seems you know nothing about Amiga at all.
You cant run OS4 on many hardware configurations either, can you?
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 158 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 08-Dec-2002 17:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 157 (itix):
> It is sooooo easy crash Amithlon... trash some innocent memory and emulation
> hangs. It seems you know nothing about Amiga at all.
Learn to read please. I stated that it is still alot more stable, not that Amithlon is rock solid per se. I can crash MorphOS in a matter of seconds as well, if you allow me to choose the software I would like to run.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 159 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by mahen on 08-Dec-2002 17:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 158 (Mike Bouma):
Anyway, I don't understand why people lose their time
fighting, because for the time being nobody can say
what's better.
Just compare real products, because all here is purely
theorical.
MorphOS has the merit to be available. It's a good alternative.
(actually the only one for the time being).
Let's see reviews etc and stop speculating, and compare products
when they're available.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 160 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by mahen on 08-Dec-2002 18:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 159 (mahen):
Because all we say here about the ABOX, QBOX, mem protection
under OS4 and MOS, stability etc.... is purely theorical.
And points of view differ a lot.
For me MorphOSnative reimplementation of the whole amigaOS API
+ promising future. Interesting hardware (eclipsis etc).
I use it here, main system, works very well (if I choose the programs
correctly, b/c it can crash with buggy prgs, just like my former amiga
did)
AmigaOS 4partial rewrite of OS3, with many new things. But it's
still a long road ahead, so, really, I will give it a try when it's
available, it's useless speculating.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 161 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 08-Dec-2002 18:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 159 (mahen):
> I don't understand why people lose their time
> fighting
Rereading my comment, I am sorry that I made that "Learn to read please" comment, it was triggered by itix' "It seems you know nothing about Amiga at all" comment.
Anyway, that was way below my usual standards, it's so easy to be dragged into such behaviours... Sorry, better get some sleep now...
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 162 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 08-Dec-2002 18:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 158 (Mike Bouma):
> Learn to read please. I stated that it is still alot more stable,
> not that Amithlon is rock solid per se. I can crash MorphOS in a matter
> of seconds as well, if you allow me to choose the software I would like
> to run.
Sure. You can crash A/Box at anytime by running certain software. In example Shapeshifter crashes A/Box completely here. I can run HippoPlayer but not listen SIDs because of CIA/softint problem not identified yet. But running old ftpd and dynamite server on my A1200 24h/7d is not problem. When not coding my system can stay up for days (but sooner or later IBrowse trashes free memory list and hangs).
Anyone can crash AmigaOS/MorphOS/Amithlon/anything Amiga-related system in seconds with proper software.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 163 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Olaf Barthel on 08-Dec-2002 18:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 148 (Mike Bouma):
> A vast majority of classic AmigaOS was written in portable C code. The
> kernel was written in assembler and therefor I guess has been very hard
> work for the Frieden brothers to reimplement completely in C.
Well... there is portable 'C' code and there is portable 'C' code. Some
of the code I thought would raise no issues in porting turned out to be
more challenging than I expected. The reasons? Hidden compiler dependencies,
badly written application software. It's surprising to see what weird
side-effects code has come to depend upon. And you often have to replicate
them just to keep things moving.
Some operating system components were designed and documented better than
others, leaving less room for developers to to deviate from the
specifications. In that respect Exec is probably the most formidable
example: well documented, not much left in doubt as to how it worked and
what was necessary to create software for it. I wish you could say the
same about dos.library, graphics.library and, um, workbench.library.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 164 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 08-Dec-2002 18:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 156 (Mike Bouma):
"I don't see any problem to implement such compatibility."
Yes. it's obvious that you can't see problem cause it's not sitting on your living room couch and eating your popcorn. For seeing this kind of abstaract problem you have to have enough knowledge of OS internals and considerable experience of coding.
So, even if you can't see it does not rule out that there will be serious problems on making it happen. In time most problems can be found solutions but If there would have been easy fix to this those engineers at Commodore (or plenty of developers at that time) would have found it. How long can you wait for your OS to appear? Five years or perhaps 50... or would it be better to release working solution NOW and then keep on tuning it up during those years?
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 165 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark] on 08-Dec-2002 20:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 131 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
"Alkis Tsapanidis" wrote:
"Amithlon is not even that. It's a 68k emulator running on a foreign kernel."
Remember that:
... the AmigaOS 3.1 compatibility of MorphOS is the API from AROS ... do you believe that it is more compatible/secure to use that, than useing the Amiga-emulation - has been used many years.
... the 68k emulator (Amiga emulator) is running an real AmigaOS - real AmigaAPI
And about AmigaOS4 Vs. MorphOS, remember that:
... AmigaOS4 is using the REAL thing, rewritten + new features.
... MorphOS is using another kernel (Quark), including the AmigaOS-emulation (A-BOX) - the AROS API + 68k emulation.
MorphOS is like Linux + WinE + Bochs x86 emulation is for Windows!
If you want an new AmigaOS, then buy AmigaOS 4.
If you want a new OS, inspired of AmigaOS, then buy MorphOS or get AROS for free!
I know what I want, I want the REAL thing, I want AmigaOS :O)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 166 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 08-Dec-2002 20:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 165 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
Ehm, sorry to tell you but OS has big chunks of the OS rewritten as well.
AROS code is not used unmodified. In most cases it's HEAVILY modified.
Raw AROS code is not 100% compatible most of the time, so NO it's NOT the
same as AROS. And besides, the crucial MorphOS parts are written by the
bPlan team. Moreover... On the "tested for many years" part... That's why
MorphOS has been in betatesting for 3 years (ok, 1 as a native OS).
Now, using a 68k emulator and AmigaOS code is NOT a real option... You'll
have to emulate parts of the custom chips to do that.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 167 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 08-Dec-2002 21:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 164 (JoannaK):
> Yes. it's obvious that you can't see problem cause it's not sitting on your living room couch and eating your popcorn.
That shut him up :-)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 168 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark] on 08-Dec-2002 21:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 167 (Anonymous):
"Alkis Tsapanidis" wrote:
"Ehm, sorry to tell you but OS has big chunks of the OS rewritten as well.
AROS code is not used unmodified. In most cases it's HEAVILY modified.
Raw AROS code is not 100% compatible most of the time, so NO it's NOT the
same as AROS. And besides, the crucial MorphOS parts are written by the
bPlan team. Moreover... On the "tested for many years" part... That's why
MorphOS has been in betatesting for 3 years (ok, 1 as a native OS).
Now, using a 68k emulator and AmigaOS code is NOT a real option... You'll
have to emulate parts of the custom chips to do that."
About the API:
Yes, but that still makes it more AROS-API, than AmigaOS-API.
Or do you also say that the MorphOS team uses AmigaOS code???
I hope that they don't use stolen code, as I hope that MorphOS gets a great OS, but still thats not on my direct way ... AmigaOS 4.x here I come ;O)
About the Amiga emulator:
It has worked fine with the custom chip emulation for years :O)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 169 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Iggy Drougge on 08-Dec-2002 21:28 GMT
Comparing MorphOS to Amithlon is unjust.
Amithlon, is as we all know, a cut-down Linux kernel running a hacked UAE version, it in turn running AmigaOS 3.x.
MorphOS is a microkernel (Quark) running a reimplementation of AmigaOS as a server.
Quark is not in itself an OS. A microkernel is the very bare essentials needed to implement a microkernel-based OS. In the formal microkernel design, the rest of the OS is implemented as so-called servers on top of the microkernel. The microkernel takes care of basic hardware interaction and inter-server communications.
However, the MK approach to OS design hasn't proved particularly effective performance-wise. Thus, most MK OSes tend to implement a thick, traditional OS design on top of the microkernel. They're not MK OSes in a formal sense, since the rest of the OS basically runs just as one single server on top of the microkernel. One example is various MkLinuxes. Mk as in microkernel, Mk as in Mach, a classic microkernel spawned off Berkeley Software Distribution developments. OS/2 is another Mach-based OS, and so is MacOSX.
MacOSX implements a big (very big) pack of BSD services on top of the microkernel. It also implements OSX-native services on top of of either the BSD environment or Mach (this differs from case to case).
While people like to point out that OSX is MK-based, and thus modern (Mac people don't really know what it means, but Apple says it's cool, so... ;-), it isn't an ideal MK OS. The bulk of MacOS is BSD, on top of Mach. So OSX isn't very micro at all, BSD being a classic monolithic kernel OS (and as a UNIX flavour not very suitable to a pure MK implementation even at its API level, will many attest).
Why this big explanation about MacOS X, you might ask. People use OSX, it's a shipping, major OS, gaining respect and admiration from old Mac convertites as well as UNIX and Windows users (though I don't respect or admire it personally).
As a side note, pre-OSX applications run in a sandbox implemented within OSX. Sandboxes is a concept we all know from MOS briefs.
Let's look at Amithlon for a while as well.
When you run Amithlon on your PC, LILO (the LInux LOader) loads a minimalistic Linux kernel (BTW, no matter how minimalistic it might be, Linux will never be a microkernel) with a minimalistic set of Linux services. This Linux kernel executes a custom version of UAE, the Useless/Universal/Ubiquitous Amiga Emulator. UAE usually emulates a 680x0 processor and the Amiga custom chips. More recent versions also interface to the host OS in various ways, such as mapping the native filesystem to Amiga drives, native networking to a bsdsocket.library wrapper, native graphics to a Picasso96 wrapper driver and in the last few versions even native SCSI to a scsi.library wrapper. All signs of an advanced emulation. Still, only wrappers. Similar things have been done for a long while in Shapeshifter and Fusion. These emulators access API calls in the host OS. The actual hardware is of no concern to the emulated environment, only the CPU is accessed more or less directly by the Mac emulators, for obvious reasons.
Amithlon takes this a step further. For performance reasons, all chipset emulation, save the absolute necessities, is thrown out. The Amithlon UAE implementation also allows specially-compiled code to execute on the actual processor. Workarounds have to be implemented to address the problem of different byte ordering (endians), but this is hardware-related (unlike modern processors, the m68k and x86 series have their byte ordering set in stone).
Even this mutilated, extended UAE running on its mutilated, custom Linux (I think the Amithlon author used similar wording to describe it) is rather sufficient just to run AmigaOS with modern RTG/RTA applications, though. There even exist Amithlon-ported apps running directly on the native X86 processor, including such a vital component (if you like sound output) as AHI, and for what I know, it might even have such vital OS components as colourwheel.gadget running natively.
Nevertheless, Amithlon is basically Linux plus UAE, running a more or less intact AmigaOS 3.x on top of Amithlon/UAE's very optimised 68k emulator. Though Amithlon has reimplemented Elbox's PCI library, hardware access is usually performed through drivers inside the Linux kernel. Wrapper drivers, in other words, not too unsimilar from the usual hosted UAE implementations. The Amiga-side drivers peep through a hole in the emulator out to hooks in the surrounding Linux environment, usually invisible to the AmigaOS. It's UAE equipped with hooks onto the native processor and the host OS.
And on to MorphOS.
Quark is a microkernel (remember?). Quark runs servers, or boxes. The only currently implemented box is the A-box, which implements services requires for AmigaOS. Inside the A-box, something indistinguishable from AmigaOS on most API levels runs. Mind you, this AmigaOS look-a-like is not emulated. Not in the UAE sense. If you do a "List SYS:", you'll see that no file sizes will correlate to any AmigaOS version. This is a reimplementation of AmigaOS, albeit running within the A-box. If we are to trust the intimately involved parties, no AmigaOS code is used, at least not now. And certainly no AmigaOS binaries, AFAIK. Much unlike Amithlon, which runs AmigaOS 3.x as installed from the distribution CD, and won't run much at all without it.
The MorphOS hardware compatibility list is very much different from the Amithlon one. Not just CPU-wise (Amithlon won't run on a Pegasos, and MorphOS won't run on a Taiwanese PC), and not due to different driver coding efforts, but since Amithlon drivers in many cases match the Linux compatibility lists when it comes to graphics and network cards (naturally not one-by-one, since the Amithlon Linux kernel contains a limited amount of drivers). Drivers in MorphOS as we know it now are AFAIK contained in the A-box. CyberGraphX drivers and our beloved DEVS: contents. As much as one might want to, there are no useful graphics and network drivers outside the A-box, much unlike Amithlon, very much unlike plain UAE. Naturally, MOS/A-box is a fresh, native reimplementation of what constitutes AmigaOS. Naturally, it contains a 68k emulator for compatibility purposes. But one should also not forget that a lot of PPC programs (and the Amiga has been marching toward PPC for five years now) run natively on the A-box. Not outside, since a microkernel usually won't run programs in the sense one usually intends. It's just a little dwarf kernel.
As for AmigaOS 4, it is an improved reimplementation of the traditional AmigaOS, running an improved reimplementation of the AmigaOS kernel, Exec, as its most basic component. Exec is neither a microkernel, nor a monolith kernel. Don't ask me what it is, but that's what an AROS developer told me. It's AmigaOS on PPC, nothing more, nothing less, basically implemented in the same way it's been on 68k.
Thus, we may reach a semi-informed conclusion.
Microkernels are not an unorthodox solution nowadays. Sandboxes have become mainstream as well. Pure microkernel OSes are still rather rare. A microkernel is very helpless on its own.
On a scale, UAE is an advanced emulator. Amithlon is an emulator on steroids, equipped with a host OS crutch so as to look like a real OS. MorphOS is a microkernel-based OS running a native reimplementation of AmigaOS as its main task. It's not an emulator. A-box is a compatibility layer, its contents an AmigaOS clone. The only emulator present is the 68k one, and that one will be implemented in OS4 as well.
OS4 is OTOH AmigaOS as we know it, on a basic technological level. All we can say about AmigaOS 3.x can be said about AmigaOS 4.x, with hopefully a lot of added bonuses.
Quark is only of our concern when more boxes are added. And MorphOS is neither an emulator, nor comparable to Amithlon, particularly not with its current (permanent?) state in mind. Amithlon stands out as rather uninspired in comparison to MorphOS, at all levels. Amithlon might, with a lot of effort, turn into something somewhat similar to MorphOS, but it most probably won't, and Linux and UAE is debatably not a good starting point for a MOS equivalent.
If this were the Mac world, MOS would be a kind of OSX, whereas AmigaOS 4 would be a kind of MacOS 10. =)
MOS is no emulator.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 170 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 08-Dec-2002 21:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 168 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
The API is described in the Autodocs. Not by AROS, not in AOS4
sources.
Ok, it's not quite that simple always, but that's because of, ehm,
"imperfections". :)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 171 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 08-Dec-2002 21:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 168 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
What are you talking about? "More AROS API than AmigaOS API"? Excuse me?
AROS uses an extended version of the AmigaOS API, nothing different.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 172 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 08-Dec-2002 21:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 165 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
> And about AmigaOS4 Vs. MorphOS, remember that:
> ... AmigaOS4 is using the REAL thing, rewritten + new features.
> ... MorphOS is using another kernel (Quark), including the AmigaOS-emulation
> (A-BOX) - the AROS API + 68k emulation.
---
OS4 is based on the Amiga API which is made available through: 1) Old OS 3.x 68k binaries under emulation, 2) Old OS 3.x code, ported to PPC, 3) Some new features in PPC.
MorphOS is based on the Amiga API which is made available through: 1) Completely rewritten OS code (including some new features), all in PPC.
---
OS4 is not entirely PPC native. Some (processor) emulation of the old Amiga OS 3.x will be necessary.
MorphOS is entirely PPC native. No emulation whatsoever will be necessary (All OS functions are available natively. Rewritten. In PPC. No emulation!).
---
OS4 is using another kernel than exec (they call it "Exec SG" to keep it emotionally connected to the original one).
MorphOS is using another kernel than exec (Quark).
---
OS4 can still run old 68k programs (since it has the AmigaOS 3.x API) through the use of processor emulation. The OS behind the API is also partly being (processor) emulated.
MorphOS can still run old 68k programs (since it has the AmigaOS 3.x API) through the use of processor emulation. The OS behind the API is *not* being emulated. It's there all natively, in PPC.
---
OS4 will crash. Since it's a new envireonment for programs (no 68k, no custom chips, new OS features, etc) there will not be 100% backwards compatibility. That doesn't necessarily means that the OS is buggy. Buggy software will eventually bring the system down.
MorphOS will crash. Since it's a new envireonment for programs (no 68k, no custom chips, new OS features, etc) there will not be 100% backwards compatibility. That doesn't necessarily means that the OS is buggy. Buggy software will eventually bring the system down.
---
OS4 can still run old programs that needs custom chips and old OS versions through emulation (UAE).
MorphOS can still run old programs that needs custom chips and old OS versions through emulation (UAE).
---
OS4 will be the "real thing" in the following senses: It will have the AmigaOS 3.x API + some new stuff (OS4 only), it is the official solution, it is based on the old 3.x sources and binaries, it has the same traditional "Amiga look & feel", much of the old Amiga software (but not all!) will run on it, and it has the "Amiga"-sticker on it. Everyone familiar to the Amiga system will be familiar with this too.
MorphOS will be the "real thing" in the following senses: It will have the AmigaOS 3.x API + some new stuff (MorphOS only), the OS is compatible to AmigaOS, it has the same traditional "Amiga look & feel", much of the old Amiga software (but not all!) will run on it. Everyone familiar to the Amiga system will be familiar with this too.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 173 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by ikez on 08-Dec-2002 21:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (Anonymous):
Petunia is ?
ikez
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 174 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark] on 08-Dec-2002 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 171 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
"Alkis Tsapanidis" wrote:
"What are you talking about? "More AROS API than AmigaOS API"? Excuse me?
AROS uses an extended version of the AmigaOS API, nothing different."
It is still the AROS (AmigaOS 3.1 compatible) API written by the AROS crew, that is used in AROS, it is not the AmigaOS API!
Sorry if you don't get my point ... but I hope you will get it.
AROS is great :O)
And I hope MorphOS will get great - just to make clear that I'm not against MorphOS - but it will never be AmigaOS!
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 175 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Linus G on 08-Dec-2002 22:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 172 (takemehomegrandma):
Is it a big problem to you that things like the calulator will not be PPC native ?
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 176 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 08-Dec-2002 22:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 165 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
> If you want an new AmigaOS, then buy AmigaOS 4.
> If you want a new OS, inspired of AmigaOS, then buy MorphOS or get
> AROS for free!
Well, AmigaOS 4 is the original AmigaOS like IBM did the original PC. Original doesnt necessarily mean it is better than clone. And by the way: AROS is not in usable condition.
But this OS4 vs. MOS war doesnt really make sense. I have MorphOS here on my A1200 but I'm still developing for AmigaOS too. Maybe for OS4 too if it is available at reasonable price for my BPPC. If you prefer OS4 just relax and wait. MorphOS team is not gonna kill you :)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 177 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 08-Dec-2002 22:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 174 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
> It is still the AROS (AmigaOS 3.1 compatible) API written by the AROS crew,
> that is used in AROS, it is not the AmigaOS API!
I think that you perhaps are mixing things up.
There is ONE API that all the new OS distributions are based upon (including OS4), the AmigaOS 3.x API.
AROS is based on this API.
MorphOS is based on this API.
OS4 is based on this API.
There has been cooperation between the MorphOS team and AROS, but AFAIK that had nothing to do with the API, it was about programming OS functions *behind* the API. If the API would *not* be the same, then the new OS:es would not be compatible.
Correct me if I am wrong!
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 178 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 08-Dec-2002 22:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 175 (Linus G):
> Is it a big problem to you that things like the calulator will not be PPC
> native ?
Not at all.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 179 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 08-Dec-2002 22:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 177 (takemehomegrandma):
BTW, *additions* to that API will of course be made! Othewise there would be no evolution ...
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 180 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 08-Dec-2002 22:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 174 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
I repeat... AROS uses the AmigaOS API with some extensions. There's no AROS
API. MorphOS does not use the AROS extensions most of the time, it uses it's
own. So it actually uses the AmigaOS API. APIs are not sensational things,
you cannot say it's "more AROS than AmigaOS". Either it's x or y. And while
AROS uses the AmigaOS API, MorphOS uses it too. If AROS did not use it, they
would not use it in MOS.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 181 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by LinusG on 08-Dec-2002 22:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 178 (takemehomegrandma):
Then why do you make it sound as if important parts of OS4 will not be PPC native ? Can you name an important system module that will not be native ?
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 182 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 08-Dec-2002 22:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 181 (LinusG):
I trust Hyperion when they say that no important OS components will be in 68k. I have no problem with minor emulation. I just pointed out the fact that OS4 will not be all PPC native. I couldn't care less, because OS4 will propably not run on the Pegasos anyway, and therefore it's uninteresting to me.
But some people keep saying that MorphOS is an emulator. It is not. It is an all PPC native operating system, running on its own with it's own OS functions. It has a *68k processor emulator*, but so has OS4 (eh, *will* have). As pointed out above, there will actually be "more emulation" in the "real thing" than in MorphOS!
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 183 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Daniel Miller on 08-Dec-2002 23:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 169 (Iggy Drougge):
That was a kick-butt comparison, Iggy! I don't know if you are exactly right on
all counts, but it is obvious that you know what you are talking about. Thanks
for taking the time to explain that!
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 184 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 08-Dec-2002 23:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 169 (Iggy Drougge):
Iggy Drougge wrote:
> [the most comprehensive and clear explanation of API/ABI compatibility versus
> emulation, and kernels, "boxes" and services, that I've seen so far on any
> Amiga forum]
I suggest that everyone who is unsure about these real and imagined emulation issues and technical terms reads your post.
WINE is not an emulator. Neither is Mac-On-Linux. Neither is MorphOS/Abox. Both AmigaOS4+ and MorphOS will however contain *68k emulation* - not "AmigaOS emulation".
Tack Iggy! Ett briljant och uppenbarligen nödvändigt inlägg. :)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 185 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by dammy on 08-Dec-2002 23:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 153 (Mike Bouma):
Posted by Mike Bouma (62.131.178.212) on 08-Dec-2002 17:44:02In Reply to Comment 151:
> ahh, your virtual "war" thingy again...
> If that would mean that I would need to roll over and die, or agree to
> everything you say, or that I'm not allowed to speak my opinions, then no way.
All I was asking for you and Luca was to STFU as I would. We don't need to tear at the Amiga Community. War is over, even if your too blind to see it.
> If you mean that we should respect eachothers opinions, will not start
> swearing, resort to name calling or otherwise childish behaviours. Then you
> are on.
No Mike, I mean a complete and utter STFU for you, Luca, and myself. No more attacking, no more FUDding, nada. We get along and hold our tongues and maintain a peace in the community. The only reason why you won't do it is because it would starve that raving ego of yours. You can't have that, no more windmills to tilt, no more saving the day by FUDding, no more personal attacks on Genesi folks. I mean, that and Hyping the hell out of your friends that are on the SuperDuper Sercret inner ciricle ML is what your known for.
OK Mikey, go ahead and FUD/Personal Attack/Whatever away. I'll be sure to make some posts about your stupidity that you love to show off with.
It's a pity really, I would hope that your interest in the Amiga Community was greater then feeding that massive ego of yours, but sadly, you have proved me wrong.
Randy
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 186 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Ingot on 09-Dec-2002 06:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 182 (takemehomegrandma):
takemehomegrandma:
> OS4 will propably not run on the Pegasos anyway, and therefore
> it's uninteresting to me.
We are at home! You bought Pegasos and you don't like AmigaOS 4
because you have worthless hardware.
That's ok. You have firewire but we will have OS 4.
You can use MorphOS now. We will wait for new AmigaOS.
Your choice, our choice
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 187 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 09-Dec-2002 06:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 135 (Daniel Miller):
"No he's not. Bouma's latest line of FUD is "MorphOS is just like Amithlon,"
but it's not. Amithlon is much more of an emulation, requiring ROM images and
68K 3.x OS. MorphOS has rewritten all the OS function calls and libraries in
PPC versions. "
If MorphOS was just like Amithlon, I would rush out and buy it.
Amithlon uses all genuine AmigaOS code.
MorphOS has to provide replacements for everything. Who knows how
buggy or incompatible these will be when you try running Amiga
programs?
The absence of HDToolbox is only one obvious example. How about ARexx
?
AROS avoids this problem by not running Amiga programs at all.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 188 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Ron van Herk on 09-Dec-2002 07:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Mike Bouma):
>I have been attacked by many of you guys as I have stated that MorphOS still >is unstable within my articles. The fact of the matter is that during the >*demonstration* I have seen by betatesters/developers the OS crashed/rebooted >over 20 times. Seriously should I have said nothing to my readers (I have >worded it in the best and positive way I could though)? Now please start to >see your own biases please.
Dear Mike,
That demonstration was a demo of the beta release months ago in Rotterdam. Recently you said you were coming to Aachen to see the full release and take a look at it to see if it has changed and if you should change your mind. As I recall you also agreed to meet Mr. Buck at the Genesi stand and talk about some things..
Where were you, Mike?
This is not an attack, but I don't think you are making a fair judgement here.
I would also like to state that there is a difference between "biassed" and "anti".
Cheers,
Ron
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 189 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 09-Dec-2002 07:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 167 (Anonymous):
> That shut him up :-)
Everyone needs to sleep, don't we?
Anyway onto some more pressing matters...
I believe there's a really big problem within the Amiga community today, people are truly attacking everyone for having different opinions. Many take the easy approach claiming anyone who states a different opinion (than their own) is biased, of course such opinions should be justified as much as possible, this should result into reasoning and healthy discussions, by instead people are being accused for spreading "FUD".
For instance when I explained that there are clear and obvious parallels between Amithlon and MorphOS, regardless that MorphOS itself isn't an emulator I get attacked nasty attacks for this.
There are very clear parallels here, I have used parallels with Amithlon before to explain the internals of technologies like the AmigaDE to many people before. No the AmigaDE is not an emulator and actually in fact far less comparable to Amithlon than MorphOS. Regardless it helped alot of people to understand how this OS really operates.
Now you know that both Amithlon and MorphOS uses a two kernel approach, Amithlon uses Linux and an emulator+exec, MorphOS uses Quark and on top its ABOX, which includes according to the MorphOS team a reimplementation of the Exec kernel.
So yes they are similar in approach and you don't have to be a genius to understand this is a less optimal approach than simply having a native Exec kernel, without an underlying kernel/OS.
I have stated my personal preferences for which I have been attacked as being biased. I have stated my reasoning for which I have been attacked as being a FUD spreader. Where is our good old Amiga community, intellegent people discussing with eachother, tolerance for opinions, willingness to help and listen to eachother?
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 190 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by MIke Bouma on 09-Dec-2002 07:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 188 (Ron van Herk):
Ron, I know you and Bill Buck have my email address, so it will be easy for you to simply drop me a note. This is most certainly not the right place to discuss personal matters, I am shocked...
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 191 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Kemp on 09-Dec-2002 08:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 190 (MIke Bouma):
Mike,
I don't see why you would be "shocked" about Ron's message. You said you would be in Aachen, you weren't. If you had been there, you would certainly have been able to get a different opinion on MorphOS than at the demonstration you previously referred to.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 192 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Dietmar Eilert on 09-Dec-2002 08:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 189 (Mike Bouma):
> For instance when I explained that there are clear and obvious parallels between Amithlon and MorphOS
There are parallels between a chicken and a rocket, that doesn't make a chicken a rocket and vice versa. Why don't you simply stop wasting your and our time with "parallels" ? Stick to the plain facts, people here aren't stupid. Iggy Drougge gave a nice summing-up, that should be the end of it.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 193 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 09-Dec-2002 08:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 191 (Christian Kemp):
No, I wasn't in Aachen due to personal reasons, but yes I have seen MorphOS in action thanks to other people (recordings).
And I know some people who haven't been completely honest with me, with regard to the problems which were supposedly "solved".
I just received yet another example:
http://lloupiot.photos.2.free.fr/aachen02/aachen2002_081.jpg
I wonder why Bill Buck thought of including you, Ron, Wayne, Petra, etc on his childish list. I know some of the people which were included are still pretty objective.... However you guys seem to have made a clear shift in "opinions" and have turned pretty "anti" I would say. As I have been requested for "loyalty" by Bill Buck, have you been so too?
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 194 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 09-Dec-2002 08:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 192 (Dietmar Eilert):
> There are parallels between a chicken and a rocket, that doesn't make a
> chicken a rocket and vice versa.
Reread the comments please. That's very similar to what I have stated.
> Why don't you simply stop wasting your and our time with "parallels" ? Stick
> to the plain facts, people here aren't stupid.
As you can read by some of the comments, not everyone knew these facts. To call them to be "stupid" for needing an example, says more about you than about them.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 195 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 09-Dec-2002 09:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 189 (Mike Bouma):
"Now you know that both Amithlon and MorphOS uses a two kernel approach, Amithlon uses Linux and an
emulator+exec, MorphOS uses Quark and on top its ABOX, which includes according to the MorphOS
team a reimplementation of the Exec kernel.
So yes they are similar in approach and you don't have to be a genius to understand this is a less optimal
approach than simply having a native Exec kernel, without an
underlying kernel/OS. "
It could be but it doesn't have to be. If the box runs as the only
task on the first kernel, then the first kernel (Linux or Quark) is
just a starter and will use negligible CPU time when the system is
running. It acts more like an extended BIOS.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 196 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Kemp on 09-Dec-2002 09:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 193 (Mike Bouma):
> No, I wasn't in Aachen due to personal reasons
Fair enough.
> but yes I have seen MorphOS in action thanks to other people (recordings).
There's a huge difference between a recording and seeing it live. Also bear in mind that people could do anything they wanted with the many MorphOS installations (hich includes messing with the configuration and deleting files). When was the last time you even saw a recording of AmigaOS4 (and not just a few components displayed on somebody's personal machine?).
> I wonder why Bill Buck thought of including you, Ron, Wayne, Petra, etc on
> his childish list. I know some of the people which were included are still
> pretty objective.... However you guys seem to have made a clear shift
> in "opinions" and have turned pretty "anti" I would say. As I have been
> requested for "loyalty" by Bill Buck, have you been so too?
Ah, so now we're no longer "biased" but "anti"?
A "shift in opinions" should certainly be any person's right, especially when considering that a lot of things have changed recently; some for the better on one side, some for the worse on the other. I'll let you guess which side I think is which.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 197 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Andrea Maniero on 09-Dec-2002 09:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 193 (Mike Bouma):
>And I know some people who haven't been completely honest with me, with regard to the problems which were supposedly "solved".
>
>I just received yet another example:
>http://lloupiot.photos.2.free.fr/aachen02/aachen2002_081.jpg
Yup! With 30 machines freely available to everyone to test for two days, this picture is everything you have to prove MorphOS is unstable? You are keeping to post it everywere (I mean, not only YOU). Are you really that desperate? I used to have quite a lot of respect for your articles, although I always thought you were a bit too enthusiast about AmigaInc. announcements that turn to nothing. But I'm too disillusioned with this community to feel disappointed.
>I wonder why Bill Buck thought of including you, Ron, Wayne, Petra, etc on his childish list. I know some of the people which were
>included are still pretty objective.... However you guys seem to have made a clear shift in "opinions" and have turned pretty "anti" I
>would say. As I have been requested for "loyalty" by Bill Buck, have you been so too?
Will you stop making such wild accusations? Anyone not agreeing with your views has surely been paid... You are getting very low with all this "bribery" thing! Care to explain your agenda?
CKemp is a much respected exponent of this community, and it doesn't seem he took side lately. Just because he remembers AInc. doesn't fulfill its promises, has he suddenly become a MorphOS fanatic? My guess is that, at the moment, ha is still not interested in MOS.
Kind regards,
Andrea
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 198 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Daniel Miller on 09-Dec-2002 09:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 196 (Christian Kemp):
Christian Kemp typed:
> Ah, so now we're no longer "biased" but "anti"?
He is trolling. It helps if you start realizing he has made a transition from
advocacy => marketing => spinning => FUD => troll. And IMO he knows exactly
what he is doing.
Most recently he was using OS News to state that MorphOS has "overall
instability" and now his message of the week is 'MorphOS is like Amithlon,
but OS4 is much better.' Here are some quotes:
"The ABOX approach is similar to me as an Amithlon approach, I will not buy
an Amithlon dedicated box neither" (55).
"With regard to the current MorphOS/ABOX approach, without ABOX there is
almost nothing. No Amiga(-like) libraries nor applications, so IMO this
approach is very similar to for instance Amithlon" (77).
"With regard to MorphOS, well it is similar to for instance Amithlon(/Linux)"
(105)
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 199 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 09-Dec-2002 09:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 196 (Christian Kemp):
> Also bear in mind that people could do anything they wanted with the many
> MorphOS installations (hich includes messing with the configuration and
> deleting files).
So? What would be the difference if I went there and used it myself? Couldn't you or MorphOS related employees just claim the same?
> When was the last time you even saw a recording of AmigaOS4 (and not just a
> few components displayed on somebody's personal machine?).
I have seen alot of AmigaOS4, more in terms of features than of MorphOS. Yes AmigaOS4 is still undergoing developement, so what?
> Ah, so now we're no longer "biased" but "anti"?
That's the feeling when I read your emails.
> A "shift in opinions" should certainly be any person's right, especially
> when considering that a lot of things have changed recently; some for the
> better on one side, some for the worse on the other. I'll let you guess
> which side I think is which.
BTW you skipped my question.
It is just remarkable that many people who I have respected in the past, turn to be hostile and continue to support and defend individuals who have shown them to be very childish and unprofessional.
But OK, I hope you will be consistent with your opinions if other projects turn out be a success instead.
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 200 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Bouma on 09-Dec-2002 10:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 197 (Andrea Maniero):
Andrea Maniero,
I understand that you would feel this way, I don't blame you or anyone else who may think I am a "jerk" or on a "crusade" from an outsider perspective. But you don't know what has been going on, behind the scenes between me and many of those people (especially Bill Buck). I am pretty disillusioned myself by the current state of the Amiga community.
Actually if all those events didn't take place, so I would not have been accused, lied to, threatened to, I would probably be defending MorphOS if there would be mass FUD/misinformation attack onto this product. As I have said, I do think the product is promising, but not my personal preference.
If I would think the product is the best option for AmigaOS fans, then I should put my money where my mouth is and buy this product. I hope others will do so too.
Anonymous, there are 230 items in your selection (but only 80 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 230]
Back to Top