@pavlor: I totally missed that thread. Maybe because the news' threads aren't visible on the forum, like all others.

So, nobody is allowed to use such ROMs, without having bought a PowerPC card, right?

@cdimauro

Quote:

So, nobody is allowed to use such ROMs, without having bought a PowerPC card, right?

That is current legal interpretation.

@pavlor: interesting. But it'll be more interesting to know if all peoples which are using OS4 with WinUAE have a BlizzardPPC or a CybervisionPPC board.

@cdimauro

Quote:

interesting. But it'll be more interesting to know if all peoples which are using OS4 with WinUAE have a BlizzardPPC or a CybervisionPPC board.

Answer is obvious.


Direct port to QEMU would make more sense - no limitations of WinUAE and no legal problems.

@pavlor: why nobody has opened a bounty for it? It's really strange, since I see so much interest on using OS4 with emulation.

@cdimauro

Pascal (Phoenixkonsole) had a agreement with both copyright owner (at least he thought that) and Hyperion to preinstall AmigaOS with the rom until suddenly Ralph Schmidt appeared and the project was dropped. It is more propable that hell freezes than to get a license for the roms.

Last edited by OlafS25 on 01-Aug-2015 at 09:40 AM.

@OlafS25: I saw. But if he has the right, nobody can complaint.

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @Dandy I never talked about a similar system, but of alternatives to make some automation.

O.K. - but some automation wasn't exactly what I had in mind...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Anyway, a Raspberry Pi 2 costs around 30€, it has enough processing power, it consumes much less, it's tiny, and it's vastly superior for doing robotics.

But I doubt it is suitable to be used as CAD/CAM/CAE workstation as well...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: For around half of that you can even get an Intel NUC with GPIO. Or a ... which obliterate the AmigaOneX1000 and its XCore.

I'm not convinced yet that I could use such micro devices in the same way I imagine to use the A1X1k...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: You can have more for much less: see above.

Hmmm - still not convinced...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: What do you mean with "efficiency"?

performance, capability, effectiveness, efficiency, ability, potential, capacity, performance ability, ... - all mean "Leistungsfähigkeit" in German language...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Do you think that the above solutions aren't "efficient"?

Not sure if they can cope with the tasks I have in mind and if so, at what effort...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Which is not needed, if you have dedicated, and very powerful, cores to manage the GPIOs, which is quite sufficient for a broad range of robotics needs.

The devices you linked seem to come with just one GPIO channel (fix), while the xCORE tiles offer more and are expandable...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: .,.. Or because the XCore isn't powerful neither flexible enough? It also lack direct access to the memory, which is a big bottleneck.

The xCORE tiles come each with their own RAM...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: There were some discussions in the past regarding the XCore.

Must have missed them...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @Dandy You're missing the context here: in which ecosystem is the XCore inserted? In this case, it's the AmigaOne X1000 motherboard, which makes some constraints to this chip.

Care to elaborate?

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: The XMos sites reports also many examples of how the XCore can be used. Even for creating some consoles. Well, why don't you try to do something similar with the one integrate in the X1000? So you'll touch yourself how useful it is.

Unfortunately I got serious health problems after 2012 and had to spend a lot of money on that - including the money that I had saved to buy an A1X1k...
So - without the HW I cannot try anything...

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: There weremany discussion in this, as well other "Amiga" sites, with fantasies like using such chip to help emulating the original Amigas, which is a common and sensible argument. The XCore is not even able to emulate the Amiga 1000 chipset. Only the chipset: not even the CPU...

Well, I remember these discussions. But it had also been mentioned from the beginning that the purpose of the xCORE add-on is not to build emulators with it.

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: It's clear that they tried to "mimic" the old Amigas to attract the amigans. ...

I did not understand it in this negative way.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @Dandy Quote: That's why I wrote "AmigaOS is close to RTOS. Close enough for the NASA and their tasks." It's not even close: the Amiga o.s. cannot guarantee the constraints of an RTOS. It was simply good enough for some NASA's tasks.

Amiga and RTOS (Amiga-News.de) (German only; scroll down to "Multitasking"):
"Multitasking

Unter Multitasking versteht man das gleichzeitige Abarbeiten verschiedener Aufgaben, ohne dass es zu Verzögerungen im Ablauf einzelner Programme kommt. Diese Eigenschaft hat das AmigaOS schon von Anfang an gehabt. Bereits auf einem 7 MHz-Prozessor war es möglich, mehrere Tasks laufen zu lassen, ohne eine nennenswerte Verzögerung hervorzurufen. Das ging soweit, dass MS-DOS-Emulatoren mit Multitaskingfähigkeit beworben wurden, schliesslich konnte man ihn ja mehrmals starten.

Die Basis für ein RTOS ist also gegeben, durch Einschränkungen im Design kann aber keine Garantie für Reaktionsmöglichkeiten in Echtzeit gegeben werden. Programme haben unter AmigaOS die Möglichkeit, das Multitasking abzuschalten und die gesamte Workbench zu schliessen, so können sie die gesamten Resourcen für sich beanspruchen. ..."

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Michal clearly talked about NOW. Not in 1999. ... Here are his original statements: "32bit Amiga will not impress anyone in todays world. What advantages would it have when compared to typical desktops or game consoles? [...] Cheap? There are no cheap Amiga computers right now." So, he was talking about nowadays, not the old computers. Yes, unfortunately it's a common abuse to use the same word even for some PowerPC-based machines. NOW post-Amiga computers are NOT cheap. Is "some PowerPC-based PCs" OK?

As long as they cannot get mixed up with "Amiga computers" (in the legal sense)...
But still - he was talking about "32bit Amiga", which I understand as reference to the old Amiga computers.

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Quote: Hmmm - the user-friendliness of the old AmigaOSses is still the same, from my POV. But I agree that the user-friendliness of other UIs has improved since 1999... On the other hand it was said that the user-friendliness of AOS 4.x has also been improved compared to the old versions. Do you think that it's comparable with what Windows, OS X, Linux, offer? I don't talk about smartphone and tablets, which offer a completely different UI.

The question for me is:
Does it have to be comparable with them in all fields?

For me e.g. the TCP/IP stack does not necessarily have to be incorporated in the OS. I've alwaysw been fine with having an application named MiamiDX for that.

The same is for browsers and mailers - why do many people insist in this having to be integrated in the OS?
Just because M$ did it that way? Keep in mind - they got sued for that...

What I mean is that I don't insist in having stuff like TCP/IP stack, browsers, mailers, USB stack, and so on, integrated in the OS.

I can live without having such stuff integrated in the OS, as long as there are apps that allow me going online, surfing the web, mailing or having usb ports.

That keeps the OS lean and fast.
Why would I want to blow it up unnecessarily?

Last edited by Dandy on 04-Aug-2015 at 12:14 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @Dandy You claimed this: "AOS does not run on Intel out of the box." It's not a problem of an Intel system: AOS simply doesn't run out of the box, whatever is the system. You need to install it...

O..K. - let me re-phrase it:
The installer on the OS - CD does not run on on WIntel-based machines (without having an Amiga emulator installed), which is due to the different architecture of Intel cpus in the first place.

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Quote: In contrary to trying to run AmigaOS 4.x on an Core i5-4690K @3,500MHz - there NO core would run the OS (out of the box - without suitable host OS and emulator). Yes. But with an updated AmigaForever it'll be fairly simple to have it running on such system.

That's what I meant:
"AOS does not run on Intel out of the box."
You need to have an Intel compatible OS (Linux, Windows) installed on that system PLUS an Amiga emulator, to be able to start the Amiga(OS) installer.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @Dandy I already used it 20 years ago with my Amiga 1200. It worked quite well at the time. But it was an external tool: the Amiga o.s. isn't multiuser, like you also stated.

So its absolutely no problem to make it "multi-user" (same level as in UNIX according to "Multiuser" (muFS) website) with 3rd party software.
Again - I have no problem with that...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: Hmmm - I think I'd have no use for HW without an OS to run Programs on it... Might be something for gaming kids - I have a weak remembrance that back in the days there were lots of games for the Amiga that were coded without following the Amiga programming guidelines, "banged the metal" and didn't need an OS to run... That isn't correct. There were guidelines also to "bang the metal", that you can find in the famous Amiga Hardware Manual. The problem is that many coders didn't followed them, so games had problems for newer or expanded machines, or even with a different Kickstart.

My emphasis always was on productivity software - not on games.
And IIRC, you need the OS on the Amiga platform to start any kind of productivity software.
So Amiga hardware without OS would be pretty useless for me...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

The creator of MuFS decided to go for Linux on Amiga almost immediately after. He still is Linux/m68k coordinator and chief upstream submitter, two decades later.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@thread

Amiga was INSANELY AWESOME in 1985

(Now it's AWESOME that it exist because we kept it alive.)

But this gives some toughts about what can be awesome in desktops:
Windows is AWESOME! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0l-Ac7fTU

Do we want something leading or awesome?

I prefer Amiga to be awesome in some amigan way rather than leading on desktops.

btw. also this is inspiring video:
Linux sucks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pOxlazS3zs

I'm sure there's something to learn from those videos vs this thread.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @cdimauro O.K. - but some automation wasn't exactly what I had in mind... But I doubt it is suitable to be used as CAD/CAM/CAE workstation as well... I'm not convinced yet that I could use such micro devices in the same way I imagine to use the A1X1k... Hmmm - still not convinced... performance, capability, effectiveness, efficiency, ability, potential, capacity, performance ability, ... - all mean "Leistungsfähigkeit" in German language... Not sure if they can cope with the tasks I have in mind and if so, at what effort...

I cannot convince you if you don't give some clear statement regarding what you want to do with an AmigaOne X1000 and its XCore.
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: Which is not needed, if you have dedicated, and very powerful, cores to manage the GPIOs, which is quite sufficient for a broad range of robotics needs. The devices you linked seem to come with just one GPIO channel (fix), while the xCORE tiles offer more and are expandable...

The devices had more GPIO pins available.
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: .,.. Or because the XCore isn't powerful neither flexible enough? It also lack direct access to the memory, which is a big bottleneck. The xCORE tiles come each with their own RAM...

The Raspberry ARM's cores and Intel's BayTrail' cores have L1 caches, and L2 cache.
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: @Dandy You're missing the context here: in which ecosystem is the XCore inserted? In this case, it's the AmigaOne X1000 motherboard, which makes some constraints to this chip. Care to elaborate?

The XCore cannot directly access the memory, and for doing this there's a so called "local bus" connected to the CPU, that can be used to access the memory, but it's very slow (15MB/s, if I remember correctly), and I think it'll also long latencies.

This is the only way to interface the XCore with the rest of the computer.

And of course it has some GPIO pins that are also connected to the so called Xorro bus (a modified PCI-Express AFAIK).

With such configuration, it cannot do something interesting, apart some automation.
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: The XMos sites reports also many examples of how the XCore can be used. Even for creating some consoles. Well, why don't you try to do something similar with the one integrate in the X1000? So you'll touch yourself how useful it is. Unfortunately I got serious health problems after 2012 and had to spend a lot of money on that - including the money that I had saved to buy an A1X1k... So - without the HW I cannot try anything...

I'm sorry for that. I hope that you solved your problems.
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: There weremany discussion in this, as well other "Amiga" sites, with fantasies like using such chip to help emulating the original Amigas, which is a common and sensible argument. The XCore is not even able to emulate the Amiga 1000 chipset. Only the chipset: not even the CPU... Well, I remember these discussions. But it had also been mentioned from the beginning that the purpose of the xCORE add-on is not to build emulators with it.

OK
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: It's clear that they tried to "mimic" the old Amigas to attract the amigans. ... I did not understand it in this negative way.

IMO they gave the illusion to the amigans that the machine is like an Amiga with custom hardware, whereas the reality is much different.

Marketing to sell the machines...

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: @Dandy It's not even close: the Amiga o.s. cannot guarantee the constraints of an RTOS. It was simply good enough for some NASA's tasks. Amiga and RTOS (Amiga-News.de) (German only; scroll down to "Multitasking"): "Multitasking Unter Multitasking versteht man das gleichzeitige Abarbeiten verschiedener Aufgaben, ohne dass es zu Verzögerungen im Ablauf einzelner Programme kommt. Diese Eigenschaft hat das AmigaOS schon von Anfang an gehabt. Bereits auf einem 7 MHz-Prozessor war es möglich, mehrere Tasks laufen zu lassen, ohne eine nennenswerte Verzögerung hervorzurufen. Das ging soweit, dass MS-DOS-Emulatoren mit Multitaskingfähigkeit beworben wurden, schliesslich konnte man ihn ja mehrmals starten. Die Basis für ein RTOS ist also gegeben, durch Einschränkungen im Design kann aber keine Garantie für Reaktionsmöglichkeiten in Echtzeit gegeben werden. Programme haben unter AmigaOS die Möglichkeit, das Multitasking abzuschalten und die gesamte Workbench zu schliessen, so können sie die gesamten Resourcen für sich beanspruchen. ..."

I don't speak German (nur bisschen, tut mir leid), so I translated it with Google.

Taking the sentence that you marked in bold, the second part (which I've underlined) contradicts the first.

And that's normal, since the Amiga o.s. isn't a RTOS, because cannot guarantee the same constraints.
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: Michal clearly talked about NOW. Not in 1999. ... Here are his original statements: "32bit Amiga will not impress anyone in todays world. What advantages would it have when compared to typical desktops or game consoles? [...] Cheap? There are no cheap Amiga computers right now." So, he was talking about nowadays, not the old computers. Yes, unfortunately it's a common abuse to use the same word even for some PowerPC-based machines. NOW post-Amiga computers are NOT cheap. Is "some PowerPC-based PCs" OK? As long as they cannot get mixed up with "Amiga computers" (in the legal sense)...

In the legal sense, only Commodore machines where "Amiga". But unfortunately it's common to use the same name for post-Commodore machines.
Quote:

But still - he was talking about "32bit Amiga", which I understand as reference to the old Amiga computers.

Do you know of any 64-bit Amiga or post-Amiga (like I call the non-Commodore machines which run the Amiga o.s., or some "cousin")? I don't, except AROS with is available in the x64 "flavor".

I think that he wrote 32-bit only to emphasize that such machines were (strictly) bound to 32-bits.
Quote:

Quote: cdimauro wrote: Do you think that it's comparable with what Windows, OS X, Linux, offer? I don't talk about smartphone and tablets, which offer a completely different UI. The question for me is: Does it have to be comparable with them in all fields? For me e.g. the TCP/IP stack does not necessarily have to be incorporated in the OS. I've alwaysw been fine with having an application named MiamiDX for that. The same is for browsers and mailers - why do many people insist in this having to be integrated in the OS? Just because M$ did it that way? Keep in mind - they got sued for that... What I mean is that I don't insist in having stuff like TCP/IP stack, browsers, mailers, USB stack, and so on, integrated in the OS. I can live without having such stuff integrated in the OS, as long as there are apps that allow me going online, surfing the web, mailing or having usb ports. That keeps the OS lean and fast. Why would I want to blow it up unnecessarily?

You are a rare bird nowadays, since it's pretty common to have such stuff already integrated and immediately working.

Some applications aren't even used until you don't run them, so they don't impact on the "fast" o.s.. They are there: click and run them IF you want to do; or forget them.

Lean, well, with hard disk which are already measured in TB from years, doesn't make sense. And a modern o.s. (not only Windows) uses around 10-20GB, which is a ridiculous amount compared to the available sizes. So I don't care too.

The users' needs have changed from 30 years, and the technology too. For the better...

P.S. Please, avoid "M$": all o.ses are "huge" nowadays, and "the war" against the "enemy" was lost years ago, without any possibility of revenge.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: @Dandy I already used it 20 years ago with my Amiga 1200. It worked quite well at the time. But it was an external tool: the Amiga o.s. isn't multiuser, like you also stated. So its absolutely no problem to make it "multi-user" (same level as in UNIX according to "Multiuser" (muFS) website) with 3rd party software. Again - I have no problem with that...

That's only for the (specific, muFS mounted) filesystem, but it doesn't work with other permissions.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: @Dandy That isn't correct. There were guidelines also to "bang the metal", that you can find in the famous Amiga Hardware Manual. The problem is that many coders didn't followed them, so games had problems for newer or expanded machines, or even with a different Kickstart. My emphasis always was on productivity software - not on games. And IIRC, you need the OS on the Amiga platform to start any kind of productivity software. So Amiga hardware without OS would be pretty useless for me...

Even productivity software can directly use the hardware. The Deluxe Paint case, which was talked about a few days ago here, is a perfect example.

And that wasn't dirty neither illegal, if you followed Amiga Hardware Manual's guidelines.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Even productivity software can directly use the hardware. The Deluxe Paint case, which was talked about a few days ago here, is a perfect example.

This one wouldn´t even run without OS.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Even productivity software can directly use the hardware. The Deluxe Paint case, which was talked about a few days ago here, is a perfect example. This one wouldn´t even run without OS.

I know. Maybe I've to better clarify.

Even productivity software which runs on an o.s. can directly use the hardware.