@gadgetgaz

Quote:

What else, apart from uboot and a ppc processor, is required to boot AmigaOS? I am probably showing my ignorance here.

Well, you need a uboot with the FLB, first level booter, as that is the only thing that can boot OS4. Uboot is an open source project, so there's no problem getting uboot, it's just the bootloader used. Then, after that, you need supported hardware. Such as in the PCI slots. And also onboard hardware. And of course drivers. Perhaps drivers are the easiest, as long as you know how adevice works, just write an OS4 device drvier fro it. AFAIK OS4 also comes with a HAL, so we have AmigaPPC HAL, A1 HAL, and I guess there is a MM HAL if you believe it works.

Quote:

The only reason I ask is because I have recently been mucking about with a Buffalo Linkstation (266MHz PPC) NAS device to get Slimserver running on it. Some guys here at the Buffalo NAS-Central have ported uboot to the Likstation. That would be a cool project!

Okay I see, so it's like a A4000 CyberPPC? Dies it have a gfx card?

That would be interesting. You could first try the A1 Debian Linux CD or otherwise download it.
http://amigaone-linux.sourceforge.net/

@Varthall

Quote:

Varthall wrote: @vision Quote: vision wrote: @DaveAE Yes, there is a project, cause I have some files of it already How do you know it is not legal? Have you done it, to be so sure? Anyway, just in case it isn´t, it is still something more important to me: it is FAIR. So fock the owners of the legal thing. The author of the loader has declared that's illegal, I believe he has posted here on aw.net too. Also, one thing is to make your own hack to run your copy of OS4, and to distribute your own work. Another thing is to distribute someone's else work without his consent. But I understand your wish to try to make things proceed in the Amiga community, I feel the same lately as many others.

Well, he did send the staff a PM, which later Wegster posted in public here. (After staff discussion and permission from the PM-sender)

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@Hypex
Quote:

The point. So we can run legacy 68k applications?

What for?

We're in 2008 now, are there really that many 68k applications we absolutely need to run?

Quote:

So what is all this hoo hah about? Everybody forget about Mac mini, forget about OS4 on x86, AROS does everything! Everybody use AROS now!!! It fulfils all of your dreams! It's the new Amithlon! Were you all so blind?! An open source x86 AmigaOS was already on the market and you all missed it?

Actually, I'd be more than happy to use AROS if it was comparable to OS4 (feature-wise).

Quote:

What off the shelf PPC boards did we have 5 years ago?

You added a "PPC" I didn't mention. On purpose.

But we've had too many "AOS on x86" and I don't want to start a new flame war, I can only say that I believe (please note this is *not* a technical opinion, I have little knowledge of AmigaOS' inner workings, it's just my... feeling, so to say) that porting the OS to x86 hardly classify as impossible.

Quote:

I think even if Eyetech bought a 1000 Pegasos boards, stuck UBoot on it, and re-badged them as AmigaOnes we would have had a cheaper board that was better.

I agree.

@Turrican3

Quote:

What for?

For whatever we want. Plus, you can't claim to have any kind of real AmigaOS if it doesn't actually run Amiga software.

Quote:

We're in 2008 now, are there really that many 68k applications we absolutely need to run?

Again, depends on taste. I still used Wordworth with OS4. And it's still the only way we can OctamedSS. And The Maestrix. Without it KingCON wouldn't run and I would have been stuck with the (sub-)standard Amiga shell. From time to time I also use a few 68k image programs. And it's good to try out the plethora of Aminet programs.

Quote:

Actually, I'd be more than happy to use AROS if it was comparable to OS4 (feature-wise).

What does OS4 do that AROS can't? All sorts of apps are compiled for AROS. So, as you say, are there really that many 68k applications we absolutely need to run? Well it looks like you could use AROS without a need to run 68k stuff. Then I wonder, why does AROS need more development? Why hasn't it taken off and why do I know people into WinUAE and probabyl lamenting Amithlon that have never heard of it?

Quote:

You added a "PPC" I didn't mention. On purpose.

Yes I did.

But, it would have been useless to pick a PC board. AmigaOS4 is a PowerPC OS, it wouldn't have ran. In any case, if an x86 board was somehow licensed, would you have paid $1400 or ten times the cost of another PC board?

I wouldn't have. By the same token, I wouldn't want to buy a new Apple. Because of the Intel switch, I think it's just a PC inside, and can't justify the extra cost of a computer with less features than a PC but running a PC CPU.

Quote:

But we've had too many "AOS on x86" and I don't want to start a new flame war, I can only say that I believe (please note this is *not* a technical opinion, I have little knowledge of AmigaOS' inner workings, it's just my... feeling, so to say) that porting the OS to x86 hardly classify as impossible.

Well if you look at AROS you could say that it is possible. But AROS is a copy of the OS and the API with some changes. Providing general C source compatibility. And it leaves all the legacy 68k stuff out of it so doesn't have to deal with it.

I wonder, should AmigaOS4 have supported legacy 68k applications? (As well as legacy WarpUP PPC applications?) or you think it should have been a complete clean break? Thus making the portability of the source to x86 more likely?

Last edited by Hypex on 19-Jun-2008 at 04:42 PM.

@Hypex
Quote:

Plus, you can't claim to have any kind of real AmigaOS if it doesn't actually run Amiga software.

That depends on our definition of Amiga and/or AmigaOS.

Quote:

Again, depends on taste. I still used Wordworth with OS4. And it's still the only way we can OctamedSS. And The Maestrix. Without it KingCON wouldn't run and I would have been stuck with the (sub-)standard Amiga shell. From time to time I also use a few 68k image programs. And it's good to try out the plethora of Aminet programs.

It is, indeed.
But we could leave that kind of -somewhat limited, one could say- use to UAE, and I think (I haven't been using it for a while, this feature might have been removed, even though it was quite useful) there's no problem in sharing data between the host OS and the emulated Amiga, since it can map directories and/or drives as native partitions.

Quote:

What does OS4 do that AROS can't? All sorts of apps are compiled for AROS. [...] Then I wonder, why does AROS need more development? Why hasn't it taken off and why do I know people into WinUAE and probabyl lamenting Amithlon that have never heard of it?

It is difficult for me to answer: I guess (as I said before) that AROS lacks a lot of functionalities compared to OS4. But it is an unfair comparison IMHO, since OS4 is a commercial program/OS (albeit one with a *very* complicated development history due to lack of proper funding, basically) while AROS isn't.

But that's not the real issue, probably.

Problem is that AmigaOS (OS4) needs a completely different financial/development/etc. "context": there are far too question marks at the moment over its future, and we all know what I'm talking about.

AROS has none of those issues. It could (relatively) easily become more powerful than OS4, feature-wise. Problem is, at the current pace of development, it could take years, but hey, at least this has nothing to do with a certain soap-opera-like lawsuit.

(please note I'm not advocating AROS, actually I believe I've seen it running maybe just once or twice)

Quote:

But, it would have been useless to pick a PC board. AmigaOS4 is a PowerPC OS, it wouldn't have ran.

AmigaOS is an OS, nothing more, nothing less. It's the developers that decided which CPU it could run on. (more on this later)

Quote:

In any case, if an x86 board was somehow licensed, would you have paid $1400 or ten times the cost of another PC board?

No, because I would have bought an AmigaONE instead for that price.

Quote:

Well if you look at AROS you could say that it is possible.

Actually we don't need AROS to say that AmigaOS on x86 isn't possible.

Back in the 90's there was a time when Microsoft Windows NT ran on multiple platforms. It could run on x86 and... PowerPC too.

That's why I have difficulties in believing people saying "no to x86" for technical reasons, but as I said before: it's just my opinion, I don't want to change anybody's ideas.

Quote:

I wonder, should AmigaOS4 have supported legacy 68k applications? (As well as legacy WarpUP PPC applications?) or you think it should have been a complete clean break? Thus making the portability of the source to x86 more likely?

I don't know honestly. I'm just an old-time Amiga user, and I'd be extremely happy to see a reborn of the platform, I don't care if it's a niche, it's *still* my favourite OS and I just want it back.

Last edited by Turrican3 on 19-Jun-2008 at 11:26 PM.

@Turrican3

Quote:

That's why I have difficulties in believing people saying "no to x86" for technical reasons, but as I said before: it's just my opinion, I don't want to change anybody's ideas.

That's right! There's really no reason not to run on x86. Especially with all the abundance of hardware and drivers.

@voyager2007

Sorry to ask, maybe I'm misunderstanding (after all English isn't my native language) what you're saying, but is that sarcarm or are you serious?

@voyager2007

It's precisely the abundance of hardware that makes it virtually impossible to support an X86 port. Any hardware that we support with a port (provided we can get programming data from the manufacturer) will be obsolete next year and unobtainable the next.

_________________
cheers
tony

Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php

Quote:

vision wrote: I just buyed a MAC MINI with the features that most likely will work with the OS4 hack/loader/whatever (1.5 GHZ and Radeon 9200 64MB). .....

vision I'm gonna do the same worse that can happen is that I actually might like OSX....

_________________
____________________________
c64-2sids, A1000, A1200T-060@50(finally working!),A4000-CSMKIII
! My Master Miggies- Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
mancave-ramblings
X1000 I BELIEVE

@tonyw

Quote:

Any hardware that we support with a port (provided we can get programming data from the manufacturer) will be obsolete next year and unobtainable the next.

Unfortunately that's exactly the situation we're now with AmigaONEs/Terons motherboards.

But to be honest, my point has never been "guys go to x86 for the sake of it". Honestly I couldn't care less about that ( = x86 ).

The thing that I have always believed to be crucial for an Amiga comeback is cheap hardware.

As long as it's cheap it's ok for me. Be it x86, PPC, MIPS, whatever you want. But it should be an A500/A1200 mid-to-low priced hardware to be successful, not a A3000/A4000 class, expensive machine.

This is what history suggests us: low-end Amigas sold very well, hi-end didn't.

@klx300r

THAT'S THE ATTITUDE!!! CHEERS!!!

@klx300r

Quote:

klx300r wrote: Quote: vision wrote: I just buyed a MAC MINI with the features that most likely will work with the OS4 hack/loader/whatever (1.5 GHZ and Radeon 9200 64MB). ..... vision I'm gonna do the same worse that can happen is that I actually might like OSX....

LOL, that same reasoning (someone might just use Windows) is the original reason why OS4 is on PPC instead of x86...

What Amiga Inc (W), Hyperion and Eyetech failed to realize is that, Amigans can all use Windows/Mac when the "need" to already.... We just "want" to use AmigaOS. Does the hardware really matter THAT much?

@_PAB_

How would this benefit Amiga Inc? or anyone else? You can't run OS4 on Mac Mini because it isn't licensed. Same old story.

_________________
X5000 / microA1(OS4.1 FE U2) / CodeBench / Imagine / Blender
Lightwave 2019 / Microsoft Visual C++

@klx300r

I bought an ibook g4 with radeon 64mb. The hw is almost the same as the macmini. Hope that if macmini will ever be supported ibook will be too. Portable amiga :)
Until that day I run tiger on it.

Last edited by neongod on 20-Jun-2008 at 07:18 PM.

@Turrican3

Quote:

is that sarcarm or are you serious?

I'm serious!

@tonyw

Quote:

It's precisely the abundance of hardware that makes it virtually impossible to support an X86 port. Any hardware that we support with a port (provided we can get programming data from the manufacturer) will be obsolete next year and unobtainable the next.

Yes, that's why I said earlier that there should be a hosted version (running on BSD or Linux), for instance. Then there would be no driver problems. You can strip down a BSD or Linux to the bare minimum, just so that the BSD or Linux kernel controls the hardware. Everything else could be done by a separate AOS kernel running as an application, or a demon.

@Turrican3

Quote:

Back in the 90's there was a time when Microsoft Windows NT ran on multiple platforms. It could run on x86 and... PowerPC too.

A variant of Windows NT kernel runs on POWER arch via XBOX 360.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Hammer

Well, I've run Windows NT (not just the kernel, the whole NT 4.0) on one of my IBM PPC workstations, so porting just the kernel to the 360 should have taken them _several days_. Wow.

_________________
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.

@voyager2007

Quote:

Yes, that's why I said earlier that there should be a hosted version (running on BSD or Linux), for instance. Then there would be no driver problems. You can strip down a BSD or Linux to the bare minimum, just so that the BSD or Linux kernel controls the hardware. Everything else could be done by a separate AOS kernel running as an application, or a demon.

So you'd like an Amithlon type setup, but without the emulation, just running native? Hmm, sounds like the OS5 idea. It also sounds like MorphOS, which runs the Amiga-like Os on top of another kernel, just not Linux.

Well, a step up from X-Amiga. But, would it be the same running hosted on another OS? I suppose I prefer the dream. running native on the hardware, but the hardware for that lessens as time goes on. :-|

BTW, having Linux drivers doesn't mean it will work always, some things just aren't supported. For example just because AROS can fall back to VESA mode doesn't mean you will still get a display.

Last edited by Hypex on 22-Jun-2008 at 04:51 PM.

As long as any new OS can run UAE, does that not gives us the compatibility of the past and allow us to look forward.

We are a hobbiest market, but to be able to use our Amiga everyday I think is what we all want. Unfortunately, I now run solely in mac under UAE. I'd love a new hardware platform... but as many have said before, we are in 2008 and nothing...

_________________