Quote:

And since the contemporary Mac OS X and Windows are based on the legacy of the late '80s and early '90s, much like AmigaOS 4.x is, it's kind of hard to see how these OSs are as different from AmigaOS 4.x as a fighter jet is from a tricycle.

Wrong: Windows and OSX have been redesigned, removing lots of limitations that were in original DOS/Win3.x and classic MacOS:
- memory protection/resource tracking
- handling of SMP
- hardware independant, and ported to mainstream processors (no matter what endianess)
- multi user

While you could argue that OS4 has improved compared to OS3.x, these limitations are still there: OS4 doesn't work on anything but PowerPC and requires a big endian processor, it's of course not multi user, nor does it have memory protection or resource tracking...

Amiga didn't undergo these necessary changes. Even before talking about apps installation, ease of use, boot speed or directory layout I think this changes need to be handled. And that's where AmigaOS is stuck in the past, before OS X or Windows NT were there.

Even though you could argue that a complete break isn't necessary and that 1984 Amiga Exec design can be updated to support all these features, I'm skeptical and am still waiting for developers to prove me wrong... But I think that if MS engineers, Apple engineers chose to change the root of their OS, it shouldn't be different for the Amiga...

Last edited by Leo on 26-Feb-2015 at 03:44 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 26-Feb-2015 at 03:42 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 26-Feb-2015 at 12:28 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 26-Feb-2015 at 12:28 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 26-Feb-2015 at 12:27 PM.
Last edited by Leo on 26-Feb-2015 at 12:27 PM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

OS X doesn't really have anything in common with the classic MacOS. It's a development of NextStep with a Mac-like GUI.

Apple tried, and failed to add memory protection and update the classic Mac OS, in the end it was easier to just start over with a new foundation. Makes you think, if even Apple couldn't make it work, what hope does AmigaOS ever have with the current design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%28operating_system%29

Last edited by danwood on 26-Feb-2015 at 12:47 PM.
Last edited by danwood on 26-Feb-2015 at 12:47 PM.

I would like a cool laptop with AMD/Radeon, Debian/AmigaOS please.

Hmm... AmigaForever => OS4 ?

_________________
A1G3-SE + OS4.1 u1 iso (x2)

@Leo

you are right in a way, modern windows (or any other of the mainstream platforms) have changed a lot over the time (still you can run old software to a certain degree). The major difference between Windows (or MacOS) is that most of the software base of amiga is mostly static, most devs have left, many sources are lost. If f.e. AmigaOS would become 64bit the 68k software would only run in UAE and propably existing PPC software would need recompilation. That would of course the same with every change that breaks compatibility.

Last edited by OlafS25 on 26-Feb-2015 at 01:13 PM.

@KingKong

Quote:

KingKong wrote: AmigaOS could turn it's misfortune (backlog, delay) to an advantage. Now we know much more about computer science and operating systems and could therefor avoid some mistakes, Microsoft and Linux have made. This advantage should not be given careless away - although AmigaOS is way behind, it has to take it's (reasonable) time to find a (nearly) perfect solution.

I have an even better proposal: With al that knowledge about computer science and OSes and what to do and what to avoid, better write an entirely new OS from scratch instead of insisting on some old Amiga stuff.

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@danwood

Quote:

Apple tried, and failed to add memory protection and update the classic Mac OS, in the end it was easier to just start over with a new foundation. Makes you think, if even Apple couldn't make it work, what hope does AmigaOS ever have with the current design?

Right. Where Apple failed, Amiga certainly couldn't succeed.
But where Apple later succeeded, Amiga could have copied the model:

- Apple threw away MacOS9, and started from scratch with OSX,
- Apple kept. the. same. macos. familiar elements. - so that an Apple user would still feel he was using an Apple machine, even if in reality under the hood most of the legacy was gone.
- Apple kept some API compatibility with classic software.
- Apple kept hardware-banging classic software running in a virtualized silo through Rosetta.
- Apple later moved to a popular and cost effective architecture: X86.


Now, look at Aros:

- Throwing away AmigaOS: Check.
- Keeping the same familiar elements as AmigaOS: Check - from kickstart to datatypes.
- Keeping API compatibility: Check.
- Keeping hardware-banging classic software running in a virtualized silo: Check, through UAE.
- Moving to X86: Check.


The difference between the two projects? Why Aros didn't become to AmigaOS what OSX is to MacOS? Aros wasn't backed up by a wealthy company. They got everything right but they didn't have the money to make it happen. It's as simple as that.

Last edited by resle on 26-Feb-2015 at 01:20 PM.

@agami post #211

Yes and no.

Well considering AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition is developed by very few people (compared to Window$ / OSX / Linux), I believe it is a great achievement and accomplishment anyway!

Go Amiga go

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

given the spontaneous manifestation of certain tendencies especially in force these last days, i have an incredible and genial in its simplicity idea i would like to share with everybody here. namely to relaunch this site as first ever voluntary online lunatic asylum. we could get funds from european government, concerned to keep suspects in a remote secure place under observation and off the streets and personal relations with the unaffected population. we could perhaps even count in rebuilding the moderation staff with qualified medical personnel this time, not to count numerous other advantages!

@wawa

It is always like that when people talk about "religions", isn' t it ... ?

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@resle

Quote:

The difference between the two projects? Why Aros didn't become to AmigaOS what OSX is to MacOS? Aros wasn't backed up by a wealthy company. They got everything right but they didn't have the money to make it happen. It's as simple as that.

Their #1 mistake was not porting to ARM. Sticking to PPC was the first and foremost death nail.

Quote:

The difference between the two projects? Why Aros didn't become to AmigaOS what OSX is to MacOS? Aros wasn't backed up by a wealthy company. They got everything right but they didn't have the money to make it happen. It's as simple as that.

The difference is that while MacOS X started from scratch in terms of design (Darwin kernel has nothing to do with old MacOS classic base), AROS started by re-implementing the old outdated Exec/Amiga libraries design. The implementation has changed, because everything has been reimplemented from scratch, but the design is the same.

It's not about money: AROS has exactly the same limitations as original AmigaOS except that:

- it runs on any hardware (they broke compatibility)

There is no resource tracking, AROS doesn't do SMP, nor is it multi user, etc...

Quote:

The major difference between Windows (or MacOS) is that most of the software base of amiga is mostly static, most devs have left, many sources are lost. If f.e. AmigaOS would become 64bit the 68k software would only run in UAE and propably existing PPC software would need recompilation. That would of course the same with every change that breaks compatibility.

It's true that a lot of people have left the Amiga, keeping the sources with themselves, but it's also true that:

1. lot of modern Amiga software is based on open source software which already runs on any processor. (MPlayer, Odissey/webkit, most if not every 3D game that has been ported to the Amiga/AROS,...)

2. lots of Amiga apps have been open sourced (DOpus, USB Stack), and have already been ported to something else than 68k/PPC

I think that the most important apps have already been ported/open sourced or have their equivalent. And because you will never have every single app ported, you have UAE for everything else.

To me, it's not the problem... Waiting forver stuck in the past is...

Last edited by Leo on 26-Feb-2015 at 03:48 PM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@trans

Quote:

Their #1 mistake was not porting to ARM. Sticking to PPC was the first and foremost death nail.

Why ARM? "x86" is better suited to our needs.

@resle

Quote:

The difference between the two projects? Why Aros didn't become to AmigaOS what OSX is to MacOS? Aros wasn't backed up by a wealthy company. They got everything right but they didn't have the money to make it happen. It's as simple as that.

Plus they also got a "tainted" x86 base platform - according to "intel outside" purists - and treated him as a cat in a dog pound rather than supporting the effort IMO

[changed metaphor]


Other mortal sins that alienated AROS the community praise in the past:
-did not had 'teh name'
-is a crowdsourced homebrew project (we want a 'mother' company to beg for spaghetti on friday, not cook our own)
-is open source (in the 90s amigaland of individual NIH competitive devs cooperate was bad)

and so IMO here we are...

Last edited by saimon69 on 26-Feb-2015 at 05:41 PM.
Last edited by saimon69 on 26-Feb-2015 at 05:39 PM.
Last edited by saimon69 on 26-Feb-2015 at 05:36 PM.

_________________
Scarabocchi Binari - Italian AROS Blog
Binary Doodles - English language AROS Blog

@Yssing

Quote:

Yssing wrote: @ferrels Right, what features is it that AmigaOS lacks, that won't be adressed by 4.2? The codebase for amigaOS has also changed since 1.3 from the 80s

It will be missing a significant user base as well as a software base, that's what. Oh, and let's not forget that it'll also be missing modern hardware, multi-user capability, etc., etc., etc.

And since Hyperion is bankrupt, It'll be missing an owner as well. It's doubtful that a 4.2 point-release will even be a reality at this point.

The OS3 code base is stuck at around 1993 and the OS4 code base is just a few years younger. OS4 has changed at a snails pace and has essentially stopped, excluding the few patches to fix USB and new video driver. OS4 is almost at parity with Windows 95 and has just about as many users at this point.

Last edited by ferrels on 26-Feb-2015 at 05:52 PM.

Quote:

BigGun wrote: My 2 cents: post like yours above are a complete waster of time.

No, they aren't. All the fanatical, raging nonsense in this thread is a waste of time. AOS is a dead end. 68k Amigas can do better, and AOS machines (next gen) can do A LOT better than AOS. Why would anyone want to use AOS anyway? I only use it because I have an A1200. I'd write my own damned OS for 68k if I had software to run on it.

@KingKong

Quote:

It is easier, to provide a small/sleek operating system like AmigaOS with adtitional features, then to strip a bloated OS down to something perfect. I think that's how it is, because you need a good systemdesign/structure and you can't make a messed up systemdesign perfect by just cutting 75% away.

Successfully transforming an existing OS into something much smaller has already been done: this is what Google did with Android.

Last edited by bison on 26-Feb-2015 at 06:37 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@Thorham

Quote:

Thorham wrote: Quote: BigGun wrote: My 2 cents: post like yours above are a complete waster of time. No, they aren't. All the fanatical, raging nonsense in this thread is a waste of time. AOS is a dead end. 68k Amigas can do better, and AOS machines (next gen) can do A LOT better than AOS. Why would anyone want to use AOS anyway? I only use it because I have an A1200. I'd write my own damned OS for 68k if I had software to run on it.

+5

@Massi

Quote:

Massi wrote: @All Try to run Window$ / OSX / Linux on a, say SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, then we see what happens ...

But Windows runs on cheap and powerful hardware. At around the same price of the SAM, my current PC has an Intel i7 4790K CPU (4-4.4Ghz), a 240GB SSD, 16GB DDR3 1833 RAM, and Windows 8.1 x64 Update 1 boots in about 10 seconds (of which only 3 for it too boot after that the UEFI gives it control, plus another 2 to have my desktop ready after that I typed the password).

With such a monster, I pretty sure that I can run OS4 FE much faster than the above SAM, albeit with the current limit of OS4 (128MB) and QEMU (FPU emulation is slow, since currently there's no JIT for it; but FPU isn't heavily used; only some applications massively require it). But such limits are caused by OS4 and QEMU; not by the hardware.

@Leo

one correction... AROS did not break "compatibility" but is aims source code compatibility instead of binary compatibility, in short every program must be compiled for every platform to run and you cannot mix different binaries like X86 with 68k.

@OlafS25

Quote:

OlafS25 wrote: If f.e. AmigaOS would become 64bit the 68k software would only run in UAE and propably existing PPC software would need recompilation. That would of course the same with every change that breaks compatibility.

It WILL happen, for sure. You cannot keep compatibility with 68K or PowerPC (32-bit) software if the Amiga/like o.s. is 64-bit. All data structures change (at least pointers double their size), and you cannot freely share them (or memory, in general) between 32 and 64-bit applications.

The only way to run such code in inside some UAE-based sandbox, like AROS already does.