@terminills

Quote:

terminills wrote: @amigadave I tend to find bribery or kidnapping is the only true way to get people interested in the Amiga lately.

I don't have a problem with one of those methods for getting new people interested in the Amiga.

_________________
Amiga! The computer that inspired so many, to accomplish so much, but has ended up in the hands of . . . . . . . . . .

@amigadave

ChrisH's website is still up. See here.

@smith

Looks pretty nice. Something like that could bring me back to C/C++ on Amiga. I am all for comfort which made me switch from C++ to Hollywood ages ago.
Nice!

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@everyone

Geeze, guys, this one is simple--not necessarily easy, but simple. First, you need to be able to run AOS on modern hardware. This box I've got has 4 cores running at 3.8 GHz, 18 GB if memory,10 TB of disk storage,and was made in 2011, a century ago in computer years--Hell, my dumb smart phone out specs the best Amiga ever made.

Next AOS must be updated--signed integers for memory access? Insane, man, and not in a good way.

Then, the API has to be upgraded--the API2 project seems about right.....

Readable, coherent, and comprehensive documentation is a must.

And finally, Marketing is a must--both to users and programmers. People need to know that you can do the "impossible" with Amiga.

Oh, and the compilers have to be updated to current standards.

pgf_666

@pgf_666

Quote:

pgf_666 wrote: Next AOS must be updated--signed integers for memory access? Insane, man, and not in a good way. Then, the API has to be upgraded

I generally agree. But one problem is: What is left from Amiga in an updated version?
It's really a tricky exercise to determine what of Amiga can get transferred to a new system. Isn't this quickly going to approaches like DragonflyBSD? Which is a neat project and one approach to make a modern Amiga, but eventually became yet another unix distro...?
It isn't a trivial thing to keep it Amiga (whatever that may be..), become modern and competetive and do it wth limited resources...
I think this is also one of the major things holding back MorphOS x64. It's just too hard to determine what it actually should be. It's easier to tinker and tune the current OS. But that's a dead end in the long run.

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@Zylesea

i dont think there is actually any demand for another desktop os equipped with basic features todays desktop oses already provide. especially considering that such a product would hardly contain any groundbreaking features, to make it exceptional, as any amiga offshots usually struggle to keep up with even outdated standards. so any dramatic changes to the os, making transparent backwards compatibility impossible would simply finish it off.

@Zylesea

Quote:

Isn't this quickly going to approaches like DragonflyBSD? Which is a neat project and one approach to make a modern Amiga, but eventually became yet another unix distro...?

Yes, there's no point in reimplementing Unix. That's been done several times already, and quite successfully. It would be better to bring Amiga-like features to existing Unix-like systems.

The crux of the problem is this: The more you modernize AmigaOS, the less like AmigaOS it becomes. I do think that it can be improved, but only to a point. It's complexity shouldn't exceed that of Minix or Haiku. If it does, its essential character will be lost. It will never be a "modern" OS, but it has the potential to be much better than it is right now.

Last edited by bison on 25-Sep-2019 at 04:03 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@pgf_666

Today's killer app is a WebAssembly capable web browser. That's essentially AmigaDE. Dump the OS if it can't run a browser and most of the software runs on a server. 18 Gigs is overkill for running modern stuff because the server does the work. Retrocomputing is Amiga's niche. Modern is not.

It is very simple.

Amiga Os 1.x API was developed when all public avaible 32 bit cpu where big endian and is hardware dependend.
Amiga Os 1.x API depend on hardware. Amiga Os 1.x API depend on Byte endianess. Amiga Os 1.x API works only on cpu that can work in 32 bit big endian mode.
Change to cpu that not work in 32 bit big endian mode like x86 and most ARM result in change Amiga Os 1.x API to something other no longer compatible with original Amiga Os 1.x API.
After change to cpu that not work in 32 bit big endian mode like x86 and most ARM original Amiga Os 1.x API will cease to exist.
So it is no problem to dropp Amiga Os 1.x API which means everything below gui and graphics and replace it with something other.

Why unix?

Most hardware vendors provide only binary drivers and only for win and unix.
And do not provide enough information to made good open source drivers.
Nvidia for example. Noveau used in AROS x86 is worth nothing crap.
AROS x86 on good nvidia cards has worse 3D performance than MOS on mac mini with ancient Radeon R200.
There is no reason to use home made os kernel without drivers.

Amiga gui and graphics on unix is Amiga future and something what we should use.

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

Amiga gui and graphics on unix is Amiga future and something what we should use.

You're pushing my buttons.

I just went through my unfinished projects directory and found the Intuition-on-X11 project that I started quite a long time ago. I had a hard drive crash and restore since then, so the original timestamps are lost, but I think it was about 10 years ago. It was/would be a lot of work. I think if I were doing it today I would write a Wayland compositor instead, probably using the wlroots library, at least initially.

https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@thread

Amiga can be so much more.

It could be a teenagers electronics project kit.

Build your own FPGA Amiga 600.

The main FPGA sits on a riser with wider footprint for easy soldering.

Just like this project :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2uXqTi42LI

They could enjoy the delight of making their own computer.

Then enjoy programming all Amiga software.

The speed of 7mhz is FINE for programming, as a learning and gaming tool.

They could add a wireless card for internet connectivity.

_________________
Download 499.26 Mbps, 659.94 Mbps Upload :)

@ppcamiga1

Hosted AROS on Linux is slower than native AROS. The HostGL drivers let you use the underlying X11 acceleration but the Linux kernel is too big and slow in general. The only advantage is that binary blobs work for drivers.

Dr. Michal Schulz is working on ARM EB (big endian) architecture for AROS. This will show whether AROS can compete with Linux perfomance-wise.

@thread

Let's move the rest of the modernization talk to a more appropriate thread.

Last edited by Samurai_Crow on 27-Sep-2019 at 06:09 PM.

@Samurai_Crow

Native AROS on good gfx card on fast pc is slower than 3D on MOS on mac mini.
3D in winuae is faster on the same pc than 3D in native AROS.
Because old noveau used in AROS is worthless crap.

@ppcamiga1

Kalamatee is working on getting an up-to-date GCC so he can compile newer Mesa drivers.

@Zylesea
Quote:

I generally agree. But one problem is: What is left from Amiga in an updated version? It's really a tricky exercise to determine what of Amiga can get transferred to a new system. Isn't this quickly going to approaches like DragonflyBSD? Which is a neat project and one approach to make a modern Amiga, but eventually became yet another unix distro...? It isn't a trivial thing to keep it Amiga (whatever that may be..), become modern and competetive and do it with limited resources... I think this is also one of the major things holding back MorphOS x64. It's just too hard to determine what it actually should be. It's easier to tinker and tune the current OS. But that's a dead end in the long run.

As I said, Quote:

Geeze, guys, this one is simple--not necessarily easy, but simple

And, just because this particular dead horse can use further flogging, remember just what "
"Amiga" is: A philosophy, an attitude, a way of looking at the problems of personal computing, where the user comes first, no the programmer--except insofar as he, too, is a user--and certainly not the design team. I mean, it wasn't the 68000 chip family that made an Amiga--at least 3 other systems used it, and none were as good, from a user perspective; rather it was the fact that it was the best available chip-set that caused its use--had Minor & Co decided that the upcoming 65816/-832 chip would have done a better job, they'd have gone with it. Ditto every single feature that I associate with "Amiga", all was in service of that goal.

Oh, and of course, it should go without saying--but, heck, I'll say it anyway--that we need solid multi-processor support (can't we just expand the already generally superior multitasking system?) and unlike Tesla, drivers. A program to decompile, then recompile Windows drivers, or perhaps even a JIT emulator?

@pgf_666

Quote:

"Amiga" is: A philosophy, an attitude, a way of looking at the problems of personal computing, where the user comes first, no the programmer--except insofar as he, too, is a user--and certainly not the design team. I mean, it wasn't the 68000 chip family that made an Amiga--at least 3 other systems used it, and none were as good, from a user perspective

I don't think that was the Amiga philosophy, and even if it were, then at least Apple would have a very good argument that their system applied it better. They certainly published real scholarly articles, and even books, documenting their studies into user interface design. Sometime later, Commodore published a book that, while yes, it was extremely well-written, relied on no original research on Commodore's part.

It seems to me that the Amiga philosophy is perfectly illustrated by the fact that it was a hardware design long before it was a home computer, and the user interface was more of an afterthought than an actual design. Amiga's philosophy was original to offer the most advanced, best possible features on a game system, and when the game system market fell through, that morphed (if I may say so) into a multimedia home computer, long before "multimedia" was a term. The user experience wasn't actually all that great (I've spoken to users of AmigaOS 1.0, and you might want to ask users of 1.3 and 2.0 what they thought of Commodore's disregard for backward compatibility with their games), whereas the programmer experience was pretty good by comparison: real multitasking, a library system that was ahead of its time (for the home market, anyway), well thought-out graphics system, excellent APIs for interfacing with the hardware, etc.

From a programmer's point of view, Amiga should have eaten everyone else's lunch. From a user's point of view, not so much.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@simplex

Quote:

and the user interface was more of an afterthought than an actual design.

1.x certainly looked like an afterthought. I think RJ designed it while writing the code. Not that any of us has ever done that.

On the whole, though, I agree with @pgf_666 -- Amiga is a philosophy on how personal computers should work. I think that's the most important thing about Amiga, not the 30-year old bit-rotting code.

Last edited by bison on 01-Oct-2019 at 04:53 AM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@bison

Quote:

On the whole, though, I agree with @pgf_666 -- Amiga is a philosophy on how personal computers should work. I think that's the most important thing about Amiga, not the 30-year old bit-rotting code.

I agree with that, too. I didn't say that Amiga lacked a philosophy; I said the philosophy changed over time and during development, and this affect the eventual experience, for both good and bad -- and that the philosophy was not "user first" (though I might be convinced otherwise if the phrase were made less ambiguous; perhaps I misread it).

In the decades I've been following this argument on forums, I've found that people disagree on the philosophy; an apparently vanishing number think the custom chips are the essence of an Amiga (15 years ago this group seemed dominant); others, the ability to bang the metal; still others, the peculiarities of the OS (which today are generally regarded as deficiencies, though in the 80s they were acceptable compromises). This divergence of opinion strikes me as a logical consequence of the machine's original conception, precarious gestation, and eventual birth.

If one accepts my view of what makes the Amiga philosophy, then there's an argument to be made that every "personal" computer today is an Amiga: preemptive multitasking, custom chips for video, libraries to provide APIs, more than one way to interact with the system (both graphical and command-line), etc. I'd much rather live in that world than the aut/aut world we had when the Amiga came out: monochrome "serious" machine or colorful game machine, graphical or command line, single-tasking home computer or multitasking workstation, etc. But in some sense, that philosophy predates the Amiga; it's just that Amiga was the first to bring the package to market, and unfortunate enough to be bought by Commodore instead of someone who would see it as their core business.

Last edited by simplex on 01-Oct-2019 at 05:52 AM.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@simplex & everyone else.

First, a bit of my history--I crashed my first Amiga--the store's, actually--on the very first day it was available for sale, so I have had some experience with 1.0,1.1,especially 1.2, 1.2/ARP,1.3 & 1.3/ARP
Even then, the Intuition interface was a 'klick' beyond anything else you could reasonably call a personal computor.You could change the color--try doing that on a Mac 512!, AmigaBASIC was quite powerful, both the shell & GUI were fairly easy to use, and the .library system made programming fairly easy--as did the multitasking system. I remember DOS, Mac, & Atari fans complaining that there was no need for any of the things that their systems didn't support--which I find amusing, since Windows has stolen most of the ideas from AOS, like system wide drivers, Latin 1 'code, .dlls, prioritized multi-tasking....although they STILL haven't matched the power of Amiga's "ASSIGN" command, and "SUBST" is, pardon, a poor substitute....The W system still relies on the filename's extension to figure out just what kind of file it is, and what program to open it with!

As to what I mean by 'User First', it was exactly because it started life as a dedicated game machine--to be marketed to the general public, not geeks, that this was the unifying philosophy behind it. As an example, compare using an atari 2600 vs. an Atari 800--once you plug in the power, controler, TV, and cartridge, you just selected your options, if any, and pressed 'start'. While you could do exactly the same with the 800, if you had a tape or disk drive, you could do so much more--but you needed to know a heck of a lot more to do so. A gamer doesn't care about disk formats, byte/sector, endianess, etc. He cares about the game. Now, the best games need the most powerful machines, so Jay made the beast with the most powerful chipset available; the consistent graphics system meant that you didn't have to worry about Monochrome vs. Hercules vs. CGA, vs. TRS-80 Model 2000 (the chipset of the original ST, as it happens); it wasn't even that big a deal to handle PAL/NTSC. The kernal oriented O/S means that the machine boots quickly, and doesn't have a huge footprint--my Win 7 machine uses a full 2 gigs of memory before it even starts to allow me to do anything, and takes 15 minutes to boot up--I have breakfast while it does this. And by making the thing easier to program, they got more and better software for the system--which actually brings the thread back on topic! Horrors! Sign of the Apocalypse!

Oh, and except for a few programs busted by stuff Motorola did, I never found a program that was total C= legal under 1.2 or better that didn't run smoothly under 3.9. Example: HiSoft BASIC Professional runs fine under an'030 processor, but crashes if run, or exited, under an '040 with the caches on. Not C='s fault, & I'm the last guy you'll ever see cutting them any slack.

@pgf_666

I think you're confusing "feature set" with "user first".

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.