@kas1e

Quote:

I looks like someone who not know situation with morphos HW ?:) And i currently on AROS, so there is no problems with HW.

You still thinking like an OS4 user in some ways (although I know you are way more open minded than the average os4 user). There's no lack of hardware with MorphOS.

Quote:

I just talking that support of 68k and worring about it like something "must to have absolutly",

It hasn't and it doesn't prevent a port to 64bits. But as long as it doesn't have to go it doesn't hurt to have it.

Quote:

what is more necessary its have powerfull os with MP and stuff, and on fast HW.

I prefer enjoying my system right now instead of waiting for pipedreams. As I say, I'm practical and I prefer enjoying PowerPC systems right now (powerpc g5 runs up to 2.7ghz, there are cheap quad core G5 systems out there...) and avoid waiting. In the meantime MorphOS team can adapt the OS components to work with 64bit systems, can add multicpu support to QBox and so on and the QBox can evolve independently of ABox.

When drivers are defined in QBox a wrapper can be written for ABox so it uses a generic driver that uses QBox services.

I prefer to have an useable laptop right now capable of running m68k software instead of waiting 3 or 4 years for an x86 port. In 4 years many MorphOS users could get tired and leave if there wasn't development, and you can develop OS components that are portable to 64bit, you can define new functions in QBox, you can define new driver APIs and start to use these from ABox. The point of MorphOS boxes is being able to use ABox without compromising main OS. So you could even run entire ABox inside a PowerPC emulator if they developed a PowerPC->x86-64 JIT.

I'm not dreaming about other OS, MorphOS is the OS I love, and it's the OS I want to use right now. I don't plan waiting and looking screenshots like other Amiga users like to do. I want to use laptops in a few months and I don't have any interest in waiting 3 years for an x86 port that won't bring me any advantage because I can get all the MorphOS hardware I want because it's really cheap and performance of 2nd hand Apple computers is enough for me ATM (QuadG5 is nice for me ATM, I don't need 8 x86-64 cores right now)

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@KimmoK
Quote:

Unless MOS team is changing the vocabulary, quark is the kernel and qbox is the "native" environment for it's applications, while ABox is only meant for AmigaOS SW. So... ABox is to be sandboxed after 3.0 and MOS team will start to work with the true MOS, porting OS components from ABox to QBox. GREAT! MOS that runs it's apps "natively" in QBox is like the pipedream of AOS5. IMHO, MOS team should have started the Q development already ten years ago and leave AmigaOS compatibility & ABox to Hyperion to play with. But I guess thay needed to show how good AOS4 they would/could have done... And ... perhaps MOS team knows better, but so far it seems to me that PPC is ok for desktop if the OS can do SMP. ... + now it seems almost 100% sure that MOS will not run on any new PPC HW.

It's comments like this that make me wish I didn't ask for a translation.

There is no need to bring Hyperion into this, and there were very good reasons for the MOS team focusing on ABox first, and you're projecting too far ahead in terms of the hardware plans.

Please put your prejudices to one side and take the news at face value. Thank you.

@kas1e

Quote:

As i see, on AROS there is ppls who want 68k support the same, through, i also found it as stop-factor for progress.

you have not been around to observe it but exactly since 68k support started to be seriously worked on last year aros started to gain ground. the overall activity increased, no question, and new 68k developers essentially contribute to improve the whole, not to mention it helps to improve performnce, fix bugs and incompatibilities, which caused aros to remain it its ghetto before. i dont dicuss it that 68k compatibility might become obstacle at some point and likely will be dropped or banned in a separate fork, but it isnt a case for now. quite the opposite.

and remember aros lack of (embedded) 68k compatibility was the reason for many to choose mos or os4 instead. the bridge between 68k and other supported architectures (x86 and x64 among them) may convince classic users like me to invest in aros. maybe even switch at some point.

@kas1e

and one more thing, living with aros you have to accept that this is democratic alike envirnoment. you have to respect others dedications. you have been accustomed to unquestionable dictatorship on os4, which you would be fine with if they would make right decissions along your opinions. this takes some time to relax. sorry, i dont want to sound as aros ideologist, im not even that involved, but then even standing a step aside i think im entiteled to this observations.

Last edited by wawa on 14-Nov-2011 at 01:05 PM.

@Crumb
Quote:

There's no lack of hardware with MorphOS.

There is lack of fast and good hardware for morphos. By fast i mean not 1.5ghz, but 3ghz. Morphos no have problems with hardware which not faster than 1.5ghz, and have limitations there and there. Of course it can be sound like "no problems with HW", but if you want to do something very heavy, raw-power are must, and, 1.5ghz are not enough.

@wawa
Quote:

may convince classic users like me to invest in aros. maybe even switch at some point.

Invest to classic version of aros ? And swith to classic version of aros ?

Quote:

and one more thing, living with aros you have to accept that this is democratic alike envirnoment. you have to respect others dedications. you have been accustomed to unquestionable dictatorship on os4, which you would be fine with if they would make right decissions along your opinions. this takes some time to relax. sorry, i dont want to sound as aros ideologist, im not even that involved, but then even standing a step aside i think im entiteled to this observations.

:))) Living with anything, i accept only what i want to accept. That it, sorry. Blah .. for what you bring all that politic crap at all ? disctatorships, democratic .. Now you will say something about communism and anarchy, right ?:)

Last edited by kas1e on 14-Nov-2011 at 01:24 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@crumb

haha, nice attempt at trolling.

Last edited by Toaks on 14-Nov-2011 at 01:27 PM.

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

@Drako

I don't see hardware compatibility with the AmigaOne MicroA1. Is there anything special involved in making that happen or would that be just minor "tweaks" to MOS to get it to work? If they did have it available for my hardware AND it wasn't too expensive, I would buy a copy and give it a try.
I'm not against supporting both OS4 and MOS...I just use OS4 right now and enjoy it very much. It would be interesting to do a side by side comparison on AmgaOne hardware.

Scott

_________________
AmigaOne uA1-c 512M RAM - Only Amiga Makes It Possible!
Check my blog AmigaOne Computing

Is the firewire port now able to use storage mediums?. Also, are the low vram modifications made?.

_________________
Amiga 1200 desktop. Apollo 030/50 Mhz 8mb ram + ClassicWB + Wb 3.1
Amiga 500 + ACA500plus 8mb + 30gb CF
Raspberry Pi 3b+ and Amibian 1.4
Mac Mini G4 1GB Ram with the butterfly!!

@kas1e

Quote:

There is lack of fast and good hardware for morphos.

There's not. There may be a lack of new native applications but hardware speed&availability don't stop development of any application.

Quote:

By fast i mean not 1.5ghz, but 3ghz.

Do you think that fastest hardware is automatically supported by any OS? MorphOS has been shown running on a dual 2.7Ghz G5. As I say, that's enough fast for me.

I'm happy with my 1.5Ghz Mac Mini. You can even find dual 2Ghz 7448 G4 accelerators for powermac. I don't mind waiting a little to get my powerbook supported, I don't mind waiting some more time for G5 support, but it seems you negate the fact that supporting G5 requires far less effort than switching to x86-64 right now. Supporting ppc right now doesn't predate future developments since all the sources can be designed to be portable to 64bit and little endian.

Quote:

if you want to do something very heavy, raw-power are must, and, 1.5ghz are not enough.

You have dual cpu cards, you even have tetra-G5 machines. 4 G5 running at 2.5Ghz with ~1Ghz bus is enough fast and can be accomplished fast. Stopping powerpc development and switching to x86 without improving current version is a suicide in terms of user base because x86 version would take quite a lot of years and a G5 version is much easier/faster to do and it already runs on top of that hardware. They can even switch to 64bits

If you left os4 due to both lack of performance&poor hardware it doesn't mean MorphOS users have to do the same. If I wanted a 2Ghz MorphOS machine I would already have it.

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@_ThEcRoW

"yes" to both questions.

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

These are great news for MOS. Looking forward to the X64/ARM version. I do believe that X64 would make more sense(for the forseeable future), but I wouldn't pass on an ARM port either.

_________________

@kas1e

Quote:

Invest to classic version of aros ? And swith to classic version of aros ?

whatever (version of aros), its a free world and its everybodys own choice. for me x86 aros was never that much of a subject up till now. it might become but i have better productivity systems for that hardware now. we will see how it develops.

Quote:

i accept only what i want to accept.

same for everybody else. working together compromises have to be made though. deal with it,;)

@scabit

Quote:

I don't see hardware compatibility with the AmigaOne MicroA1. Is there anything special involved in making that happen or would that be just minor "tweaks" to MOS to get it to work?

Let's do a list, why it might not be that good idea:

1)It's not manufactured anymore (not that much of an issue without the next item)
2)It was sold in really low quantities, some of which are already broken.
3)As it was requirement for using what could be seen as direct comptitor to MorphOS, it's not likely THAT many people would buy it.
4)Those who REALLY want to try MorphOS can buy a sub-GHz (or faster) supported PowerMac for few dozen euros. As an added bonus, it might be faster than the A1 he already has.
5)Involvement of some people, who haven't had very good relationship with MorphOS team (to put it very nicely), could mention Ben Hermans, for example.

And these two matter the most, in my opinion:
6)Availability of cheaper, faster, more widespread, more reliable hardware, which should be supported first ("Anything PPC" from Apple).
7)Availability of new device category (along with everything from the previous list) that hasn't been supported at all yet: Apple laptops.

Let's add one more:
8)Availability of currently unsupported devices, that are more rare or worse than currently supported models, that should be supported before any niche hardware, (like A1 / uA1 / A1X1000 etc.) - f.ex. MacBooks and G5 PowerMacs.

Of course this is just my opinion.

@Crumb

Sorry, but i can't understand why you trying to put OS4 in the talks. I leave os4 because they not make me betatester, that all, there is no other reasson, and all the pluses which i found on AROS (cheap and fast hw) i found even 2 years ago.

I do not know how you can say that 1.5 ghz is fast, and 3ghz are not need it. I want to edited videos (fast), i want to browse internet even faster in 2-3 times than on 1.5ghz. I want decode audio/video fast. I want save big gfx files fast. I want DosBox which will works fast-fast (faster than on 1.5ghz). But not on windows/linux/macos, but on something new and interesting like morphos.

For me its seems strange that someone will not agree with the fact, that faster hardware are better than slower hardware.

And that have nothing to do with aos4, its general , as we discuss just "how good to have cheap and _very fast_ HW". Of course one can explain why for him 68k with 020 are enough, another one can explain why for him 1.5ghz are enough. But , have 3ghz, or 5ghz, its always better, than have 20mhz, or 1ghz, or 2ghz.

Quote:

Stopping powerpc development and switching to x86 without improving current version is a suicide in terms of user base because x86 version would take quite a lot of years and a G5 version is much easier/faster to do and it already runs on top of that hardware. They can even switch to 64bits

Pretty possible, but still, 1.5ghz are slower than 3ghz. No ?:)

Last edited by kas1e on 14-Nov-2011 at 05:20 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

I think its a good move to move mos to another architecture, specially more modern and cheaper ones. i would vote x64 but ARM sounds good to specially as its used in alot of devices today. Ditching 68k compatibility is very welcome if it means memoryprotection and other new and better/faster stuff. Not for many people but for folks like me. Ok im an OS4 user but i think the same for OS4.

Problem would be replacing 68k software we like with new native ones. Some could be run under an emulator. For example on summer vacation i use hd-rec under winuar on my windows laptop to control my hardware synthesizer. But that i can thank to winuae and drivers in windows.

But it wouldnt make everyone happy. However some things needs to be removed to get forward.

@kas1e

Quote:

For me its seems strange that someone will not agree with the fact, that faster hardware are better than slower hardware.

I think we misunderstood each other. You said development for next PPC machines should stop and focus on other things e.g. x86-64. I say current plan is ok as it's better to support G5 because it can be done with little effort (it's running there already) and later port to other architectures.

You claimed that m68k compatibility would affect negatively to 64bit and multi-cpu support and that may be true on other OSes but not on MorphOS since they can add that features to Q-Box and can already make 64bit portable code as it's done right now with AROS (the sources compile ok on both m68k and amd64)

Quote:

Pretty possible, but still, 1.5ghz are slower than 3ghz. No ?:)

If it means waiting a few months for a 3Ghz G5 version it's great, if it means waiting 4 years stopping ppc support completely for a future x86-64 version that may or may not come to x86-64 it's not good for me.

MorphOS Team plan sounds very reasonable for me.

Quote:

i can't understand why you trying to put OS4 in the talks

I can't understand that you think that leaving MorphOS users stuck a few years waiting for a vapourware x86-64 version and not releasing the G5 versions they already have working in some months is a good idea. Perhaps it's because in you experience the hardware has been very limited, I don't know.

Quote:

I do not know how you can say that 1.5 ghz is fast, and 3ghz are not need it. I want to edited videos (fast)

I don't have interest in editing video otherwise I probably wouldn't be using any Amiga "NG" since we lack software. Anyway that requires software, not hardware. If it was a hardware problem then a QuadG5 is quite fast for that. I prefer a G5 version on less than a year than waiting 4 years without updates for a totally incompatible x86-64 version like you seem to propose

Quote:

, i want to browse internet even faster in 2-3 times than on 1.5ghz.

My equipment is quite fast, the bottleneck is not the hardware but the software (we don't have a Javascript JIT).

As I tell you a QuadG5 machine is probably enough fast, I would think that faster than some of the machines you have at home.

Quote:

I want decode audio/video fast.

My Mac Mini can almost play 1920x1080 mpeg2 video and I'm pretty sure a 1.8Ghz G4 can. That's right now with MorphOS. Not waiting for dreams.

Quote:

I want save big gfx files fast.

Rest assured, DMA works on Macs.

Quote:

I want DosBox which will works fast-fast (faster than on 1.5ghz).

I don't care much about a crappy pc emulator. If I wanted to run pc software I would use a pc.

Quote:

But not on windows/linux/macos, but on something new and interesting like morphos.

whatever. My comment was mostly because I prefer MorphOS-Team plan of giving good support to Apple Hardware and in the long term porting to x86-64/ARM instead of your idea of showing the middle finger to current users and leaving them stuck without updates 4 or 5 years waiting for a vapourware version that may or may not come. As I told you, MorphOS users like enjoying stuff right now instead of dreaming about vapourware.

I prefer MorphOS Team to port to G5, then add 64bit, then perhaps improve qbox, then maybe port to other architecture, etc instead of leaving PPC completely and switching to x86-64 forcing users to wait many years (and that without counting loosing all compatibility)

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

If you're going to lose compatibility with existing software then X86 makes much more sense than ARM. At the moment most ARM devices are tablets, for which an Amiga like OS UI isn't suited to, and the desktop systems that are starting to filter through are thin client systems with specs which wouldn't appeal to most Amiga fans.

AMD and Intel are the kings of high performance desktop computing and I don't that's going to change in the next couple of years.

@KimmoK

ABox has been always running in a co-operative sandbox (drivers are inside ABox and many more) and it doesnt have to run under Quark specifically.

And I dont think ABox is going away because it is what Amiga developers know best. You dont really define new OS from the scratch and expect to have applications for it.

@kas1e

Just dont expect MorphOS to be new Amiga messiah bringing light and joy to every home on the earth.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@Rob
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss ARM. One factor to bear in mind is that Windows 8 is going to support ARM. With support like that, there's definitely the possibility for low power desktop ARM PCs. I'd imagine it'll only be after the launch of the Cortex-A15 that you'll see such devices in sizable numbers, as it should prove powerful enough for a good chunk of desktop computing tasks. Shouldn't be long now before the first Cortex-A15 based devices are released:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4976/arm-cadence-tape-out-20nm-cortex-a15-test-chip

@HenryCase

For average Joe having an ARM inside his peecee won't bring many advantages, he'll try to run Windows7 software without success then he'll return the ARM box to the shop and will exchange it by a much more compatible x86 one.

I don't expect ARM to replace x86 on desktop, companies may be interested if it brings very big savings of power but if companies were concerned about that we would be using low-power laptop-like x86 cpus on desktops, much more compatible.

For me the availability of Windows8 for ARM is as relevant as the availability of WindowsNT for PowerPC well, seriously, it may be interesting since tablets/smartphones could use the same binaries and it could make development and testing more comfortable but I think it won't make a big impact on x86 sales.

Last edited by Crumb on 14-Nov-2011 at 08:59 PM.

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ