Poster | Thread |
Hypex
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 26-Jan-2022 5:46:25
| | [ #101 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11200
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @matthey
Quote:
Multicore could make RMW instructions atomic to all cores but it may incur an unacceptable performance hit. Suspending other cores during FORBID/DISABLE may also reduce performance but there are also some design decisions which may reduce the performance loss enough to be acceptable for backward compatibility when using SMP. It really should be researched. |
I tend to think that RMW needs to be atomic when involving multiple cores to avoided any clashes. 68k codes generally provide that in the design. And only on RISC is where RMW is usually not guaranteed except for particular codes made to be atomic. But that hasn't stopped any RISC OS being multi core.
It looks too late now to replace the AmigaOS design and fix the flaws. Namely, the flaws would be a too open OS, with user processes able to shut off multitasking, and no standard method defined for management of system objects like messages, ports and lists. In my view.
The current mechanism is for a task to disable task switching. It's possible the task still had some quantum time and so the disabling would be idempotent. By itself extending a task quantum briefly should be perfectly fine, the problem is all tasks on all cores need suspending. So it in effect needs to disable all core activity so only one core is active. Lots of tasks must be doing it or it wouldn't be such a show stopper. But, it comes down to simple manipulation of memory. A big problem usually caused by a small change to a simple list.
However, I wonder if an opposite approach would be viable? That is, instead of suspending all task switching, suspend the task calling for exclusive access. The task may have been switched out just before it made the call so at that point nothing is changed. But, instead, this will place the task in a special context with the routine called inside the Forbid/Permit being diverted to a soft interrupt. The system will maintain a list tasks entering this context. When the system interrupt gets executed it will cause all these routines to be executed in order, all in isolation, and executed outside of any task context in a system routine.
Another option would be to keep track of all tasks that communicate with the one task wanting exclusive access. And only suspend all child tasks and all tasks in contact with it. But that would be a lot to manage and it may be unknown all the other tasks it is in contact with. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BigD
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 26-Jan-2022 8:10:19
| | [ #102 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 11-Aug-2005 Posts: 7322
From: UK | | |
|
| @Hypex
We are beyond pushing AmigOS for modernity IMHO! We need to have a break in compatibility and have a MacOS style sandbox for Classic apps. While we're at it, port to Arm. But where is the investment going to come from? Any dentists out there? And our USP/business plan will be ....... ? _________________ "Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art." John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 26-Jan-2022 14:05:24
| | [ #103 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6338
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @BigD
it is certainly possible to modernize amigaos but that would mean breaking compatibility and that would very propably mean that amiga software cannot be simply recompiled (if for example written in a high language like C) but to change the sources. So basically you would have no amiga software except what is running in emulation. The problem is where to get new software? Dropping compatibility and thus most of the existing software is only justifyable if you get new software by it, f.e. the linux or unix software base. But even then you must create something that people want to use and is more than "another" linux distribution. It is certainly not impossible but not easy either, you need skilled developers to do it either for fun (open source) or for money. But then you must find someone with big pockets for it. I personal have not the same desire as others seem to have to get a "modern amiga system". The fun part for me is being retro using the old software and playing old games and some of the newer ones. I do not need a system that could be used for everyday tasks.
There was a aros version with 64bit and SMP support (if MP is implemented I do not know) but the interest was limited outside (as far as I know) and there was not much software available. Also there is the general driver problem that is not easy to solve except you would use a linux or unix kernal for it. Last edited by OlafS25 on 26-Jan-2022 at 02:12 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 26-Jan-2022 16:54:01
| | [ #104 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Aug-2003 Posts: 2880
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| With the current OS “developers” doing their worst to make the Amiga experience even on old 68k align as much as possible with the UX of “Windows” - why not just put an Amiga skin on Windows 11 and call it the day? _________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BigD
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 26-Jan-2022 19:25:54
| | [ #105 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 11-Aug-2005 Posts: 7322
From: UK | | |
|
| @kolla
Or just have a Zool wallpaper on Windows and play Zool Remastered/GoG versions of old Amiga games/the latest version of Lightwave and PageStream on Windows? We really have reached the point where we have to ask, why does AmigaOS 4.x exists? I would struggle to justify a A1222 Plus although I'd like one, but I would rather spend my limited disposable income on an Apollo IceDrake to run fun Classic software and some of the new Vampire enhanced software. Last edited by BigD on 27-Jan-2022 at 12:27 AM.
_________________ "Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art." John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
matthey
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 26-Jan-2022 23:46:24
| | [ #106 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Mar-2007 Posts: 1999
From: Kansas | | |
|
| Hypex Quote:
I tend to think that RMW needs to be atomic when involving multiple cores to avoided any clashes. 68k codes generally provide that in the design. And only on RISC is where RMW is usually not guaranteed except for particular codes made to be atomic. But that hasn't stopped any RISC OS being multi core.
|
There are normal and locked RMW instructions which can both be referred to as atomic. The read, modify operation and write are executed as if they were one uninterruptible instruction in both cases. The normal RMW instruction reads and writes the write buffer (often used like a L0 cache in modern cores) and L1 data cache which are rarely shared between cores. This allows the caches of different cores to have more updated data than what is in memory and other core's caches. A locked RMW instruction not only updates all the caches of the core but locks the memory bus so no other core can lock it. A normal RMW atomic instruction was adequate in the Amiga with only one core because the same caches were always used and coherent but with multicore a locked RMW instruction is required. The 68k normal RMW instructions could be changed to locked RMW instructions which would solve the problem but the locked variations are much more expensive operations to writethrough the caches and lock the memory bus (synchronization and contention issues to deal with). The 68060 has a best case 1 cycle throughput for normal RMW instructions (support superscalar execution too) where locked RMW instructions like CAS take 19 cycles and TAS 17 cycles but these values could increase with memory bus contention in a multicore CPU. It should be possible to make the CPU configurable so normal RMW instructions translated to locked RMW instructions can be toggled on and off but I have another idea for a different design with a shared write buffer with tags that may reduce the overhead by allowing parallel RMW locks to memory address ranges in the write buffer instead of locking the whole memory bus. I'm not sure the timing could be maintained though as lines to all the cores and L1 caches would be required. Building custom hardware allows flexibility to address issues like this which commodity cores do not.
Hypex Quote:
It looks too late now to replace the AmigaOS design and fix the flaws. Namely, the flaws would be a too open OS, with user processes able to shut off multitasking, and no standard method defined for management of system objects like messages, ports and lists. In my view.
|
With custom hardware, it should be possible to have a timer limit or time how long a core is in FORBID or DISABLE state. This may be useful for debugging and security notification but stopping a process which has used too much time could leave shared structures in a corrupt state. Pausing other cores during FORBID and DISABLE is a kludge too so it would be highly desirable to eliminate these functions/macros with a newer multicore aware API. I don't believe it is possible to make the AmigaOS a high security OS while maintaining compatibility but at the same time the freedom given by the AmigaOS is refreshing.
Hypex Quote:
The current mechanism is for a task to disable task switching. It's possible the task still had some quantum time and so the disabling would be idempotent. By itself extending a task quantum briefly should be perfectly fine, the problem is all tasks on all cores need suspending. So it in effect needs to disable all core activity so only one core is active. Lots of tasks must be doing it or it wouldn't be such a show stopper. But, it comes down to simple manipulation of memory. A big problem usually caused by a small change to a simple list.
However, I wonder if an opposite approach would be viable? That is, instead of suspending all task switching, suspend the task calling for exclusive access. The task may have been switched out just before it made the call so at that point nothing is changed. But, instead, this will place the task in a special context with the routine called inside the Forbid/Permit being diverted to a soft interrupt. The system will maintain a list tasks entering this context. When the system interrupt gets executed it will cause all these routines to be executed in order, all in isolation, and executed outside of any task context in a system routine.
|
This is somewhat similar to what I described in a post in another thread.
https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=44314&forum=27&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0#845442 Quote:
The code reaching a Forbid() or Disable() can be stopped for some time before entering the restricted code section. The forbid function could AddTail() to a global queue nodes of cores reaching a Forbid() or Disable() and then would spin or wait for a signal that all other cores are waiting (not running tasks). When all cores are no longer running, the first core in the queue will signal that it is running, disable interrupts if a Disable(), execute the critical code section, Reenable interrupts if Disable(), remove the node entry from the queue, signal that it is waiting and spin or wait until the queue is empty. The next entry in the queue will follow until there are no more entries and all cores can continue regular execution. The advantage here is that multiple forbids and disables on different cores can be run while the cores are stopped.
Rather than stopping all running cores immediately, wait for the task switch timer to interrupt and then check if the global queue of waiting forbids and permits is empty and spin or wait if it is not. Every core will stop eventually when there is a pending forbid or disable in the queue. This has lower overhead than stopping the running cores immediately after a core has encountered a Forbid or Permit and flushing write buffers using memory barriers (sync, eieio/mbar, msync) which may happen anyway on a context/task switch.
I believe my idea for handling Forbid() and Permit() would be pretty simple and easy to try. There would be multicore arbitration needed for adding nodes to the queue and for the mask of cores waiting/spinning. The nodes for the forbid queue should probably be embedded in a core context structure for each core so they don't have to be dynamically allocated. This is probably about as good as it gets to handle Forbid() and Disable() without hardware help.
|
The keys points are...
1. tasks are stopped, queued in a global ForbidQueue and wait before entering a FORBID/DISABLE state 2. cores are stopped if !IsListEmpty(ForbidQueue) during normal preempted task switching 3. when all cores are stopped, the first task in the ForbidQueue is signaled to execute 4. PERMIT/ENABLE stops the code and signals the next task to execute 5. when the ForbidQueue is empty, all waiting cores beginning executing normally
It's as simple and low of overhead as I can see.
1. reduces core stoppage by executing queue of FORBID/DISABLE code while cores are stopped 2. no unnecessary preempting of tasks and pipeline flushes 3. low multicore overhead and minimal code required (low non-multicore performance reduction)
Hypex Quote:
Another option would be to keep track of all tasks that communicate with the one task wanting exclusive access. And only suspend all child tasks and all tasks in contact with it. But that would be a lot to manage and it may be unknown all the other tasks it is in contact with. |
This is to try to reduce race and deadlock conditions from changing the execution time tasks have? I expect SMP is more likely to significantly alter timing relationships between tasks than delaying FORBID/DISABLE execution. There is the potential for timing problems from changing anything task scheduler related.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
agami
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 27-Jan-2022 0:16:05
| | [ #107 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jun-2008 Posts: 1648
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| @BigD
Quote:
I would rather spend my limited disposable income on ... |
This is exactly what it comes down to: Bang for buck.
I see more fun to be had with the Apollo hardware. The Standalone V4 is amazing, and I've got my name down for both the IceDrake and the Kraken._________________ All the way, with 68k |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
ppcamiga1
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 27-Jan-2022 7:29:37
| | [ #108 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 23-Aug-2015 Posts: 767
From: Unknown | | |
|
| It will never work. The only way to get SMP in Amiga Os is to switch to unix as system base.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 27-Jan-2022 11:27:06
| | [ #109 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6338
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @ppcamiga1
I hope you are not shocked
I agree to you. If you really want to become modern using Linux or Unix as base makes most sense.
but not because it is the only way to get SMP. There is one Aros branch supporting both 64bit and SMP already but because dropping compatibility means also loosing advantages and software and only makes sense if you get something for it, the software base of modern platforms and driver support. In this sense using unix or linux as base for a new OS makes sense.
@all
But again, besides who is doing it, I do not understand why people keep on asking for it. Modern also means much more complicated and you of course need much more protection. By far not as easy to use as amiganoid systems do today. For everyday work I already have something, amiga is for pure fun not for work. In this sense current platform is enough. I think there is still lots of potential out there for people with similar interests and also former amigans. Is it niche? Yes. Will it become mainstream? Certainly not. But niche can be big and fun too and even apple is niche today. For me a growing platform with new software is most important and it must be different and have fun factor. Last edited by OlafS25 on 27-Jan-2022 at 11:28 AM. Last edited by OlafS25 on 27-Jan-2022 at 11:27 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BigD
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 27-Jan-2022 12:45:17
| | [ #110 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 11-Aug-2005 Posts: 7322
From: UK | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Quote:
But niche can be big and fun too and even apple is niche today. For me a growing platform with new software is most important and it must be different and have fun factor. |
Bravo! Couldn't agree more.
... and the great thing is IMHO messing around with Classic Amigas is more fun today than 5 years ago!_________________ "Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art." John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
agami
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 28-Jan-2022 1:28:23
| | [ #111 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jun-2008 Posts: 1648
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Quote:
But again, besides who is doing it, I do not understand why people keep on asking for it. Modern also means much more complicated and you of course need much more protection. By far not as easy to use as amiganoid systems do today. For everyday work I already have something, amiga is for pure fun not for work. In this sense current platform is enough. I think there is still lots of potential out there for people with similar interests and also former amigans. Is it niche? Yes. Will it become mainstream? Certainly not. But niche can be big and fun too and even apple is niche today. |
So back in 1991-1992, when Amiga was the 3rd dominant personal computer platform, with about 5% of global market, used for all the different serious things personal computers were used back then, was it not also fun?
1. No one is going to take away anyone's existing "pure fun" systems. 2. If we all thought that current systems were "enough", then there'd be no progress. 3. Apple computers are certainly not niche.
Quote:
For me a growing platform with new software is most important and it must be different and have fun factor. |
Here you and I agree.
There are many ways to bring to market a new, different and fun platform that has all the right ingredients for growth potential. The way I see it, there's no need to completely re-invent the proverbial wheel as there were plenty of good ideas and design philosophies of the original Amiga that have not yet been brought into 21C. Plus, there is no harm in making it appeal to former and current classic Amiga users. Early adopters are an essential part of any go-to-market plan.
Last edited by agami on 28-Jan-2022 at 01:29 AM.
_________________ All the way, with 68k |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 28-Jan-2022 16:10:49
| | [ #112 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Aug-2003 Posts: 2880
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @ppcamiga1
Quote:
ppcamiga1 wrote: It will never work. The only way to get SMP in Amiga Os is to switch to unix as system base.
|
It will never work, the general Amiga user struggle badly enough as it is with old AmigaOS, throw anything unixy at them and they won't last a day. No, unix is not the way - Microsoft Windows is. The majority of the users already have windows, and aligning with Windows is clearly the path the OS developers aim for, so why not just take it all the way and simply implement the Amiga experience on top of Windows? Bonus feature - WinUAE already exists!Last edited by kolla on 28-Jan-2022 at 04:11 PM.
_________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OneTimer1
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 29-Jan-2022 21:09:34
| | [ #113 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 3-Aug-2015 Posts: 973
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @kolla
Quote:
kolla wrote:
It will never work, the general Amiga user struggle badly enough as it is with old AmigaOS, throw anything unixy at them and they won't last a day.
|
Well if you cover all the difficult installation and configuration under grafik installation tools, no one will see the underlying UNIX part, that's exactly what they did with Mac OSX, most Mac users have never seen a Unix shell.
But you would need programmers doing this and good programmers have to been paid with money, something you will not find in the existing "Amiga Market".
And for the Amiga fans? I have seen some of them taking a Java Script simulation as a possible alternative to the Amiga OS, a lot of them would not recognize the difference between an Amiga like OS and a Amiga GUI on Linux, as long as it will have the name Amiga on it and start some of their beloved 68k Amiga games.Last edited by OneTimer1 on 30-Jan-2022 at 08:20 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
thellier
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 3-Feb-2022 8:17:04
| | [ #114 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2009 Posts: 263
From: Paris | | |
|
| The real question is Why OpenLara was never ported to amigaos4 morphos arosx86 ? Certainly it have some dependancies that dont exists on those OS You should ask Arti, Bszili Huno, kas1e.... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 3-Feb-2022 16:09:45
| | [ #115 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Aug-2003 Posts: 2880
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @OneTimer1
So why don’t we all just move to FriendOS? :) _________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OneTimer1
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 5-Feb-2022 10:23:53
| | [ #116 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 3-Aug-2015 Posts: 973
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @kolla
Quote:
So why don’t we all just move to FriendOS? :)
|
Because we are stuck in the last millennium, where the top of technology was defined by the computer hardware you where using.
Most of us have not realized how technology has slipped from hardware to software and to web in the last 40 years. That's why we are discussing a multiprocessor 68k system, when we even haven't an OS that will run on it nor a WWW-Browser able to access variety of all the web based services.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I want a computer that could work without the Internet, so I would never use something like FriendOS.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
bhabbott
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 13-Mar-2022 1:01:23
| | [ #117 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 6-Jun-2018 Posts: 332
From: Aotearoa | | |
|
| @matthey
Quote:
matthey wrote: The original Tomb Raider may be playable on newer Vampire/Apollo hardware and very high end 68060 hardware using emulation. The following videos are using PCTask.
Amiga Tomb Raider (68060@80MHz) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzKC0Aafnw8
|
I ran that DOS Tomb Raider demo on my Vampire 600 V2 in PCTask and it was about the same as that video (perhaps a little faster). The game works perfectly and is even playable at this low frame rate. PC task is probably 5-10 times slower than native, so I bet if this Tomb Raider code was ported to the Amiga it would run at 15+ fps, which would be more than enough speed for me!
No need for multiple cores or 3D hardware. Tomb Raider looks great rendered in software 3D in 320x200 without any fancy effects (the 'grittyness' of the lores textures actually enhances the look), and it plays great at low frame rates due to how the character is controlled.
I thought of ways I could get Tomb Raider onto the Amiga but it would involve decompiling the DOS executable or using the open-source code which is not complete and may have unwanted 'enhancements'. I don't have the skills or the will to work with PC code at that level, but I am willing to contribute towards someone else doing it. So if anyone out there is listening... Last edited by bhabbott on 13-Mar-2022 at 01:02 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
fishy_fis
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 13-Mar-2022 3:04:30
| | [ #118 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Mar-2004 Posts: 2159
From: Australia | | |
|
| @QBit
Not only do you have *zero* insight, but it appears you have no idea what you want, or why, other than "da Meega To BeE Da Bestest".
Not only do you have such a low technical insight that measuring it would result in negative values, you appear to have no idea what is possible already.
"32 channels paula"...... this is well surpassed already "3d rtg" ........ has existed for about a decade or more "Multicore support"..... the ability to run native code has existed for years, making multicore support already an option with the host controlling scheduling, etc.
To each their own, but personally if I was planning on starting a multi page thread in which I'd argue points, and express what it was I'd like I would probably want to have a tiiiiny iota of the reality of things.
I get it though. Reality isn't really your thing. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
matthey
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 13-Mar-2022 6:07:04
| | [ #119 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Mar-2007 Posts: 1999
From: Kansas | | |
|
| bhabbott Quote:
I ran that DOS Tomb Raider demo on my Vampire 600 V2 in PCTask and it was about the same as that video (perhaps a little faster). The game works perfectly and is even playable at this low frame rate. PC task is probably 5-10 times slower than native, so I bet if this Tomb Raider code was ported to the Amiga it would run at 15+ fps, which would be more than enough speed for me!
|
My experience using a 68060@75MHz was also that emulated DOS Tomb Raider maintained as good of playability as possible with low frame rates. It was surprising that a emulated DOS 3D game was so close to being playable on the Amiga. I agree that it wouldn't take too much to make it playable on the Amiga. It may be borderline playable with a V4, which is noticeably higher performance than your V2, and a 68060@100MHz with RTG. A native port likely would be 15+ fps on higher end 1990s era 68k hardware. Unfortunately, this hardware is rare, expensive and offers poor value so there isn't much motivation as a target. There are a descent number of WinUAE Amigas but the game would play better using DOSBox without an Amiga emulator. It would be a different story if we had cheap 68k hardware which was 1GHz or more but that's not going to happen in FPGA no matter how much the core is optimized for FPGA.
bhabbott Quote:
No need for multiple cores or 3D hardware. Tomb Raider looks great rendered in software 3D in 320x200 without any fancy effects (the 'grittyness' of the lores textures actually enhances the look), and it plays great at low frame rates due to how the character is controlled.
|
Multicore certainly isn't necessary. A 1GHz plus 68k Amiga ASIC SoC would allow Tomb Raider to have full playability even with emulation and without 3D hardware. That is only about a decade newer technology than the Vampire hardware and could have been produced for a few dollars per chip in quantity. 3D hardware allows the resolution and number of colors to increase of even old games which have been converted to 3D. It's amazing how much better Doom and Quake look in higher resolution especially with high resolution monitors today. GLQuake at 512x384x16 on my 68060@75MHz Amiga looked and played good enough that my nephew had no complaints compared to his older generation XBox. He was more absorbed by the game play as he had never played Quake because he was too young. He also liked the unique game play of Genetic Species which he also had no complaints about at higher resolutions. More CPU performance and higher resolutions are almost always a good thing if possible. The grittyness probably has more to do with the dithering used and less to do with the pixelated jaggies. Higher resolutions practically anti-alias away pixelated jaggies.
bhabbott Quote:
I thought of ways I could get Tomb Raider onto the Amiga but it would involve decompiling the DOS executable or using the open-source code which is not complete and may have unwanted 'enhancements'. I don't have the skills or the will to work with PC code at that level, but I am willing to contribute towards someone else doing it. So if anyone out there is listening...
|
There was talk of a "bounty" on the apollo-core forum for an Open Lara port.
http://apollo-core.com/knowledge.php?b=3¬e=37536
I'm not interested and my old 68k hardware is starting to fail. Without affordable higher performance 68k hardware, I'll likely lose interest and leave the Amiga. I believe there is enough interest in the Amiga to mass produce retro 68k Amiga hardware like a Raspberry Pi but the Amiga pirates would rather go down clenching their pieces of the treasure map rather than working together to relocate the lost treasure.
Last edited by matthey on 13-Mar-2022 at 06:13 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: Classic Amiga 680x0 Multicore! Posted on 13-Mar-2022 9:10:35
| | [ #120 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6338
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @ppcamiga1
Finally we agree. But as I wrote below just themed linux desktop would not be enough or just porting one component and drop the rest like you proposed. Deadwood is porting a whole range of components and technologies from aros and hopefully it will be possible to combine it with linux in a way that it offers look & feel of amiga combined with modern OS and software. That is something different and persuading me much more.
@Matthew
I think there are two different markets. 68k on amiga today is retro. It is unrealistic to modernize amiga in a way that it becomes usable in todays world because today you have very different requirements, f.e. full memory protection for security reasons. You cannot add that without breaking everything. If you do there is not much software left. The advantages amiga today has would be no longer exist. I do not see much sense in it.
On the other hand there is certainly a market for a modern and usable OS in todays terms as alternative. I was not very convinced about the different projects and ideas up to now because they all end in a niche with limited resources and thus missing drivers and no modern software. When I read from Deadwood developing a platform to port amiga (aros) software to linux I thought nice but I am personally already using windows and for retro there is 68k already. But then he showed the aros shell running in linux and also wanderer and from discussions it became obvious that the goal will be that you can mix aros to linux compiled components with linux like you can do that on aros 68k with aros and amiga. That would be something cool and it will be possible to create a distribution hopefully that is based on linux but also offers many components and look & feel of amiga. Much more than it is possible right now with themed linux desktops. Deadwood f.e. created a version of mplayer that uses a zune gui but the base is from linux. The ideal case will be when there are no real differences so you can mix all toegether. I will do a distribution when this is possible because it is both interesting and logical. It solves all niche related problems, you get a modern base, drivers and modern software.
So in short... for me two directions for future... 68k as a fun platform, that includes of course V4 and PiStorm, Aros 68k and AmigaOS and so on
NG based on Linux as modern base that offers lots of look & feel of amiga but is of course a different base. For me dropping compatibility (and that is what modernizing means) only makes sense if you win something with it. If you win a huge software base like linux modernizing makes sense because people use a OS to run software and not to move windows. If you drop compatiblity just for "being modern" winning nothing from a user point of view but loose lots of software it makes no sense to me. 68k should stay where it is, it is also a nice niche in itself with chances, to reaach out to a bigger number of users outside the current community you need different concepts. In this sense Deadwood convinced me and I see a chance there like I did with Aros 68k years ago.
I think there are 3 different groups... current community with mostly retro interest and some who also would use a system with amiga look & feel for everyday, people who used amiga many years ago and still have memories and people not knowing amiga at all. All have different interests and priorities. I am looking forward to do things (distributions) for that groups, priority at first of course current community. Last edited by OlafS25 on 13-Mar-2022 at 09:37 AM. Last edited by OlafS25 on 13-Mar-2022 at 09:24 AM. Last edited by OlafS25 on 13-Mar-2022 at 09:22 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|