Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6076 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
33 crawler(s) on-line.
 18 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Rob:  10 mins ago
 Karlos:  11 mins ago
 RobertB:  18 mins ago
 Musashi5150:  27 mins ago
 kolla:  44 mins ago
 QBit:  51 mins ago
 BigD:  1 hr 4 mins ago
 Andre4s:  1 hr 5 mins ago
 ggw:  2 hrs ago
 BSzili:  2 hrs 11 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 Next Page )
PosterThread
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 25-May-2022 13:58:23
#221 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 2478
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@agami

I don't doubt that there is space for a better mainstream OS. What I do doubt is how objectively you can define and measure "better". Better UX is such a subjective area and encompasses many, often contradictory ideas because most humans aren't rational.

I've seen people given completely reconfigurable user interfaces that can, with guidance be tuned to their exact preferences. But then a day later they aren't happy because some application now has a window border control in a different location than they were used to. Despite that location being the place they wanted it the rest of the time and for everything else.

You can make things more configurable and adaptable to everyone's liking but they'll just keep breeding less easily pleased people to counter it. The same way idiot proofing things can only go so far before a better idiot emerges.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 25-May-2022 17:05:51
#222 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 6082
From: Unknown

@Karlos

People are mostly lazy... they want it to be like they always used it and moan if that is not the case. So if you can f.e. easily switch between different predefined configurations like windows and macos with the same optic and shortcuts of these systems most are propably happy. If it is offering some obvious advantages making life easier to them you will get happy users. Some will dig deeper and have fun to change settings but for the majority that is not a need. In my view technicians sometimes tend to overestimate technical features and underestimate visual effects and simply useability.

Last edited by OlafS25 on 25-May-2022 at 05:09 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 25-May-2022 20:21:11
#223 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2482
From: Germany

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@cdimauro

QNX may be the perfect microkernel example. Shame it got swallowed up by blackberry.

Indeed. The only problem is that the rest of the o.s. is POSIX-compliant, and I don't like Unix/-like o.ses.
Quote:
I'd happily run a GNU userland on it otherwise.

I don't like GNU -> GPL much more than Unixes. I'm firmly against viral licenses.
Quote:
My point about kernels is ultimately that only a diminishingly small number of users care about whether it's monolithic or not, as long as their devices work. People like us are not representative, even remotely, or the consumer market for computing devices.

That's true: o.ses exist for satisfying end-users.

Geeks are a small niche, so they (we? ) don't count...

@V8

Quote:

V8 wrote:
@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@cdimauro

A monolithic kernel is only more complex when it's more complex. What do I mean by this? If the design isn't "right" you'll have problems. A monolithic kernel that tries to include everything and the kitchen sink will run into the problems you describe. A monolithic kernel that concerns itself with only the most fundamental aspects of memory, threads, hardware initialisation and delegates everything else into cleanly segregated userland processes doesn't have to end up in dependency hell.

The same observation is true for microkernels. If you take the idea to extremes and partition services too far and too granular you end up with Hurd and all the emergent complexity that arises from what seems like a simple design at first.



A monolithic kernel has a huge benefit in that internal APIs do not need to be set into stone
and it allows you to iterate and improve, updating designs over time.
The kernel is self-contained and no internal APIs are exposed out to "external" components.

This makes for example full blown API rewrites like the current Linux page management and filesystem datahandling to switch to a completely new model : folios, possible.

If you don't have a monolithic kernel you end up in situations where you can not do these kernel-wide api and abstraction redesigns because you might not be able to coordinate these changes across all modules in an atomic way. Maybe you end up with versioned APIs and modules that translate between different api versions? lol nightmare. Maybe you need to build compatibility layers and emulate different versions of the APIs?

Monolithic kernels have drawbacks but they have huge benefits in maintenance and innovation velocity because you CAN rip out and completely replace one internal API with a completely different one without having to worry about internal-api-compatibility with the previous but now obsolete abstraction.

I don't see differences on different kernel types regarding APIs.

In fact, APIs are there to allow to the change the underlying implementation without affecting the software using them. And this happens whatever the o.s. type is...

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@agami

I don't doubt that there is space for a better mainstream OS. What I do doubt is how objectively you can define and measure "better". Better UX is such a subjective area and encompasses many, often contradictory ideas because most humans aren't rational.

I've seen people given completely reconfigurable user interfaces that can, with guidance be tuned to their exact preferences. But then a day later they aren't happy because some application now has a window border control in a different location than they were used to. Despite that location being the place they wanted it the rest of the time and for everything else.

You can make things more configurable and adaptable to everyone's liking but they'll just keep breeding less easily pleased people to counter it. The same way idiot proofing things can only go so far before a better idiot emerges.

An UI is "exterior", and it can be completely changed while keeping the underlying o.s. infrastructure, as Windows, MacOS and Linux already shown.

So, we might leave it out from the "better" definition / measure.

For a new o.s. it's much more interesting to focus on the kernel and system libraries.

But, again, this is something for geeks. More precisely, for geeks satisfaction.

@OlafS25

Quote:

OlafS25 wrote:
@Karlos

People are mostly lazy... they want it to be like they always used it and moan if that is not the case. So if you can f.e. easily switch between different predefined configurations like windows and macos with the same optic and shortcuts of these systems most are propably happy. If it is offering some obvious advantages making life easier to them you will get happy users. Some will dig deeper and have fun to change settings but for the majority that is not a need. In my view technicians sometimes tend to overestimate technical features and underestimate visual effects and simply useability.

That's the problem with geeks.

However geeks can innovate realizing an o.s. which has more interesting and flexible APIs compared to the existing & mainstream o.ses.

The problem, anyway, remains the same: most likely it would be just a PoC, without any further advancement.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 26-May-2022 2:46:23
#224 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 939
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:
I've seen people given completely reconfigurable user interfaces that can, with guidance be tuned to their exact preferences. But then a day later they aren't happy because some application now has a window border control in a different location than they were used to. Despite that location being the place they wanted it the rest of the time and for everything else.

You can make things more configurable and adaptable to everyone's liking but they'll just keep breeding less easily pleased people to counter it. The same way idiot proofing things can only go so far before a better idiot emerges.

Easy there @Karlos.

We can all from time to time find ourselves focusing on the sheer number of computer users (consumers) that want to treat it as an appliance. There seems to be a growing generation of people who've "tried nothing, and are all out of ideas". It's very easy to get jaded, but that ultimately leads to the dark side.

There is also no shortage of truly creative people out there. It's better to focus on them.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bhabbott 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 26-May-2022 3:08:25
#225 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 6-Jun-2018
Posts: 116
From: Aotearoa

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:

This isn't some idea that sprung into my head just the other week. The first seeds of this go back to about 2003, and it didn't get fully formed until about 2013.

10 years from 'first seeds' to 'fully formed". Another 10 years for ???

You're dreaming. This 'idea' is going nowhere.

Quote:
I know what you're thinking, in all that time how come I haven't done anything about it? Like it's that easy.
Execution is the key to its success. I've been busy with starting other businesses, in order to have the revenue to support the initial work required before bringing on investors.
Oh oh.

Quote:
- For developers, developing software in half the time of any other platform
- For users, near-precognitive levels of user interactivity. Knowing what the user wants to achieve, and making it easier to achieve than on traditional "legacy" platforms.

You forgot the most important quality - it must work exactly the same as the OS they are used to and which everyone else uses.

Being able to develop software in half the time is worthless if nobody uses it. And nobody will use it, because you aren't Microsoft, Apple or Google.

Quote:
I don't need users to flock. 5% in 5 years is the aim...

In order to have any chance at success, one can't come at these head on: Ta-da, here's your new perfect OS!
A flanking maneuver is required.
You are a mouse trying to flank a herd of elephants. Not going to happen.

Quote:
Many Windows users have in frustration tried to move to macOS or Linux, but have returned to Windows because they find it the least frustrating.
Many macOS users have their grievances with Apple and the direction the OS in which Apple is taking the OS, but they mostly stick around for the apps.
There are many Linux users, much like myself, who know what they would like Linux to be, and they know that Windows or macOS could never be.

And then there are the dissatisfied developers on all of these platforms.

They have their grievances, but they won't give up their chosen platform because of a few niggles.

How do you intend to provide a replacement with the same support as Windows or Linux? Or preferably better, since lack of support is one of the most common grievances. Linux has 2% market share. 28 million lines of source code, being improved and added to every day. No doubt Windows and Mac OS are a similar size. How do you intend to develop and maintain an OS that is 100% compatible with one of these (preferably Windows, since it is by far the most popular) without similar resources?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 26-May-2022 6:02:37
#226 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2482
From: Germany

@bhabbott: if it should be 100% compatible with one of these, then it's pointless even talking about it.

A new o.s. makes sense if it bring something new / better compared to the current o.ses.

After that, you can create a compatibility layer (to transparently run existing executable. IF possible) or a compatibility framework (to make it easier porting applications).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 26-May-2022 9:22:20
#227 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 939
From: Melbourne, Australia

Quote:

bhabbott wrote:
@agami

10 years from 'first seeds' to 'fully formed". Another 10 years for ???

Before rushing to snipe, as you've found out, when you read a little further you find the answer.


Quote:
You're dreaming. This 'idea' is going nowhere.

Possibly, but I am willing to give it a try anyway.


Quote:

agami wrote:
Quote:
I know what you're thinking, in all that time how come I haven't done anything about it? Like it's that easy.
Execution is the key to its success. I've been busy with starting other businesses, in order to have the revenue to support the initial work required before bringing on investors.

Oh oh.

What is "Oh oh" about bringing on investors? How else am I going to bankroll the project? My personal funds will only go so far.


Quote:
You forgot the most important quality - it must work exactly the same as the OS they are used to and which everyone else uses.

That's only the most important quality if my target is all users of the other platforms.


Quote:
And nobody will use it, because you aren't Microsoft, Apple or Google.

I'm certainly glad the rest of the world doesn't think the way you do.


Quote:
You are a mouse trying to flank a herd of elephants. Not going to happen.

Again you're incorrectly painting this as a new platform vs. the established big companies. The flanking maneuver is aimed at developers and users.


Quote:
They have their grievances, but they won't give up their chosen platform because of a few niggles.

You are defining a different persona. The target is those who are willing to give up the platform they're on because it's more than just a few niggles.


Quote:
How do you intend to provide a replacement with the same support as Windows or Linux? Or preferably better, since lack of support is one of the most common grievances. Linux has 2% market share. 28 million lines of source code, being improved and added to every day. No doubt Windows and Mac OS are a similar size. How do you intend to develop and maintain an OS that is 100% compatible with one of these (preferably Windows, since it is by far the most popular) without similar resources?

The same way the other commercial consumer personal computing platforms provide support, by having a % of revenue fund a support function.

I am actually in the software development business. Many of our solutions have ongoing support, e.g. A platform we developed for a financial services company back in 2017 has been and continues to be maintained and supported until the present day.

The other thing that took place during the past 10 years, since you're interested, is the writing of a business plan with a detailed execution plan. It covers all the "what about this?" and "how will you do that?".

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 26-May-2022 14:24:42
#228 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2088
From: Trondheim, Norway

Operating systems? What operating systems? They’re all reduced to frontends for the real operating systems - the firmwares, that do their best to present the hardware as if it was an 80s computer.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bhabbott 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 27-May-2022 7:53:54
#229 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 6-Jun-2018
Posts: 116
From: Aotearoa

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:

I'm certainly glad the rest of the world doesn't think the way you do.

The rest of the World doesn't think like I do, that's true. They don't think an Amiga has any use in today's environment. They don't want to know about operating systems, only that they can do what everybody else is doing.

Quote:
The target is those who are willing to give up the platform they're on because it's more than just a few niggles.

Correction: a very very small number of developers and users.

Quote:
I am actually in the software development business. Many of our solutions have ongoing support, e.g. A platform we developed for a financial services company back in 2017 has been and continues to be maintained and supported until the present day.

In other news, I heard that TRIPOS is still being used by insurance brokers in the UK. But they run it on top of Linux. Oh well...

Quote:
The other thing that took place during the past 10 years, since you're interested, is the writing of a business plan with a detailed execution plan. It covers all the "what about this?" and "how will you do that?".

10 years to write a business plan? I ran a business for over 10 years with no plan at all! Just knowing that customers wanted what I was selling was enough.

Good luck with your niche OS that you apparently have a few developers and users lined up for. But why are you telling us about it? Does it have anything at all to do with Amiga OS on x86? Is there anything you can tell us about it that might help with our dreams and fantasies?


Last edited by bhabbott on 27-May-2022 at 07:55 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 27-May-2022 8:22:14
#230 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 939
From: Melbourne, Australia

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote:
Operating systems? What operating systems? They’re all reduced to frontends for the real operating systems - the firmwares, that do their best to present the hardware as if it was an 80s computer.

Yes, we've moved away from referring to them as operating systems.
More often than not I use the term "platform", and other times when context demands it, I may say operating environment, or ecosystem.

Though there is very much an operating system at the core, most developers and users only ever interact with it through layers of abstraction. That said, it is extremely difficult to present an amazing developer and user experience if at the core there is a crappy OS.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 27-May-2022 8:50:43
#231 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 939
From: Melbourne, Australia

@bhabbott

Quote:
Correction: a very very small number of developers and users.

You'd be surprised.


Quote:
10 years to write a business plan? I ran a business for over 10 years with no plan at all! Just knowing that customers wanted what I was selling was enough.

I too have started my own businesses without elaborate business plans, but when you require millions of dollars of investment from others, they want to see a well thought-out plan. The bigger the ask, the bigger the plan is required. If it were just some mobile app, 20 pages and 2 weeks would do it.

Oh hell, why am I even explaining this to you. All you seem to be good at is deconstructing and tearing things down. You'll just pick on one small part, like the number of pages. Ignoring the fact that each of the mainstream commercial platforms leave in their wake reams of planning documents to justify the millions of internal spending on the next iteration. "Why does Microsoft/Apple need so many meetings and so much planning to iterate their platforms, Just knowing that customers wanted what I was selling was enough".


Quote:
But why are you telling us about it? Does it have anything at all to do with Amiga OS on x86? Is there anything you can tell us about it that might help with our dreams and fantasies?

It came about organically as part of the conversation. It's all there in this thread. You can see when and why I brought it up.

There is no commercial benefit in porting Amiga OS or AmigaOS to x86. The best that can be done is a completely new platform that has a level of homage, that carries on the original philosophy, and has some backward compatibility for Amiga OS 68k apps through emulation.

My aim is not to satiate your dreams and fantasies. But as a person that has been positively impacted and influenced by their experience with the Amiga, my planned play for a viable 3rd commercial consumer personal computing platform is inspired by what Amiga and Amiga OS were in the late '80s and early '90s. It aims to make a similar paradigm shift, with elements that will be instantly recognizable by Amiga users.

That might not float your boat, but like I said, I'm not doing this for you.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 27-May-2022 13:34:17
#232 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2088
From: Trondheim, Norway

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:
@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote:
Operating systems? What operating systems? They’re all reduced to frontends for the real operating systems - the firmwares, that do their best to present the hardware as if it was an 80s computer.

Yes, we've moved away from referring to them as operating systems.
More often than not I use the term "platform", and other times when context demands it, I may say operating environment, or ecosystem.


Hm, I don't quite follow... for me, all those are quite distinctly different things than what is being discussed here. At what level in the OSI model are you? 11? :)

Quote:
Though there is very much an operating system at the core, most developers and users only ever interact with it through layers of abstraction. That said, it is extremely difficult to present an amazing developer and user experience if at the core there is a crappy OS.


To repeat ThoR - it is all about the interfaces.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
GadgetMaster 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 27-May-2022 16:38:48
#233 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 26-Dec-2002
Posts: 600
From: TrustVille

What’s with the obsession with OSs anyway? They’re getting less and less relevant by the day. Nobody really cares about the platform these days. They’re all much of a muchness. It’s the applications that matter. Hence the move to cloud.

I friend of mine created a cloud desktop in the early 2000s cloud was even an established thing. It highlighted the point about a traditional desktop OS becoming irrelevant.

The paradigm has shifted. We only like retro platforms because of nostalgia and the feeling of comfort. You can get comfortable with anything. Like moving to another place, it might feel strange at first, but it will soon become home.

So acknowledge that the Amiga OS is nothing more than an interesting bit of history and stop clinging to the hope that one day it will again reign supreme

It ain’t gonna happen. And the sooner you admit that and move on the better.

Leave the nostalgia where it belongs, in history.

_________________
Trust me. I'm a doctor.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 28-May-2022 5:22:47
#234 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 2482
From: Germany

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:
@bhabbott

There is no commercial benefit in porting Amiga OS or AmigaOS to x86. The best that can be done is a completely new platform that has a level of homage, that carries on the original philosophy,

No, please, don't do it: there's no need of another badly written o.s....

Having an o.s. with APIs INSPIRED by the Amiga o.s. is ok, but leave out all the bad things which completely crippled it.

Keeping the same libraries, tools, commands, etc., is ok, but according to the above.
Quote:
and has some backward compatibility for Amiga OS 68k apps through emulation.

The right way. That's how the old software should be enjoyed.
Quote:
My aim is not to satiate your dreams and fantasies. But as a person that has been positively impacted and influenced by their experience with the Amiga, my planned play for a viable 3rd commercial consumer personal computing platform is inspired by what Amiga and Amiga OS were in the late '80s and early '90s. It aims to make a similar paradigm shift, with elements that will be instantly recognizable by Amiga users.

Inspiration is ok, as I've said before, to make people more comfortable with it.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 28-May-2022 6:47:54
#235 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 939
From: Melbourne, Australia

@cdimauro

Quote:
Having an o.s. with APIs INSPIRED by the Amiga o.s. is ok, but leave out all the bad things which completely crippled it.

Of course. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I feel like I have to summarize all of my discussion points that lead to this point:
- I agree with those who are for leaving Amiga OS (1-3) in the past
- I am not interested in, nor am I deluding myself that somehow a modernized version of Amiga OS 3.x or a x86 port of AmigaOS 4 or MorhOS will bring "the Amiga way" back to mainstream
- For our favourite 68k apps and games to have a new home, I like and support initiatives such as Vampire FPGA, AxRuntime, and if somebody wanted to take another crack at the Amithlon concept
- I agree that most users don't care about the OS on their personal computers, but millions of developers and users, both for personal and business use, do care
- Things are shifting in the industry, and cloud desktop environments and apps have a place, but they will not take prime position. Local execution on devices will still be the primary method for personal computing for at least a couple of decades.
- There is room (has been for a while), and an opportunity for a new commercial platform in the personal computer consumer market
- As a fond Amiga user, I know that many of the late '90s and early 2000s operating systems from Microsoft and Apple have caught up to the OS paradigms that Amiga pioneered in the personal computing space a decade earlier. But not everything that Amiga and Amiga OS managed to accomplish back then has found its way into modern contemporaries.
- Since I'm planning to make a play in the next evolution of personal computing platforms, I see it also as an opportunity to pay homage to what the Amiga was to all of us. Why would I bother trying to create a new place for computing that is an alternative to Windows and macOS, and not make it something I would enjoy using?

Last edited by agami on 28-May-2022 at 06:51 AM.
Last edited by agami on 28-May-2022 at 06:49 AM.
Last edited by agami on 28-May-2022 at 06:48 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 28-May-2022 13:33:40
#236 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 10571
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:
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.


Oh no! Why would they go through such torment?

Yes, that's also among the ideas that I've proposed and Commodore were planning with AAA and beyond. And as mentioned HP printer image data. It's also used in VGA where there are planes, but not always planes in the bitplane sense, but as colour planes.

The example below could almost be mistaken for Amiga graphic data as it mentions planes in the labels:

https://www.phatcode.net/res/224/files/html/ch23/23-03.html

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 28-May-2022 14:01:53
#237 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 2478
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@Hypex

Quote:

Oh no! Why would they go through such torment


Mostly because the realm of bitmapped graphics just wasn't confusing enough already. As with all other pixel formats, it has pros and cons. On balanced I'd say having separate colour planes is less unwieldy than individual bit planes.

The distinction between separate colour planes and RGBx packed pixels reminds me of the structure or arrays versus array of structures discussion.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 28-May-2022 15:26:24
#238 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 10571
From: Greensborough, Australia

@cdimauro

Quote:
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.


For Windows internally it should have some consistency. But OSX did a similar thing; in years past the Aqua interface had a nice 3d look, but then they dumped it down to look plainer on the macOS. I know what it is. Boring is the new modern. They've just reverted it to looking simple so it's different. Well I don't care about desktop fashion and fads. To me boring is boring and therefore old fashioned. I can see this on the Linux Mint 19 I'm typing this on. The look is plain and boring. I see they just copy Windows because they are afraid of actually designing their own interface. Even the older Ubuntu 12 PPC sitting on my X1000 looks better than this.

Quote:
So, no chance: you've the worse of the worlds...


Once you get used to it, you accept how things are, even though they are unacceptable.

Quote:
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.


A 64 bit OS would be a good start.

Quote:
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.


I imagine that running 32 bit user land apps under a 64 bit kernel would also need some MMU tricks that could also bog down process switching.

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


It's quite common knowledge that won't change without a big announcement and proof so I see no point in marketing such terms as 64 bit.

Quote:
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.


The Tabor CPU has this and is mentioned in the fine print somewhere.

Quote:
So, you can access up to 64GB of physical memory on a 32-bit system (by "bank swapping" some PMMU pages, on need).


Bank swapping. Oh dear. Sounds like a jumped up bank switching. Though 64GB is rather huge. The next step after ExtMem.

Quote:
Then you "just" need a proper Desktop Environment.


Actually, that wasn't accurate, I can drag icons into shell windows (or terminals.) But then I need to prepend it with a CD and then activate the window.

Quote:
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. ;)


Yes, I've seen it. Need to update my Linux. But will it change native terminal icon behaviour.

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


It had the potential to be expanded and simplified for the programmer. Compare with EGA bitmap format. And where they took it with VGA. All based on planes. And different organising of pixel data.

Quote:
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).


It needs to be supported on Amiga as all Amiga have bitplanes but only a subset have packed with RTG hardware.

Quote:
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.


I noticed that. There's more registers for defining the screen display. But the chipset defined a standard for that. In any case it looked slightly foreign to me. I thought re-purposing the bitplane pointers would be more inline with the original. After all, they re-implemented AGA.

Here's a funny one. A500 users hating on AGA and point out that ECS is where real Amiga games are at. Then buy a Vampire because they want AGA on their A500.

Slightly off topic, but I was reading on the Apollo forums about Gunnar's dislike of AHI, because of the focus on software mixing. I didn't bother to join the forum only to be banned for pointing out his error. But AHI doesn't solely rely only on software mixing, it's up to the driver to provide a hardware mixer. The Paula driver has hardware mixing modes as expected. So there is no reason why a Monica AHI driver couldn't be written to make use of it. (Or whatever it is called now.) Of course trackers left AHI behind so maybe Gunnar is right. There's not exactly music software that makes of AHI.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 28-May-2022 15:56:30
#239 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 10571
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:
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.


My experience of RTG is a Picasso4 and CyberVision 64 in an A4000/060. So certainly better than the 64 colour Workbench I had on my A1200. Unfortunately, Amiga RTG drivers never caught up with Windows 95, so far as I can tell. So it all has to be setup by hand. I've never been able to configure a simple 1280x1024 mode to match my monitor. Amiga RTG software was too technical.

Quote:
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.


I used it. Since it was there. And software like DPaint took advantage of the hardware to do it.

Quote:
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.


It would yes. But needs improving on OS4. It doesn't exactly use raster interrupts as a poor mans copper. So there's no reason why it displays quarter sized screens. Given they would be blitted in some sense it makes sense to scale them in the process. It's not as if any programs can directly write to the framebuffer. I don't know if there is any bitplane emulation. But sprite 0 can work.

Quote:
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.


That's above the 8 bits I'm talking about. Above that it's RGB and not CLUT so easily fits better.

Quote:
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.


Which it more to my point. But just to illustrate. This is the kind of format I'm thinking per byte.

3 bit - x321x311 x321x321 x321x321
7 bit - xx543210 xx543210 xx543210

In 3 bit above 1 bit is lost per byte, in 7 bits two bits are lost per byte. To pack it evenly in bytes.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 28-May-2022 17:28:58
#240 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 2478
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@Hypex

Quote:

3 bit - x321x311 x321x321 x321x321
7 bit - xx543210 xx543210 xx543210

In 3 bit above 1 bit is lost per byte, in 7 bits two bits are lost per byte. To pack it evenly in bytes


I think you mean 6-bit in your second example. However, why would you pack it like this and not this?

3 bit - 32132132 13213213 21321321

Why does it matter if an individual pixel spans a byte boundary? That's software engineer thinking and ignores that hardware can do pretty much anything it's circuitry is configured for.

The above represents the only three byte permutations you need to consider for an 8 colour scheme, so you can even devise lookup based methods of isolating a pixel if you don't have fast barrel shifters at your disposal.

Now I know what you're thinking, but it's 3 byte alignment per 8 pixels and I want a 32 bit bus. Well, all you need to do there is recognise 3 * 4 is 12 and increase the final screen width alignment requirements accordingly.

Last edited by Karlos on 28-May-2022 at 06:52 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 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 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