@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Here's one of the most famous ones: https://sourceforge.net/projects/scoutos/ In general, you can check any application which reportes the list of tasks, processes, windows, etc..: they NEED to access the system structures. BY definition!

And any application that fiddles with OS internals is a HACK by definition.

Scout is described as a 'tool' that monitors your computer system including tasks, ports, assigns, expansion boards, resident commands and interrupts. It can freeze tasks, close windows and screens, release semaphores and remove locks, ports, and interrupts. Closing things that don't belong to you is nasty code.

While tools like this may be useful for debugging, and poking around in the system can be informative and entertaining, they are in a different class to normal applications. A reasonable person would expect them to have some compatibility issues with new hardware or OS versions.

I quickly looked over the source code to Scout and didn't find any direct hardware access except for reading CIAAPRA for short time delays. The few forbid/permit pairs use the system functions, so that's one incompatibility you don't have to worry about.

Of course, as you know, some system lists may be read legally. Others are private and no normal application should be looking at them, let alone doing stuff like closing windows and screens etc. If there are necessary reasons for doing these things then the OS should provide functions to do it in a way that is compatible with supported hardware (eg. SMP). In cases where this might break some system tools the answer is to patch or recompile them to do it legally, or alternatively create new tools that do a better job. This is standard practice and not a deal-breaker for introducing new hardware or OS features.

Quote:

http://amigadev.elowar.com/read/ADCD_2.1/Hardware_Manual_guide/node0001.html This book is intended for the following audiences: * Assembly language programmers who need a more direct way of interacting with the Amiga than the routines provided in the system software. http://amigadev.elowar.com/read/ADCD_2.1/Hardware_Manual_guide/node000B.html For maximum upward compatibility, it is strongly suggested that programmers deal with the hardware through the commands and functions provided by the Amiga operating system. If you find it necessary to program the hardware directly, then it is your responsibility to write code which will work properly on various models and configurations. Be sure to properly request and gain control of the hardware you are manipulating... If you are leaving the system up, do not read or write to the CIA Interrupt Control Registers directly; use the cia.resource/AbleICR(), and SetICR() functions. Even if you are taking over the machine, do not assume the initial contents of any of the CIA registers or the state of any enabled interrupts.[/i]

Like I said, it doesn't say anything about the OS when taking over the system, only that you shouldn't rely on hardware registers having particular contents (duh!). One big thing it doesn't tell you is the steps required to take over the system in a safe and clean manner that will work on all Amiga hardware. You're on your own there. As for livening up the system again to eg. read files off the hard drive - forget it!

But this is all irrelevant to this thread, which is about ppc and OS4. The majority of ppc 'Amigas' don't have the hardware described in the HRM. Any new system with SMP almost certainly won't, so worrying about incompatibility with hardware banging legacy code is stupid.

That's one thing the OP got right. Yes, software for ppc Amigas is generally made in c/c++, and theoretically could run on any CPU if recompiled for it. The OP is also correct that it doesn't make sense to use an emulator when code can be recompiled native. That's the key to moving forward with a more modern implementation of Amiga OS. Forget about that old legacy 68k stuff, and certainly do not hold back on new hardware to maintain compatibility with retro stuff - that's what retro machines are for.

Last edited by bhabbott on 04-Dec-2023 at 08:13 PM.

@bhabbott

Quote:

Forget about that old legacy 68k stuff, and certainly do not hold back on new hardware to maintain compatibility with retro stuff - that's what retro machines are for.

'New Hardware '... more like it.

Of course it would be quite interesting to run AmigaOS 4 straight on arm in Pistorm, but we all know what legal mess Hyperion is let alone port it into another CPU architecture... Meanwhile you still have interesting solutions on 68k. Let's stop those for the sake of 'new hardware's then, it makes sense.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

bhabbott Quote:

But this is all irrelevant to this thread, which is about ppc and OS4. The majority of ppc 'Amigas' don't have the hardware described in the HRM. Any new system with SMP almost certainly won't, so worrying about incompatibility with hardware banging legacy code is stupid.

There may be more classic Amigas with PPC hardware than AmigaNOne hardware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerUP_(accelerator)#History Quote:

There is no detailed information about how many PowerPC accelerator boards Phase5 (and later DCE) sold. According to Ralph Schmidt in an AmigActive article featuring MorphOS, there were about 10,000 people using Phase5 PowerPC accelerator boards. The unofficial PowerUP support page estimates similar figures.

There are likely some PPC Sonnet PCI card Amigas as well. Some of the PPC software is using the Amiga hardware like some 68k software.

https://amitopia.com/1ghz-mediator-powerpc-g3-g4-cards/ Quote:

Not all functions of the original WarpOS powerpc.library are yet implemented or will be implemented (for example memory protection). 100% compatibility will probably be never achieved, mostly due to hardware banging of certain WarpOS software.

Some of the old PPC boards have died but so have some of the AmigaNOne systems. I would be very surprised if there was more than 10,000 AmigaNOne systems sold and many AmigaNOne users bought more than one for a backup or to support development. Some users have likely converted to MorphOS on AmigaNOne hardware because it is actively supported and has better software available. The number of active AmigaNOne AmigaOS 4 users is likely in the low thousands, perhaps better measured in the hundreds like A1222+ production.

bhabbott Quote:

That's one thing the OP got right. Yes, software for ppc Amigas is generally made in c/c++, and theoretically could run on any CPU if recompiled for it. The OP is also correct that it doesn't make sense to use an emulator when code can be recompiled native. That's the key to moving forward with a more modern implementation of Amiga OS. Forget about that old legacy 68k stuff, and certainly do not hold back on new hardware to maintain compatibility with retro stuff - that's what retro machines are for.

It is possible to have good Amiga compatibility and modern hardware for a more modern AmigaOS by developing 68k Amiga hardware like Intel did with x86 hardware. A new AmigaOS may not be as compatible but the old versions of AmigaOS would still run on the hardware. This is where the Amiga market demand is strongest and the market shrinks as compatibility is lost. There is a lot of compatibility lost when moving to a little endian CPU and PC hardware. Even PPC on PC hardware was too much compatibility lost. Emulation is more compatible but will not attract new users or encourage development.

Last edited by matthey on 04-Dec-2023 at 09:29 PM.

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: I don't think anyone is seriously under the illusion that programming to the OS guidelines is not the best way to write compatible, futureproofed application software, whether that's for OS4.x or OS3.x, or indeed any operating system.

Well, it's the case by reading some comments about nasty things "allowed" only because the o.s. had not the required features or had bugs.

Or simply because... the code is more optimized this way.

Things which are not uncommon on the Amiga land, unfortunately. There's a lot of ignorance, or blind fanaticism... or both.
Quote:

There are criticisms that can be reasonably levelled at NG as a whole - in particular the hardware choices - but if there's one thing the OS does reasonably well it's to minimise the impact of those hardware choices.

Absolutely: it's there exactly for this purpose.
Quote:

OS-compliant 68K compiled for 3.x generally runs fine on OS4 and even some degree of bitbashing too - depending on which bits anyway (you obviously get better mileage there when running on an actual Amiga). If you don't care about compatibility beyond Amiga hardware then the Hardware Manuals have you covered.

The problem with the Amiga o.s. is that you can avoid directly touching the hardware but some o.s. APIs are a direct 1:1 map with the hardware.

So, even if an application just uses the o.s. APIs, then it might not work because those APIs aren't fully implemented. I don't know the status of OS4 and MorphOS regarding this, anyway.

@MagicSN

Quote:

MagicSN wrote: @cdimauro >That's obvious, but YOU made some PRECISE statements and I've "just" illustrated how is the >situation reporting FACTs. Actually I fixed your trolling with facts. Back under your bridge.

Where? Quote me and PROVE IT!

Besides that, you call mine trolling only because you're NOT able to accept the FACTs which I've reported.

In fact, you only attacked me, avoiding to reply / rebut most of my writings.

And this is another FACT which anyone can see by simply sequentially reading all comments.
Quote:

>This is a complete non-sense, since I was talking about the HARDWARE. If we talk on hardware, PCs use x86 hardware.

Oh, really? In Italy we're used to say something which translates like this: you discovered the hot water...

However I've to point out again that I've written something which is A LITTLE different from this, right?

But I understand that this is NOT comfortable for you and you decided to ignore it and change again the argument.

The usual Red herring. It seems that logic is NOT your friend...
Quote:

>This is AROS running on... a PC! Do you see a PC looking at it? Does the environment look >familiar to you? Yes. But it is still AROS, not AmigaOS.

LOL Now it's all about The Name!

Who cares about The Name?!?

You made a precise statement and I've simply replied it with an example which PERFECTLY FITS!

Now you're again changing the argument and resorted to your beloved Red herring.

Are you able to sustain a discussion WITHOUT going to some logical fallacy when you don't like the answers?
Quote:

>I reveal you a secret: in late 90s there were no Amigas anymore... Actually I used an Amiga in the late 90s and developed software for it. MagicSN

Same for me, but it does NOT change the fact that after Commodore and ESCOM diseases there were no Amigas anymore.

Of course who bought some machine still had and used it. It's obvious. It happened with any hardware / product which was bought.

But that's it. No Amigas anymore after that.
Quote:

MagicSN wrote: @Karlos But that's all I cared about since the late 90s. The OS. Else I would have left Amiga in the late 90s.

And that's fine, but it's YOU. It was YOUR decision.

I, instead, I've left the Amiga because the platform was dead and my beloved Amiga 1200 as well (because the video section stopped working around 1996. And it looks a known problem: thanks Commodore!).

There was no reason to continue on a dead platform and buy some second hand Amiga. I had to continue with the university, work, and this simple meant that there's no room for the Amiga anymore.


@geen_naam

Quote:

geen_naam wrote: @MagicSN I admire your patience with the trolls, zealots and fundamentalist

This happens when people aren't able to sustain the reality: they start attaching labels to the "Faith violators".

Ridiculous!
Quote:

here on "amiga"world.net.

Which is fortunately the only Amiga general site where we can freely talk without moderators suspending or permanently banning people because they've written something against their Totems.
Quote:

But your energy is better spend on different sites than this one.

They why you're still here? Go, go, to your land of lotus eaters and be happy!

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: Here's one of the most famous ones: https://sourceforge.net/projects/scoutos/ In general, you can check any application which reportes the list of tasks, processes, windows, etc..: they NEED to access the system structures. BY definition! And any application that fiddles with OS internals is a HACK by definition.

Again, NO! It's any application that does it NOT following the Commodore's guidelines.
Quote:

Scout is described as a 'tool' that monitors your computer system including tasks, ports, assigns, expansion boards, resident commands and interrupts. It can freeze tasks, close windows and screens, release semaphores and remove locks, ports, and interrupts. Closing things that don't belong to you is nasty code.

Again, it's NOT true! Commodore's guidelines does NOT forbid you do that! Could you please care to shown me where this is NOT allowed?

BTW, that was absolutely REQUIRED some times. Have you ever read something MESSAGE PASSING on your beloved platform? How do you think that it worked out?
Quote:

While tools like this may be useful for debugging, and poking around in the system can be informative and entertaining, they are in a different class to normal applications.

Oh, now you introduce a NEW DEFINITION (NOT found on Commodore's guidelines, of course): "normal applications" and "not normal applications"...
Quote:

A reasonable person would expect them to have some compatibility issues with new hardware or OS versions.

"Just" follow Commodore's guidelines (IF YOU KNOW THEM!) and you should be fine.
Quote:

I quickly looked over the source code to Scout and didn't find any direct hardware access except for reading CIAAPRA for short time delays. The few forbid/permit pairs use the system functions, so that's one incompatibility you don't have to worry about.

Oh, yes, because accessing the list of tasks or the memory pool simply after a Forbid doesn't create issues with an SMP implementation, right!

Anyway, you should know that some applications directly accessed to the proper counters WITHOUT using those APIs. Something allowed and Commodore even gave macros with assembly code to do it!
Quote:

Of course, as you know, some system lists may be read legally. Others are private and no normal application should be looking at them,

Sure, but I wasn't talking about the INTERNALs: Amiga o.s. exposes almost everything publicly, and that's the problem...
Quote:

let alone doing stuff like closing windows and screens etc. If there are necessary reasons for doing these things then the OS should provide functions to do it in a way that is compatible with supported hardware (eg. SMP).

Too late...
Quote:

In cases where this might break some system tools the answer is to patch or recompile them to do it legally, or alternatively create new tools that do a better job. This is standard practice and not a deal-breaker for introducing new hardware or OS features.

Of course, but here you're talking about patching applications that also worker correctly (e.g.: following the guidelines).
Quote:

Quote: http://amigadev.elowar.com/read/ADCD_2.1/Hardware_Manual_guide/node0001.html This book is intended for the following audiences: * Assembly language programmers who need a more direct way of interacting with the Amiga than the routines provided in the system software. http://amigadev.elowar.com/read/ADCD_2.1/Hardware_Manual_guide/node000B.html For maximum upward compatibility, it is strongly suggested that programmers deal with the hardware through the commands and functions provided by the Amiga operating system. If you find it necessary to program the hardware directly, then it is your responsibility to write code which will work properly on various models and configurations. Be sure to properly request and gain control of the hardware you are manipulating... If you are leaving the system up, do not read or write to the CIA Interrupt Control Registers directly; use the cia.resource/AbleICR(), and SetICR() functions. Even if you are taking over the machine, do not assume the initial contents of any of the CIA registers or the state of any enabled interrupts.[/i] Like I said, it doesn't say anything about the OS when taking over the system,

LOL. OK, you aren't able to understand even when I've highlighted the relevant parts.

Anyway, it's YOUR problem!
Quote:

only that you shouldn't rely on hardware registers having particular contents (duh!). One big thing it doesn't tell you is the steps required to take over the system in a safe and clean manner that will work on all Amiga hardware.

This is spread over all documentations on the relevant part: you should read it all then you know how to "shut down" the system in a correct way.
Quote:

You're on your own there. As for livening up the system again to eg. read files off the hard drive - forget it!

Why? "Just" follow the guidelines and you're able to turn on again the o.s..

Which is something which tools like WHDLoad and JOTD do.

If you don't know it, hey, it's again YOUR problem!
Quote:

But this is all irrelevant to this thread, which is about ppc and OS4. The majority of ppc 'Amigas' don't have the hardware described in the HRM. Any new system with SMP almost certainly won't, so worrying about incompatibility with hardware banging legacy code is stupid.

You still don't understand that the biggest problem is about applications NOT directly hitting the hardware...
Quote:

That's one thing the OP got right. Yes, software for ppc Amigas is generally made in c/c++, and theoretically could run on any CPU if recompiled for it. The OP is also correct that it doesn't make sense to use an emulator when code can be recompiled native. That's the key to moving forward with a more modern implementation of Amiga OS. Forget about that old legacy 68k stuff, and certainly do not hold back on new hardware to maintain compatibility with retro stuff - that's what retro machines are for.

Here Matt replied.

P.S. No time read again: I've to go to work...

@Karlos

>Sure, but you must also recognise that owning an x1000 puts you in an absolutely minuscule >subset of users of what is already a diminished set. Consequently what you prefer or think is right >and good based on *that* experience is simply not representative of - to the extent that it's as good >as irrelevant to - Amiga users in general.

Where is number of users what we are talking about ? If it would be about number of users we would all use Windows...

And it is actually tradition on Amiga that the "best" system is the one with the fewest users (see A4000 vs. A1200, CSPPC vs. BPPC, A2000 vs. A500,...).

Fact is we have one system which has the "best" features (Libraries, support for things like gl4es, USB, Drivers, ...) and we have one (different) system which has more users (Vampire for example) but does not have anything of all that.

I prefer the x1000 as all those other systems (PiStorm, Vampire,...) are lacking in some way. Still I *am* supporting PiStorm and try to do the same for Vampire.

>However, OS4 on PPC has become so stratospherically out of touch with common sense today >that I just can't watch. I mean look at the Tabor thread. A machine that some people wait over a >decade for to throw money at, which isn't even properly compatible with the intended PPC >architecture, let alone any legacy 68K that dares to touch the FPU. Is this really the right way?

Did I say anything else ?

>If it's all truly about the OS, then why stick to PPC? You could have OS4 recompiled on ARM big >endian. Emu68 has categorically proven that performant and compatible 68K emulation is >possible. If OS4 ran natively on standalone RPi 5 (and if wishfully thinking a second, PiStorm), >how many more customers do you think it would have?

No I can't. I do not have access to the AmigaOS source code, and actually the (signed) agreement with my employer says that I can do (payed) development of AmigaOS games. It does not say anything about non-games development.

So no. I could not recompile AmigaOS. I also do not think it is so easy to do. It would not be a simple project. And definitely not in time to release the games I do for it even if such a project existed.

Also I do not see the platform to run it. PiStorm ? It relies on old hardware no longer built. If there would be a standalone-PiStorm it might be more interesting. I am actually very interested in what direction PiStorm is taking.

Right now for my development the big flaw is - no 3D Hardware support. As I said - there is one AmigaOS platform which has everything a developer would want (PowerPC) and then there are others. I even tried with Wazp3D. Too slow on the PiStorm (or QEmu). So 68k version will be Software-Renderer only on PiStorm and QEmu (okay, if it is true, that Mediator can be coupled with PiStorm this could work - the MiniGL 68k Renderer for H2 *does* exist).

Still your description I would "only support PowerPC" is wrong. Have you missed the presentation of Heretic 2 68k on Amiga Nord ? Have you missed my statements that I will port Sin also to AmigaOS 68k ? There IS NO ARM PLATFORM (asides from PiStorm) which I could support.
And yes. I support QEmu too. My games are being tested on QEmu. Actually they run quite nicely on a M1.

I am reverting your argument - build an ARM system, get a licence for AmigaOS for it, and sell at least 500 systems. I would discuss supporting it with my game ports with Hyperion. But has to be officially AmigaOS. No AROS. No MorphOS. Licences are on "AmigaOS", not "Operating system looking similar to AmigaOS and being partially compatible".

I do games (and embedded software, which brings in the money - not related to Hyperion). I do not recompile operating systems. Neither do I produce ARM-based motherboards and resell them.

MagicSN

@MagicSN

Quote:

MagicSN wrote: Nobody cares about BIOS. Users will not notice what is done in BIOS internally.

Hey, I’m a user and I do care.

Quote:

Try run Word or World of Warcraft on them. It won't run. So they are not PCs.

If that’s a criteria, then most PCs are not PCs.

Quote:

Or you just show a non-Amiga-user an AmigaOne (the GUI and everything) and ask him if this is a PC. He will look at it and say "I do not know what this is but obviously it is no PC".

Just for fun I’ve been showing Amigs desktops in presentations about VDI, and never ever even got a question about it, noone even rises an eyebrow. It’s just a desktop, among all the others.

Quote:

Amiga was already about the operating system in late 90s. Nobody cared on the crappy custom chipset.

Amiga is about the software that exploits what the Amiga hardware and OS has to offer.

For me, OS4 as we know it, is an abomination, it serves no purpose really. It requires modern hardware yet does not offer anything modern. AmigaOS is about being lightweight and fast, but OS4 is cluttered, slow and even bloated for no good reason. And who cares about some crappy games which run insanely better on other more relevant hardware running other operating systems?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

>Hey, I’m a user and I do care.

Whatever rocks your boat :) It is still a weird opinion that the BIOS makes something a PC.

>If that’s a criteria, then most PCs are not PCs.

These were examples.

>Amiga is about the software that exploits what the Amiga hardware and OS has to offer.

Actually no. I was fighting against that backward stuff doing ugly direct hardware hits since the times when I still used an A2000 with graphics board back then

OS4 is the perfect culmination of AmigaOS. If you check all the other options there is so much lacking.

>For me, OS4 as we know it, is an abomination, it serves no purpose really. It requires >modern hardware yet does not offer anything modern. AmigaOS is about being lightweight >and fast, but OS4 is cluttered, slow and even bloated for no good reason. And who cares >about some crappy games which run insanely better on other more relevant hardware >running other operating systems?

OS4 offers the biggest amount of modern libraries and other things you require in a modern OS. What you see as "perfect" I see probably as an abomination due to lacking so much which I am used to. And no, it is not slow. Please do not the "lie for the cause" thing. I thought that would only happen by American trumpists (lying for the cause) not inside Amiga platform

And I take offense on the "crappy games" part.

And if it offers anything modern is irrelevant. Again - all the other options for AmigaOS lack integral things which are present on AmigaOS 4.

Some create - some insult. You seem to be on the insult end.

And again - I do not only support OS4. For example I currently actively develop a Heretic 2 version which runs on PiStorm machines (and hopefully at some point in the future also on Vampire machines - though Vampire makes it hard for me, especially due to the "barebone hardware" approach which you seem to want.

MagicSN

@MagicSN

I didn't say *you personally* must do anything (I mean "you" as anyone interested). I asked, somewhat rhetorically, why does OS4 cling to a corpse and what technically is preventing it from moving to something more accessible?

I mean look at Arm. You can have all the things that NG fanbois constantly trot out about PPC:

It can run big endian!
It's RISC!
It has fast 68K emulation available.
It has more address space and cores than you can use :D

Unlike PPC:
It's affordable
It's available, in a range of performance grades and form factors.
It has vendor supported binary libraries for the onboard hardware.

As for number of units, we'll take every NG user and multiply it by some factor. You will only see growth if the platform is accessible to new (but still almost guaranteed to be old Amiga) users.

Last edited by Karlos on 05-Dec-2023 at 09:44 AM.
Last edited by Karlos on 05-Dec-2023 at 09:41 AM.
Last edited by Karlos on 05-Dec-2023 at 09:32 AM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

I agree with @kolla, it is about the software.

Unless, something happened to OS4 that I'm not aware of, it lacks development in the toolset and environment that makes it possible to develop modern software. That is why Wayfarer and Iris were never ported over.

Pretty sure that Odyssey was a bear (no pun kolla) to port many years ago from MorphOS to AOS4, since MUI is native to MorphOS and not AOS4 and it has languished ever since.

For me back in the day, Amiga 68k users wanted to do something via software and for the time it fared pretty well with software. Now it doesn't, and similar in that is AOS4.

Everyone can enjoy whatever experience they want. Heck, I just saw Chris Edwards PiAmiga's at WOC, and they look really nice, kudos for him for getting that developed. You still need rabbithole to get common work done though. That could be fun none the less.

The reason I left 4.0 is if you test all flavors, there was only one that could natively do modern things easily or at all, with many of them with over 4 years of constant development, and the OS has never stopped...

Last edited by Matt3k on 05-Dec-2023 at 10:18 AM.

@Matt3k

The conversation is really about the hardware. But since we are talking about software tangentially here, you are absolutely deluded if you think MorphOS has any more future viability than OS4 no matter how much more evolved you find it right now, so long as it sticks to PPC. And we know that MOS has been booted on x64 but the core set their own priorities and it seems this isn't one of them.

Ultimately the problems with OS4 come from the fact that it's utterly stuck. Part of it being stuck is that it's trapped in an expensive hardware snare that so few people can afford to justify. Just a declining set of well-heeled fans. Another part of it being stuck is the stupid legal wranglings that come as standard. There are further issues, like the fact you pay once for the OS then need in some cases to buy more software again to use the hardware you already bought the OS for because the OS doesn't come with the requisite drivers and so forth.

There's no incentive, no "business model" or anything that makes sense in any of this. The only way out is to open it up to more affordable/available hardware that has a chance of being better supported.

There are no massive technical hurdles in building a better OS4. They all seem to be somewhat nonsensical self-inflicted obstacles. And one of those obstacles is the very idea that PPC is a somehow still "good thing" (tm) in 2023/24.

Last edited by Karlos on 05-Dec-2023 at 12:26 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

>I didn't say *you personally* must do anything (I mean "you" as anyone interested). I asked, >somewhat rhetorically, why does OS4 cling to a corpse and what technically is preventing it from >moving to something more accessible?

Ah, that makes sense then. I understood it as "you personal" or "you as someone working with Hyperion".

>It can run big endian!
>It's RISC!
>It has fast 68K emulation available.
>It has more address space and cores than you can use :D

You do not get an argument from me there. I am actually a fan of the ARM. Still right now PowerPC Amigas are the most powerful Amigas (especially x1000/x5000 systems). And asides from speed there is a lot missing in APIs etc. (3D Support )

Actually the PowerPC version is always the version I am doing first, when doing a port (not only because I prefer the current PowerPC systems, it is also easier to debug - Grim Reaper and stuff).

Actually between "use it as 68k Emulator" and "full blown OS Port" maybe some sort of in between possible, "arm.library" (like powerpc.library of WarpOS) might be possible ??? To run ARM native code on a PiStorm system ? I am pretty sure for example that this would make Wazp3D based gameports (or other stuff needing high performance) viable even if it does not "really" run on 3D Hardware then. Currently sadly Wazp3D with software-Wazp3D is too slow (I tried it with a Beta of Heretic 2 68k, I ported the MiniGL renderer to 68k last week actually).

The only platform as to ARM which could be considered right now would be PiStorm. But with PiStorm we have the problem we can only use it as 68k Emulator right now, and important things are missing (no access to 3D, USB, Wifi currently...).

Personally right now - at least for the stuff I am doing - there is not really an alternative to PowerPC Amigas. And the speed difference is also massive.

I also do not see a conflict between working with PowerPC *and* PiStorm Amiga. I do with both.

H2 on x5000 - 176 fps in 1920x1080
H2 on x1000 - 110 fps in 1920x1080
H2 on PiStorm with Cm4 - 20 fps in 800x600

It is nice as secondary platform for me, but it cannot replace x1000/x5000. Of course running my games is not the only thing (far from it!) someone would do with an Amiga, but as my "Amiga time" mainly goes to working on my games naturally I compare for that. And yeah, of course the speed difference is due to Emulation. Native code would be faster. Ways faster. But that's not an option right now.

MagicSN

@MagicSN

Quote:

MagicSN wrote: Ah, that makes sense then. I understood it as "you personal" or "you as someone working with Hyperion".

I don't even know who controls/maintains what anymore in the OS4 world.

Quote:

You do not get an argument from me there. I am actually a fan of the ARM. Still right now PowerPC Amigas are the most powerful Amigas (especially x1000/x5000 systems). And asides from speed there is a lot missing in APIs etc. (3D Support )

As fast as the single core performance of the x1000 / x5000 may be, it's a moot point when there's a limited number and no replacement for them. They are a vanity product and won't last forever. If your x1000 fails, who can repair it? Where can you buy a replacement?

Quote:

Actually the PowerPC version is always the version I am doing first, when doing a port (not only because I prefer the current PowerPC systems, it is also easier to debug - Grim Reaper and stuff).

All I read here is, "I prefer the tooling that comes with OS4". OS4 doesn't have to be PPC only.

Quote:

The only platform as to ARM which could be considered right now would be PiStorm. But with PiStorm we have the problem we can only use it as 68k Emulator right now, and important things are missing (no access to 3D, USB, Wifi currently...).

Currently is the operative word. The PiStorm is an evolving product. Consider, however, that it does have 3D (not as powerful as you might want) that needs exposing. It's not impossible though, how does anyone thing the RTG works? So far it's pretty much a one man show.

Quote:

Personally right now - at least for the stuff I am doing - there is not really an alternative to PowerPC Amigas. And the speed difference is also massive. I also do not see a conflict between working with PowerPC *and* PiStorm Amiga. I do with both. H2 on x5000 - 176 fps in 1920x1080 H2 on x1000 - 110 fps in 1920x1080 H2 on PiStorm with Cm4 - 20 fps in 800x600

Yes but that's H2, 68K under emulation with no HW3D at all (which might actually be a lot worse if it's soft emulating a 3D interface rather than using the software renderer as an alternative). How does the same 68K H2 under the same software rendering on the x1000 compare? That's a better potential indication.

The RPi 5 now has some degree of support for PCIe attached GPUs so there's a lot of upcoming potential there.

Beyond that, the only upcoming PPC customers you have are getting a machine that will either need a completely separate build target (and supporting drivers, etc etc) because they don't have a properly compatible FPU implementation.

Last edited by Karlos on 05-Dec-2023 at 01:03 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

Yes but that's H2, 68K under emulation with no HW3D at all (which might actually be a lot worse if it's soft emulating a 3D interface rather than using the software renderer as an alternative). How does the same 68K H2 under the same software rendering on the x1000 compare? That's a better potential indication.

Well from AFAIK not even the 2D is being hardware accelerated, although it is to be soon. Surely nothing of this helps for doing a good assessment.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Karlos

>As fast as the single core performance of the x1000 / x5000 may be, it's a moot point when there's a >limited number and no replacement for them. They are a vanity product and won't last forever. If >your x1000 fails, who can repair it? Where can you buy a replacement?

Even then, I do not see an alternative to it right now.

>All I read here is, "I prefer the tooling that comes with OS4". OS4 doesn't have to be PPC only.

But it is. What "could be" doesn't help.

>Currently is the operative word. The PiStorm is an evolving product. Consider, however, that it >does have 3D (not as powerful as you might want) that needs exposing. It's not impossible though, >how does anyone thing the RTG works? So far it's pretty much a one man show.

I did not doubt this with any word. But right now 3D is not supported. Still, if it is supported in any ways in the future I definitely will give it a go. If it is using some sort of Warp3D/Wazp3D Drivers, my MiniGL Driver should work (hopefully, thumbs crossed) out of the box, but even if a different GL Solution would be needed I would surely be able to write an adapted renderer.

Right now the plan is to include both software renderer and MiniGL Renderer in Heretic 2 68k, but the latter currently is only useful for people having PiStorm and Mediator combination (I still did not find a Betatester who actually DOES have this combination so I could test if it really works - I only read claims that it WOULD PROBABLY work.

>Yes but that's H2, 68K under emulation with no HW3D at all (which might actually be a lot worse >if it's soft emulating a 3D interface rather than using the software renderer as an alternative). >How does the same 68K H2 under the same software rendering on the x1000 compare? That's a >better potential indication.

I never said it isn't. Just right now it is, and there is right now no other solution for PiStorm there.
It makes no sense to talk about what might be theoretically possible (though I actually think that is a point where we have a misunderstanding, I talk about what *is*, you talk about what *could be*).

I am currently preparing a table (should be put on a webpage sometimes before H2 release) where comparision speed tests for all sorts of setups, including several PowerPC ones - both GL and Software rendering - as well as PiStorm and QEmu are listed. x5000 gets 63 fps in 640x480 Software Rendering, x1000 gets 42 fps BTW. And yes, while I am sure if I *could* run code natively on the ARM - actually I *cannot*. Again I cannot sell a game for a system which could theoretically exist, I can only sell one for a system which actually exists.

Still the game runs fine on PiStorm in software rendering, and I definitely plan on selling it to PiStorm owners If you reduce the resolution a bit, it even runs on Pi3 (480x270 runs nicely, on an overclocked Pi3 640x480 is also fine - Qm4 can go up till 800x600 in playable speed, as I said, Sin hopefully will be able on a bit higher res, but I did not yet get the 68k compile of Sin working, I am still working on that - right now for Sin PPC was the priority).

>The RPi 5 now has some degree of support for PCIe attached GPUs so there's a lot of upcoming >potential there.

My understanding from the Amiga38 speech was that RPi 5 is not really usable for Amiga, at least the PCI stuff. Of cours even a Pi4 is a nice system.

>Beyond that, the only upcoming PPC customers you have are getting a machine that will either >need a completely separate build target (and supporting drivers, etc etc) because they don't >have a properly compatible FPU implementation.

Well, I cannot help that. And again I was not speaking of doing EITHER PowerPC OR PiStorm support. Actually I support both. But with the current situation I find the PowerPC Amigas vastly superior.

Yes, I hope for the PiStorm-Fans this will be improved, but I commented on the situation AS IT IS.

My personal "wishlist" to the system would be:

1. 3D Support (MiniGL or something similar, or alternatively Warp3D/Wazp3D Drivers which can be used with MiniGL)
2. Possibility to use native Code (like in WarpOS and PowerUP)
3. Possibility to run smaller resolutions fullscreen (480x270 fullscreen etc).
4. Stack Trace possibility
5. USB + Wifi

EDIT: Anyone here who could confirm that PiStorm + Mediator + 3D Card combination actually works (using Warp3D 68k) ? If it ReALLY works I would be interested in a Betatester with this combination...

MagicSN

Last edited by MagicSN on 05-Dec-2023 at 03:06 PM.

@Karlos

You give a great illustration of the "camps", I agree.

As far as technical hurdles, based on what had to be developed for MorphOS before Jaca could code Wayfarer and Iris, I think it would be a decent effort to get that done alone.

Deluded? Well as I have said, no business is here for anyone. As far as MorphOS viability around that? I guess that is a matter of perspective, that we will lob large bombs back and forth ignoring the details...

I do agree that a new platform is needed, I just would rather have a full solution to port to it instead of the same stuff I have been using for 30 plus years that basically sucks...

@MagicSN

Quote:

Amiga was already about the operating system in late 90s. Nobody cared on the crappy custom chipset.

LOL

OCS Amiga: Over 4.5 million sold

Hyperion OS4: "A four digit number" sold (source: Hyperion employee Hans-Jörg Frieden)

It's great you like AmigaOne systems and OS4 for yourself, but don't try and pretend they are somehow more successful than the OCS Amiga - history has proven otherwise.

@MagicSN

I sympathise with your dilemma as someone who just wants to write software. You have a Hobson's choice of adequately 3D accelerated boutique PPC machines that are few in number versus a potentially much larger but not yet feature-complete machines.

As I said, I don't even know who controls what any more. Last I remember - and this could be out of date - the 3D subsystem shipping with OS4 is based on MiniGL/Warp3D and owners of Radeon HD cards are able to get a bunch of separate paid-for drivers to get a more complete 3D driver suite based on the Nova fork of Warp3D. They may or may not (I have no idea, so correct as appropriate) have any 3D support out of the box for their chosen hardware.

For titles like H2, that's probably not an issue either way, but it underscores the poor state the platform is in if all you want to do is to release application software that runs acceptably across the board.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@MagicSN

What's happening with those quotes?


Quote:

>As fast as the single core performance of the x1000 / x5000 may be, it's a moot point when there's a >limited number and no replacement for them. They are a vanity product and won't last forever. If >your x1000 fails, who can repair it? Where can you buy a replacement?

Shouldn't they be:
Quote:

>As fast as the single core performance of the x1000 / x5000 may be, it's a moot point when there's a >limited number and no replacement for them. They are a vanity product and won't last forever. If >your x1000 fails, who can repair it? Where can you buy a replacement?

It makes it quite hard to read your and the comment you're referencing to.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga