Poster | Thread |
Zardoz
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 17:49:28
| | [ #81 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 13-Mar-2003 Posts: 4261
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @freaks
The GUI hasn't gone anywhere, the versions shipped with release 1.4 are secured, the problematic parts are stuff that were written AFTER 1.4. Moreover, who has abandoned MorphOS? How is OS4 vastly superior? Can you explain that in technical terms? I didn't go one to claim that any OS is superior so far. Also, keep in mind that the rest of the MorphOS team is still working on the product. _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Zardoz
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 17:51:57
| | [ #82 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 13-Mar-2003 Posts: 4261
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @freaks
They are crap? We should open a thread to help you out in that one! (I keep trimming the ends every 4rth month, in order not to get split ends) _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Zardoz
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 17:53:25
| | [ #83 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 13-Mar-2003 Posts: 4261
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Eagle
Most MorphOS developers were never into the story for money. The rest of the team is still working on MorphOS. _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Zardoz
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 17:55:24
| | [ #84 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 13-Mar-2003 Posts: 4261
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @freaks
BTW, about the thing that you are making a parody of, SMP, as BH mentioned, was never to be supported into the A/Box. ON THE OTHER HAND, virtual memory spaces were used in A/Box since day one. Check the MorphOS Dev info document. _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Rogue
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 17:57:24
| | [ #85 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 3999
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @AMiGR
Quote:
(And it's a wrapper, not a rippoff, just like the CGX API wrapper over P96). |
It obviously is a matter of perspective. I distinctively remember a certain MPEG player named after an egyptian god that refused to run on the P96 CGX emu, instead referring to "why emulate when you can have the real thing".
Obviously, righteous indignation at this time is only called for when it is one's own side that is affected; it's perfectly OK and no ripoff at all when one does it equally.
Things don't get any easier when you constantly see comments like "Warp3D is a piece of crap" or similar intelligent remarks, and then see your API ripped off (sorry, "wrapped") by the same or similar people. It doesn't exactly help to get me any more favourable of the whole idea.
Quote:
The whole point is to enhance your OS, saying "ok, we're superior" will not help you do that as you have less motivation that way. When I try to do something I always consider myself to be behind the competition at ALL times. |
Guess what, I never claimed that, and in fact it wasn't me that started the thread; instead I only objected to doubtful arguments of superiority claims by MorphOS users. _________________ Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Rogue
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 17:58:50
| | [ #86 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 3999
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @hooligan
Quote:
Don't speak the name of the mad one so loudly, lest he/she/it awakens _________________ Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Zardoz
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 18:47:29
| | [ #87 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 13-Mar-2003 Posts: 4261
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Rogue
I wouldn't dare to speak that name in front of a mirror at midnight with 2 candles lit. _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Rachy
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 19:36:15
| | [ #88 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 21-May-2004 Posts: 276
From: Auckland, New Zealand | | |
|
| @CheatX
Quote:
This makes it easy to use 68k datatypes or MUI classes without problems and JIT works like a charm (i.e. Petunia used to have serious problems with 68k MUI hooks). |
What the heck would you know about the problem behind this? FYI: it was a linking error, when jumping to the hook identifying function was wrong. Petunia applies the very same code identification as the interpreter does. (Or rather: it does nothing about this, but the interpreter handles all.)
Quote:
Traps are clean and efficient solution. |
That is your point of view. You have to actually modify (or let's name it: hack) into the executed code. This method is the very last thing what can be done and I would not call it "clean", rather "dirty"._________________ Álmos Rajnai |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Seer
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 20:28:11
| | [ #89 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 27-Jun-2003 Posts: 3725
From: The Netherlands | | |
|
| @AMiGR
Eh ?
Beetlejuice ! Beetlejuice ! BeetlejuMblemme !
Anyway, nice to see a thread like this on AW, very nice reading about both OSes. _________________ ~ Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you.. ~ |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Georg
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 21:27:49
| | [ #90 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 14-May-2003 Posts: 451
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Rachy
Quote:
What the heck would you know about the problem behind this? FYI: it was a linking error, when jumping to the hook identifying function was wrong. Petunia applies the very same code identification as the interpreter does. (Or rather: it does nothing about this, but the interpreter handles all.) |
Does it have to do this code identification for every jump (JSR)? Because 68k code might call hooks without using utility.library/CallHookPkt(). So every JSR is a potential hook call?
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
minator
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 8-Dec-2004 23:38:14
| | [ #91 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 23-Mar-2004 Posts: 989
From: Cambridge | | |
|
| Why do I feel like I'm about to jump into a frying pan by commenting in this thread?
I've done PR for MOS in the past and may do so again but I've nothing against OS4 or it's developers. I actually think it's a good thing that there are two competitors because that way neither side can rest and this is only a benefit for the users. As for "personal" differences between the camps they are of no concern to me.
--
If you have one technical problem and two engineers the chances are you will have 2 different answers. I've heard no end of reasons why the MOS developers believe their solution is better, I've no doubt others have heard similar from the OS 4 develops concerning their solutions.
Untimately the only real test is which is better is to sit down and use them both, it's the experience the user gets which counts in the end.
That said I've always had the impression the two projects are directed in slightly different directions. MOS has gone all out for compatibility, a hell of a lot of effort has been put into making it compatibile to the n'th degree. A lot of software (intentionally or not) depended on undefined system behaviour on 68K and this had to be addressed. If OS4 is intended to be as compatible as MOS I've no doubt it too will have to go through the same very long, very slow process.
As I see it OS4 will at some point have to chose between compatibility or memory protection, there is only a limited amount of protection which can be done without completely breaking compatibility, I think both systems have gone as far as possible but full memory protection essentially means (from the application's point of view) a different OS. There seem to be plans for both camps to get there but they are very different. I'm curious to see who gets there first and how the users react to the choices made.
I don't know the status of the Q-Box at present but it has at least partially been there a very long time. If a way to reuse the code from the A-Box can be found they could get it running in a relatively short time. If not we're essentially talking about developing a completely new OS and that's a 10 year job (it took Be that long and they had a lot more resources as well as some seriously smart developers).
_________________ Whyzzat? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Rogue
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 1:29:14
| | [ #92 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 3999
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @minator
Quote:
As I see it OS4 will at some point have to chose between compatibility or memory protection, there is only a limited amount of protection which can be done without completely breaking compatibility, I think both systems have gone as far as possible but full memory protection essentially means (from the application's point of view) a different OS. There seem to be plans for both camps to get there but they are very different. I'm curious to see who gets there first and how the users react to the choices made. |
That is true. In all considerations backwards compatibility was always the secondary goal. Compatibility IMO is important, but only to a certain degree. Well-Behaved programs do work; everything else would go through UAE.
It was obvious that this would create some shortages in software where old software would cease to function, and it is the hope that developers will fill these holes with new software. In the end, you can only keep to backwards compatibility for a certain time without moving forward; at one point you have to let go. Our idea was that in all the years so much was neglected that it would make sense to make a BIG step forward, even if that meant loosing some programs.
Also, I like the AmigaOS as it is. We could have chosen to go a different route and box it in, to be replaced later by something else, but we chose not to do that. Instead, our idea is to develope it further, keep it as Amiga as it is, and thus make it the logical follow-up to the classic OS._________________ Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Zardoz
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 2:09:15
| | [ #93 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 13-Mar-2003 Posts: 4261
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Rogue
In that case, it would be a good idea to make an OS4 bundle with a preconfigured UAE running 3.1 and limited access to OS4 drives. That would be convinient for users wanting to use old stuff. I had thought of making a UAE launcher that can be used as a default tool for old stuff, with some ready configurations. It would be quite easy to do for adfs but the problem is that I don't know enough about UAE to find a way to access the host's disks, so I didn't go for it. Maybe EvilRich's E-UAE would help in that one, I gotta check. Such a thing should be easily portable to OS4. The next thing to do if I actually do that is to make a database of configurations to be loaded for common applications and games.
EDIT: What do you think Rogue? Should I go for it? I would need you or another guy to port it to OS4 if I actually succeed and I believe that I'm stubborn enough to learn everything I need to learn to do it. Last edited by AMiGR on 09-Dec-2004 at 02:16 AM.
_________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Rachy
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 7:01:50
| | [ #94 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 21-May-2004 Posts: 276
From: Auckland, New Zealand | | |
|
| @Georg
Quote:
Does it have to do this code identification for every jump (JSR)? Because 68k code might call hooks without using utility.library/CallHookPkt(). So every JSR is a potential hook call? |
Yes, sort of. This is a rather complex topic and I don't want to go into the details. Petunia is capable of identifying the target address if it was an "inbound" call and if not, then it forwards to the interpreter. The interpreter checks the address and decides what to do just as it normally do with other addresses._________________ Álmos Rajnai |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
EntilZha
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 10:58:19
| | [ #95 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 27-Aug-2003 Posts: 1679
From: The Jedi Academy, Yavin 4 | | |
|
| @Georg
Quote:
Does it have to do this code identification for every jump (JSR)? |
Yes.. or rather, in all jumps that can span a segment (i.e. not short jumps), meaning JMP, JSR, and RTS._________________ 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 |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Mr_Capehill
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 15:01:38
| | [ #96 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 15-Mar-2003 Posts: 1932
From: Yharnam | | |
|
| @AMiGR
Well I'm not Rogue, but why not? Go for it. Maybe EvilRich could help you. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 15:17:23
| | [ #97 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12795
From: Norway | | |
|
| |
Status: Online! |
|
|
nzv58l
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 15:51:57
| | [ #98 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 7-Oct-2003 Posts: 1640
From: Michigan | | |
|
| @minator
Quote:
Why do I feel like I'm about to jump into a frying pan by commenting in this thread? |
Don't worry, I cook my bacon in the microwave now!
Anyway, I'm an A1 owner, but I really do not look at MOS as something evil. At the time it came out there was nothing else new to look forward too and it certainly filled the gap. In trying to look at it objectivly, I think that it is trying too hard to be a classic Amiga on a power PC. The advantages are obviously that it can run more classic software, but the dissadvantages are that it is that in staying compatable, It may not progress to a point where no real improvments can be made without breaking some of the software compatability.
As hard as it is, as I do own a large amount of Amiga Software(original, non-pirited) I do like the idea of starting with a fresh slate and a breaking new ground approach. This I think is the way the newer Amiga OS's are going. I really want to see more capabilities available to the system. I want to see the Amiga OS grow beyond just a games machine. I want to see the OS turn into something revolutionary. Totally scalable with options for multi user support and security from the ground up.
I think the way Windows does things is wrong. They have different Windows for different jobs. I think that an OS should be the same OS for a desktop as it is for a full blown server. The only difference should be that the server has additional options turned on to make it a server. While the Amiga may never find itself in great demand as a server, I do not believe in closing the door so it never would be possible.
So for me it is two roads, one stays on the path and the other lays new road down for the future. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Nuder_Try
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 16:11:27
| | [ #99 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 8-Sep-2003 Posts: 524
From: Wisconsin (Moo!!!) | | |
|
| @AMiGR
Quote:
AMiGR wrote: @Rogue
EDIT: What do you think Rogue? Should I go for it? I would need you or another guy to port it to OS4 if I actually succeed and I believe that I'm stubborn enough to learn everything I need to learn to do it. |
I'm not Roguw either, but for what it's worth, I say, "Go for it!"_________________ This sig. intentionally left blank |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Kronos
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 9-Dec-2004 16:36:00
| | [ #100 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 8-Mar-2003 Posts: 2553
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Rogue Problem is that REAL and strict MP would require a completly new message-system, one that breaks 99% of all non-trivial SW. One could offcourse just keep the old API and allow both to be used, but this would mean that an old app could still kill the whole system. Or maybe keep those 2 worlds aparte .... oh, wait, boxes are evil
Same goes for all the open-structures being passed by pointer between app and OS.
For those thinking they could turn of 3.x-support, look at MacOS. How long did it take till every app needed was PPC ? And than, how long did it take till they all were ported to OSX ?
Now translate those numbers to our market, where useing over 5 years old unsupported SW is the norm not the exception.....
And in what way would these new APIs be anymore "Amiga-like", except for the name ? And why does anything to be "Amiga-like" ? I don't think that a coder used to AOS1.x instantly feelt that 2.0s BOOPSI was "Amiga-like". And what makes Reaction (or MUI) more "Amiga-like" than GTK or QT ?
The point of buying an "Amiga" is to be able to use the SW we know. The point of coding for "Amiga" is the love-affair with small-footprint OSes. And when I can't have the old API anymore, than I want one that is as modern as possible while still keeping it simple. I certainly don't want any compromises just to make it look more "Amiga-like". _________________ - We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet - blame Canada |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|