20-Apr-2024 08:12 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 149 items in your selection (but only 49 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 149]
[Web] First review of OS4-pre?ANN.lu
Posted on 07-Jun-2004 23:36 GMT by Emil 'opi' Oppeln Bronikowski149 comments
View flat
View list
OSNews just raported about AmigaOS4-pre review done by Sascha "SieGeL" Pfalz. Go, and read it. It's kinda shame that, I, ,TheBlueSider'' have to add sutch intresting newsitem instead someone from Red Side. ;-))
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 101 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 08-Jun-2004 21:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (Jacek Piszczek):
* Now... don't think too much of yourself.

i don't. i reported the strict facts. i've found something on mos that were causing massive mem fragmentation that you devs didn't noticed about. it's the truth. after that, yes , you're right, i'm unable to explain it, or correct it. but anyway mos isn't opensource, so even if i knew i couldn't have corrected it myself.


* Knowing the effect doesn' necessary mean that you know where the bug * really is (from a dev pov). If we knew the reason at that time it
* would have been fixed right away (the fix made to 1.4.2 btw).
* Sending the same report several times doesn't help anyone solve the * problem, it's just annoying.

yes. that's the problem when you devs don't give feedback to us users.
i meant i didn't knew if ppl (like you jaceck) corrected the stuff,
or planned to, or even noticed me.
when someone report bug, you should tell him something like:
ok, i got it, i'm taking care of this problem now, tnx .

(tnx is optional but is alway appreciated ;)



* And it's even more annoying when the
* bugreport is just a stupid rant and doesn't contain any useful info, * just like your "bug reports".

next time you'll provide feedback so ppl will knew they were heard and they will close their mouth.
and waiting few months for mos1.4.2 (and peg2) to fix the stuff is really....

perfect exemple of what i was speaking about. you try to help, and then, they treat you as annoyance and all.. and you wait months for something that were alreday corrected but just not available to the public for what reason?

ok.. now you see, i won't annoy you anymore, i won't report and help to debug mos any further.
i think you don't care? me too.

and don't lower me because i'm not at the same devs skills as you!
the problem was found by noone but me.
and this prob caused serious troubles to mos overall stability.
so don't say it was minor and that i'm just a ignorant dwarf ;)

tnx
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 102 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 08-Jun-2004 21:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 101 (freaks):
and don't say i hammered the mos beta2 ml because it's not true.
i posted that report few times it's true, but i didn't re re re re posted it like hell..
i just reported it 3/4 times and you can judge me like greenboy as annoyance and all just for that?

well, dig the log. and we'll see ;)
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 103 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 08-Jun-2004 21:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (Jacek Piszczek):
i just can believe it.. i was re-reading your post Jacek.
you call my report stupids.. but if i wasn't there at that time mos 1.4.2 would probley still have that huge problem..
what we are speaking about is mem fragmentation per chunk of 50 mb !
reproductible anytime.. who want a system that is unusable after 3 or 4 times of this fragmentation problem?

mos 1.3 and 1.4 simply couldn't run stable. when i waked up in the morning, switching on the monitor , i was sure the peg crashed in the night.. and that was the case. thoses stability issues should not enable mos to use 1.x version number.
for me a product which use 1.x version should be able to run 2 or 3 days without pause at least. (see: even few hours for mos)
sorry but i call a cat a cat.
i don't lie or says mos is rock stable as almost all mos users do when it absolutly not true.
it is getting better yes. but it is not stable yet. (at least thoses version i have tested: 1.3 and 1.4)
you should better tell the truth, like "it is not really stable yet, but it will get a lot better soon" cause thoses lies i've heard from some devs and lots of mos users saying it is more stable than any amiga ever produced..
truth always goes public sooner or later so.. better being honest.

sorry for mos all what i'm saying will not help it.. i know..
but i had to answer to all thoses falses erroneous things ppl were suggesting about me. or about mos.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 104 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 08-Jun-2004 21:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (Kjetil):
Kjetil, for the last time, the Q/Box development will NOT affect the A/Box.
Already existing applications and old applications will still reside in the
A/Box! Is that so hard to understand?
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 105 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 08-Jun-2004 21:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (freaks):
and you now say that you haven't ranted/flooded. Just look what you do now. To bad you've sold your peg.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 106 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 08-Jun-2004 21:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (freaks):
Ehm, do I have a special Peg or something? I never noticed such a big stability
problem, many times, while being busy, I leave the Peg on, and MOS just keeps
going for days!
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 107 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 08-Jun-2004 21:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 105 (brotheris):
yes..
bah i'll be on a1/os4 pretty soon ;)
maybe i'll buy a peg again someday. if things get better.
never say never..
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 108 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 08-Jun-2004 22:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 106 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
oh yea?
then why not just test out some stuffs:
- open close ibrowse 6-7 times..
- open close voyager the same..
- use mplayer to view at least 3 or 4 divx movies
- play! ;) i dunno.. quake..quake2 dunno.. try to adjust resolutions.. try few games.
- oh i almost forgot: amirc 3.x have to be in background all the time,
with miami..
- play with mails..
- open lots of windows... few file managers
- and listen a lot of mp3/ogg.

that should do it.. it resumes few (2or3) days of uses.
well for what i know, even using voyager or ibrowse or amirc alone could kill mos. just to have to surf on the wrong site and crash no more work and data.

well with a todo list like that i'm sure anyone could crash mos.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 109 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 08-Jun-2004 22:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 108 (freaks):
Look, if the MOS developers bothered reading all of your rants they'd
certainly not have time to do any development.

Now I haven't read all of your posts here in this thread (it's quite
repetitive and boring, and the fact that your shift key doesn't seem
to work doesn't help either).

My personal experience is that there is great effort made to take care
of bugreports, but that people who are too impatient and/or make
really useless "reports" (like complaining about some perceived
problem without any clear description of how to reproduce it) can be
ignored. I'm one of those who think MOS would benefit from some more
formal bugreporting system, then these rants could be classified as
"useless bugreport, case closed". Also it sometimes happens that the
developers forget to give feedback even though they have read and even
fixed a bug, which easily happens when the procedure isn't that
structured.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 110 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 08-Jun-2004 22:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 97 (freaks):
- i translated the whole website pegasos-japan for free !
because genesi was sending some pegasos to japan and wanted to have a website peg-japan... i did all the translation from english to japanese for free.

"All"? Several pages, which seemed to be the core information, were sent to me for translation (also for free, of course). (Actually my 16-year-old daughter (fully qualified) did most of it. :-))

-- gary_c
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 111 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Sallin on 09-Jun-2004 00:39 GMT
Wow, what an incredible mess...

Since you want to play this not very funny game, here we go:

You used to send a lot of emails in a few days, all asking the same thing. It's a bit normal people get tired and stop replying after a while.

The memory fragmentation bug was known before you report it.

Bugs can not all be found and fixed in 30 seconds. A bugfix can not be released when you decide it but when it does exist.

It would be stupid to release bugfix without first testing them for a while. You must be sure the problem is really fixed and another one was not created. If you can't wait a few days/weeks, too bad.
The bugfix you complained about was released months ago.

About unstability, well the AmigaOS and the ABox environment are not designed to survive nasty crashes caused by buggy softwares. It's like that and you can blame whoever you want but certainly not the MorphOS authors. Whatever some people can tell, adding full memory protection and resource tracking is impossible. Another (incompatible) environment will be needed to achieve this goal.

You are not easy to follow when you post from multiple email acounts under several different nick names and cycle between them. At least, you lose me several times and I didn't know anymore who I was talking to.

Several developers spent time to isolate the bug of the Japanese tools you use. In the end, it was a bug in the tool itself. LockIBase() was not used correctly (do you remember?) and your opensource tool was modified/fixed.
Another tool was developed just for you. Now you bash the same people for not being helpful ? I'm sure they appreciate it a lot...
You were even invited to the workplace of a few developers... :-|

I think a part of the problem is due to some misunderstanding. Example: you report a problem when moving windows... you are asked the name of the application and the
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 112 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by JKD on 09-Jun-2004 01:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (freaks):
Sooo...it won't be any news to you that I 17 or 18 day uptimes with my Peg I and MOS1.3? This is with running Voyager - apparently the most unstable application in existence according to some...

Sure...I noticed memory fragmentation...I also noticed crashes *RELATED TO CERTAIN APPLICATIONS*.

The OS vendor isn't responsible for assuring all software works 100%..in fact, given the huge range of software you CAN INSTALL and have it work....doesn't necessarily mean you should!
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 113 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by James Carroll on 09-Jun-2004 01:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (freaks):
Freaks... I dont think you should sell your Pegasos. It's a relatively new system, and it will take a short while to get these kinks out of the OS, etc. I'd stick with it if I were you.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 114 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Lilo on 09-Jun-2004 03:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 92 (freaks):
>excuse me but when you see ppl saying ' mos is really stable"
>but, for me i didn't shared this feeling.

Both AmigaOS and MorphOS's ABox will be unstable as they always be because they lack really full memory protection.
So you won't see a really stable AmigaOS like before a long time I'm afraid, as implementing a full memory protection to require it to be really stable is something that is not compatible with the way AmigaOS 3.x was working and so as long as you're with an AmigaOS 3.x compatibility (through a box like MorphOS or directly liek AmigaOS 4.x)), full memory protection is impossible and so real stability also.

To have been able to try both AOS 4 and MOS recently, I would say they are as stable as an AmigaOS like OS can be. Ok they both still have some bugs because of they are still young that make them a bit more unstable than an AmigaOS 3.x (MOS is more mature in this aspect than AOS 4 for now). But I perfectly understand why some people said "mos is really stable". It's is the case! ...as much as a non memory protected OS can be.

> the problem was simply mos and ambient themselves.

I agree Ambient is the weakness point of stability in MOS. But rewritting a Workbench like desktop from scratch is not an easy task.
Tha AOS 4 Team will have to face it in the future, they chose the easy way for now by using the Workbench 3.9, but as Ben Hermans himself stated in WOA SE 2002 IIRC, they will also have to do the hard task, as he said himself, of rewritting the Workbench from scratch.
So basically the MOS Team is facing today with Ambient the issues that the AOS 4 Team will face in the future.

> seeing this kind of problems could reach version 1.4 that easly, was scary. but the most scary part
> was genesi/mos team, already having the correction but refusing to give it until next mos release
> (1.4.1 as you seems to point it out)

Sorry but 1.4.1 as its name indicate, is only a MINOR UPDATE, not a release. And in commercial OS the updates only come this way (look at Windows or the MacOS, it's the same).
If you want to have dayly updates, use an OpenSource OS like Linux (ans you'll also discover the disavantage of daily updates, that is to say a lot more unstability (even for memory protected OS like linux)).

So I don't see what was scary in this way. Maybe you found that this bug wasn't corrected enough fast. But it's not because you could reproduce it easily that it was easily to correct. Lot of "apparently easy" bugs takes time to be corrected fully, it's not that strange or scaring, it's the reality.

As my personal opinion, both AOS 4 (almost 3 years to be available in a "pre-release" version with still lot of basic features lacking (JIT, UDMA driver...etc)) and MOS (slow updates, but still faster than AOS 4) are progressing too slowly. But regarding the size of the developpers Team of these OSes, it's not that surprising.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 115 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 09-Jun-2004 04:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 113 (James Carroll):
>Freaks... I dont think you should sell your Pegasos. It's a relatively new system, and it will take a short while to get these kinks out of the OS, etc. I'd stick with it if I were you.


You talking of us freaks in general, or just Freaks? :)
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 116 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 09-Jun-2004 05:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Don Cox):
Indeed. I even know people who use Arexx on the Amiga instead of clicking around a programs GUI. Weirdos, eh?

Oh, wait. :-P

When I'm in Linux I do the excact same thing as many Amigans do with Arexx. I script a lot. That way I can be more productive. I can't say I know a lot of people who prefer not to install X on their systems, but personally I prefer not to install KDE and Gnome. A simple window manager capable of launching programs will do just fine. Anything that CAN be scripted WILL, using a CLI in a window.

I think it would be cool to see if something along these lines could be done in AOS/AROS/MOS. Why not replace workbench with something completely different? Not just LOOK different, but WORK different? There's more than one way to make a GUI...
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 117 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 09-Jun-2004 05:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Anonymous):
On the other hand, try to allocate 60 megabytes on a classic Amiga with 61MB free. VERY likely it won't work, because the memory needs to be CONTIGOUS. The same thing applies to OS4, except there some memory has had to be earmarked as physical memory and put into a different pool (one that will never be paged to disk). So if you have 1G of memory you can expect malloc(400*10^20) to work, but not malloc(900*10^20). But seriously, is this something you would want to do? I don't think so. How many algoritms are you running on your Amiga that needs a gig of memory anyway? Shouldn't something like that be run on a XEON with 18 gigs of RAM?
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 118 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Guest on 09-Jun-2004 05:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 114 (Lilo):
> Both AmigaOS and MorphOS's ABox will be unstable as they always be because they
> lack really full memory protection.

The AmigaOS4.0 pre-release is alot more stable as AmigaOS3.x and it does "catch" bad behaving software pretty well.

Maybe we shouldn't blind ourselves on how memory protection has been implemented in bloated OSes too much? AmigaOS4's protection and stability may well be enough for a thin multimedia OS, instead for a "professional" server OS.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 119 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 09-Jun-2004 05:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 110 (gary_c):
That "(fully qualified)" made me wonder. Does she have papers to prove she is qualified to be a 16 year old daughter? :-)
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 120 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 09-Jun-2004 05:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 111 (Nicolas Sallin):
I think you're supposed to "reply to", not "add comment" ;-)
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 121 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 09-Jun-2004 05:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 108 (freaks):
You forgot something... This fragmentation bug is gone...
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 122 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 09-Jun-2004 05:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 118 (Guest):
Both OSes catch some stuff, it's just not possible to have full MP in an AmigaOS
(compatible) environment.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 123 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by drHirudo on 09-Jun-2004 06:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 80 (freaks):
Thanks for your opinion. My AOS4/MOS dilemma is solved now.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 124 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 09-Jun-2004 06:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 123 (drHirudo):
What can I say... LOL?

There are such comedians here it kills me
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 125 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Guest on 09-Jun-2004 06:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 122 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> Both OSes catch some stuff, it's just not possible to have full MP in an AmigaOS
>(compatible) environment.

As AFAIK "full memory protection" is part AmigaOS' roadmap and thus may not always be true.

But I meant that there may be a better way to implement protection than the way Windows, Linux and Mac handle this. The end result (OS not crashing, stability, good performance, low bloat, flexibility, etc) is IMO more important.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 126 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 09-Jun-2004 06:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 125 (Guest):
The point is that you cannot implement MP and stay in an AmigaOS compatible
environment. As soon as MP is up, legacy apps are gone. All of them.
The only way to solve this is to split up legacy apps and new apps.
I don't know how this is going to happen in OS4 but in MorphOS, that's the
point of the Q/Box.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 127 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by drHirudo on 09-Jun-2004 07:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 126 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> The point is that you cannot implement MP and stay in an AmigaOS compatible
> environment. As soon as MP is up, legacy apps are gone. All of them.

I think it can be solved like Apple did this in OSX - by using a virtual machine for the old apps.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 128 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by drHirudo on 09-Jun-2004 07:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 126 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> The point is that you cannot implement MP and stay in an AmigaOS compatible
> environment. As soon as MP is up, legacy apps are gone. All of them.

I think it can be solved like Apple did this in OSX - by using a virtual machine for the old apps.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 129 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Lilo on 09-Jun-2004 07:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 118 (Guest):
> The AmigaOS4.0 pre-release is alot more stable as AmigaOS3.x and it does "catch"
> bad behaving software pretty well.
> Maybe we shouldn't blind ourselves on how memory protection has been implemented
> in bloated OSes too much? AmigaOS4's protection and stability may well be enough
> for a thin multimedia OS, instead for a "professional" server OS.

I was speaking about FULL memory protection, not what hyperion themselves call "limited memory protection".

Both AmigaOS 4.x and MorphOS 1.x ABox have "limited memory protection", that is to say some stuff are protected, in fact all that can be protected without breaking the compatibility.
But it's still not full memory protection and even if you are happy with it, I don't think it's enough personally for real stability. I've been able to crash quite easily both AOS 4 pre-release and MOS with bad behaving software even with their "limited memory protection". So they are still not real stable OS, at least still too far from the stability you have in really fully memory protected OSes.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 130 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Guest on 09-Jun-2004 08:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 129 (Lilo):
> both AOS 4 pre-release

So you are an AmigaOne owner?
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 131 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 09-Jun-2004 08:28 GMT
first i must admit once i've sold my peg, i was so disgusted by everything mos that i asked ppl unsubscribe me from the mos ml.
i asked to you henes! you didn't wanted to do so. so i m,ade myself clear and finally someone unsubscribed me.

i must admit with gary_c, my transltion was not 100% done but 95% instead.

then, something i must say: don't say memory protection cannot be acheived on amigaos and compatible system!
i hate this . it's as stupid as saying " amiga is dead ;)
let me tell you this, even crap zindoz and macos9x were finally able to do some tricks to implement mp or at least defragment memory.
of course it can be done on amiga compatible systems.
it's just like pci buses... lots of ppl told us: " look it can't be done on amiga... look now we have at least 3 diffrent pci buses available..
so strart using you brain ;)
even i can see few ways to implement mp to aos, so it is definatly possible of course..

and then henes you're accusing me to have posted stuffs about " art of war ? sorry it wasn't me .

well and finally, i see that you deform reality and tell lies about me just for trying to put mos out of the troubles.

but the troubles are here. i'm not inventing it.
and i'm definatly not what you seems to describe, like a nuisance, dangerous or bad person. i tryed frankly to help mos.
and here i see what i got for that.

thanks again.
well i've nothing to see with morphos anymore.
you mos officials and devs disgusted me of morphos.
lies, nofeedback,secrets,don't care about users... and finally trying to make a fool of me on ann.lu, in order to try to put mos out of problems. you should learn that OSes are nothing without users.
i serouisly hope you'll finally adopt a more proffesionnal attitude.
i'm now ending this discution as i said what i had to.
you can put any lies on me now i don't care do what youwant.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 132 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 09-Jun-2004 08:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 131 (freaks):
No offence, but You are a bit ridiculing yourself by all this i did/i know/you lie-ranting... just my fifty cents.

Why not start ranting about the other issues that has been fixed aswell.. like the JIT which was missing in 1.3, IDE-bug which was corrected only a few months ago etc. etc.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 133 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 09-Jun-2004 08:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 118 (Guest):
"The AmigaOS4.0 pre-release is alot more stable as AmigaOS3.x and it does "catch" bad behaving software pretty well" It can't find out when programs are trashing each other. There are many many public system structures and lists which can be trashed by other programs at any time.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 134 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 09-Jun-2004 08:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 131 (freaks):
"then, something i must say: don't say memory protection cannot be acheived on amigaos and compatible system!" It can be done. It is done. Get Windows and run Amiga apps in he multiple WinUAE instances. When one Amiga app crash other WinUAE instances are still intact.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 135 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Sallin on 09-Jun-2004 09:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 131 (freaks):
@freaks

When you requested it, I unsubscribed you from the lists I had access too.

Are you a nuisance ? Yes, you flooded all other lists with the content of an offtopic book.

Are you a bad person ? Certainly, you are proving it here. You start bullshiting on a public forum and then accuse others of making a fool of you.

Are you dangerous ? No, you are just a liar.

I feel ashamed to share your firstname. I hope you won't post The Bible on ANN. :-(
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 136 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Lilo on 09-Jun-2004 10:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 131 (freaks):
> let me tell you this, even crap zindoz and macos9x were finally able to do
> some tricks to implement mp or at least defragment memory.
> of course it can be done on amiga compatible systems.

WRONG!! You lost 1000 points!

Neither Windows 3.x and MacOS 9.x (or lower) have full memory protection. Even Window 9x isn't fully protected as part of the lowlevel system were still using the old Win 3.x design and are so not protected. Win9x was, in the windows world, the first step to a fully memory protected system, but as Win 9x was still based on a kernel mixing old 16bits design with new memory protected 32bits design, it was not fully protected and it was why it was so crashy with the famous blue screen of the death.

Only Windows NT/2k/XP and later and MacOS X and later are fully memory protected any previous verison weren't! And Win NT and MacOS X are based on a completely rewritten design that have very few to do with the previous ones.

The reality is that AmigaOS 3.x and so any environement compatible with it CAN'T have full memory protection, just like MacOS 9.x and lower and Win 3.x and lower and even Win 9x in fact. That is the reality, it's IMPOSSIBLE to add FULL memory protection on an AmigaOS 3.x compatible environment(I don't speak about limited one as the MOS Team and AOS 4 Team both proven it's possible to implement limited memory protection). So like what happened for Windows and MacOS, AmigaOS will need to be redesigned completely to feature full memory protection and so lost the direct compatibility with previous versions, except of course if old apps are run in a separated environment, for example by using a box, just like what MacOS X do to run MacOS 9.x apps. Otherwise old apps would be potentially able to mess the system if they are not cleanly sperated from the new environment and apps.

Now if you want to be a clueless moron and to speak without knowing anything about what you're talking about, it's your problem. You just show us that you know nothing on how AmigaOS 3.x (and compatible), MacOS 9.x and Win 3.x/9x work. And you should better stop spreading bullshits about things you don't have a clue about as you will always have me responding to restablish the real truth.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 137 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Christophe Decanini on 09-Jun-2004 10:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 128 (drHirudo):
"I think it can be solved like Apple did this in OSX - by using a virtual machine for the old apps."

This is the sandbox way: Qbox
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 138 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Jacek Piszczek on 09-Jun-2004 10:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (freaks):
>but if i wasn't there at that time mos 1.4.2 would probley still have that huge problem.

I told you, you think too much of yourself. We already knew about that problem even before your posts on the mailing list. If we knew how to fix it at that time it would have been fixed before 1.4 release.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 139 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 09-Jun-2004 10:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 128 (drHirudo):
That's exactly what is planned for MorphOS. The A/Box is the "virtual machine"
where old apps will run and the Q/Box the main OS.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 140 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Jacek Piszczek on 09-Jun-2004 10:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 130 (Guest):
Since when owning some piece of hardware imply you have a clue about it?
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 141 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Guest on 09-Jun-2004 12:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 140 (Jacek Piszczek):
Only since a few days ago people have been receiving their Developer Pre-release CDs and so I wondered how it comes he claims to have already used it.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 142 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Lilo on 09-Jun-2004 13:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 130 (Guest):
> So you are an AmigaOne owner?

Not me, but a friend of me.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 143 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Matt Parsons on 09-Jun-2004 13:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 131 (freaks):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
then, something i must say: don't say memory protection cannot be acheived on amigaos and compatible system!
i hate this . it's as stupid as saying " amiga is dead ;)
let me tell you this, even crap zindoz and macos9x were finally able to do some tricks to implement mp or at least defragment memory.
of course it can be done on amiga compatible systems.
it's just like pci buses... lots of ppl told us: " look it can't be done on amiga... look now we have at least 3 diffrent pci buses available..
so strart using you brain ;)
even i can see few ways to implement mp to aos, so it is definatly possible of course..
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Firstly no one ever said that PCI can't be done on Amiga comaptible systems... in fact Dave Haynie himself planned to move the Amiga to the PCI back in '93!!!

MP in AOS cannot be done for lots of reasons, the design of the OS being the most obvious. If you lookat the Win32 and the MacOSX API's they are all designed with MP in mind. The MacOS 1 to 9 API is not MP capible thus the need to have a Virtual machine sandbox to run the old apps in in MacOSX.

As much as we all don't like Windows, the design was started with MP in mind, it has very strict rules regarding memory access, something that the AmigaOS design does not have.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 144 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 09-Jun-2004 14:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 143 (Matt Parsons):
"As much as we all don't like Windows, the design was started with MP in mind, it has very strict rules regarding memory access, something that the AmigaOS design does not have."

Those "strict rules" didn't prevent crashes for the first several years of the OS. The BSOD was notorious.

There are fewer crashes in recent versions of Windows. Why? Because there are fewer bugs. The top priority should be to make it as easy as possible for the coder to find and remove bugs from his (or her) program. If that is done, partial memory protection may well be enough.

Memory protection is a band-aid, not a cure.
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 145 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by greenboy on 09-Jun-2004 15:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 144 (Don Cox):
>Memory protection is a band-aid, not a cure.

Without nitpicking on some of your other text, I'd posit that GOOD memory protection is not a band-aid OR a cure. Good memory protection aids the user experience and minimizes data loss... but perhaps more importantly is a tool for the developer that provides a stable development environment and better debugging.

Of course it is up to the developer to learn to make good use of the asset ; }
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 146 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 09-Jun-2004 15:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 143 (Matt Parsons):
you all are turning around without noticing that,
when i said " even crap windows acheived mp implementation"
i mean:
- do you agree current/nowdays version of windows (i.e: xp), have mp?
- do you agree current version of windows can run old games from windows95/windows 3.11 era? (like dunno: heretic, duke nukem, or again ufo/xcom unemy unknown, from microprose.)

so....
let me sum it: nowdays windows *with mp*, run old apps/games and indeed have backward compatibility.

so, i repeat what i said in my previous post:
yes, even crap windows did it. so, obviously, there are some wayS do to the same with the amiga.
one way or another.. there is Always a solution.
i hate to tell this but, look at windows.. it did it ..

so ... use your brain ;)

i indeed have few ideas on how to do it..
theres always solutions.. just a matter of choosing which one is the best..



ps: for macos9x that's another story, they just did some tricks to be able to defragment memory (iirc).. noreal mp, but at least, you're not forced to reboot when the largest mem block available is around 500kb ;)
on amiga in the current situation, after the memory is fragmented, there's no other option except reboot :(
if amiga want to at least save the situation, it should do at least something to avoid the reboot.. due to poor memory handling.

amiga is fantastic..
that's one sure thing.
but amiga's way of handling memory is a shit .. too weak.

but slowly i see begining of solution appearing , around aros and os4
with pseudo protected mode... that's good. that's toward the right direction.

well i know this and despite that i'm an amigan ;)
that is to says, the os is soo cool to use that it almost even excuse for the poor memory administration

time to evolve.. iknow it will happen someday..
progresively maybe
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 147 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by freaks on 09-Jun-2004 15:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 138 (Jacek Piszczek):
" I told you, you think too much of yourself. We already knew about that problem even before your posts on the mailing list. If we knew how to fix it at that time it would have been fixed before 1.4 release. "

that's only "blah ;)
when i started to speak about it everyone were making big eyes, saying:
" fragmentation per chunks of 50mb? huh O_o " all astonished to see a so crap bug right there in the middle of the face of mos and noone noticed it until 1.4 lol

erm ;)
excuse me i couldn't stop but feel its amusing.. now that i'm nomore on mos ;)
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 148 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Lilo on 09-Jun-2004 15:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 146 (freaks):
> so, i repeat what i said in my previous post:
> yes, even crap windows did it. so, obviously, there are some wayS do to the same with the amiga.
> one way or another.. there is Always a solution.
> i hate to tell this but, look at windows.. it did it ..
>
> so ... use your brain ;)

Of course they are ways. The point was that it's impossibe to implement MP DIRECTLY IN an AmigaOS 3.x like environment (like today AOS 4 as soon as it keeps the direct compatibility and also like MorphOS's ABox), as well as it's not possible to implement MP in MacOS 9.x or lower or Windows 3.x or lower.
In fact both MacOS X and Win NT way to implement it was to seperate clearly old apps and new apps by making them running in different environments.
This is more visible in OS X than in Win NT as you can see the Classic box starting.

This is also what is planned, from what i've understood for MorphOS with the QBox/ABox approach. So from what I understood the MOS Team did develop MorphOS with having the possibility to have an MP environment at the end without breaking the compatibility in mind.

For AOS 4 I don't really know, from what I've read, I understood that they want to break the compatibility in the long term (as it'll probably will ot be needed anymore, according to them) to be able to implement full memory protection. Of course it may really be indeed not needed anymore, but IMHO, as it's possible, by separating clearly old apps from new apps, to keep the compatibility, why not do so? For example it's still possible to run 68k MacOS classic apps on MacOS X through the Classic box.

So basically, and if I understood things correctly, MorphOS will always have the compatibility working, even when the QBox will become the main environment while AOS 4 will sometime in the future break it and so then only support AOS 4 native apps... But both will have MP in the future, just at this time one will keep the AOS 3.x compatibility (MorphOS) while the other not (AOS 4).

For both, this will be a very hard task to make the required new "FULL MP compliant" environment, like it was a hard task for MacOS and Windows too, just that Apple and Microsoft have lot more ressources and so it taked just few years for them (still YEARS anyway, and they are billionaire companies!).

So knowing the very few resources that the AOS4 Team and the MOS Team have, full MP in AOS 4 or MorphOS will not happen before a very very long time, at least 5 years IMHO (and it's probably even too optimistic).
First review of OS4-pre? : Comment 149 of 149ANN.lu
Posted by Lilo on 09-Jun-2004 16:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 147 (freaks):
> that's only "blah ;)
> when i started to speak about it everyone were making big eyes, saying:
> " fragmentation per chunks of 50mb? huh O_o " all astonished to see a so crap bug right there in the
> middle of the face of mos and noone noticed it until 1.4 lol
>
> erm ;)
> excuse me i couldn't stop but feel its amusing.. now that i'm nomore on mos ;)

So basically you're taking not only the MOS Team as idiot (even it's obvious that the bug you are referring to was not that simple to fix and was fixed quite quickly in reality (As it only existed in 1.4 and not in previous nor next release! So only for few months)), BUT ALSO ALL THE MOS USERS for not had been able to notice the bug in question!

Sorry but considering what you discribed about the bug, it's obvious that only very few could have noticed it.

Do you know what "respect" means? You should really see what it means and start to respect people!
Anonymous, there are 149 items in your selection (but only 49 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 149]
Back to Top