29-Mar-2024 13:45 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 56 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 56]
[News] ARC 2002 report by SenexANN.lu
Posted on 09-Dec-2002 15:24 GMT by Christian Kemp (Edited on 2002-12-09 17:04:14 GMT by Christian Kemp)56 comments
View flat
View list
On Morphos-news, there's a nice ARC report, including this tidbit: "The release of the G4 CPU-boards is planned for the end of January - and for this event there will be a limited number of Pegasos-computers in special cases." :) Martin adds: Furthermore there's a more general text for people not familiar with the Amiga market about what Genesi, Pegasos and MorphOS are about. Since my English is very bad and very much "german English" - especially since I wrote it in Aachen -, I suggest that if you are able to understand German, you better read the original version.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 1 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 09-Dec-2002 14:38 GMT
This: "And also regarding the former Amiga-domain video-editing there were good news: Genesi and Electronic Design are bringing professional video editing back to the Pegasos and other Amiga-computers with PowerPC and PCI. For this purpose Electronic Design will make available an OEM version of their analog video editing card as well as every necessary technical documentation and assistence to support analog video-in/out on the Pegasos. Furthermore it is considered to offer a "video editing upgrade" for all Amigas with PPC and PCI (including the "AmigaOne"), which will include a DV & analog video editting card, MorphOS and the editing software. "
Sounds rather stupid, needing to multiboot to (unexisting) MorphOS to run this application on AmigaOne. But not even AOS4 exists on AmigaOne, so let's see what the time brings...
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 2 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Senex on 09-Dec-2002 14:47 GMT
Furthermore there's a more general text for people not familiar with the Amiga market about what Genesi, Pegasos and MorphOS are about:
http://www.morphos-news.de/index.php?lg=en&nid=154&si=1
Since my English is very bad and very much "german English" - especially since I wrote it in Aachen -, I suggest that if you are able to understand German, you better read the original version:
http://www.morphos-news.de/index.php?lg=de&nid=231&si=1
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 3 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 09-Dec-2002 14:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (priest):
>are bringing professional video editing back to the Pegasos
eh.....Pegasos had professional video editing, and then lost it...and now
they are getting professional video editing back ?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 4 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by takemehomegrandma on 09-Dec-2002 15:11 GMT
That's a lot of good news. Thank you for the report!
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 5 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 15:13 GMT
>As well in the Genesi-team is Dr. Allan Havemose
That's a new one.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 6 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Senex on 09-Dec-2002 15:15 GMT
Furthermore I'd like to report something else that did personally impress me very much: how very kind the Genesi people are!
I have to admit that when I travelled to Aachen on Friday, despite all curiousity and enthusiasm, I've been worried a little bit anyhow - meeting all the VIP's from Genesi, being it the "big bosses" Raquel & Bill or the exceptionally gifted engineers Thomas & Gerald [who I envy very much for being able to create their own computers - by the way, instead of mounting their boards into cases, they just put them onto Frankfurt's telephone books :-)] - and on the other side there being just me, only a plain user and Betatester I, who especially even more is not a computer specialist at all, being a molecular biologist and therefore really without deeper knowledge regarding computers...
The more surprised I have been from all the kindness and how I'd been integrated into the team as if it would be the most natural thing on the world. Especially I've been impressed how everybody mucked in - no difference if he was betatester, engineer or even manager. Not only that at the dinner on friday evening, to which Raquel & Bill invited everyone from the team who'd been already there on friday, Thomas Knaebel told me about April, Eclipsis and other stuff very open, friendly and detailed (instead of just ignoring or just looking down at me a little bit, since I'm no specialist), no, especially I was impressed from Bill carrying the heavy boxes onto the first floor to build everything up just like everyone else did or from Raquel, being among other involvements biggest single shareholder and chairman of the board of Pretory, who, when everyone else just had been busy with other things during the show, herself made coffee for everyone!
In general there were no differences - for example, on the name plates there were just the names, but no "CEO", "CTO" or other titles. Therefore I really had problems to describe in my other, more general text ("Elegance through simplicity...") for example what actually Helmut Jost is doing for Genesi. Therefore what I wrote ("Senior Sales Account Executive") isn't really his title, it's just what Ron said what could describe it best, when I asked him for it. But he was right when he said regarding this (and other titles) that it just sounds good but doesn't tell much.
All in all I just can say that the Genesi-team and especially Raquel & Bill are very, very kind and likeable people! I had a great time in Aachen and enjoyed it very much to meet Genesi & friends.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 7 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Senex on 09-Dec-2002 15:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Anonymous):
No, it's not news that Allan Havemose is involved:
http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2002-04-00159-EN.html
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 8 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 09-Dec-2002 15:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Anonymous):
>>As well in the Genesi-team is Dr. Allan Havemose
>That's a new one.
That really *old* news. See interview with Bill Buck and Petro Tyschtschenko
made by amiga-news.de earlier this year.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 9 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by cOrpse on 09-Dec-2002 15:37 GMT
“which continues the still loved "look & feel" of the Commodore-Amiga on modern hardware and extends it corresponding to today's requirements.”
No , OS4 continues the amiga os legacy on modern hardware, MorphOS is a clone of that legacy.
Genesi(formerly thendic)using the Amiga heritage to sell their own (mostly un-related) dirty wares again. Can Genesi stand on their own feet or do they have to Amiga’s through the mud.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 10 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 09-Dec-2002 15:38 GMT
Just a comment on the writing style, reads a bit too like a "touching eulogy".
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 11 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Mickael on 09-Dec-2002 15:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (cOrpse):
@cOrpse
"No , OS4 continues the amiga os legacy on modern hardware"
OS 4 kernel has been totally designed from scratch, so it's not so much a continuation of amiga os legacy.
Anyway AmigaOS 4 design is very very bad IMHO, so except if it's being redesigned correctly, I'd never use AmigaOS 4 as it's designed, as described by Ben Hermans and Friedens brothers, remind me to much Windows 9x.
I prefer a lot a new OS like MorphOS written from scratch but well designed rather than AmigaOS 4 which use the sources of AmigaOS for some parts but for new rewritten ones (like ExecSG) have a bad design.
Of course it's my opinion and I base it on what I've read from Friedens and Hermans here and on some other site. You can of course be not agree, it's just an opinion ;)
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 12 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Robert on 09-Dec-2002 15:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Mickael):
What exactly is it that makes Amiga OS more "Windows 9x" than MorphOS?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 13 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by coldfire on 09-Dec-2002 15:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Mickael):
hehe...why don't you just go ahead and challenge the OS4 fans to a duel? :)
Seriously, how in hell can you tell anything about how OS4 will perform from the info given? It sure as heck didn't sound like "windoze". I'd really like to see both platforms put through their paces head to head but that's gonna be a while yet.
l8r....
coldfire
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 14 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Tuareg on 09-Dec-2002 15:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (cOrpse):
Will you tell us where OS4 is? Ready for Christmas, perphaps...? Running on Articia (faulty chip?)?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 15 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Christophe Decanini on 09-Dec-2002 15:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Mickael):
"Anyway AmigaOS 4 design is very very bad IMHO, so except if it's being redesigned correctly, I'd never use AmigaOS 4 as it's designed, as described by Ben Hermans and Friedens brothers, remind me to much Windows 9x. "
Could you elaborate please ?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 16 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Christophe Decanini on 09-Dec-2002 16:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (cOrpse):
"Genesi(formerly thendic)using the Amiga heritage to sell their own (mostly un-related) dirty wares again. Can Genesi stand on their own feet or do they have to Amiga’s through the mud. "
If you realize how much effort Thendic has done, how much they have contributed in time, ressources, lately , the money that has been invested I would think that they have multiple stable feet while Amiga would look more like a one leg person.
Corpse, this is call competition, this is what keep prices down, and helps moving the technology forward.
BTW OS4 was build on Phase5 heritage (powerup cards). Do you complain about that ?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 17 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by José on 09-Dec-2002 16:23 GMT
"...Furthermore there's a more general text for people not familiar with the Amiga market about what Genesi, Pegasos and MorphOS are about..."
I though they said they didn't need the "name".
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 18 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by redrumloa on 09-Dec-2002 16:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (David Scheibler):
How is Thendic bankrolling all of this? Havemose salary, huge presense at shows etc? Investors? Bill Buck's own pocket? Just curious, and i know it is none of my buisness:-)
/Personal opinion
Bill B, you really should give up on the Amiga connection. It gives alot of people, me included, a knee jerk reaction. Just advertise it as it's own platform that happens to have an Amiga compatible layer. Knee jerk reactions are not what you want from potential customers;-) Besides it's pretty clear no sort of marraige with with the Hyperion/Eyetech/A-inc team will ever happen.
/end rant
As for me, I'm considering ordering a Pegasos now that it's supposedly the end user version available. We'll see how much of my Christmas bonus is left in a week.
BTW: Question for the MOS fans here. What software is bundled in this end user MOS CD? Registered version of Roadshow? Registered version of Voyager? Frogger? What?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 19 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Justin Smith on 09-Dec-2002 16:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Mickael):
>I prefer a lot a new OS like MorphOS written from scratch but well designed
>rather than AmigaOS 4 which use the sources of AmigaOS for some parts but for
>new rewritten ones (like ExecSG) have a bad design.
Mickael, seems to me this is where the MorphOS guys went wrong. AmigaOS isn't perfect, yet they went out of their way to clone all the bad things as well as the good. They had a chance to do better, could have developed their own APIs from scratch as well, but I guess that might require ideas of their own.
As for the 'bad design' of ExecSG, as a concept it seems to be much more interesting that MorphOS's simple Amiga-in-a-box approach, which is just Amithlon on PPC using Quark instead of Linux. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how well both actually work.
Maybe BeOS is more of what you're looking for.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 20 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by redrumloa on 09-Dec-2002 16:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (redrumloa):
Oh yeah. Is the MOS CD a cdr or a professional printed one? Is there a proper installer? Is CGX5 crippled? Details people, details! M-Day has come and gone now right? Can't we potential customers have a feature list and other detailed information?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 21 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 09-Dec-2002 17:03 GMT
I was wondering since Morphos will have a few boxes in the future, how
will apps within the boxes work ? If a new browser, say Mozilla are ported
to Morphos in Q-box, can you then use Yam in A-box, so when you click an
email address in Mozilla, yam starts loading ?
Or is A-box just a temp solution, so users can use atleast use some apps with
the included emulator, while Q-box devels are @ work ?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 22 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by redrumloa on 09-Dec-2002 17:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (redrumloa):
Hmm.. I'd probably have a quicker response if I sprinkled my post with insults... Let's try one..
The MOS butterfly is a blantant ripoff of the current M$ "Safer with the butterfly" ads!! R$ is a crack smoker and Gensi car bombed Amiga inc's headquarters!!
Disclaimer:The above statements are for demonstration purposes only and are not meant to represent actual facts.
;-)
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 23 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 17:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (catohagen):
In short: they dont have a clue yet regarding this.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 24 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 17:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (redrumloa):
What do you call it over there? "dramatized"?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 25 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by cOrpse on 09-Dec-2002 17:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Christophe Decanini):
"Corpse, this is call competition, this is what keep prices down, and helps moving the technology forward.
BTW OS4 was build on Phase5 heritage (powerup cards). Do you complain about that ?"
competition would use their own selling points and not commodores.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 26 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Christophe Decanini on 09-Dec-2002 17:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (redrumloa):
"Can't we potential customers have a feature list and other detailed information?"
I agree with that, it is time to have a feature list !
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 27 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 17:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Christophe Decanini):
>I agree with that, it is time to have a feature list !
its probably too late, people have choosen their hardware/software...
And as Neko said, the list will just contain small unimportant stuff
as they are afraid Hyperion will steal their ideas...
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 28 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 18:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Anonymous):
I hope that is not their official stance.
i would not buy a car blind, neither will i buy a computer as such. Or they just expect us to be good mindless lemmings?
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 29 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Mickael on 09-Dec-2002 18:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Justin Smith):
@Justin
"Mickael, seems to me this is where the MorphOS guys went wrong. AmigaOS isn't perfect, yet they went out of their way to clone all the bad things as well as the good. They had a chance to do better, could have developed their own APIs from scratch as well, but I guess that might require ideas of their own.
As for the 'bad design' of ExecSG, as a concept it seems to be much more interesting that MorphOS's simple Amiga-in-a-box approach, which is just Amithlon on PPC using Quark instead of Linux. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how well both actually work."
I think you didn't understand what is MorphOS. MorphOS does not stupidly clone the good and bad APIs. It also have some rewrites to make APIs better without breaking the compatibility. In fact almost every things that could be improved without breaking the compatibility have been improved in the A-Box.
And as stated by Ben Hermans, and Friedens brothers themselves here on ANN, AmigaOS 4 design will need to be changed when they will have to implement the usability of the memory protection and they precised that they'll use at this time (So for AmigaOS > 4.0 ) a sandbox to run AmigaOS 3.x and 4.0 apps to not break the compatibility.
The design of AmigaOS 4.0 IMHO is not good because it is not enough flexible for now to allow the integration and usage of the memory protection later as Ben and Friedens have said themselves. That's why it's remind me Windows 9x which wasn't enough flexible to allow integration of true memory protection because it didn't separated clearly old and new apps.
So AmigaOS > 4.0 will may have a better design, but the AmigaOS 4.0 have for me a not very good design as it'll need important modifications in the future.
MorphOS already have a design similar to what Hyperion said they'll do when they'll have to integrate the memory protection, and so the MorphOS Team will be able to concentrate only on writing new APIs for the Q-Box when they'll do it and will not need to redesign the OS. This means MorphOS is far more flexible for now and so offer the possibility to see significant modifications sooner and easier.
I hope this cleared up my position :)
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 30 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 09-Dec-2002 18:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (redrumloa):
>How is Thendic bankrolling all of this? Havemose salary, huge presense at
>shows etc? Investors? Bill Buck's own pocket? Just curious, and i know it is
>none of my buisness:-)
You could read the last paragraph (Background) to get a clue who is involved in
this project.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 31 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Christophe Decanini on 09-Dec-2002 18:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (cOrpse):
>competition would use their own selling points and not commodores.
Dealears affiliated with Commodore are gone since a long long time.
Go ask Amiga dealers what they think about AmigaINC ...
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 32 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by The_Editor on 09-Dec-2002 18:45 GMT
Electronic-Design coming back to the Amiga...
Woo Hoo
Does that mean my constant plugging of ED on Amiga Forums has finally done some good ??
FYI ... I initially changed from using Amiga's to Pc thanks to White Knight persuading me ( At WOA Hammersmith) to try out ED's new AvCardPro NLE solution. Which I did .. And am still using to this day also purchasing their AnDi card as well..... Which is now in Australia !!.... I hated having to use Windows.... And have longed to be able to use my edit card on the new Amiga Compatible systems...
If this is true about Electronic-design coming back to the Amiga Fold... What a joyous day !!
Many thanks to all involved.
Paul ...Peterborough ..Uk
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 33 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 19:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Anonymous):
> And as Neko said, the list will just contain small unimportant stuff
> as they are afraid Hyperion will steal their ideas...
LOL yeah right, if they'd want this they could just pick up a betatester.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 34 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Ace2k on 09-Dec-2002 19:31 GMT
MorphOS feels like an Amiga ? no way !
I was at he WOASE show and the Pegasos I used felt more like WinUAE !!!
I ran 2 firwork demos in a small window and I ran a paint package in the background - after that the OS was slowed down to a crawl most GUI responses were lagged badly a third demo couldnt handle it.
I am sorry - alot of work needs to be done to MorphOS.
My basic 3.1 Workbench installed on a standard 2MB A1200 flew in comparison.
PS: The Pegasos mobo is a great achievement, and impressive features.
But MorphOS is not for me - YET.
-My personal experience from the show !
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 35 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 09-Dec-2002 20:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Ace2k):
Hello,
" My basic 3.1 Workbench installed on a standard 2MB A1200 flew in comparison. "
I think you sur-estimate your A1200. On my A1200 040/25MHz + PPC 175Mhz under AmigaOS/WarpOS, I wasn't even able to play a MP3 and do something else without having multitasking problems. The sound was skipping all the time, it was unhearable. And I can tell you that the demos you mentionned take much more CPU time than a MP3. And your basic A1200 can't even run a MP3 correctly (obviously) so don't say it would flew with this demos. I've tested this exacts demos under AROS (in fact it's AROS demos so...) and my Celeron 500MHz PC was a lot more slower than what I have experienced on the Pegasos.
So please compare what is comparable.
Regards
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 36 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 20:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (catohagen):
> Or is A-box just a temp solution, so users can use atleast use some apps with the included emulator
You will confuse some here with such a question, somewhat suggesting that abox is mostly an "emulator". It appears as if all these "boxes" get people more confused than rocket science.
So again, as a cautionary measure: the a-box is not an emulator. It's a PPC OS, replicating the AmigaOS API. It just happens to include an emulator for 68K binaries. a-box applications make no use of that thing: they run at full PPC speed in the context of an AmigaOS-inspired PPC OS. The emulator is only put to use if and when user-installed 68K code is executed. To what extend that will be the case is everybody's best guess. Probably quite a bit for some time to come, so it better be good. But this is hardly the intended form of use of a-box, which is a new PPC OS taking off.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 37 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by anonymous on 09-Dec-2002 21:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Anonymous):
"And as Neko said, the list will just contain small unimportant stuff
as they are afraid Hyperion will steal their ideas..."
Now there's an ironic statement if I ever heard one.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 38 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Felix on 09-Dec-2002 21:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Ace2k):
Well you might think its like using WinUae
on a fancy PC, but i have one at home even
without the April chip present, and with
older MorphOS, and i agree with you some
of the AROS compiled demos slow down some
system functions drastic, but now that i
have my pegasos a while, i have installed
many things 68k/ppc/wos/mos, and most apps
run like hell, also the 68k ones, like
Ibrowse, its like a native ppc browser here,
while YAM-MOS/ACS-68k/Quake2/Quake1/Dopus5,
all are running in the background, and when
i start AmiGOD then still i have the fastest
machine ever.
Bye
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 39 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Hammer on 09-Dec-2002 23:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Frodon):
>And your basic A1200 can't even run a MP3 correctly (obviously) so don't say >it would flew with this demos. I've tested this exacts demos under AROS (in >fact it's AROS demos so...) and my Celeron 500MHz PC was a lot more slower >than what I have experienced on the Pegasos.
"Celeron 500MHz"(with it's standard 66MHz FSB) wouldn't able to match ~600Mhz PPC G3(I’m assuming its 133Mhz FSB). CeleronA is hardly a "real CPU".
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 40 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Mickael on 10-Dec-2002 06:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Hammer):
" "Celeron 500MHz"(with it's standard 66MHz FSB) wouldn't able to match ~600Mhz PPC G3(I’m assuming its 133Mhz FSB). CeleronA is hardly a "real CPU"."
Sorry that's the CPU that i've on my PC, I can only compare with that. Anyway, my Celeron got a 100MHZ FSB and it perform quite well under Amithlon (of course not as well as a Pegasos). And AROS also havae a very good speed. It's very fast compared to my A1200 btw. So maybe it's not a "real cpu" but it's not so slow and was just to give an idea of the performances of AROS demos on another configuration.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 41 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 10-Dec-2002 06:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Hammer):
Hello,
I agree that the Celeron is not a very good CPU. But as Mickael have
understood, it was just to give an idea.
@Mickael: To have a 100MHz FSB you should have a faster Celeron than
mine (500MHz mine :) ). Or you made a mistake ;)
Regards
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 42 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 10-Dec-2002 09:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Anonymous):
So "it's not an emulator". But I think the questions are still valid:
:how will apps within the boxes work ?
:If a new browser, say Mozilla are ported to Morphos in Q-box, can you then use Yam in A-box, so when you click an email address in Mozilla, yam starts loading ?
So, how does those OS3.x apps, OS3.xAPI+extensions apps, Q-box apps and others interwork?
Will AREXX work between those different environments/boxes?
>Or is A-box just a temp solution, so users can use atleast use some apps with the included emulator, while Q-box devels are @ work ?
As far as I know. A-box (AOS3.x API + extensions) is a temp solution (no memory protection & all) to get started, to get Amiga application base onboard, to get Amigans onboard.
The true life, the future, of MorphOS is planned to be via Q-box, someday.
MorphOS is a little bit like AmigaOS5 to me. In the AOS5 there is planned to be a AOS4 sand box (like A-box is the AOS3.x sandbox) and a intent/AA box and native AOS5 apps.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 43 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 10-Dec-2002 11:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (priest):
> So, how does those OS3.x apps, OS3.xAPI+extensions apps, Q-box apps and others interwork?
There are no q-box apps, there is no q-box operating system. q-box (as I understand it) is a low-level PPC kernel providing only the services required to run the "Amiga-inspired PPC OS" named a-box. At the moment, you might as well see the q-box as the lowest abtraction level of a-box, it doesn't seem to have any other use.
If there has been work to expand this minimal kernel layer into a full-blow OS, somone please enlighten me. At that point it will indeed be interesting to see how a-box integrates with other q-box applications, in terms of services (clipboard) and in terms of sharing resources (display). Until then, it's regular Amiga-style interaction, possibly supplemented by whatever they add to their idea of AmigaOS. Maybe they do/will provide APIs to access services of the current minimal q-box kernel layer, but I'd expect those to be low-level, like providing protected q-box memory to applications that request it.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 44 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Leif on 10-Dec-2002 11:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
You are mixing up Q\box with Quark.
Quark is the minimal kernel that Q and A boxes runs on.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 45 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 10-Dec-2002 12:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (Leif):
> You are mixing up Q\box with Quark.
You are right, name confusion, I apologize. In terms of the question asked that doesn't change much, does it ? There is a minimal kernel layer starting with the letter "Q" ;), providing services for a-box and that's it. No q-box os, no q-box apps, no interaction between non-existant entities and a-box apps.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 46 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Leif on 10-Dec-2002 13:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Anonymous):
Yeah.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 47 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 10-Dec-2002 16:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
I've tried to dig my understanding of the MorphOS from all available public sources.
Some bits from the morphos doc:
****************
The Structure of MorphOS
The MorphOS System is based around the minimalist Quark microkernel. On top of the kernel are currently two "Boxes" the first, currently in the final stages of development is the A-Box, the second box currently in development is the significantly more advanced Q-Box.
At the time of writing (November 2002) most development has focused on the A-Box but considerable design work has been done on the Q-Box.
The A-Box can run Amiga RTG (Re-Targetable Graphics) applications as it includes a complete PowerPC native clean-room reimplementation of version 3.1 of the Amigas' Operating System (herein AOS) and a JIT (Just In Time compiler) based 68K emulator.
The Q-Box on the other hand shall be new and will require it's own applications, but by including compatibility with Amiga applications through the A-Box, MorphOS is able to start with an existing, mature application base while the Q-Box is in development.
*******************
Q - The Future of MorphOS
...
Applications shall run in the Q-Box and make API calls via a message passing system. ....
*******************
...At time of writing the Quark kernel exists but is incomplete. The rest of Q is still only at the planning stage...
******************
So, to me it seems that Q-Box is the future of MorphOS (apps). But so far (and in the near future) all native morph OS apps are A-box apps (OS3.x API + extensions). And boxes tend to have walls/barriers, etc...
Will it be possible to use the clipboard, AREXX, etc. between apps in these boxes. Is it possible to launch native extended AOS3.x or q-box tools from AOS3.x dopus, etc...
It would not be nice if those apps can not communicate/share information or if enabling something for the interworking disables some other things like memory protection or fasyt message passing in q-box. If there will be difficulties I might need to replace my OS3.xAPI apps with "OS3.xAPI+extensions" apps ($$) and later with q-box apps ($$$) or loose application interworking capability.
And the HW drivers running inside the a-box is also a "question triggering" issue... not going to go into that...
But anyway. I think it is too early to ask these questions. I think I need to wait a little bit longer.
(so far, the more I ask and the more I get answers MorphOS looks better and better, in general I mean)
Originally I thought "all" quark kernell features are available in MOS1.0. I'm a little bit disappointed. It would help a little if I knew how much it will be different to develop for q-box than for a-box?
(developing for intent VP would be ideal, but only if it existed everywhere, especially on Amiga computer platforms.... hmmm... which one becomes first, a seriously usable desktop environment in q-box or in AmigaDE/intent ? no one knows, only time will tell)
btw. To those who are building the MOS feature list: please make clear what features are available in the A-Box now (MOS1.0?) and what will only be available in the q-box later (MOS2.0?). (while still not forgetting the tools -list)
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 48 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Ace2k on 10-Dec-2002 19:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Frodon):
Who is talking about mp3 ??
I am stating that when the system is not running an application - so we are talking gui responce and the Amiga-feel here - not number crunch - speed test.
I am talking about Amiga feel test, how smooth the mouse moves, how responsive the OS is.
That is what I did NOT experience with the Pegasos/MorphOS.
Im trying to explain that when MorphOS runs say 10 applications it can run to a crawl.
A1200 can handle these with ease - and they dont have to be processor intensive tasks.
If you say the AGA chipset allows this smoothness, then tell me that MorphOS is not using 3D accelerated functions from a state-of-the-art PCI/AGP graphics card.
It is you who is trying to compare CPU speed rather than how it feels to the user - IE end result of OS/cpu/gfx combination.
You may not like the answer, right now that is how MorphOS felt to me using it.
This may change in the future (I hope) as MorphOS can be quite promosing.
Later
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 49 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 10-Dec-2002 20:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Ace2k):
>so we are talking gui responce [...] not number crunch [...] A1200 can handle these with ease
I have tried Morphos on the Amiga Retro 2002. It had a nice 24/32 bit user interface, which would bring every A1200 down to its knees, and it felt responsive, fast, snappy, as one should expect from a moderately-paced 600MHz computer.
None of my real Amigas ever felt "snappy" to me, in fact they were all a breed of snails (however, my A300 was never upgraded beyond 040 /w PicassoIV, before it was mothballed and finally sold). I'm eternally thankful to the people who made it possible to use 2GHz+ Intel boxes with AmigaOS.
ARC 2002 report by Senex : Comment 50 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 10-Dec-2002 20:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Ace2k):
Hello ace2k,
I'm glad that you can run 10 apps without prob on your A1200 but this
must be very non CPU demanding softwares. On mine 040 1200 it was
crawling with 10 apps demanding a minimum of CPU power.
Any a bit multitasking OS can run lot of apps that ask quite no CPU
power. Even MacOS classic which is a not very multitask OS is capable
of that. But when you start to run an app demanding a bit of CPU it's
an other story.
And I can tell you that if you run AROS like demos on your A1200 it'll
crawl very very much (this are software rendered demos only so...).
The Pegasos with MorphOS perform a lot better with this demos, but of
course if you add a lot of them at the same time you get slow down at
the end. It's mathematicaly logical :)
Regards
Anonymous, there are 56 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 56]
Back to Top