Since my Amiga experience started last year with 4.1, I'm not experienced on using 3.9 which is why I'm asking this out of interest. Since there are still many people attached to 3.9 who don't want anything (or little) to do with 4.1/4.2 because of the experience, what exactly is it that's so different about the 4.x experience (aside from the theming/icons/etc.)? Is there some big misser? Note that I'm talking software here, not hardware.

Last edited by Vistaus on 16-Jun-2014 at 08:59 PM.

_________________
Proud user of AmigaOS 4.1 on an AmigaONE 500. This is the first Amiga I've ever had so I don't know all the ins and outs of AmigaOS yet, so I'm sorry if I'm asking noob questions and stuff.

@Vistaus

no really differences , the 4.1 is a great amiga experience ... the only difference is one ... the Amiga , i think is this what amigans miss really much , the amiga when was Amiga in commodore ages

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@tlosm

Yeah, I love 4.1! But since I never used 3.9, I'm still interested in knowing what exactly 4.1 is missing from 3.9 in the software experience (not the hardware experience).

_________________
Proud user of AmigaOS 4.1 on an AmigaONE 500. This is the first Amiga I've ever had so I don't know all the ins and outs of AmigaOS yet, so I'm sorry if I'm asking noob questions and stuff.

@Vistaus

Amiga Os 3.9 is in fact totally equal to 4.1 the big difference you will have in the overall graphics , more poor in 3.9 but the feelings are the same

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@Vistaus

My feelings are coloured by the fact that I had better set up 3.x system than my 4.x system. Therefore 4.x feels inferior (and more complex) in some areas.

On my best 3.x setup I could:
-set virtual memory per application
-tune SW priorities and schedulers per application via executive
-never ran out of memory with 128MB system
-was a more mature OS (more mature than win/linux/whatever)
-did use the standard HW in cool way (like screen switch in about 2ms)
-could do more stuff than the mainstream of that time

My 4.x system:
-can handle bigger data faster.
-can do fullHD
-can play movies
-can execute modern bloated SW ports
-suffers from limited R&D resources (co-operation with MorphOS etc could make it 1000x better faster)

etc..

Last edited by KimmoK on 17-Jun-2014 at 09:05 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 17-Jun-2014 at 09:03 AM.

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

@Vistaus

Speaking as a developer, there's a ton of changes under the hood that most people don't see. It's a lot more porting-friendly than OS 3.x for starters, which is why there's so many ports from Linux etc.. Keeping up with technologies has often meant improvement to the subsystems underlying the OS. There's also lots of tidying up in the API and inconsistencies removed, that sort of thing.

Of course to the average user, they never see this- they just see the results, which is a fast, stable OS on a modern machine. When I have to go back to OS 3 for coding, though, I really notice the difference.

@Spirantho

I see it as a mixed picture... you also have lots of compilers and documentation on 3.X and the "tidying up" also makes it less compatible. MorphOS and AROS is very compatible, as a example I can see how many applications and games work on Aros 68k (besides of Zune) so to me it seems (and from what I read) that AmigaOS is less compatible to 3.X today than both MorphOS and AROS (what not means worse but it seems that there are lots of small differences)

@OlafS25

They always keep the deprecated bits in there, though, so you can still compile OS 3 things (c.f. __USE_INLINE__)... you just get warmings. I'd say it's about the same as MorphOS and AROS for source compatibility... maybe MorphOS has a slight edge on binary compatibility, but only slight.

@Spirantho

Right speaking :)
But for a user the feeling is the same ... using 4.1 i feel stay at home like using 3.x :)

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@KimmoK

Mature as in grandmother porn or mature as in cheese?

Only one of those is an advantage in my opinion

I also doubt you can objectively say that it could be 1000 times better or faster without completely rethinking what a computer or even an OS is. So if that's your level of realism in the discussion, I don't see a point in continuing...

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Spirantho

Quote:

Spirantho wrote: Speaking as a developer, there's a ton of changes under the hood that most people don't see. It's a lot more porting-friendly than OS 3.x for starters, which is why there's so many ports from Linux etc.. Keeping up with technologies has often meant improvement to the subsystems underlying the OS. There's also lots of tidying up in the API and inconsistencies removed, that sort of thing.

Oh yes, I was going to mention this myself. There's also a ton of new stuff which makes writing new applications easily/more featureful.

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

@olegil

>Only one of those is an advantage in my opinion

Mature enough to know how to satisfy & get satisfied.

(in computer terms, OS that does not kill itself while idling, serial interface that works without hickups,... young OS + young HW is not the optimal combo, glad that they do not put Amigans in jail by "using" such "teens")

(hmm... that is the advantage for MorphOS on well tested old Mac, when something is not working, you can blame the SW. btw. now I know where the "blue pill" legend came from, they were planning to use the old stuff since the beginning )

>1000 times better

Yes, I exaggerated. "far more advanced" might have been more appropriate.
(like Gallium3D done long time ago, office suite done years ago, drivers done sooner, etc.. )

Last edited by KimmoK on 17-Jun-2014 at 02:23 PM.

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

@Vistaus

OS4.1 is also missing all those badly writen programs that hack the system or directly access the hardware. which is a good thing

Some hacks work but only effect 68k programs.

4.1 has many advantages over 3.9, for example a couple of things are: APPDIR: a dev or user no longer has to set paths to programs called within their app. installers can find where you have something installed for easy updating.
when using screen dragging in any firection not just up and down like 3.x, you can drag'n'drop icons onto a different screen.

@kimmok
Quote:

On my best 3.x setup I could: -set virtual memory per application -tune SW priorities and schedulers per application via executive -never ran out of memory with 128MB system -was a more mature OS (more mature than win/linux/whatever) -did use the standard HW in cool way (like screen switch in about 2ms)

-Virtual memory is not needed with the large amounts of ram available now.
-Tuning software priorities can still be done with settaskpri and scout etc. but rarely required anymore due to overall increased speed.
-Never ran out of memory on a 512mb micro, now I have 2gb X1000...
-Even more mature OS as it's based on OS3.1 sourcecode
-Screen switching is the same, it's the modern LCD monitors that takes the time to switch

-

_________________
OS4 Rocks
X1000 beta tester, Sam440 Flex (733)

Visit the Official OS4 Support Site for more help.

It may be that your sole purpose is to serve as a warning to others.

Quote:

Vistaus wrote: Note that I'm talking software here, not hardware.

But for many it's all about the hardware. They (including myself) aren't interested in PPC hardware (not saying it's crap, there are many things I'm not interested in that aren't crap) regardless of how good AOS4 is. Actually, for me it's exclusively about the hardware, namely AGA+68030, and I would replace AOS faster than the speed of light if there was something better available that was developed exclusively for OCS/ECS/AGA+680x0. Sadly I can't.

Last edited by Thorham on 17-Jun-2014 at 02:42 PM.

@Thorham

Aros 68k potentielle could, problem is that 68k developers are not much interested in investing time in it. At the moment only Toni Wilen is doing something (now and then). We would need more people improving it. Biggest problem, it is not much optimized for real hardware right now (Blitter and so on)

Last edited by OlafS25 on 17-Jun-2014 at 02:47 PM.

@Severin

When you take single elements I could also name you a lot of libraries developed in several years in highly optimized assembler that beat everything on NG simply because they were written at a time when people at least believed at a commercial future. And depending on where you use it you have also plenty of ressources (RAM, processing power). So i think no winner

I do not say that it is not better but the differences between heavily patched 3.X (like Amikit) and NG is not that big in my view.

@Vistaus

I don´t think 4.1 and 3.9 are directly comparable (12 years of developement between these versions).

Biggest advantage of 3.9 is availabilty of cheap and powerful hardware in all form factors.

@Thorham

You're missing the point. I know very well the differences in terms of hardware (PPC vs 68k, custom chips, etc.). But I've never had an Amiga before my AONE500 so I've never used 3.9 and thus I'd like to know from 3.9 users that either use or used 4.x what's different in the software experience.

Luckily, a lot of people so far have answered my question, which I thank them for :)

@pavlor

You're right, it's not truly comparable. But from what I saw on the internet, 4.1 resembles 3.9 and there are still a lot of users. Age doesn't matter in this case. I don't see anyone still using KDE 1 or GNOME 1 on Linux. I know the hardware is a big difference and may in some cases even prevent upgrading to 4.1, but I won't believe for sure that there are no 3.9 users out there who may find their experience better on 3.9 and therefore stay with 3.9

Last edited by Vistaus on 17-Jun-2014 at 04:19 PM.
Last edited by Vistaus on 17-Jun-2014 at 04:16 PM.

_________________
Proud user of AmigaOS 4.1 on an AmigaONE 500. This is the first Amiga I've ever had so I don't know all the ins and outs of AmigaOS yet, so I'm sorry if I'm asking noob questions and stuff.

Quote:

OlafS25 wrote: Aros 68k potentielle could

I was aiming more for a completely new OS which has absolutely nothing to do with AOS in any way at all, and is completely incompatible with AOS as well. Very unlikely to happen, I know. Furthermore, AOS3.0 is fine for 680x0 Amiga software, no need to replace the OS for that. Actually, for many programs, AOS2 would probably be enough, except for a system function here and there.

It basically comes down to me wanting to get rid of the 'AOS and it's software' legacy, because OSC/ECS/AGA with 68020+ can do (MUCH) better than that.

@Vistaus

Why not try 3.x via UAE?