Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6077 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
68 crawler(s) on-line.
 17 guest(s) on-line.
 2 member(s) on-line.


 Amiga4000,  ktadd

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Amiga4000:  1 min ago
 ktadd:  2 mins ago
 invent:  5 mins ago
 geen_naam:  5 mins ago
 BSzili:  8 mins ago
 MEGA_RJ_MICAL:  9 mins ago
 pixie:  16 mins ago
 amigang:  34 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  40 mins ago
 utri007:  41 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )
PosterThread
ppcamiga1 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 15:11:58
#141 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 450
From: Unknown

When I wrote what to do to switch to x86
I expect Amiga x86 followers
to carefully read it and start work.

Instead they wrote usuall bs like ppc is dead
and aros communism style propaganda of succes.

Biggest problem of Amiga community
is that Amiga x86 followers think if they made enough problems
there will be switch to pc.

Not going to happen.

Nobody will waste time on AROS or any other Amiga solution on x86
as long as it will be shit compared to win/lnx/osx.

Amiga solution on x86 may be max 20% worse than win/lnx/osx. No more.
Everything that may be done on win/lnx/osx
should be possible to do on the some computer with Amiga x86 solution
in time no longer than 20%.

To provide this
Amiga solution on x86 have to have all new common technologies and drivers.
Which means Amiga solution on x86 must be unix based.
Everything below gui and graphics have to be cut off and replaced by unix.

This is problem.
Amiga x86 followers instead of hard work on improving zune
waste time on attack of ppc.
After twenty seven years of AROS development
AROS still has not working open source clone of mui.
zune is still not compatible even with mui 3.8 from 1997.

szulc, shonweiss, karlos, onetimer, di mauro, bison, neu, paoloone
rest of morons that want to switch to x86
start working on aros ppc.
add integration like it is on mos and aos.
then on zune. when it will be ready,
Amiga community may switch to unix on ppc.
After that Amiga community may use other cpu.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 16:09:26
#142 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote:
When I wrote what to do to switch to x86
I expect Amiga x86 followers
to carefully read it and start work.

So, you expected that nobody start working on it, since nobody (at least that I know) is aiming at an Amiga (AMIGA: I repeat and bold it for the benefit of your limited mind) x86.
Quote:
Instead they wrote usuall bs like ppc is dead

Ah, what a new. So according to you, hamster, PowerPC is not dead.

So, then, list me how many PowerPC processors were produced in the last year, and the roadmap of the next ones.
Quote:
and aros communism style propaganda of succes.

Again wrong (what a new, with you!).

Communism doesn't apply to AROS; rather anarchy is.
Quote:
Biggest problem of Amiga community
is that Amiga x86 followers think if they made enough problems
there will be switch to pc.

Not going to happen.

Wrong again: this is what YOU think. Well, thinking is certainly NOT in your domain.
Quote:
Nobody will waste time on AROS

I reveal you a secret: AROS is constantly developed.

If you're ignorant and don't know it, well, it's YOUR problem.
Quote:
or any other Amiga solution on x86

I reveal you another secret: there's no Amiga solution since the demise of Commodore.

And here you continue to show your immense ignorance.
Quote:
as long as it will be shit compared to win/lnx/osx.

Please, tell me who decided / wanted to compete with them.

Ah, yes: only the hamster. So, only YOU!
Quote:
Amiga solution on x86 may be max 20% worse than win/lnx/osx. No more.
Everything that may be done on win/lnx/osx
should be possible to do on the some computer with Amiga x86 solution
in time no longer than 20%.

And you also give numbers like. Hey, do you understand that this isn't the lottery? Picking random numbers doesn't apply here, hamster.
Quote:
To provide this
Amiga solution on x86 have to have all new common technologies and drivers.
Which means Amiga solution on x86 must be unix based.
Everything below gui and graphics have to be cut off and replaced by unix.

If it's Unix then it's not Amiga anymore. Do you know it? Clearly no, because asking to understand this basic, simple concept is too much for the limited brain of a hamster.
Quote:
This is problem.
Amiga x86 followers instead of hard work on improving zune
waste time on attack of ppc.

I reveal you another secret: attacking a dead platform is pointless. Meaningless. In fact, nobody is doing it.

"It's dead, Jim"...
Quote:
After twenty seven years of AROS development
AROS still has not working open source clone of mui.
zune is still not compatible even with mui 3.8 from 1997.

I don't get it: is MUI developed by OS4 developers? If not, why AROS developers should do it?
Quote:
szulc, shonweiss, karlos, onetimer, di mauro, bison, neu, paoloone

Again you distort people name because you want to satisfy your devasted ago of OS4/PowerPC blind fanatic.
Quote:
rest of morons that want to switch to x86

Shut-up, scammer.
Quote:
start working on aros ppc.

Here you show to be schizophrenic.

You wanted people to work on Amiga (which is dead since 1994, for your info) x86, and now you ask to work on AROS PowerPC...
Quote:
add integration like it is on mos and aos.

Why people should spend time on a dead platform? PowerPC is DEAD. Understood?
Quote:
then on zune. when it will be ready,

You can work on it, if you like it to be completed.
Quote:
Amiga community may switch to unix on ppc.

Unix is at the opposite site of the Amiga o.s., and PowerPC is a dead platform.

Only a fool can follow you on this complete crap.
Quote:
After that Amiga community may use other cpu.

I reveal you another secret: it already happened since 27 years (if not even more).

You're a LITTLE BIT retarded. But, again, this isn't something new...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
QBit 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 16:31:48
#143 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 15-Jun-2018
Posts: 247
From: Unknown

@all
If I one day win the 92 Million Euro.in the Lottery--. I can donate to Driver and AROS Development
. hahahaha I*ll pay Deadwood as much money he likes for AxRuntime.. and I will give paolone
a big Donation and Olaf Schönweiß for AROS 68k and I will donate to Apollo OS ..
I will even Buy Hyperion and Morph OS. And I will give Stephen Jones the Funds to create the
ARM x86 Power PC whatever UBER Amiga Hardware. I will give Toni Wilen 500.000 $ to Code the
Optional Virtual 64 Bit UBER Amiga Multi Threaded 68100 CPU Standard with 3 D Accelerated Graphics and 24 Bit Sound-
And so on and so on:
And then I will set whole that shit free for non Commercial and Commercial use!
I even would send fishy_fis 5.000 $ via Paypal although he hates me hahahahaha
Karlos would get 10.000 $ for his 64 Bit 68k Idea!

If I gave 30 Million Euros to set all this free I would still have 62 Million! hahahaha

Greedy rich people who don`t care!

But what would be if there were People who just don`t want that to happen?
And would a mass usage of Amigaoid OSes be possible with it`s security flaws if
DPUs Dumbest possible Users would use it?
That`s the biggest Problem MacOS and Windows solved. Making Silly Users feel like Nerds!
And that will take a lot more than 92 Million Euros to bring Amiga OS in a Secure way to silly Users!
I would see a chance if a Amigaoid OS was so Powerful that a mentally disabled Person could develop eg. a Scene Demo or other Software of it`s own and unique kind with it
!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc9aAY6-ujQ

Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 05:49 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 05:33 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 05:32 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 05:29 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 05:04 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:57 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:53 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:50 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:44 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:43 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:41 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:39 PM.
Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 04:38 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Neuf 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 17:36:43
#144 ]
Member
Joined: 17-Apr-2017
Posts: 46
From: Unknown

@ppcamiga1
Oh my goodness, another attack from the MORON OF ALLMORONS. What you are suggesting is not possible. While some of your suggestions were viable a couple of years ago---today they are not. PPC as we have known it for the last twenty years is now EOL There has been too much progress in hardware and software design. You totally fail to understand what Apple has done to make MACOS. They did not simply port Mac OS to Darwin. They created a whole new OS which they integrated with Darwin. Asthis is a forum about the Amiga platform I will not go into detail about the structure of MacOS.

There are a couple of ways a very similar solution to the Mac can be done. THE first one, which I suggested in another thread would be something like a port to OpenDarwin forV54.There are two Open Darwin's by the way. There is anARM version and anX86 version. This would in my opinion give the Amiga platform an almost immediate modern platform.This would unfortunately open a pandora's box of questions about hardware. I will go into detail about this in another post.

However, I think Amigakit has a rather different solution in mind. Basically, I think he wants to stick withPPC for the present, which I am good with. I believe he wants to run V54 on top of a version of Power Linux. I am ok with that.

The reason I thought about porting V54 to Open Darwin was a couple of comments by Trevor. In one comment he suggested that V54 should run on top of OS4.x. If that is the way they want to go, I would not be particularly happy.

Would they be creating a Mac clone if they ported V54 to Open Darwin? Not at all. There would be plenty of ways to differentiate it from the Mac. In fact the way Open Darwin is structured you could not run it on Mac hardware. It might even have difficulty running on standard hardware.

You sure have provoked a lot of people PPCAmiga1.Asimilar solution to what you are proposing is possible, and may be right at hand. However, it will be more expensive and more complex than you could possibly imagine.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 18:55:56
#145 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3141
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@QBit

Quote:
Karlos would get 10.000 $ for his 64 Bit 68k Idea!


It's already 100% free software. You could donate it to a worthy charity.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
QBit 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 19:14:56
#146 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 15-Jun-2018
Posts: 247
From: Unknown

@Karlos

Quote:
@QBit

Quote:
Karlos would get 10.000 $ for his 64 Bit 68k Idea!


It's already 100% free software. You could donate it to a worthy charity.


OK 5000 $ would go to "Medicines sans Frontieres" and 5000 $ would go to "Sea Shepherd"!

That would be your 10.000 $!

Last edited by QBit on 15-May-2022 at 07:15 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Bosanac 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 19:37:34
#147 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 10-May-2022
Posts: 210
From: Unknown

@ppcamiga1

So how come you constantly post on morph.zone demanding the developers port MorphOS to x64 and that they open source it?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bison 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 15-May-2022 20:31:01
#148 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Posts: 2104
From: N-Space

@ppcamiga1

Quote:
szulc, shonweiss, karlos, onetimer, di mauro, bison, neu, paoloone
rest of morons that want to switch to x86
start working on aros ppc.

You have me on the wrong moron list: I want an ARM port, specifically to the Pi4. (But I wouldn't say "no" to an x86-64 port.)

I have no interest in PPC, since PPC on the desktop is deader than a dead thing. (Sorry, I ran out of metaphors.) The people who have those should enjoy them while they can. I'm pretty sure the A1222 is never going to ship.

Last edited by bison on 15-May-2022 at 08:32 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 16-May-2022 4:46:49
#149 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Bosanac

Quote:

Bosanac wrote:
@ppcamiga1

So how come you constantly post on morph.zone demanding the developers port MorphOS to x64 and that they open source it?

So his schizophrenia is confirmed...

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote:

I'm pretty sure the A1222 is never going to ship.

Indeed. It cannot be shipped without an OS4 license (otherwise it can only be used as a bonbonnière in the living room), and from what I've read nobody is getting one.

The project took too long to be delivered (albeit 2022 isn't yet expired ). I don't know how many people could be interested on it.

In fact, many moved back to the good old 68k platform, accepting the fact that time is over and Amiga is just a retro platform like many others, and this is the way that it should be better enjoyed.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 16-May-2022 11:53:55
#150 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 10827
From: Greensborough, Australia

@cdimauro

...

Quote:
and it means that OS4 became pointless. Why do you still use it?


Because I can still compile my own programs on OS4. In fact I can even compile an OpenFirmware binary which I've done. Anything else would be a port.

Quote:
However it's a C compiler: not a C++ one.


It is unless there is a VBCCPP. C is fine for most Amiga software. C++ is needed for ports.

Quote:
Is OS4 which requires more effort, or it's about OS4 developers which aren't as much skilled as MorphOS ones?


I think they are quite skilled. But the systems do work differently. The official OS4 SDK uses an old GCC though most developers use a more recent build. And also tend to cross compile. OTOH the latest MOS SDK uses a way newer GCC. I tend to think OS4 is hard to compile for. I've cross compiled stuff that needed changes even to compile. And when it did compile I tested a binary and it didn't work. It didn't crash but it just didn't work as it should. It's made harder as OS4 lacks a debugger. GDB must be broken for over a decade and I've only got an old version work under Classic emulation so not useful for anything newer than an XE. There have been some good attempts at GUI debuggers, but always left in a beta state, and in my case always failed to debug a simple hello world and just crash.

Quote:
It should be simple to know it, and it should be enough to answer to this question: was the Firefox OS4 port a PoC or not (so: a regular application)?


I don't know what the bounty was and I don't know where the info is saved. I can only guess. I wouldn't say the port was a PoC, so no. A lot of people used it. I used it to setup a repeater that would only work on Firefox. I probably was just using Webkit on a PPC Mac otherwise. But the port was left in a final bad state. The final version just crashed. You had to combine it with an older version and patch it. Which just made it look sloppy.

Quote:
This happens to Windows as well. It depends on the UI toolkit used by applications.


I probably haven't used enough applications to notice. But Fox looks normal. I don't recall if I tested Qt on Windows. But, I haven't changed the theme on my Windows 10 so it's still got the generic setup, and looks like a dogs breakfast. The odd sized widgets in 7 looked funny enough but in 10 they took it to a new level. It all looks out of place. At a time when OS4 should look weird, because they don't have a full team of professional graphical designers, it instead manages to look better than Windows as it looks like like Microsoft sacked all the graphics designers!

Quote:
The lack o.s. standards doesn't justify the introduction of a completely alien technologies: interfaces were NEVER been part of o.s. in its entire life (I mean: Amiga life).


There is Intuition, Gadtools and BOOPSI.

Quote:
Yes, they don't share anything: a (new) copy is loaded for each application which uses them...


That was supposed to be fixed, as always, when it's done.

Quote:
It's totally alien both the Linux shared objects and specifically to the Amiga libraries.


Likely why it's still not fixed. But possibly easier to compile. As there is no need to mess around opening libraries and interfaces. But, less error detection, as an app can fail to load and not know. And with the same problem, if the object isn't installed or loaded the app won't work.

Quote:
Sure, but the point is that OS4 introduced this horrible technology which has NOTHING to do with our beloved Amigas.


No, since there are no 64 bit pointers. However, Linux on PPC manages to run 32 bit user apps in a 64 bit kernel. It also does a lot of other things.

Quote:
We were used to make jokes against the PC and 8086 processors (and o.ses) because of the segmentation, and OS4 ended up to implement something which is even worse...


We did. But in this case, or most cases, the CPU can do 64 bit. But the OS is the crippling factor.

Quote:
But if the criterion is to just have something similar to the original Amiga o.s., then Linux with a GUI similar to that should be good enough, right?


No, it not an Apple.

However, I would like Linux to be more Amiga like, and be able to drag icons into shell windows or CD without a CD command. It's a bit more rigid that way.

---

Quote:
Not even that: the chipset remained mostly 16-bit. Only the display engine (playfields and sprites) was updated to 64-bit. Everything else, Blitter included, was left exactly as it is (16-bit).


It was. That was the problem. The design was 16 bit centric. It matched the 68000 really well. The 68000 was 32 bit internally but most operations were optimised for 16 bits because of the early data bus. All the long word pointers would be double words. And all data registers were 16 bit. They would have needed new registers for 32 bit operation or modes.

Quote:
See above (my previous reply to you): it was NOT a great idea. Rather, it was the WORSE idea.


You missed out on the potential it has to include both formats of data.

Quote:
Here you're already talking of packed graphics, and not bitplanes anymore. Bitplanes != pointers. Bitplanes needed pointers, but a pointer can point to a bitplane area or a packed area.


Yes, because a plane can either be a bitmap or packed, depending on hardware. At 1 bpp a bitmap and a packmap or whatever it would be called are exactly the same. Go beyond 1 bit and a bitmap is split into planes but packed is extended across one plane. A packed plane I suppose. My point was, bitplanes could have been a good starting point, limited to 1 bit initially. But could have been extended to become packed planes of packed pixels.

So, as an example, given the Amiga had 8 slots for planes, an 8 bit depth mode could have become 8 layers superimposed. With a variable pixel width an awesome setup could have been 8 layers of 8 bit packed planes all super imposed. Aside from palette management.

More likely though, had this happened, is that due to hardware constraints the increased pixel width would have reduced the layers possible. So it may have been 8x 1 bpp fields, 4x 2 bpp fields, 2x 4 bpp fields or 1x 8 bpp field. Still workable though. As it would have provided two chunky playfields and fast productivity mode,

Quote:
Tilemap was too much different from the Amiga graphic engine, so you it was difficult to introduce it at the time (and would have required a completely different coding).


It was, because the Amiga bitmap setup was more simple in design, being only bitmaps. It had no text modes which provide a basis for tilemaps. It was no follow up to the C64. But, I don't recall it being a big deal, since the CPU or blitter could write blocks in the bitmap as it scrolled along.

Quote:
Some consoles used packed, some other bitplanes. Anyway, bitplanes was the worse format even on consoles, but using sprites and tiles have reduced the impact of using bitplanes.


The CD32 was likely the last console to use bitplanes, if you could it a console, since it was really a modded A1200 dressed up as a console.

Last edited by Hypex on 16-May-2022 at 01:34 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 16-May-2022 12:02:25
#151 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3141
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@Hypex

Just to throw a cat in among the pigeons, the idea of planar graphics isn't restricted to single bitplanes. In x11, for example, a planar image isn't composed of bitplanes, it's one in which the image is broken into separate 2D bitmaps for each colour channel, rather than storing a full RGB value per pixel. In that model, a 24-bit planar RGB image has three 8-bit byte-per pixel arrays, one each for red, green and blue.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 16-May-2022 19:52:37
#152 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote:
@cdimauro
Quote:
This happens to Windows as well. It depends on the UI toolkit used by applications.


I probably haven't used enough applications to notice. But Fox looks normal. I don't recall if I tested Qt on Windows. But, I haven't changed the theme on my Windows 10 so it's still got the generic setup, and looks like a dogs breakfast. The odd sized widgets in 7 looked funny enough but in 10 they took it to a new level. It all looks out of place. At a time when OS4 should look weird, because they don't have a full team of professional graphical designers, it instead manages to look better than Windows as it looks like like Microsoft sacked all the graphics designers!

The problem with Windows is that Microsoft defined too many UI frameworks, and coders might be pissed-off because of this. Windows Phone was the worst example, here.
Quote:
Quote:
The lack o.s. standards doesn't justify the introduction of a completely alien technologies: interfaces were NEVER been part of o.s. in its entire life (I mean: Amiga life).


There is Intuition, Gadtools and BOOPSI.

And those were the standards on Amiga o.s.: all based on the same basic set / library (Intuition).

More or less like Win32 on Windows, which is the foundation of all UI widgets & frameworks.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, they don't share anything: a (new) copy is loaded for each application which uses them...


That was supposed to be fixed, as always, when it's done.

So, no chance: you've the worse of the worlds...
Quote:
Quote:
Sure, but the point is that OS4 introduced this horrible technology which has NOTHING to do with our beloved Amigas.


No, since there are no 64 bit pointers.

Well, you can have them, but then you've to say goodbye to all current 32-bit applications, since it (a 64-bit OS4) would be totally incompatible with them.
Quote:
However, Linux on PPC manages to run 32 bit user apps in a 64 bit kernel. It also does a lot of other things.

Because it used a proper abstraction of data structures. Amiga o.s. was exactly the opposite, and that's why it's completely bounded to 31-bit address space.
Quote:
Quote:
We were used to make jokes against the PC and 8086 processors (and o.ses) because of the segmentation, and OS4 ended up to implement something which is even worse...


We did. But in this case, or most cases, the CPU can do 64 bit. But the OS is the crippling factor.

No, there are no 64 bits on OS4. This was the false myth that its developers have spread around, to cheat their customers.

The PowerPC standard allows to use a 36-bit (AFAIR) physical address space for 32-bit processors. It's a mechanism that is the equivalent of x86's PAE extension.

So, you can access up to 64GB of physical memory on a 32-bit system (by "bank swapping" some PMMU pages, on need).
Quote:
Quote:
But if the criterion is to just have something similar to the original Amiga o.s., then Linux with a GUI similar to that should be good enough, right?


No, it not an Apple.

However, I would like Linux to be more Amiga like, and be able to drag icons into shell windows or CD without a CD command. It's a bit more rigid that way.

Then you "just" need a proper Desktop Environment.

There are way many on Linux: another one which closely resemble the Amiga o.s. is certainly possible. But someone should do it. Or maybe you should give a try to AxRuntime.
Quote:
Quote:
See above (my previous reply to you): it was NOT a great idea. Rather, it was the WORSE idea.


You missed out on the potential it has to include both formats of data.

There's no potential there, rather an unneeded complication.

As I've said (and I can prove), packed/chunky graphics is almost always better than bitplanes. The only exception is accessing single bitplanes on the latters.

So, why do you need to support bitplanes when you've a superior format which can do almost always better? Only for this specific case? It doesn't deserve the effort (which means: you've to duplicate almost everything).
Quote:
Quote:
Here you're already talking of packed graphics, and not bitplanes anymore. Bitplanes != pointers. Bitplanes needed pointers, but a pointer can point to a bitplane area or a packed area.


Yes, because a plane can either be a bitmap or packed, depending on hardware. At 1 bpp a bitmap and a packmap or whatever it would be called are exactly the same. Go beyond 1 bit and a bitmap is split into planes but packed is extended across one plane. A packed plane I suppose. My point was, bitplanes could have been a good starting point, limited to 1 bit initially. But could have been extended to become packed planes of packed pixels.

So, as an example, given the Amiga had 8 slots for planes, an 8 bit depth mode could have become 8 layers superimposed. With a variable pixel width an awesome setup could have been 8 layers of 8 bit packed planes all super imposed. Aside from palette management.

More likely though, had this happened, is that due to hardware constraints the increased pixel width would have reduced the layers possible. So it may have been 8x 1 bpp fields, 4x 2 bpp fields, 2x 4 bpp fields or 1x 8 bpp field. Still workable though. As it would have provided two chunky playfields and fast productivity mode,

This is exactly what I've suggested around 10 years to Gunnar and other people, when we were discussing how to enhance the Amiga chipset on Ola's forum.

However Gunnar decided to keep the original chipset and just add a couple of overlapping packed playfields. Which makes sense for some expects, but if you create a new game (or application, in general), you would have used the new chipset and not the old one. So, having maybe the first 4 (8 playfields look too much) bitplane pointers reused to define 4 packed playfields.

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@Hypex

Just to throw a cat in among the pigeons, the idea of planar graphics isn't restricted to single bitplanes. In x11, for example, a planar image isn't composed of bitplanes, it's one in which the image is broken into separate 2D bitmaps for each colour channel, rather than storing a full RGB value per pixel. In that model, a 24-bit planar RGB image has three 8-bit byte-per pixel arrays, one each for red, green and blue.

This is like AAA's packed hybrid mode.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 18-May-2022 14:41:07
#153 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 10827
From: Greensborough, Australia

@cdimauro

Quote:
It's unthinkable because you were used to the bitplanes, and cannot think of anything else for the Amiga.


No, because that's all it had. I don't think RTG cards cut it as they didn't really integrate with the hardware. An Amiga with RTG provides a better Workbench experience but without screen dragging it tends to look fake.

Quote:
However packed/chunky could have been exactly the same thing it they were chosen instead of bitplanes.


In that case the Amiga wouldn't have been infamous for bitplanes. Though the Atari ST used them. And were short lived in EGA.

Quote:
No, you can use ANY pixel size with packed/chunky: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.


You can but it can leave gaps if it's not a power of 2.

Quote:
And you don't need to waste space with byte alignment: just pack (!) them all together. Only raster lines needed to be 16-bit aligned, EVENTUALLY.


Technically yes but that's inefficient on the hardware which would need to work harder. That's fine for a compression algorithm. But packed bits of different positions would need to be masked off and I don't know of any examples that support that.

Quote:
You can do EXACTLY the same with packed graphic.


What comparable hardware to the Amiga did that?

Quote:
No, on the contrary it's possible to have playfields (even more than 2) much easily and much more efficiently with packed graphics.


I mean those demo effects where they had the even and odd planes at different offsets.

Quote:
You had 6 pointers with the Amiga only because of the bitplanes, but with packed graphics you could have used just one pointer per single playfield. So, two playfields needed? Use two pointers. And with a MUCH better flexibility: you could have decided how many bits to be used per playfield.


It needed that just for 2x 8 colour fields. Though it had the even and odd plane setup. And that complicated it.

Quote:
No, I wasn't referring to the 8 bitplanes made available with AGA. Rather, to the fetch bandwidth: 64-bit (and 32-bit) compared to the 16-bit of OCS/ECS.


Yes, I see that. But my point about 8 planes was, that 8 planes is the practical limit, as I see it,

Quote:
CLUT made sense only up to 8 bits.


That's what I think.

Quote:
No, this mechanism from EGA was good for this card only because of how EGA works.


They could have included something similar geared for the hardware.. The blitter was fine. But didn't help with setting pixels at random locations.

Quote:
But it's not suitable for a packed Amiga hardware.


It wouldn't have been needed if it was packed.

But it was better than the Akikko excuse in the CD32 which looked terrible by comparison. If it could have been written to and diverted to the planes fine. But, you had to write chunky to it, then read it out and write it to chip ram. With no fast ram for workspace it's even more terrible.


@Karlos

Quote:
Jay Miner is on record as saying that planar pixels were a mistake in hindsight*. The designs for Hombre did not include any planar bitmap support, at one point there was some discussion around including some AGA support.


Yes I recall that. Not the best move for the flight simulator he was thinking of. But in 1984 the PC had just gone planar. Who knew a *PC* trend would *not* take off. Thought the Amiga organisation was more logical. At least it was linear.


@cdimauro

Quote:
Unfortunately he says that bitplane graphics is much faster, and makes an example of moving 16 bits at the time with the bitplanes which should be faster compared to the packed graphics.

Unfortunately both statements are plainly wrong.


I think we need to understand the semantics behind what he's saying before dismissing it. And also, you appear to have disregarded what he later said about packed pixels, when he said that pixel graphics are a little more standard and versatile as it turns out.

He gives examples of low depth, using 3 to 5 bit depths, and moving it. He must be referring the the blitter here. For an image with less planes than the screen it would need less data to transfer. But he was also talking in pixels, so with packed it only moves 4 pixels as opposed to 16, with 4 bpp. I can see the point, but planar is really limited to one pixel plane. where as packed can move entire pixels across. Of course the blitter would need different masking in that case.

I like to hear these old expressions. I never liked the chunky term. I prefer packed and also like calling it pixel based. But somehow, bitmap took off, even though I think a real bitmap needs to be in planar. And pixelmap didn't even though it became the standard.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 18-May-2022 16:48:04
#154 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3141
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote:

No, because that's all it had. I don't think RTG cards cut it as they didn't really integrate with the hardware. An Amiga with RTG provides a better Workbench experience but without screen dragging it tends to look fake.


I'd say it didn't just provide a better Workbench experience, it was a huge upgrade for almost all system friendly productivity software. The difference going from AGA to BVPPC was astounding.

Screen dragging was cool, but to be honest, it was never as essential to productivity as people like to think. The best usages for it were to have high resolution tool overlays on lower resolution / different colour depth displays.

Today, there's no reason that Amiga style draggable screens can't exist. Each "Screen" just needs to be a video memory surface that's accessible to a compositor that then renders them as appropriately scaled quads on the real framebuffer. I think this is roughly how it works OS4 and MorphOS.

Quote:
Quote:
No, you can use ANY pixel size with packed/chunky: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.


You can but it can leave gaps if it's not a power of 2.


That's not true, it just restricts the available widths that are possible. Let's say I decide I want to have RGB15 bits per pixel with no wasted bits. To pack those into bytes, I'd need a width that's a multiple of 8 pixels, each 8 pixels span being 15 consecutive bytes. Or say I want an 8 colour screen. That's 3 bits per pixel. Packing those into bytes, I'd need a width that's a multiple of 8 pixels, each 8 pixel span being 3 consecutive bytes.

This scheme assumes 8-bit data access. You can do the same thing for a 16 or 32-bit bus, you just have a correspondingly larger restriction on the width.

Last edited by Karlos on 18-May-2022 at 04:56 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 18-May-2022 19:38:50
#155 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
It's unthinkable because you were used to the bitplanes, and cannot think of anything else for the Amiga.


No, because that's all it had.

But the point is that it could have been something different, using packed graphic.
Quote:
I don't think RTG cards cut it as they didn't really integrate with the hardware.

I'm not talking about RTG cars here, but, as said before and above, to a packed graphic-based Amiga.
Quote:
An Amiga with RTG provides a better Workbench experience but without screen dragging it tends to look fake.

Karlos already answered here.
Quote:
Quote:
However packed/chunky could have been exactly the same thing it they were chosen instead of bitplanes.

In that case the Amiga wouldn't have been infamous for bitplanes. Though the Atari ST used them. And were short lived in EGA.

It would have been famous for its packed graphic...
Quote:
Quote:
No, you can use ANY pixel size with packed/chunky: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.


You can but it can leave gaps if it's not a power of 2.

Karlos already replied, but let me add something: having packed without power of 2 would have had MUCH LESS gaps compared to bitplanes. So, much more efficient.

With bitplanes you're forced to 16-bit multiples. And with AGA even worse: 64-bit (32-bit was much less used).

I think that you don't realize how wasteful it is. I let you think about it a bit: it's enough that you compare, let's say, a 5-bits packed graphic with the same with bitplanes. Think about how the display controller works and, even worse how a videogame is implemented (with the famous cookie-cut), and this will quickly show how bad were the bitplanes...
Quote:
Quote:
And you don't need to waste space with byte alignment: just pack (!) them all together. Only raster lines needed to be 16-bit aligned, EVENTUALLY.


Technically yes but that's inefficient on the hardware which would need to work harder. That's fine for a compression algorithm. But packed bits of different positions would need to be masked off and I don't know of any examples that support that.

Guess what: it's EXACTLY what the Amiga's display controller did, and the Blitter in particular.

Why it should be different (and inefficient) for packed graphic? On the contrary, the display controller is much easier and WAAAAAAY more efficient. Again: math rulez..
Quote:
Quote:
You can do EXACTLY the same with packed graphic.


What comparable hardware to the Amiga did that?

I don't know, but this isn't the point. The point is analyzing the facts and the data, and draw the proper conclusions.
Quote:
Quote:
No, on the contrary it's possible to have playfields (even more than 2) much easily and much more efficiently with packed graphics.


I mean those demo effects where they had the even and odd planes at different offsets.

Do you mean with the dual-playfield? This, as I've said, it's the same if using the packed graphic for 2 playfields. Absolutely no difference here.
Quote:
Quote:
You had 6 pointers with the Amiga only because of the bitplanes, but with packed graphics you could have used just one pointer per single playfield. So, two playfields needed? Use two pointers. And with a MUCH better flexibility: you could have decided how many bits to be used per playfield.


It needed that just for 2x 8 colour fields. Though it had the even and odd plane setup. And that complicated it.

With packed graphic was the same, but easier and much more efficient.
Quote:
Quote:
No, I wasn't referring to the 8 bitplanes made available with AGA. Rather, to the fetch bandwidth: 64-bit (and 32-bit) compared to the 16-bit of OCS/ECS.


Yes, I see that. But my point about 8 planes was, that 8 planes is the practical limit, as I see it,

This is an artificial limit. AAA supported up to 10 bitplanes.

However you need MUCH LESS with packed playfields.
Quote:
Quote:
No, this mechanism from EGA was good for this card only because of how EGA works.


They could have included something similar geared for the hardware..

Indeed.
Quote:
The blitter was fine. But didn't help with setting pixels at random locations.

Well, Amiga engineers used the Blitter for that!
Quote:
Quote:
But it's not suitable for a packed Amiga hardware.


It wouldn't have been needed if it was packed.

No, absolutely. Packed didn't needed it. It could only have complicated the system (and coders).
Quote:
But it was better than the Akikko excuse in the CD32 which looked terrible by comparison. If it could have been written to and diverted to the planes fine. But, you had to write chunky to it, then read it out and write it to chip ram. With no fast ram for workspace it's even more terrible.

Commodore... no comment.
Quote:
@Karlos

Quote:
Jay Miner is on record as saying that planar pixels were a mistake in hindsight*. The designs for Hombre did not include any planar bitmap support, at one point there was some discussion around including some AGA support.


Yes I recall that. Not the best move for the flight simulator he was thinking of. But in 1984 the PC had just gone planar.

Absolutely not: it was also packed.
Quote:
Who knew a *PC* trend would *not* take off. Thought the Amiga organisation was more logical. At least it was linear.

No, for the reasons which I've already said.
Quote:
Quote:
@cdimauro

[quote]Unfortunately he says that bitplane graphics is much faster, and makes an example of moving 16 bits at the time with the bitplanes which should be faster compared to the packed graphics.

Unfortunately both statements are plainly wrong.


I think we need to understand the semantics behind what he's saying before dismissing it. And also, you appear to have disregarded what he later said about packed pixels, when he said that pixel graphics are a little more standard and versatile as it turns out.

He gives examples of low depth, using 3 to 5 bit depths, and moving it. He must be referring the the blitter here. For an image with less planes than the screen it would need less data to transfer. But he was also talking in pixels, so with packed it only moves 4 pixels as opposed to 16, with 4 bpp. I can see the point, but planar is really limited to one pixel plane. where as packed can move entire pixels across. Of course the blitter would need different masking in that case.

Nevertheless, he was completely wrong.

Think about a screen with 4 (but can be any depth: it's exaclty the same) bitplanes and graphics to be moved: you CAN'T do it 16 pixels at the time! You need 4 blits to move 16 pixels.

What's the difference with packed graphic? Nothing from this PoV.

However, if you write down the operations needed and how many memory transfers are required, then packed graphic wins hands down. There's no comparison. And the wider are the fetches (AGA -> 64-bit!!!) the MUCH WORSE becomes the bitplanes solution.

Jay Miner was wrong: dot!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
utri007 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 18-May-2022 21:46:11
#156 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Aug-2003
Posts: 1048
From: United States of Europe

Without a PPC/68k hardware I would have zero interest to Amiga OS. Amiga OS is hobby OS, to be true it is very shitty and useless, compared to any modern OS. Why would I use Amiga OS with x86 hardware, when I can run Linux or Windows with it?

And then there is Aros which is already for a x86 systems, so if it would be way to go it would have already happen. We all would be Aros hobbyist now and currently lookin from dumbsters old Aros compatible hardware, as we would have no drivers for newer systems.

Would it be possible just be happy what we have and support current development?

Last edited by utri007 on 18-May-2022 at 09:54 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 18-May-2022 21:59:28
#157 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3141
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@utri007

Quote:

utri007 wrote:
Without a PPC/68k hardware I would have zero interest to Amiga OS. Amiga OS is hobby OS, to be true it is very shitty and useless, compared to any modern OS. Why would I use Amiga OS with x86 hardware, when I can run Linux or Windows with it?


So as soon as your 68K/PPC hardware dies, it's game over is it? Or to put it another way, why would you buy into an expensive museum piece owner's club to run a hobbyist operating system?

It doesn't have to be an either/or choice. I don't mind the OS being ported to whatever hardware you like, as long as the ability to run 68K system friendly binaries remains. Though, given the limitations of the OS as it stands, I also think it's probably best left on 68K and just emulate the whole shebang.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
paolone 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 19-May-2022 11:24:12
#158 ]
Super Member
Joined: 24-Sep-2007
Posts: 1128
From: Unknown

@utri007

Quote:
And then there is Aros which is already for a x86 systems, so if it would be way to go it would have already happen. We all would be Aros hobbyist now and currently lookin from dumbsters old Aros compatible hardware, as we would have no drivers for newer systems.


If we all would have been AROS hobbysts, and I mean truly interested AROS hobbysts, we would have at least decuplicate the interest into developing new driver, and had more chances to find interested people into developing them. That would have reduced the age of AROS target systems to a much more acceptable fraction. Unluckily, after 2014, there hasn't been any advance in hardware support, which is a pity.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 19-May-2022 17:08:59
#159 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1684
From: Kansas

utri007 Quote:

Without a PPC/68k hardware I would have zero interest to Amiga OS. Amiga OS is hobby OS, to be true it is very shitty and useless, compared to any modern OS. Why would I use Amiga OS with x86 hardware, when I can run Linux or Windows with it?


The AmigaOS is still a liked OS despite not having competitive hardware since the fall of CBM. Read the comments to the following video.

Top 10 Best Operating Systems of All Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp8EpZlLY6A

The OSs are ranked perhaps more by historical significance where AmigaOS is #3 but by preference as a liked and fun OS to use it would likely be higher judging by the comments, at least by the people who used it. The AmigaOS is a good OS just not a modern desktop OS. Call it a fun hobby or toy OS if you like but it is far from shitty and useless. It just needs affordable toy hardware to go with it.

utri007 Quote:

Would it be possible just be happy what we have and support current development?


Are you happy accepting the status quo of failure and defeat?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 19-May-2022 17:53:36
#160 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 2315
From: Trondheim, Norway

@matthey

Quote:

Are you happy accepting the status quo of failure and defeat?


Isn't that why we all are here? :)

Btw - how is that ASIC 68k SoC fruitberry coming along, design wise?

Last edited by kolla on 19-May-2022 at 05:57 PM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle