@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Can be interesting monitor it with WireShark and see what it does differently.

Would that need the hardware or another machine to monitor it? I take it then it couldn't be done on OS4 directly which would mean it needs to go through another machine.

Quote:

MC680x0 Amiga uses the same old Sana2 API, so has all the issues MTU etc, RoadShow is considered a good TCP/IP stack on Amiga, because Maimi does not even have working DHCP client. AmiTCP is even older.

I have experience with mismatched MTU. When I upgraded from ADSL1 to ADSL2 my internet would go faulty and data would be stalled. I spent some time checking settings, different machines, inquired of the ISP. I wasn't using an ISP supplied modem so I didn't know how much support I would get but it wasn't an issue. In the end I found it was due to MTU. IIRC it needed to be 1492 and was set to 1500. But for some reason my modem router, a [classic] NetGear DG834G, wasn't able to determine correct MTU when connecting.

But, Miami does in fact have DHCP, I haven't tested it lately though on a modern modem. AmiTCP never did, which dates it somewhat but, there is some client to make it possible on Aminet.

Quote:

I won’t be surprised if bsdsocket.library in WinUAE bypasses the SANA2 low level API.

Actually it should. It should go direct to the host socket API as far as possible. Because SANA2 is a driver API which would sit lower in the driver.

Quote:

Its really up to the SANA2 driver to copy network packets, I expect that its not memory aligned, perhaps is not coping the data with fastest possible methods. Smaller memory blocks is slower if you use DMA transfer, but I expect of driver use 32bit copy routines not 64bit ones, or AltiVec as its up to the drivers.

That sounds a bit advanced. However, if it's transparently routed through to CopyMem() or CopyMemQuick() that would work well. Being it's in the kernel, it can be coded to take advantage of hardware, such as through DMA resources on the X1000.

Quote:

Because IRQ was mess on AmigaONE-XE, it can be that IRQ is not used or something like that well. If the drivers is generic, and not written for AmigaONE-X1000.

It would be a generic driver for an RT8139. But that shouldn't matter. As Expansion or whatever API is used should handle the underlying IRQ on the hardware.

@agami

Quote:

So in a way, you're saying that "Amiga users", the intended market in the original plans for AmigaOS 4, are not interested in the "right tool being half the work", and are somewhat masochistic in subjugation to a tool which demands that humans do 80%+ of the work, and furthermore pay a premium for their digital S&M sessions.

Given that description and comparing AmigaOS 3.2 against OS 3.9 or Windows ' 95, it looks like they haven't changed! Going back around 20 years, the target for OS4 was those who were interested in the Amiga and AmigaOS specifically. Most Amiga users from my perspective were not interested in the right tool for the job, they were interested in using AmigaOS. If the right tool or best tool for their needs ran on Windows '95 they wouldn't buy a Windows '95 PC to satisfy that need. They didn't want too. They wanted to use AmigaOS as always.

The AmigaOne was a platform with which AmigaOS could continue to be developed. For those who were interested. One of the problems it inherited, which you make reference too, is that manual work needed which they never improved on much. The RTG drivers needed some setup but later it was simplified and settings could be set in tool types. OTOH, OS3.2 is still a nightmare to setup and still doesn't include any RTG built in, so if you have something different to an Amiga video card, you are on your own and need to be a tech head to install the software.

I was helping a friend setup OS3.2. He wanted four partitions in a modern filesystem on a SCSI HDD. At first it gave errors and wouldn't save RDB until it was low level formatted. Then it came to partitions. I'm sure it used to have some option to divide the drive up but could not find it. So I was forced to drag around sliders in an attempt to evenly size partitions. It's bad enough they haven't replaced it on OS4, but needing to do it on OS3 again is terrible, when I thought OS3.2 was more modern and had been updated. Then there is needing to manually copy settings from one partition to the other. It's less work setting up Linux in a text installer! So yeah, you need to be a manual masochist to even manage AmigaOS, it's so much work!

Last edited by Hypex on 14-Feb-2024 at 01:47 AM.

I buy new amiga because it was cheaper and many times faster
than these made by Commodore. It was rational.

@ppcamiga1

You did not buy an Amiga. You bought a compatible.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @agami Given that description and comparing AmigaOS 3.2 against OS 3.9 or Windows ' 95, it looks like they haven't changed! Going back around 20 years, the target for OS4 was those who were interested in the Amiga and AmigaOS specifically. Most Amiga users from my perspective were not interested in the right tool for the job, they were interested in using AmigaOS. If the right tool or best tool for their needs ran on Windows '95 they wouldn't buy a Windows '95 PC to satisfy that need. They didn't want too. They wanted to use AmigaOS as always.

When Amiga OS 3 was presented to me with my shiny new A1200 back in the day, it immediately stood out as a highly capable, flexible, and an very enabling operating system.
Prior to that, I have used Amiga OS 1.x, Windows 3, text-based mainframe terminals, and I had seen system 6/7 from a distance, and by all appearances Amiga OS 3 was superior in every way, further affirming the innovator/early adopter within me.

Even after Windows 95/98 and MacOS 8 were released, the orphaned AmigaOS 3.x kept up in large part due to its modular and extensible architecture and enviable community, but I do admit that as the years progressed it was less and less the right tool for the job at hand.
And somewhere after both ESCOM and Gateway plans soured, and Amiga Inc drafted the AmigaOS 5 and 4 plans, AmigaOS 4 devolved into an OS for tech laggards? People who see the OS as the "killer app" itself, and are happy just fiddling with that as a surrogate for nostalgia?

When I think about it, since 2009 it has certainly enjoyed the levels of minimal improvement and backward momentum, worthy of the marketing tag line "Made by geriatrics, for geriatrics".

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@agami

treat it as faster better cheaper version of 1200

@Karlos

i buy amiga better than these made by commodore after a500

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote: @agami treat it as faster better cheaper version of 1200

I'm not a laggard.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@ppcamiga1

I have a hypothesis. It goes something like this.

You don't have an Amiga. You don't have any PPC NG machines, either. You haven't developed anything ever that wasn't fixed by the application of some appropriate antifungal creme. You don't exist, you are a made up persona.

You are a plant, with the express mission of putting anyone off buying a PPC machine for fear of being lumped together with you. At the same time, you berate the affordable, performant expansion options that exist for classic users. A reverse psychology applies, this helping to boost potential uptake, because if ppcamiga1 says it's shit worthless trash, then it's clearly the exact opposite.

Anyway, good work there. Don't worry. I won't blow your cover ...

Last edited by Karlos on 15-Feb-2024 at 12:28 AM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: When Amiga OS 3 was presented to me with my shiny new A1200 back in the day, it immediately stood out as a highly capable, flexible, and an very enabling operating system. Prior to that, I have used Amiga OS 1.x, Windows 3, text-based mainframe terminals, and I had seen system 6/7 from a distance, and by all appearances Amiga OS 3 was superior in every way, further affirming the innovator/early adopter within me. Even after Windows 95/98 and MacOS 8 were released, the orphaned AmigaOS 3.x kept up in large part due to its modular and extensible architecture and enviable community, but I do admit that as the years progressed it was less and less the right tool for the job at hand. And somewhere after both ESCOM and Gateway plans soured, and Amiga Inc drafted the AmigaOS 5 and 4 plans, AmigaOS 4 devolved into an OS for tech laggards? People who see the OS as the "killer app" itself, and are happy just fiddling with that as a surrogate for nostalgia? When I think about it, since 2009 it has certainly enjoyed the levels of minimal improvement and backward momentum, worthy of the marketing tag line "Made by geriatrics, for geriatrics".

AmigaOS 3.0's UI look wasn't new when coming from my A3000's AmigaOS 2.04.

During the early 1990s, my A3000's workbench icons have MagicWB's 8-color icon set via 640x256p mode. My A1200 AGA's workbench 64-color mode is fast enough. AGA's 640x480 256 color 31 kHz mode is slow. Stock AmigaOS 3.1's four color icons look were aging in Q4 1992.

Meanwhile, my other 386DX-33/ET4000AX PC clone has stock Windows 3.1 has 16 color icons set via VGA's 640x480p mode. My ET4000 runs in Windows 3.1's 640x480 256 color mode for most of the time.

During 1994-1995, PC magazines were showing Windows Chicago (Windows 95) previews and Microsoft released Win32S (beta in 1992, released in 1993) and WinG (released in 1994) for Windows 3.1.

Windows Chicago Build 73g with a date of December 2, 1993 already has a Windows 95's metallic look. January 19, 1994's Build 81 has Windows 95's Start button.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1tf3WH2_kQ
Windows Chicago (May 1994) overview

Microsoft's Win32S for Windows 3.1 and Windows Chicago leak PR tactics gimped IBM's OS/2 Warp (released on October 1994).

My high school has both color and B/W Macs.

AmigaOS 3.5 was released in October 1999.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Karlos

I use better amiga than these made by commocore after amiga 500
my amiga ppc works like my old amiga 1200
only better because 1000 times faster
it was also cheaper than 1200

@ppcamiga1

Yes, your Windows PC running WinUAE. We get it.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@ppcamiga1

"He taps the keys, a symphony,
Of bleeps and bloops, a mystery.
His face aglow, a sight to see,
In Amiga's land, eternally.

With pixels square and colors bright,
He battles foes in day and night.
His logic pure, his words succinct,
No fancy talk, no mind to think.

For games and screens, his love untold,
A world of logic, young and old.
No Shakespeare sways, no Chaucer sings,
Just buttons, joysticks, happy things.

So let him play, in blissful trance,
A digital Don Quixote, given chance.
For in his heart, so pure and true,
There's joy for all, in me and you."

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

@ppcamiga1

Isn't it Hyperion you should be mad it?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@pixie

I love the poem.

Last edited by agami on 16-Feb-2024 at 01:40 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Hammer

I'm talking about the right tool for the job at hand and how "enabling" Amiga OS 3.x was as an operating system in 1993-1994, and you're talking about the colour bit depth of icons, via a series of irrelevant chronological facts.

$ for $, a creative person running AmigaOS 3.x in 1993/94 could accomplish more than a person running either Windows 3.1 or Apple's System 7.x

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Hypex

Would that need the hardware or another machine to monitor it?

Another machine, PC running windows, you need to connect PC and Amiga to stupid switch or a hub, as long as it’s not too intelligent it should work. if you have a smart switch it can remember what ports to send packet to, and reduce network traffic on ports that should not receive packets, in that case its not so easy to listen in.

RoadShow should also come with TcpDump, it also be used to monitor TCP packets, not sure you can compare with that, however.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@Karlos

i buy ppc amiga because it works like my a1200 only 1000 times faster
it is better amiga than these made by commodore after a500

karlos why you trolling instead of hardworking on something usable on arm?

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote: @Karlos i buy ppc amiga because it works like my a1200 only 1000 times faster it is better amiga than these made by commodore after a500 karlos why you trolling instead of hardworking on something usable on arm?

I think there's might be a glitch in the matrix!

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

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote: i buy ppc amiga because it works like my a1200 only [bullshit] times faster

You obviously didn't buy an A1200 circa 1993, because if you had, and used it for more than just playing games, you'd see your comparison is ridiculous.

- In 1993, Commodore Amiga 1200 was a retail system, maybe not in post-Soviet Poland but in western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, it was available at major retailers.
- It was a complete consumer product, capable of working out of the box, compatible with a large library of productivity and creative software and peripherals.
- Amiga OS 3 came with all the drivers to support all the hardware that was available in the A1200
- It was also excellent value for money in 1993, allowing personal/home computer users to do a lot of different things with their hard-earned money
- Over the 7 years between 1993 and 2000, the A1200 had many upgrade options available.

None of the PPC systems sold with AmigaOS 4 can say the same

- Since 2009, they have not been sold through major retailers
- It is often sold as just a hobby board, like the old Apple 1. An complete systems are more like DIY PCs
- AmigaOS 4 does not come with all the driver to support all the hardware on these PPC boards
- They do not represent good value for money because they cost anywhere between a mid-tier - to top-tier PC or Mac, but you can only do about 25% of what those systems can do
- For the the 12 years since the X1000 or the 7 years since the X5000 were released, or for any of the SAM440 and SAM460 boards, how many upgrade options have the systems received?

So tell me again how much "better" an AmigaOS 4 PPC system today or 7 years ago, than an A1200 in 1993.

_________________
All the way, with 68k