Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5782 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
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

(Uses JAVA Applet and Port 1024)
Visit the Chatroom Website

Who's Online
 75 guest(s) on-line.
 3 member(s) on-line.


 Rob,  zzd10h,  Mimifan

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Mimifan:  16 secs ago
 zzd10h:  1 min ago
 Rob:  2 mins ago
 michalsc:  9 mins ago
 Frank:  13 mins ago
 cip060:  22 mins ago
 amigakit:  26 mins ago
 BSzili:  51 mins ago
 Everblue:  53 mins ago
 Raziel:  1 hr 4 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4.x \ Workbench 4.x
      /  This is not right
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
Franko 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 11-Aug-2012 23:15:30
#41 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Jun-2010
Posts: 2809
From: Unknown

@Seiya

Quote:

Seiya wrote:

So in Wikipedia you can only read what was "Amiga".



It would help if they included actual FACTS and not just guesswork on Wiki pages...

_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
sugar 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 7:00:57
#42 ]
Member
Joined: 15-May-2012
Posts: 10
From: Unknown

@Franko
@vox

Unless you really have different AmigaOS versions, you can be certain files names can be up to 107 chars. This is using CLI

The Workbench however had a 30 chars limit until 3.9. You could use a CLI command to set the accepted filename length: I think it was "wbctrl".

@vox

where are "200+ " chars mentioned? This is truly wrong!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 7:14:19
#43 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@Seiya

Quote:
Amiga is only Amiga Classics


No! There is only one real Amiga... Amiga 1000.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Arko 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 8:47:00
#44 ]
Super Member
Joined: 17-Jan-2007
Posts: 1989
From: Unknown

@QuikSanz

Quote:

QuikSanz wrote:

Good day,

I normally don't post stuff here but this is not right and I'm not sure how to correct it.


It clearly says:
"The Amiga is a family of personal computers marketed by Commodore in the 1980s and 1990s."

According to this absolute correct interpretation there might not be much room for AmigaOS4, but they mentioned it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga#AmigaOS

ps.: We(?) should be glad the page is not about CUSA Amigas with just a link to Classic Amigas.

Quote:

QuikSanz wrote:

no mention of OS4 at all,


That's good, because there is no product called OS4, maybe you meant AmigaOS4.

Last edited by Arko on 12-Aug-2012 at 08:53 AM.
Last edited by Arko on 12-Aug-2012 at 08:48 AM.

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 9:05:32
#45 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@Arko

Quote:
According to this absolute correct interpretation there might not be much room for AmigaOS4, but they mentioned


Article about Amiga without Amiga OS? Right, correct interpretation.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 9:06:52
#46 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 10896
From: Norway

@Arko

Quote:
there is no product called OS4, maybe you meant AmigaOS4


there is product called OS4 and it is not AmigaOS4, OS4 is a Linux distribution.
There is also product called OS2 but that is not AmigaOS2.0 as well.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Aug-2012 at 09:14 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Aug-2012 at 09:13 AM.

_________________
Please check out my software:
Excalibur, Basilisk 2, AmigaInputAnywhere.
LiveForIt-Music
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
vox 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 10:54:02
#47 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Posts: 3725
From: Belgrade, Serbia

@Arko

Quote:
ps.: We(?) should be glad the page is not about CUSA Amigas with just a link to Classic Amigas.


We, the Amigans. I don`t feel them as part of our history, community and efforts.
You are most welcome to prove I wrong.

On the main topic:

- We need someone to fix what were AmigaDOS and what Workbench limits and how file systems removed these limits. In main article it is enough to say Amiga had long file names.

- Quicker mention of AROS, MorphOS and AmigaOS4 as current development in article summary. People should know AMIGA IS ALIVE not just past

- EXpanding current and historical sections using Hardware database, Workbench nostalgia etc.

I am quite pleased with how AmigaOS and its components are explained, but dislike that AmigaOS 4 is also a separate article, while very few OS4 adds are explained in main AmigaOS article. Its one system and needs to be improved.

MorphOS and AROS articles could be improved too!

DOn`t forget ... Wikipedia, Google and Facebook its trinity of this current generation. I choose to skip FB, but do your share in promoting Amiga NOW!

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Franko 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 11:05:22
#48 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Jun-2010
Posts: 2809
From: Unknown

@sugar

Quote:

sugar wrote:
@Franko
@vox

Unless you really have different AmigaOS versions, you can be certain files names can be up to 107 chars. This is using CLI

The Workbench however had a 30 chars limit until 3.9. You could use a CLI command to set the accepted filename length: I think it was "wbctrl".


Pretty sure it was only from 3.0 onwards that you could "use" large filenames when using the CLI for things like "List" & "Copy"...

Point is though, the vast majority of software is "hard coded" only to allow you to read & write filenames of up to 30 characters, which results in most programs and file requesters throwing up a "file not found" other other such errors when trying to handle filenames of greater than 30 chars...

So unless your using SFS or similar then long filenames on the Amiga is pretty pointless (unless you only ever use the CLI/ Shell & even then it throws up the odd error or two)...

_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 11:09:22
#49 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 8807
From: Unknown

@vox

Quote:
We, the Amigans. I don`t feel them as part of our history, community and efforts.


However, they should be at least mentioned.

Quote:
We need someone to fix what were AmigaDOS and what Workbench limits and how file systems removed these limits. In main article it is enough to say Amiga had long file names.


I dont think current state is as wrong as Franko says. Some minor corrections will be sufficient.

Quote:
Quicker mention of AROS, MorphOS and AmigaOS4 as current development in article summary. People should know AMIGA IS ALIVE not just past


MorphOS and AROS have their place in "Influence on other operating systems" section. I dont think Amiga is entirely alive, maybe a little bit undead.

Quote:
but dislike that AmigaOS 4 is also a separate article, while very few OS4 adds are explained in main AmigaOS article. Its one system and needs to be improved.


Both articles have their reason. However, it will take much time to improve "AmigaOS" article. Article for AmigaOS4 is fine. You can of course propose changes on respective talk pages.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
number6 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 12:39:05
#50 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Posts: 10401
From: In the village

@thread

More pointless trivia about WBctrl as regards the 3.5 FAQ:

http://www.gregdonner.org/os35faq/diskfileoperation.html#1

Quote:
Remember that when you use WBCtrl to invoke this setting


Early versions of WBctrl (like V1.3) never had the MNL (MAXNAMELENGTH) parameter.

If someone is really bored, you can check your original AmigaOS 3.5 and in shell try:
Quote:
WBCtrl ?


And of course:
Quote:
Version WBCtrl


I did say pointless trivia, right?

Quote:
Maximum filename lengths for the popular filesystems are as follows:

AmigaDOS (dos.library): 102, plus 5 reserved for ".info" files
Workbench/Fast File System (FFS): 25, plus 5 reserved for ".info" files
Smart File System (SFS): 95, plus 5 reserved for ".info" files
Professional File System (PFS): 102, plus 5 reserved for ".info" files (PFS has a minimum of 31 characters)
Ami-File Safe (AFS): diskname length - 32, filename length - 96, comment length - 80


Also I think developers would be hard pressed to call dos.library a "filesystem".

Greg has added a lot to his site since it began. I think most folks would really enjoy:

http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/index.html

#6

Last edited by number6 on 12-Aug-2012 at 01:00 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 14:20:32
#51 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 10896
From: Norway

@number6

"3.2/4.0" ?

There are some errors in documentation her as well, clearly this should have been divided.

Beta 3.2 was an ESCOM project from 1996.
And then you have the early AmigaOS4.0 beta images from 2003/2004.

"Transparent menus" image does not belong there.

It might be that 3.2 ended up becoming AmigaOS4.0 beta, buts it seems to me most of the information on page is based on rumors and not facts.

As for the version number of exec I think its at 50.x now, yes its is confusing.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Aug-2012 at 02:47 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Aug-2012 at 02:38 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Aug-2012 at 02:32 PM.

_________________
Please check out my software:
Excalibur, Basilisk 2, AmigaInputAnywhere.
LiveForIt-Music
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
vox 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 15:36:59
#52 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Posts: 3725
From: Belgrade, Serbia

@pavlor

@vox

Quote:
We, the Amigans. I don`t feel them as part of our history, community and efforts.

Quote:
However, they should be at least mentioned.


True, but as someone who has licence to the name as result of lawsuit Amiga Inc gave up the OS to developer. Thus only empty can of brand name is sold, unrelated to CBM or Amiga history, and its a new small LCC. Some kind of non propaganda summary, likewise CommodoreOS has nothing to do with CBM or AmigaOS of any kind.

Quote:
I dont think current state is as wrong as Franko says. Some minor corrections will be sufficient.


Agreed, but some changes have to be done since large file name part is kind of wrong, its should be said up to 30 chars.

Quote:
MorphOS and AROS have their place in "Influence on other operating systems" section. I dont think Amiga is entirely alive, maybe a little bit undead.


I believe its developing faster then ever in previous decade. Call it undead, way article is written you would think its dead. If you agree MOS and AROS are just influences, I go along with you, but I believe its continuation. AmigaOS because has the name and is direct continuation needs to be mentioned fast too, and it would be most just if all 3 offsprings are in same line - Amiga operating systems have continued to develop as open source AROS, PowerPC improved MorphOS and PowerPC recompiled original AmigaOS 4 and further improved ... or similar.

World needs to know we are alive (undead!) and Wiki is a good start.

Also WaWa, beside criticism and bitterness I expect to hear what you will do for the undead Zombie army in next year or two ... so we could hold each other on word
Otherwize its unfair deal


Quote:
Both articles have their reason. However, it will take much time to improve "AmigaOS" article. Article for AmigaOS4 is fine. You can of course propose changes on respective talk pages.


The way its written it looks like its two OS`s. Most of OS4 advancements are not mentioned in AOS article ... just for example. Even components of OS are very fairly and nicely done, at least for my level of knowledge (programmers will say more)

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
vox 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 15:38:29
#53 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Posts: 3725
From: Belgrade, Serbia

@number6

Quote:
http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/index.html


Workbench nostalgia is great resource, kind of DistroWatch for Amiga and should be used to compare and indicate improvements between OS versions.

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
itix 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 16:14:45
#54 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2004
Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world

@vox

Quote:

World needs to know we are alive (undead!) and Wiki is a good start.


Wikipedia is not promo site where you advertise your products. And nobody really cares if OS 4.x implements Ringhio notification server or MorphOS 2.x supports certain SATA adapter model. In fact all Amiga operating system related articles are quite bad.

MorphOS: list of new features/fixes/components. Boring! The history section works.

AROS: this article is better than MorphOS one but its current status section is nothing but random sentences and reminds me about MorphOS article.

AmigaOS: very detailed but for example graphics section is confusing. For some reason there are suddenly listed frame grabber cards (what it has to do with the OS?) and mixes all kind of AROS/MorphOS/OS4 mambo jambo.

AmigaOS 4: i quite like it but why there is this development history from Kickstart 1.3? When you go to read Windows XP article do you find development history from MSDOS era to Win3.11 to WinXP? On the other hand if you remove that there is very little information left you couldnt find from main AmigaOS article.

Amiga PPC hardware articles are also nothing but spec sheet + ordering information...

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wawa 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 17:11:27
#55 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2008
Posts: 6098
From: Unknown

@vox

Quote:
Also WaWa, beside criticism and bitterness I expect to hear what you will do for the undead Zombie army in next year or two ... so we could hold each other on word

You cannot keep me on my word because im Not going to honour it myself. As for what im going to do for the zombies, im going to Buy a shotgun, as soon as armour will become freely available in europe.

EDIT by Moderator:

This kind of discussion about buying weapons and armour to take care of other Amiga users (your word = zombies, after vox's word = undead), is getting out of line and not necessary here.

Stop your sarcastic attacks and contribute useful content, or see your posts edited, deleted, or receive a posting restriction for your continued actions.

It is perfectly okay to disagree and voice your opinions, but veiled threats, even when just more sarcastic attempts at humor are not acceptable here. This is your 2nd or 3rd warning within the last couple of days and might result in a posting restriction after staff review and discussion.

AmigaDave

Last edited by amigadave on 12-Aug-2012 at 10:53 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Seiya 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 21:16:33
#56 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Aug-2006
Posts: 1412
From: Italia

however, Amiga was a mix of Hardware and Operating System that work in harmony.
AmigaOS 4 is only an operating system for a PC like Windows, Linux, etc.

yes, now when we say "AmigaOS" we intend "Amiga" because original hardware is dead
but....

_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Arko 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 21:52:33
#57 ]
Super Member
Joined: 17-Jan-2007
Posts: 1989
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote:
@Arko

Quote:
there is no product called OS4, maybe you meant AmigaOS4


there is product called OS4 and it is not AmigaOS4, OS4 is a Linux distribution.
There is also product called OS2 but that is not AmigaOS2.0 as well.


So do you think OS4 or OS2 (mabye you menat OS/2) should be mentioned there or not ?

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
vox 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 21:59:38
#58 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Posts: 3725
From: Belgrade, Serbia

@wawa

Quote:
You cannot keep me on my word because im Not going to honour it myself. As for what im going to do for the zombies, im going to Buy a shotgun, as soon as armour will become freely available in europe.


Gladly, arms should never be widely avail in Europe.

You see way too much of new Zombie attack movies. Even Serbs have made some like Zombie Apocalypse.

@Seiya

Quote:
however, Amiga was a mix of Hardware and Operating System that work in harmony. AmigaOS 4 is only an operating system for a PC like Windows, Linux, etc. yes, now when we say "AmigaOS" we intend "Amiga" because original hardware is dead but....


To be honest, A2000 or A4000 is a board. CBM made board with OCS/ECS/AGA but again, just a board.

CPU evolved from 68k to PPC by Motorola / Freecale (and even as PPC expansion for classics)
Zorro slots were anyway replaced by PCI expansions
CGX, AHI and MUI were already introduced in OS 3.x

So its more an illusion: OCS was only great chipset, ECS was late and AGA was slow even it was good. It killed Amiga, as well as low models had only one Zorro slot, We had to abuse clock port and PCMCIA to get it expanded.

Now. when everything is normal. you say it isn`t. Back in 90s we craved for normal board, access to cheap PCI cards etc. Now we have it. Its normalization and standardization. Why nobody develops faster blitter, copper and gfx chip then Radeon or nVIDIA? Its difficult so there are players in major categories, and I am glad we can use RadeonHD or Sound Blaster. When you look at list of hardware Amiga shops sell, bare model is that old Classics but all expansions are Voodo, S3, Radeon, ESS, Sound Blaster ...

So it didn`t change that much, beside that OS evolved futher and its not all up to 3rd party

Mac is computer that runs MacOS X, even its hackintosh (any PC)
Wintel machine runs Windows, even its cheap integrated boards.
I am glad Linux runs on everything and anything.
So Amiga is machine running natively AmigaOS 4 or MorphOS or AROS

Is that that difficult to comprehend?


Quote:
Wikipedia is not promo site where you advertise your products. And nobody really cares if OS 4.x implements Ringhio notification server or MorphOS 2.x supports certain SATA adapter model. In fact all Amiga operating system related articles are quite bad.


They are way richer than I throught for "zombies". Off course there is a way to improve it. Some pages without criticism and product properties are promo only, but we need to go beyond that. So I agree with your list, can we used your kniowledge of matters to improve it? Why not mentuning which hw is supported under MorphOS or that AmigaOS now has notification system?

Last edited by vox on 12-Aug-2012 at 10:39 PM.
Last edited by vox on 12-Aug-2012 at 10:06 PM.

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Arko 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 22:28:18
#59 ]
Super Member
Joined: 17-Jan-2007
Posts: 1989
From: Unknown

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote:
@Arko

Quote:
According to this absolute correct interpretation there might not be much room for AmigaOS4, but they mentioned


Article about Amiga without Amiga OS? Right, correct interpretation.


The Amiga is an Amiga without its OS.

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
vox 
Re: This is not right
Posted on 12-Aug-2012 22:40:32
#60 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Posts: 3725
From: Belgrade, Serbia

@Arko

Quote:
The Amiga is an Amiga without its OS


Amiga in traditional Classic sense died with ESCOM.
AmigaOS and its inspirations MorphOS and AROS are alive and kicking.

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Amigaworld.net.

Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle