@MikeB

Quote:

There's one difference though, the QBox han't been seen by anyone outside of its developer team yet, but AmigaOS4 was already being demonstrated at many Amiga fairs, product demonstration events, shows, parties and user meetings at that point of time.

Maybe they are those sort of people who only believe what they see with their own eyes. Admitting, I am also a bit of this type.. which is why I highly doubt any QBox being actively developed

@hooligan

Regarding the much touted QBox environment I am still rather opinionless. If the OS will be nothing like an AmigaOS environment the OS probably wouldn't be of much interest to me. For example I doubt its engineers would be able to create something on par with QNX RtP.

@MikeB
Quote:

MikeB wrote: There's one difference though, the QBox han't been seen by anyone outside of its developer team yet, but AmigaOS4 was already being demonstrated at many Amiga fairs, product demonstration events, shows, parties and user meetings at that point of time.

Actually no difference, as OS4.0-pre-dev-beta-whatever is just on par with A/Box, and sofar noone has seen those OS4-APIs that would compare to the QBox.

Worse even, it is until completly unsure if and how they will intregrate those APIs without compromising either compability and/or security, something that is 100% ,with the Box-approach.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@EntilZha


For the records i never said that i contacted you regarding these developer machines. I was in contact with Amiga Inc regarding this matter.
Hyperion always claimed that they have nothing to do with hardware, so where is the sense to contact you to get developer boards?

@Kronos

Quote:

4.0-pre-dev-beta-whatever is just on par with A/Box, and sofar noone has seen those OS4-APIs that would compare to the QBox.

Nobody here compares AmigaOS4 to the QBox.

How could you do a comparison with an environment nobody seems to know anything about. Even some (ex-?) Genesi/Thendic developers I have spoken in the past do not seem to know much about the QBox environment. AFAIK Ralph hasn't revealed any information, it was mainly BB and/or RV who used QBox examples on Amiga forums.

@Michael_Garlich

Quote:

Hyperion always claimed that they have nothing to do with hardware, so where is the sense to contact you to get developer boards?

Amiga Inc isn't a hardware company neither. Hyperion does have a license for AmigaOS4 ports to AmigaOne and classic Blizzard/Cyberstorm hardware.

Hyperion does take care of AmigaOS4 developer support, so I hope you guys will find a way to come closer towards eachother. I am sure many AmigaOS4 supporters would love to see Papyrus come to AmigaOS4.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: I am sure many AmigaOS4 supporters would love to see Papyrus come to AmigaOS4.

And not only Papyrus - I would be very glad to see an Native Version of the New BurnIT with DVD Support

_________________
Ei gude wie!
I love my AMIGA Collection...
2x A500 (1x 1MB) OS1.3
1x A600 (40MB HDD) OS2.05 (broken joyport)
1x A1200 (68030/50, 32 MB Fast RAM) OS3.1
1x A4000D 040/40 (48 MB Fast), OS3.9, Fastlane Z3, CV64, Deneb, Indi AGA
1x CD³²
1x µAOn

@hooligan
Quote:

Their post is dated 28.4.2002. Was there "public" OS4 or not back then, I won't comment.

You mixed the year and the month. That post is actually from 28.2.2004...

Alex.

_________________
Weighty message. You should to read.

@Michael_Garlich

In AmigaPlus, you said in an interview that you contacted Eyetech/Hyperion/Amiga (somthing like that, can't remember exactly) regarding devloper _documentation_ and hardware and you didn't get an answer. We (Hyperion) never got such a request.

If you _are_ interested in getting developer documentation, you're welcome to write me an email (thomasf@hyperion-entertainment.biz) and I'll take care of getting it to you. Of course, we don't have any hardware to give away, but we might be able to help as well...

_________________
Thomas, the kernel guy

"I don't have a frigging clue. I'm norwegian" -- Ole-Egil

All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion Entertainment

@hooligan

Yep.

and your later posts

Yep.

Yep.

@EntilZha

I'm talking from the user's point of view, not the developers. MorphOS is far more
compatible with older software for one, including WarpOS, PowerUP and Warp3D.
Stability should be about the same right now, AFAIK. Yes, the user cares about
that, not wether the OS has virtual address spaces or not, which I do not know.
Heck, it's perfectly normal AND acceptable that the low level stuff are more mature,
they have been in development for about 2.5 years more than OS4, it's nothing to
be ashamed of! Back in the first days EVERYONE was working on the OS internals,
not on high level stuff because they hadn't settled on wether they would use AOS
or not. As they failed to agree with Amiga Inc., they started working on high level
stuff, only then. OS4 was developed as a whole OS from the ground up, judging
from the first 68k high level betas. The difference with that approach is that when
OS4 reaches the maturity of MorphOS, the *whole* OS will be mature, not just the
core. I don't think that I'm saying anything unreasonable here.
As for the boxes, the only box available right now is A/Box. That's where all
development happens. The difference between the approach you and MorphOS
took is you implement all modern stuff into the main system, allowing memory
protection and stuff like that to be implemented easily in the future, breaking
compatibility. In MorphOS, they extend the A/Box AmigaOS3.1 API as much as
possible without breaking any compatibility, because they plan to implement
a memory protected system in another sandbox and leave A/Box as is, for
legacy apps. The A/Box is a compatibility "box", it's not supposed to be clean,
it's supposed to compatible, as the future system will not lie in there.

PS: Do not reply so harshly, we're having a discussion, not an arguement,
we're not enemies or anything!

Last edited by AMiGR on 07-Dec-2004 at 03:46 PM.

_________________

@EntilZha

Quote:

If you _are_ interested in getting developer documentation, you're welcome to write me an email (thomasf@hyperion-entertainment.biz) and I'll take care of getting it to you. Of course, we don't have any hardware to give away, but we might be able to help as well...

Thanks EntilZha Papyrus wold be great thing to have, please Michael_Garlich get the software documentation, perhaps a port is not all that big a deal, maybe if Eyetech is not forthcoming someone might lend you a machine?

Seriously I would love to be using Papyrus again, and as far as I know there is no PPC WP avialable for OS4. You have at least one customer in waiting.

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@GregS
Quote:

Seriously I would love to be using Papyrus again, and as far as I know there is no PPC WP avialable for OS4. You have at least one customer in waiting.

Make that two customers in waiting.

_________________
ExecSG Team Lead

@Michael_Garlich

nice avatar.


Edit: oh and to AW

Last edited by Toaks on 07-Dec-2004 at 04:04 PM.

_________________
See my blog and collection website! . https://www.blog.amigaguru.com

@EntilZha

Use HookEntry() and hooks work unmodified. It is same in AmigaOS, MorphOS and AmigaOS4. Performance wise hooks are equally fast in MorphOS and AmigaOS4. AmigaOS4 programs call IsNative(hook->h_Entry) and then EmulateTags(hook->h_Entry) or hook->h_Entry(), and MorphOS programs call CallDirect68k(hook->h_Entry). Complexity is about same.

@CheatX

Yes, but every PPC native hook in MOS has to start with an emulation gate while this is not necessary in OS 4. The reason is that 68k code isn't aware of the fact that there might exist PPC code and the broken amiga.lib included the calling functionality directly into the executeables. In OS 4 this is automatically recognized when executing 68k-code so you can mix up ppc native hooks which are transparently called by both PPC native applications and old 68k egacy code.
Similar for libraries, MOS does always assume 68k code, that's why you call libraries via special functions (that's at least the last state I know of). MOS, or at least the A/Box will always be foced to carry this old legacy ballast around, that's not true for OS 4.

_________________
"Who do you think is this guy - god ?"
"No, god knows mercy !"

@Mr.Return

AFAIK, you only need emulation gates and special functions if the code is to be
called from 68k programs, for example, when you make drop in replacements of
libs. Now about the 68k assumption, I dunno, afaik all code is PPC from exec's
point of view, no matter what.

_________________

@AMiGR

"I'm talking from the user's point of view, not the developers. MorphOS is far more
compatible with older software for one, including WarpOS, PowerUP and Warp3D."

But lacking compatibility to all TCP/IP and Reaction using SW.

Btw does AOS4 dev pre beta come with 68k Arexx ? Does MOS 1.4.x have Arexx compatibility ?

"The difference between the approach you and MorphOS took is you implement all modern stuff into the main system, allowing memory protection and stuff like that to be implemented easily in the future, breaking compatibility."

Time will tell how people are then satisfied with the available sandbox (perhaps UAE).

" In MorphOS, they extend the A/Box AmigaOS3.1 API as much as
possible without breaking any compatibility, because they plan to implement
a memory protected system in another sandbox and leave A/Box as is, for
legacy apps. The A/Box is a compatibility "box", it's not supposed to be clean,
it's supposed to compatible, as the future system will not lie in there."

They anyway need to port/move a lot of stuff off the Abox before memory protection (etc) can fully be used. And build interaction between Abox and Qbox, unless they plan to run 2x Ambient, MUI, etc...

Only time will tell how well it works out. (Ralph is clever, so no worries, I think)


Future is interesting, for both.

Last edited by KimmoK on 07-Dec-2004 at 05:19 PM.

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

@KimmoK

Having no TCP/IP sucks badly, as everyone has to use Miami or Genesis/AmiTCP.
About Reaction apps, while MorphOS does not support them, if a user desires
to, he can copy the 68k Reaction classes or ClassAct. That works.

There is partial AREXX compatibility. There are some PPC libs but it still needs
rexxsys.library and rexxmast. (Distributing these is actually illegal in any OS,
including AmigaOS3, as Commodore never had a licence for it. The author claimed
that he doesn't care some years ago so using it should be fine).

Now about the third part, it will certainly need a lot of work. AFAIK, they "plan"
to create a totally new API there, with some common stuff, so if MUI was in the
Q/Box for example, it would be a totally different thing than the MUI we know.
Anyway, there's as much of a Q/Box as AmigaOS5 AFAIK, so...

The future of both projects is certainly interesting.

NOTE: I was notified that RexxMast is there, only rexxsyslib is needed and work to
replace it fully is progressing rather nicely.

Last edited by AMiGR on 07-Dec-2004 at 09:45 PM.

_________________

about memory virtualized adress space, MOS feature that since day one.