@elwood
It may be that full Linux-like memory protection requires running old programs in a sandbox but that is not the approach AmigaOS 4.0 has taken. Looking at the API it seems to me we are moving towards optional memory protection in key areas instead. That way the old programs without any MP forethought can be phased out while new programs take their place using the new APIs which enable MP. The user will then be able to enable or disable memory protection which in turn enables or disables running the old programs.

_________________
ExecSG Team Lead

@ssolie

The problem is, for how AmigaOS is conceived, that simply is not possible.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

@Amigo1

Quote:

it's funny, now that so much effort was done to make os4 compatible with older 68k(classic) progs, dropping it all of a sudden seems little awesome to me..

It may seem so but the only reason for keeping backwards compatibility at this time is to insure that a minimum of programs are available when the new OS is ready.

Windows is hardly backwards compatible from one revision to another. There programmers have to keep their software updated if they want new customers.

We, of course, don't have that luxury but in the long run who wants to be running 15 and 20 year old software.

In that case OS4 would have been a sad failure if no new programs evolve along with the OS.

Too many are already complaining about programs not keeping up with the windows counterparts, I hope we only have to use 10 year old programs for a short while after OS4 is released and newer ones can be made!

_________________
Fixed A1G4XE 7455 RX933PC with fried CPU
Sapphire Radeon 9100 128mb
ESI Juli@ 24bit 192kHz Envy24HT
Sil 680 Ultra Ata 133 E-ide
SeaGate Barracuda 120gb 8mb cache

@elwood

Quote:

Having MP will stop all old programs to work immediately.

If you wish to have an OS without software that is way to go. Memory protection would break all existing software including OS4 native ones.

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

@number6

I agree with you but I'm no coder and I don't know which apps will break or not.
I am just thinking, what would happen if we had full MP? Native apps can be made MP-compliant that's not a problem. What I don't know is how many Amigans depend on old 68k apps (with no available sources).

_________________
Philippe 'Elwood' Ferrucci
Sam460 1.10 Ghz
AmigaOS 4 betatester
Amiga Translator Organisation

@elwood
Quote:

Native apps can be made MP-compliant that's not a problem

You need a whole new OS, which may or may not share some functionalities with the original AmigaOS, in order to get MP. The AmigaOS' API simply heavily relies on the absence of MP. You can't make a native app MP-compliant just like that, you may need to totally rewrite it, using an entirely different set of API's.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

@elwood

Quote:What I don't know is how many Amigans depend on old 68k apps (with no available sources)."

If this becomes your question I feel it becomes somewhat of a different poll.
Now you are asking the user base whether they depend up any 68k apps.
"With sources/without sources" does not come into play here, because you are now
asking the user basically "what programs do you still use/need?"

My point is that until now I viewed this poll as having more of an internal
interest to testers/developers. Sure, any user could vote, but what was he
voting on? Was he voting on the issue of "allocation of OS4 resources, human
and otherwise?" Was he voting on "how he thought he could best serve Hyperion?"
Was he voting on "narrowing focus a bit in order to achieve a goal at a quicker
pace?" Excuse me if these examples are off base. I only list them to illustrate
a point.

I feel there is certainly a great value to a poll that speaks to your betatesters,
developers, and the company in general. But your latest question, IMO, deserves
a poll of its own. Yes, people will say that we have expressed our 68k used/needed
programs before. But if you are trying to bring this info "up to date", I see
no reason why you should not ask for this data again.

Best Wishes,
#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Eric_S

I agree with your first comment, too.

Old programs are exactly that...old. Moving the OS forward is the only thing I'm interested in seeing in the long-term.

I shall contradict myself and say that old programs make up most of the Amiga's software base, so they're quite necessary, but in a perfect world you can run them under UAE.

Steve

_________________
A1200T - OS4.0,OS3.9: 603e PPC 200mhz,060 50mhz, 256mb ram, FastATA MK-III, BVision, 160gb,20gb HDDs

A1200 - OS3.1: Blizzard IV 030, 64mb ram, 400mb HDD

OS4.x - Flying the AMIGA flag

@stevieu

Second

MemProt, old programs can and already are removed with new ones, so drop it!

@number6

Quote:

What I don't know is how many Amigans depend on old 68k apps (with no available sources)."

I personally rely heavily on ImageFX4.5, YAM, Dopus4, Wordworth7, TurboCalc and dme as 68k apps

ImageFX TurboCalc and Wordworth are the most critical, as YAM does have a ppc version but I
just haven't upgraded yet, I'm not sure about Dopus4, and I have the source
to dme so I could port that (although it's riddled with 68k assembler).

If I were to lose the first 3 programs to memeory protection I would be crippled. So I have to vote no to
memory protection.

EUAE is not a viable alternative to programs running directly under OS4. Not for me anyway.

What would be useful is a good tutorial of the does and don't to make native apps
memory protection aware.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@elwood
Quote:

I am just thinking, what would happen if we had full MP? Native apps can be made MP-compliant that's not a problem.

I think partial memory protection and resource tracking is the way to go with AmigaOS. We already have some memory protection implemented in 4.0 and much more can be done. In the end, all the end users really want is a fun and stable system. With the 4.0 release of AmigaOS, significant steps have been taken to address this which I believe are already paying off as many of my beta tester colleagues will confirm. Full memory protection may not be possible but we certainly can and did focus on the biggest problem areas and addressed some of them with partial memory protection already.

_________________
ExecSG Team Lead

@broadblues

YAM is OS4 native

_________________
ikir

@broadblues
Quote:

What would be useful is a good tutorial of the does and don't to make native apps memory protection aware.

Indeed. It is pretty clear that using IExec->AllocSysObject() and the MEMF_SHARED flag are good first steps but more detail is necessary to avoid future pitfalls with 4.1 and beyond. On thing is certain so far. Never use the MEMF_PUBLIC flag.

_________________
ExecSG Team Lead

@thread

If a user were to follow the advice of some others here and take their 68k apps
over to E-UAE, are the following fully implemented:

Floppy support
Parallel support
Serial support

Best Wishes,
#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Thread:

While i agree that for the time being, users should have legacy support enabled, thus allowing old applications to coexist with newer ones, developers instead could get a somewhat "MP capable" OS4 system to be able to develop Newer Applications under a more safer environment, without the need of multiple reboots/crashes while developing, and having a better ways to handle memory leaks, unreleased resources ,etc.

_________________
Cuida tus piedras gordas.

A1200/030 32Mb
A4000D
A1-X1000.

@elwood

Quote:

Imagine Amigans can wait for 1 more year,

No.

Quote:

would you like memory protection to be implemented into the OS ?

Yes, but not at the expense of a year long holdup. The OS can't afford to delay yet again, period. Enough people have been lost.
a. Find hardware to run on.
b. Release it.

Changes can be made in the future, but time is money in this case, I believe.

Also, losing existing apps is a bad move until there are replacements. One of the strengths is being able to use the old 68k programs, at least until replacements arrive...which in some cases, is going to take time.

If instead, the option of 'sandboxing' 68k apps, along with a privs list to determine how individual apps were to be run, would give the best of both worlds, but is unlikely to be simple to implement. It's possible you'd wind up with an entire 68k subsystem running as a virtual machine.

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@falemagn

Quote:

You need a whole new OS, which may or may not share some functionalities with the original AmigaOS

I think a few more API's are going to be added to deal whit some of the annoying aspects of AmigaOS like windows that can't be closed, when program crashes.

I think you can move slowly on the way to memory protection, no need to add full memory protection over night

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

@ssolie

Quote:

Indeed. It is pretty clear that using IExec->AllocSysObject() and the MEMF_SHARED flag are good first steps but more detail is necessary to avoid future pitfalls with 4.1 and beyond.

Using IEXEc->allocsysobject for things that this allocates is definetly the right thing todo, Currently my main project (Aweb) fails miserably in this regard. But I will get arround to it, once the javascript.aweblib is finished.

Looking at the includes and AllocMem auto doc it implies that MEMF_SHARED should be used instead of MEMF_PUBLIC except for when it is to be accessed by interupts. THis adviace is emboldened in the autodoc but is it current? It implies to me that MEMF_PUBLIC is forced to stay in hardware memory as opposed to MEMF_VIRTUAL, which may also be MEMF_SHARED

I infer that you should only be specify MEMF_SHARED for memory that is to be viewed by another task, that you should specify MEMF_PRIVATE for memory that must not be view by another task.(when?).But in general you should choose MEMF_ANY.

We are offered macros for converting MEMF_PUBLIC to MEMF_SHARED, but in AWeb's cas many usages of MEMF_PUBLIC are fatious.So I need to work out how to select the correct times to use MEMF_SHARED. Some thought, then some trial and error I guess

Last edited by broadblues on 07-Nov-2005 at 10:53 PM.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@thread

If memory protection could be switched off by the user, then it wouldn't matter. If the user was running 'MP safe' programs he could leave it switched on and if he wanted to run older programs he could switch it off.

_________________
'unfixed' A1XE, 512mb RAM, plug-in USB card, Sil 0680 IDE card, Radeon 9250, built-in sound, OS4.1 update 5.

@Eric_S

Quote:

Memory protection for teh win! Serioulsy though, any old apps that gets busted due to it can be run under EUAE. IMO letting legacy hinder progress is a bad thing aspecially when there is a perfecly viable solution for people that wants to run the apps under OS4 (again, using EUAE).

This of course depends on whether EUAE works in an MP environment on OS4

_________________
Test sig (new)