I have absolutely had it with OS4 Final. In the first 2 versions of the OS4 it was very easy to run a BBS. At this point I can't understand how anyone is using OS4 Final to run any 68K programs.

EDIT: No insults nor flames, please. Moxee

In the beginning there were a few programs that wouldn't work anymore over the BBS. Now I am finding most of them don't and I can't run a BBS on Wheel of Fortune alone. Development of a PPC version of CNet isn't a realistic solution anytime soon, and at this point it's easier for me to sell the "Amiga" hardware I have and invest in a PC system that can run WinUAE. That being said...

For those sysops out there that have put money into this crap hardware on the belief of a useable OS. We need a EUAE that supports BSD SOCKETS, and if I could do it I would but I can't cus I dunno how. So I need this now cus I can't run this OS and hardware any other way. I understand all about the compatibility and I could always go back to the original OS release. However, that brings up all sorts of other issues.

For those of you that want to respond to this with cracks about BBSing not being relevant in 2007. I would simply ask how relevant is it to built all this hardware and software just to make boing balls?

I need emulation solutions and help here. EUAE needs to be able to have access to the network.

Drew

Last edited by Moxee on 24-Mar-2007 at 01:53 PM.

@pikadroo

Sh*t. That is bad news.

Is your OS4 install from scratch or over the top of an existing version?

Maybe a fresh install ala-Windows(TM) is in order?

_________________
Ya Husayn!

@pikadroo

Have you tried blacklisting the the software so it only runs interpreted. The first 2 releases of OS4 didn't have Petunia JIT.

@pikadroo

i can tell you this your not alone, at least that is a consolation.....

_________________
I was a ZX Spectrum owner....

@Thread

Well, this is a shame.

I have to say that, earlier, I was waiting on any OS4 hardware.

But now, I wouldn't buy any hardware that was OS4 (and Linux ,of course) exclusive.

I would only contemplate buying hardware for OS4 that could also run AROS and possibly Morphos.

The reason for this is that if anything is missing or buggy in AROS you can either fix it yourself or organise a bounty to get it fixed.

With OS4 you are beholden to people who ignore us, abuse us and have huge egos.

So.... I will only be running OS4 on either EFIKA or Sam (If a bounty is made to get AROS ported).

bty - will the BBS run on Morphos - the 68k is more compatable I heard.

@Colin_Camper

Quote:

With OS4 you are beholden to people who ignore us, abuse us and have huge egos.

Of course you are ignored when you only complain "it doesnt work".

Detailed bug reports with URLs to the software archives, version numbers,
exact problem descriptions which allow somebody to reproduce the problems
and with GrimReaper logs may (or may not) change this.

I've not seen something like that, only a complaint that something (not even
a program name was given) doesnt work anymore with OS4Final. All I can suggest
is to downgrade to OS4upd4 which should obviously work around the problem.
No idea why its necessary to use impolite phrases when it seems to be known
how to get it working again.

@TetiSoft
Quote:

Detailed bug reports with URLs to the software archives, version numbers, exact problem descriptions which allow somebody to reproduce the problems and with GrimReaper logs may (or may not) change this. I've not seen something like that, only a complaint that something (not even a program name was given) doesnt work anymore with OS4Final.

Other people have reported in more detail the problems with 68K compatibility in OS4 Final. Perhaps the original poster felt that these problems have been discussed enough that there was no point in posting additional information regarding a fairly well known issue?

Quote:

All I can suggest is to downgrade to OS4upd4 which should obviously work around the problem.

That is the solution that some OS4 experts have responded with. Using WinUAE or a real (68K) Amiga seems like a much more obvious solution, as then there are no further unknown "gotchas".

_________________
Here for the whimpering end

@TetiSoft

and you will get complain when things dont work and never will be supported as it should. i agree with the topic poster and he is not the only one that have had it!

@TetiSoft

Quote:

No idea why its necessary to use impolite phrases when it seems to be known

I am sorry. I should have been more precise. I was referring to the owners of OS4.

I have every respect for the coders and beta testers - although the Friedens could learn a little about PR and customer relations - my comment wasn't aimed at these people.

@jorkany

Quote:

Other people have reported in more detail the problems with 68K compatibility in OS4 Final. Perhaps the original poster felt that these problems have been discussed enough that there was no point in posting additional information regarding a fairly well known issue?

Well, then it seems I missed some bug reports, and the other developers and betatesters
missed them too (otherwise there would probably exist a report in the OS4 bugzilla
database). So obviously "Fairly well known issue" and "detailed bug report" are
two different things, only the second may be usable for a programmer to find and fix
a problem.

From my point of view there exist exactly three possible reasons why some 68k
program doesnt work anymore with Os4Final, either Petunia has problems with it
(can be worked around by blacklisting the program or disabling Petunia), or it
uses some old buggy libraries (can be fixed by keeping e.g. MUI and ixemul
components up-to-date), or the program has a bug which was "tolerated" by accident
in older AmigaOS versions. In theory its also possible that a new bug was introduced
in OS4Final, but as already written I'm not aware of such a bug and have not seen
any detailed description yet how to become aware of it...

Quote:

Using WinUAE or a real (68K) Amiga seems like a much more obvious solution, as then there are no further unknown "gotchas".

When you dont want something new then dont buy something new. BTW, this argument
can also be used against WinUAE, I'd bet that it had (or still has) its "gotchas"
which were probably not fixed by complaining "some programs for the XYZ BBS
software dont work".

IMHO the number of OS4Final users which want to run program X on BBS software
XYZ is rather low, probably its exactly one. Well, thats not a problem, but
its a problem when those users expect some bugfix without describing the exact
problem, and its IMHO unfair behaviour to complain in a worldwide forum.

@jorkany

Quote:

That is the solution that some OS4 experts have responded with.

You misunderstood Tetisoft's post.
He was referring to the specific issue mentioned by the topic poster, NOT
downgrading in general to address all issues.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@TetiSoft

Quote:

IMHO the number of OS4Final users which want to run program X on BBS softwareXYZ is rather low, probably its exactly one.

3 people afaik, but related to one BBS in Chicago.
I already suggested to the topic poster to discuss this with his partners.
FYI they are Yogi27 and Rinaldo00.

Post from Rinaldo on his issue:

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=21882&forum=14

Post #2 from Yogi about 3 different BBS run on MicroA1:

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=19183&forum=27

#6

Last edited by number6 on 24-Mar-2007 at 02:53 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@pikadroo

I know this doesn't help, but he 68k software I've tried run fine (with the exception of iosubscanner.device, which does something bad).

So you're using CNet? Have you checked out this site? Seeing as they released a new version 31 December 2006, it seems reasonable to me that you could get them to fix the bugs that cause it to crash. Get as many crash logs together and send it to them. Make sure you disable JIT emulation for all the CNet programs though, before gethering the crash-logs.

I agree that bsd socket support in EUAE is a feature that we want. Even if you can run CNet without EUAE, having networking support is still important for other things (e.g., old games).

@Jorkany

I'm not saying that the 68k emulation is perfect, but in the majority of all cases, the 68k programs that crash, do so because of serious bugs in the 68k software. We all know that OS4 enforces the rules much more strictly and catches a lot of bad behaviour that Amiga OS3.x don't. In the majority of cases, it's the 68k software that need fixing.

The only way to protect the OS from misbehaving software and still let them run, would be to isolate them in a sandbox (e.g., run it in EUAE). We don't have a suitable sandbox yet.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@jorkany

Quote:

Perhaps the original poster felt that these problems have been discussed enough that there was no point in posting additional information regarding a fairly well known issue?

Why don't we ask him, instead of having you speculate wildly on his behalf?

_________________
...wait... what?

@pikadroo

A *what* perpetrated by *who*? Are you serious? Do you also wear a tin foil hat and operate a Ham radio with any frequency?

_________________
...wait... what?

@nicholas

Quote:

nicholas wrote: Is your OS4 install from scratch or over the top of an existing version? Maybe a fresh install ala-Windows(TM) is in order?

Indeed this is a fresh install as the documents suggest to do.

@Rob
Quote:

Have you tried blacklisting the the software so it only runs interpreted. The first 2 releases of OS4 didn't have Petunia JIT.

Yes, infact I have tried it several ways. If I just go right out and disable JIT from all of CNet and 3rd party programs. I find I end up in more trouble then if I just go thru and pick out the programs that cause troubles and just disable them. Although it works better to just disable the trouble makers it causes hidden and somewhat undetermined random crashes even though the system is better off.

@d0c

Quote:

can tell you this your not alone, at least that is a consolation.....

Thanks! It's good to know that it's just not a problem with what I am trying to do. I have run BBSes and experimented with OS and software combos since 1995. So I am not a stupid guy, but this OS makes me feel stupid and that I have made a bad choice in trying it.

@Colin_Camper

Quote:

Well, this is a shame. I have to say that, earlier, I was waiting on any OS4 hardware. But now, I wouldn't buy any hardware that was OS4 (and Linux ,of course) exclusive. I would only contemplate buying hardware for OS4 that could also run AROS and possibly Morphos. The reason for this is that if anything is missing or buggy in AROS you can either fix it yourself or organise a bounty to get it fixed. With OS4 you are beholden to people who ignore us, abuse us and have huge egos. So.... I will only be running OS4 on either EFIKA or Sam (If a bounty is made to get AROS ported). bty - will the BBS run on Morphos - the 68k is more compatable I heard.

See there is the problem there aren't enough people complaining, and everything you hear it how great the desktop is and how smooth the scrolling is. I haven't said anything till now cus I was afraid of coming out here and having my ass handed to me. I don't claim to know everything about the A1 or it's OS but I know that at one time this did work. Before someone deiced to alter the OS in such a way that it would keep software from working which up till then had worked fine. I don't understand how such measures could have been implemented without knowledge of what would happen. It no great secret that programers of 68k software took short cuts especially with memory. So why the hell did Hyperion think that memory protection on 68k programs was a good idea?

@TetiSoft

Quote:

Well, then it seems I missed some bug reports, and the other developers and betatesters missed them too (otherwise there would probably exist a report in the OS4 bugzilla database). So obviously "Fairly well known issue" and "detailed bug report" are two different things, only the second may be usable for a programmer to find and fix a problem.

Everything worked up till now. That is why I haven't been compelled to produce a bug report cus to me it was within tolerance. By gawd you want bug reports I can give them to you, but I suspect the common mantra will be to blame the 68k program. Also when a OS maker declares FINAL one assumes they don't care anymore about it and are washing their hands with it.

@TetiSoft

Yeah all 3 of us run BBSes and with varying degrees of success. I run the most recent version of CNet, Rinaldo runs the version produced by the last owner of the source code, and Yogi runs the classic 3.05 version most people are familiar with. Rinaldo has already downgraded OS4 to be able to run his system. I was hoping maybe I could uncover what his issues were but I can't they are just all over the board. I dunno what problems Yogi has with the oldest version, but for me and Rinaldo running these systems is a full time job.

@Hans

Yes I am using CNet... I know the developer, I have the new version... what's so funny about all this is that CNet isn't the program I have the issue with. It's the 3rd party pfles (games and such) that are causing the system to be unstable. I know most of these programs were written perhaps a little sloppy but up till OS4 Final they worked.

@Legion

Well, I suspect you complained to Moxee that I insulted your beloved Hyperion. This will speak to another Amiga issue I have with this site. Although this part of the message will be edited to protect yourself and the makers of OS4. It is the editing of messages by AmigaWorld.net staff that reflect the frustration of current Amiga users that are at the heart of the fraud that is being perpetrated on all of us.

This will be the last message I post or respond to here as clearly users aren't allow to discuss anything but the Amiga company line.

Farewell,
Drew

@pikadroo

ok, Drew. But I went to the trouble of trying to post some info via links that might help define the problem better for those who might be able to assist you guys.
I'm a little disappointed that your response to my effort to help was so terse.
I'm just a user like you, and that's all we have left here, right?
Users trying their best to help other users. It's a part our history, eh?
I hope you'll take a few moments to rethink your decision for all our sake.

re:the site?
Naw. It's Amiga Inc. who is in an uproar over what is said here, NOT your friends, devs, betatesters, OS4 team.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@pikadroo

Quote:

Before someone deiced to alter the OS in such a way that it would keep software from working which up till then had worked fine. I don't understand how such measures could have been implemented without knowledge of what would happen. It no great secret that programers of 68k software took short cuts especially with memory. So why the hell did Hyperion think that memory protection on 68k programs was a good idea?

The additional memory protection introduced in OS4Final does only affect
read-only sections of PPC programs, 68k software is still allowed to happily
overwrite its own data which was declared with the CONST keyword, as always...

Quote:

This will be the last message I post or respond to here as clearly users aren't allow to discuss anything but the Amiga company line.

Who said that?
As already written several times now, when no programmer (of either OS4 or CNet or the
external CNet programs) gets a detailed bug report which allows him to reproduce
the problems, its IMHO unlikely that something will change.
So when you want that something changes send bug reports.

Do you expect me (or some other OS4 developer) to pay money for a CNet license
to be able to run that BBS when all what I know about the problem is that some
nameless external programs written for CNet have problems?

@pikadroo

Quote:

Yes I am using CNet... I know the developer, I have the new version... what's so funny about all this is that CNet isn't the program I have the issue with. It's the 3rd party pfles (games and such) that are causing the system to be unstable. I know most of these programs were written perhaps a little sloppy but up till OS4 Final they worked.

Darn. Chasing up the programmers for 3rd party programs and getting them to fix them is going to be a lot harder.

About E-UAE, Richard Drummond (a.k.a. evilrich on AW.net) was the guy working on that. It might be worth asking him about network support.

Hans

EDIT: BTW, are these 3rd party programs included in the CNet package, or did you get them separately. If they came with CNet, then the CNet developer could have the source, and be able to fix them.

Last edited by Hans on 24-Mar-2007 at 05:19 PM.
Last edited by Hans on 24-Mar-2007 at 05:10 PM.

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@pikadroo

Quote:

Well, I suspect you complained to Moxee that I insulted your beloved Hyperion.

LOL. Apparently I was dead-on with the tin foil hat comment...

_________________
...wait... what?