@matthey
Quote:

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X emulates the PPC based Nintendo Wii at 60fps

Just for the record, my fairly older i5 6600 (standard, non overclocked version) easily gets most of the Wii games I own running at 60fps, too.

From memory, it only suffers a bit with Metroid Prime 3 Corruption, though we're talking about one of the most graphically intensive games on the platform.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Matt already replied and I agree with him. PCs, even not high-end, draw circles around PowerPC... under emulation. Take a look also at the PS3 emulator, which runs those games faster and/or better than the original system.

I should have specified I meant PPC emulation of OS4 hardware, but since the context of the main discussion was about OS4, didn't think it necessary.

Quote:

I don't agree. 68k have the largest software library. Plus, there are no killer apps for PowerPCs. So, there's nothing which could justify adopting the PowerPC as the ISA of reference / CLR for the Amiga/post-Amiga systems.

That may be so but OS4 runs on PPC code and the point I was making is about moving OS4 to another platform. They aren't going to back port OS4 to 68K. They might as well port it to Karlos' 64K if it's going to be emulated or JITted.

Quote:

I had the same idea time ago. This works very well because you can get very optimized native applications (full binaries: no JIT required. It's AoT compilation).

I need to find the details but I had the impression it actually was able to compile code as x86 with 68K OS hooks in some kind of mixed binary.

Quote:

However it only works when you've the sources. Plus you need a complex trans-compiler which... somebody should write; not an easy task, even recycling an existing compiler.

Yes the point was to compile from sources. So it could run full speed. Anything else had the fast JIT.

Quote:

Not needed: AROS is already available for most of it.

AROS is not AmigaOS but a copy. And it can't serve the existing Amithlon fanbase. It doesn't run Amithlon x86 binaries or even 68K binaries so it doesn't offer much for that user base.

Quote:

This first thing that should be forgotten is Petunia (and Trance for MorphOS): 68k code should run on a sandbox, with some transparent interface.

That was the difference between OS4 and MOS. Petunia ran 68K apps as another process. Where as Trance was ran in a sandbox. In my experience I didn't see much difference. Except MOS will freeze if a 68K interrupt does a custom hit despite the sandbox. OS4 will absorb any PPC trap on illegal custom space and ignore it.

Quote:

OS4 needs to be ported as it is to a new architecture. So, WITHOUT Petunia. You can think at the 68k sandbox AFTER that you ported the o.s..

First it would need a static 68K emulator to replace the Blackbox. Sandboxing it would make sense as integrating it too close holds back native API with too much. Then they can think about JIT.

Quote:

Unless you want to port OS4, as it is, to 68k.

That looked like they point they were making.

Quote:

Plus, 68k has a bigger software library itself. And 68k has much more external support (emulators, JIT compilers, compilers, tools, etc.).

I'm not aware of Payback 3d, Warp 2097 or Heretic II among others being available for 68K. Emulation wasn't as fast back then. And unlike now emulators didn't the replace the CPU with an embedded board.

Quote:

PowerPC never solved any 68k problem. So, I don't see the difference from this PoV.

It solved it in an expensive and complicated way for the time. Back then it made sense. Apple Mac was the closest computers to Amiga after Atari and they had shifted to it.

Quote:

Neither PowerPC will be. But at least 68k has much more software and better support, as I've already said.

PowerPC has been native for OS4 over 15 years now.

Quote:

Again, neither PowerPCs can. There's nothing that PowerPCs can make better than 68k, strictly from an architecture (ISA) perspetive.

The OS4 Kickstart has 64 bit and vector optimisations on supported hardware. As well as 64 bit aware DOS routines. And Radeon drivers with support for late generation cards like RX models.

@agami

OS4 software isn't easy to install. AmiStore demonstrated that a quirky GUI store app cannot function by itself to purchase software. Commercial offerings are better but most free software doesn't work well without a package manager.

AmiUpdate demonstrates a poor user experience caused by poor developers that don't check their own uploads. As happened the other night at the club. There was an error in three downloads. Now, it didn't actually say what the error was. Nor does it have ability to do error stacking so all errors are in one window. To badger the user with error after error is simply annoying and they still haven't fixed AmigaDOS to stop doing that. To find errors need to check some random log. Why should the user need to locate some random file they no nothing about? Poor. I could see they failed because there was a server error and the archive was corrupt or didn't exist. How hard is it to check in AmiUpdate in "real life" that the download actually works? I help maintain a web site. I FTP a change and check it in browser, then fix it, if it has problems. So I don't see how hard it is for people to do this? The user doesn't know there is a server error. Some files have been broken for five years!

The problem is there is Amiga attitude of making excuses when something is broken instead of taking time fixing it.

OS4 and MOS had new games created. But it's too hard to develop for. A main problem I did see was bad support for classic PPC games. People expected WarpOS or PowerUP software to work. But they didn't support it after the XE on the Sams. And for the PPC games, apparently ported by Hyperion, they didn't do OS4 ports. Why didn't Hyperion port their own games to an OS they were writing? That didn't make sense. Especially with a little extra income.

Some other 68K games and big apps were ported in the beginning. Or almost ported like PageStream. For some reason there was only a half baked effort to update the 68K classics on OS4. And strangely some OS3 software like NallePUH or ScsiSpeed has these inferior ports that lacked a GUI. Did OS4 lack features that OS3 had? Like a GUI? While it was new and productive in some ways it also revealed the old Amiga attitude of how sloppy the Amiga platform is.

Other stuff is ports from Linux or not really Linux, since anything that's not Windows needs to compile as some *nix, so there are games like Doom 3, big packages like Cygwin, and web browsers. It's a bit hard to expect new applications and games because they are so big and complicated with hundreds of developers now. I knew of some people who expected the latest PC games from ten years ago to be ported, just like in the hey days, before VGA wiped Amiga games off the earth. But that wasn't going to happen. Now there would be some small projects but we aren't going to see even small stuff on OS4 I reckon from even small developers in PC land.

A problem OS4 has is lack of infrastructure. It needs an SDK that can compile and easily maintain foreign open source out of the box. You can't even compile something basic that needs a configure script because it will break. No one has written a dedicated ash or bash clone shell. And the CMake port is too old now. Even cross compiling breaks if it builds native tools to complete it. And if you need to cross compile, well, why bother using the system? Because it's a slippery slope from then on. Can't compile on it, can't browse on it, can't debug on it. Then it's just move one and then you can abandon it.

Last edited by Hypex on 11-Nov-2022 at 01:59 PM.

@matthey

Quote:

Hypex also didn't seem to realize that PPC hardware could be emulated with full performance on PC hardware that costs half as much as AmigaNOne hardware. The 68k Amiga users have faced the reality that emulators are hundreds of times higher performance but rev6 68060s still go for more than an A1222 will sell for and likely have more demand. Someone was asking in a thread about a ReAmiga 1200 like the ReAmiga 3000+. A ReAmiga 1200 or THEA1200 Maxi with an empty 68060 CPU socket and AA+ would smoke the A1222 in sales. When the unbranded little guys do what the Amiga "PC hardware with a PPC CPU" guys won't, it will be too late for an "official" Amiga rebirth done right.

What I meant was actually emulating AmigaOne hardware and not anything with a PPC. Emulating a Wii or a G5 PowerMac is of no relevance to me because it doesn't run OS4.x. Can an AmigaOne be emulated with full performance on anything?

And more so, not using this QEMU command line crap for developers only, but as a proper GUI application anyone can use? If it can't it just doesn't compare. The Wii emulator you used as example has a GUI so if a PC can emulate PPC at half cost then I expect a GUI application can emulate an AmigaOne just as easily,

Also, I don't know what the point of an 060 slot in a A1200 Maxi would be, since I expected the new built in hardware would run rings around an old unobtainable 060.

@Hypex

I don’t regard myself a developer, but I don’t see anything wrong with Qemu command line options, they are well documented. Btw, you are aware that any virtualization platforn using “kvm” in reality is a frontend for Qemu? Just for fun I once made a 68k system on Proxmox.

Also, there’s https://github.com/quickemu-project/quickemu

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@Hypex
Quote:

Also, I don't know what the point of an 060 slot in a A1200 Maxi would be, since I expected the new built in hardware would run rings around an old unobtainable 060.

Indeed! To me it seems that those who argue most about CPU performance struggle to grasp that CPU emulation isn’t what can make UAE etc slow, it’s emulation of the remaing hardware that is the bottleneck. A 060 slot on an ARM board makes zero sense.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Matt already replied and I agree with him. PCs, even not high-end, draw circles around PowerPC... under emulation. Take a look also at the PS3 emulator, which runs those games faster and/or better than the original system. I should have specified I meant PPC emulation of OS4 hardware, but since the context of the main discussion was about OS4, didn't think it necessary.

Yes, but I only wanted to show what's possible emulating a PowerPC system. Something similar, or even better, could be possibile for OS4.
Quote:

Quote: I don't agree. 68k have the largest software library. Plus, there are no killer apps for PowerPCs. So, there's nothing which could justify adopting the PowerPC as the ISA of reference / CLR for the Amiga/post-Amiga systems. That may be so but OS4 runs on PPC code and the point I was making is about moving OS4 to another platform. They aren't going to back port OS4 to 68K. They might as well port it to Karlos' 64K if it's going to be emulated or JITted.

OK, but here the discussion was talking of a common CLR for all post-Amiga "flavors". It's objective that OS4, MorphOS and AROS have a more limited software library and less support compared to an Amiga/68k platform.
Quote:

Quote: I had the same idea time ago. This works very well because you can get very optimized native applications (full binaries: no JIT required. It's AoT compilation). I need to find the details but I had the impression it actually was able to compile code as x86 with 68K OS hooks in some kind of mixed binary.

Where/how?
Quote:

Quote: Not needed: AROS is already available for most of it. AROS is not AmigaOS but a copy.

The important thing is what it allows to do, not if it's a copy or not.
Quote:

And it can't serve the existing Amithlon fanbase. It doesn't run Amithlon x86 binaries or even 68K binaries so it doesn't offer much for that user base.

AROS/68k runs 68k binaries: it's source and binary-compatible with the Amiga o.s..

It doesn't run Amithlon x86 binaries, but there's no problem since there are none of them (AFAIK).
Quote:

Quote: OS4 needs to be ported as it is to a new architecture. So, WITHOUT Petunia. You can think at the 68k sandbox AFTER that you ported the o.s.. First it would need a static 68K emulator to replace the Blackbox. Sandboxing it would make sense as integrating it too close holds back native API with too much. Then they can think about JIT.

I don't understand why every time that there's a discussion about porting OS4 to a different architecture, this is always linked to have a 68k emulator.

As I've said before, let's put the 68k emulator aside. When talking about porting OS4, just focus on it: a port of this o.s. on another hardware platform.

Only after that it's finished you can think about a 68k emulator.

So, the question to me is simple: is it possible to port OS4 to another platform AND completely forgetting the 68k emulator until the port is completed? Or it's absolutely necessary to port OS4 AND have a 68k at the same time?

I hope that it's clear now.
Quote:

Quote: Plus, 68k has a bigger software library itself. And 68k has much more external support (emulators, JIT compilers, compilers, tools, etc.). I'm not aware of Payback 3d, Warp 2097 or Heretic II among others being available for 68K.

Payback is available for the Amiga o.s. and other platforms. But I don't know Payback 3D and I've found nothing about it.

I haven't found Warp 2097. Is it Wipeout 2097? If yes, it's available for Windows and other platforms.

Heretic II is also available for Windows and other platforms.

So, I still don't see an OS4 killer app or game.
Quote:

Emulation wasn't as fast back then. And unlike now emulators didn't the replace the CPU with an embedded board.

But now emulation is performing very well even for high-end PowerPC systems that are used by post-Amiga machines.
Quote:

Quote: PowerPC never solved any 68k problem. So, I don't see the difference from this PoV. It solved it in an expensive and complicated way for the time.

I don't see how. Could you do some examples?
Quote:

Back then it made sense. Apple Mac was the closest computers to Amiga after Atari and they had shifted to it.

It was already too late and not convenient when Amiga Inc. decided to port the Amiga o.s. to PowerPC.
Quote:

Quote: Neither PowerPC will be. But at least 68k has much more software and better support, as I've already said. PowerPC has been native for OS4 over 15 years now.

68k for a little bit more...
Quote:

Quote: Again, neither PowerPCs can. There's nothing that PowerPCs can make better than 68k, strictly from an architecture (ISA) perspetive. The OS4 Kickstart has 64 bit

No, there's no 64-bit support. The bank switching for accessing memory above the first 4GB is a feature like x86's PAE, and it works on 32-bit PowerPCs.
Quote:

and vector optimisations on supported hardware.

OK.
Quote:

As well as 64 bit aware DOS routines.

They are available for the Amiga o.s., AFAIK.
Quote:

And Radeon drivers with support for late generation cards like RX models.

OK, but this could be extended to 68k.
Quote:

Hypex wrote: @matthey Quote: Hypex also didn't seem to realize that PPC hardware could be emulated with full performance on PC hardware that costs half as much as AmigaNOne hardware. The 68k Amiga users have faced the reality that emulators are hundreds of times higher performance but rev6 68060s still go for more than an A1222 will sell for and likely have more demand. Someone was asking in a thread about a ReAmiga 1200 like the ReAmiga 3000+. A ReAmiga 1200 or THEA1200 Maxi with an empty 68060 CPU socket and AA+ would smoke the A1222 in sales. When the unbranded little guys do what the Amiga "PC hardware with a PPC CPU" guys won't, it will be too late for an "official" Amiga rebirth done right. What I meant was actually emulating AmigaOne hardware and not anything with a PPC. Emulating a Wii or a G5 PowerMac is of no relevance to me because it doesn't run OS4.x. Can an AmigaOne be emulated with full performance on anything?

Yes, it can, but not actually done.
Quote:

And more so, not using this QEMU command line crap for developers only, but as a proper GUI application anyone can use? If it can't it just doesn't compare. The Wii emulator you used as example has a GUI so if a PC can emulate PPC at half cost then I expect a GUI application can emulate an AmigaOne just as easily,

A GUI could be provided. However QEMU isn't the most efficient / performing way for emulating PowerPC systems.

@cdimauro

"A GUI could be provided. However QEMU isn't the most efficient / performing way for emulating PowerPC systems."

why QEMU cpu emulation was picked was because it supported MMU,
some of faster PPC emulation don't need MMU, because they don't run a desktop OS, but Console Firmware.

Doing the main stream AmigaOS version, will require pulling all the rabbits out of the heat.

Virtualization, os partitioning, emulation layers (sandboxes), wrappers, native layers (64bit).

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 11-Nov-2022 at 09:41 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 11-Nov-2022 at 09:35 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@kolla

Quote:

A 060 slot on an ARM board makes zero sense.

Agreed! ARM chips rock! Full Rev 6 060 chips no longer exist to buy at sane prices!

The 080 is a great idea but incompatibilities/graphics glitches are in many ways worse than on AmiBerry as far as I can see!

Last edited by BigD on 11-Nov-2022 at 10:51 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Hypex

Thanks for supporting my statement with these valuable insights. I don't swim in AmigaOS 4 waters so I'm not privy to this level of detail.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @cdimauro "A GUI could be provided. However QEMU isn't the most efficient / performing way for emulating PowerPC systems." why QEMU cpu emulation was picked was because it supported MMU, some of faster PPC emulation don't need MMU, because they don't run a desktop OS, but Console Firmware. Doing the main stream AmigaOS version, will require pulling all the rabbits out of the heat. Virtualization, os partitioning, emulation layers (sandboxes), wrappers, native layers (64bit).

Some emulators support the MMU. Dolphin, for example: https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/tree/master/Source/Core/Core/PowerPC

What you continue to do not understand is that running OS4 does NOT require to accurately emulate a specific hardware, like what console emulators are doing (so, they are losing more performance doing this).

As I've said before, you can cheat OS4 by skipping the protection check on UBoot and directly giving the control to the Kickstart to continue its setup and then starting.

You can emulate the PowerPC MMU and controlling the page tables IF it's really needed; but AFAIR OS4 doesn't use so much the MMU for its tasks.
Virtual memory can be avoided / disabled.
Protecting the unused memory can be easily implemented & handled by the host o.s. memory APIs without requiring the full PowerPC's MMU emulation.

New drivers for the graphic cards can be provided to directly call the host APIs and 3D libraries can be provided to directly call equivalent host APIs. So, pretty much what's being done on WinUAE with uaegfx and Wazp3D.

The same could be done with networking, audio, USB, disks, etc. I stop here but the concept is clear, right?

In short: emulating OS4 and running its application could be made much faster than and much more integrated with the host system compared to the console's emulators, because you're NOT tailored to a specific hardware that needs to be fully emulated.

Ideally you could go further and provide a "virtualizer", like I reported several times here, to directly run OS4 applications on a host system, without fully requiring the OS4 o.s. to be emulated / run.

In fact, you could "build & wrap" the most important libraries (exec, dos, graphic, etc.) by directly calling the host code for their APIs and letting the host o.s. (and the virtualizer code) controlling the emulated PowerPC's tasks which are executing.

Not having to emulate complete hardware gives much better freedom AND performance. IF someone invests on it.

@agami

Do you swim in ANY AmigaOS waters at all?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

Just make OS4 drivers for everything virtio - done!

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: Just make OS4 drivers for everything virtio - done!

That's what I've suggested on my previous post:

New drivers for the graphic cards can be provided to directly call the host APIs and 3D libraries can be provided to directly call equivalent host APIs. So, pretty much what's being done on WinUAE with uaegfx and Wazp3D.

The same could be done with networking, audio, USB, disks, etc.

This is the simplest / fastest way (a virtualizer requires more effort.) to disconnect OS4 from the current hardware platforms where it's forced to run.

@cdimauro

So how is it going with MorphOS x86?

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @cdimauro So how is it going with MorphOS x86?

I don't know. I also don't know why you changed now the discussion from OS4.

@kolla

Quote:

I don’t regard myself a developer, but I don’t see anything wrong with Qemu command line options, they are well documented. Btw, you are aware that any virtualization platforn using “kvm” in reality is a frontend for Qemu? Just for fun I once made a 68k system on Proxmox.

They are rather technical. You need to have some understanding of the CLI that not every one has. But in particular to emulate MorphOS or OS4 you need to know the assortment of options to pass to it as well as specific firmware files needed. I consider myself technically proficient with these things. But when I first tried to get MorphOS emulated I couldn't even get a preset command line to boot and found I had used a wrong format for the HDD image I just installed the OS into.

Quote:

Indeed! To me it seems that those who argue most about CPU performance struggle to grasp that CPU emulation isn’t what can make UAE etc slow, it’s emulation of the remaing hardware that is the bottleneck. A 060 slot on an ARM board makes zero sense.

It is taxing emulating all that hardware with accurate frame rates.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Yes, but I only wanted to show what's possible emulating a PowerPC system. Something similar, or even better, could be possibile for OS4.

I knew that. Getting over the line is the next step. The Sam, QEMU emulation looks like the best option. Funny it's taken this long. I expected AmigaOne XE emulation years ago and though this would be done and dusted. As people say it's a PC with PPC CPU. How hard can it be?

Quote:

OK, but here the discussion was talking of a common CLR for all post-Amiga "flavors". It's objective that OS4, MorphOS and AROS have a more limited software library and less support compared to an Amiga/68k platform.

I don't think the point of any NG attempt was to match on any level the 68K library. Said to be the largest of any system on Aminet at one time. What support is missing?

Quote:

Where/how?

Here for starters:
http://aminet.net/package/dev/gcc/x86-ami-gcc

Quote:

AROS/68k runs 68k binaries: it's source and binary-compatible with the Amiga o.s..

It can't run them on x86. AROS/x86&|x64 which runs on the fastest commodity hardware doesn't support 68K directly nor does it run the Amithlon binaries it would have been perfect for.

Quote:

It doesn't run Amithlon x86 binaries, but there's no problem since there are none of them (AFAIK).

No, there's a heap. At one stage it was competing with WOS/POS native apps. People are still compiling them.

I don't know what's happened but they used to be on Aminet. Perhaps I can't use the quirky search engine. I'm aware of people still compiling stuff in recent years so I have no idea why OS4 has so much more files.

http://amithlon.aminet.net/search?arch=i386-amithlon

Quote:

I don't understand why every time that there's a discussion about porting OS4 to a different architecture, this is always linked to have a 68k emulator.

For one thing it's expected but more importantly another reason is that some modules are still 68K. As one example it would be ARexx. Now, programs can still support an ARexx port as well as sending ARexx messages without ARexx itself, since they just use an ARexx message structure. But the interpreter is in 68K. IIRC the source is 68K but porting it to C is not a problem, the problem is they only have a license for the present version, so they can only fix bugs in the source and no more. I don't know why ARexx isn't updated, be that the new license fees are too expensive, or William S. Hawes fell of his chair in laughter when Hyperion approached.

Quote:

So, the question to me is simple: is it possible to port OS4 to another platform AND completely forgetting the 68k emulator until the port is completed? Or it's absolutely necessary to port OS4 AND have a 68k at the same time?

Well, just for a base system, I think it would be possible to OS4 to another platform. That's if there are no dependencies on rigid structures and any (and all) endian issues are resolved.

But, not that it matters in house, it wouldn't be interesting. An OS4 port that lacks some established standards like ARexx and has no support for 68K or PPC apps. After dragging Workbench windows around and changing prefs all day what else would you do with it?

Quote:

I hope that it's clear now.

It was clear before but OS4 is a mixed bag. I don't have a full list but some stuff is still 68K like Mac OS 8 was. So it needs more work for a clean room portable port.

I once wrote a Is68K command to check for those legacy components but haven't tested it in a while. Should do that on my FE setup to see what is holding it back.

Quote:

Payback is available for the Amiga o.s. and other platforms. But I don't know Payback 3D and I've found nothing about it.

Payback 3D is what I call Payback in 3D rotation mode. I'm only aware of it being available in WarpOS port. I've loaded the 68K one and did not see the rotate option so I don't know how people were running it on 68K and the soft renderer would have been demanding. They must mean Warp3d. Guess I never had a 3d card so never saw the option.

The best one I played was on OSX PPC. Which had the rotation built in and used OpenGL. The WarpOS one one did run well on OS4 but had no sound and I never fixed it. NallePUH used to crash and CIAgent stalled too many years so getting Paula emulation in next year would be too late. So, on OSX, Payback 3D with sound was the best PPC platform to play it on.

I don't believe it Apex is still around!
http://www.apex-designs.net/games.html

Where's my OS4 port?

This is what I mean by 3d mode. Obviously the original was top down 3d. But this 3d really stands out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUFhNQpME0s

Quote:

I haven't found Warp 2097. Is it Wipeout 2097? If yes, it's available for Windows and other platforms.

LOL. Sorry, yes I meant Wipeout 2097.

It's of course available for Windows and PS and whatever else. But Amiga people want to play it on an Amiga. Or a AmigaOne like me which was way better hardware to play it on.

Just because Doom runs on Windows and what not doesn't mean Amiga users don't want to run it on an Amiga. Or, in this day and age, run the Amiga port on UAE. But I think that's rather pointless as it's not an Amiga and a convoluted way of running a game than already can run directly at full speed.

Quote:

So, I still don't see an OS4 killer app or game.

Well, there is none. 68K had LightWave then it was ported to PC. 68K had Toaster then it was ported to PCI or something. Vampire/AROS/x86-64 what not any 658K CLR won't give any Amiga killer app either. The only chance is some killer Amiga app that is the killer game or app for that Amiga platform. But nothing is going to be an OS4 klller app ever that will give OS4 the edge for one niche product.

Wait, there is Flappy Bird. Apparently people spent thousands buying old phones to run it on which to me sounds like a ridiculous urban legend. So they should kill to to get Flappy Bird running on OS4 then it has the OS4 killer game!

Though given the OS4 reputation right now it would end up as being Crappy Bird!

Quote:

But now emulation is performing very well even for high-end PowerPC systems that are used by post-Amiga machines.

What kind of high end? G5 MorphOS? X5000 OS4?

It's just hard to imagine any high end PowerPC system as high end for the last 10 years. I immediately associate high end and PowerPC with POWER9.

Quote:

I don't see how. Could you do some examples?

Well, for one thing that started it all, the Phase 5 CyberStorm PPC. It brought PPC to the Amiga. At first as a co-processor. An expensive and complicated accelerator. Then we had the kernel wars. It could also continue the Mac 68K legacy and run Mac OS PPC. We saw lots of modern games and 3d games on the Amiga because of it. The Amiga wouldn't have seen Wipeout 2097 without it. Fun times. I just read about it.

Quote:

It was already too late and not convenient when Amiga Inc. decided to port the Amiga o.s. to PowerPC.

I know I repeat this, but I don't know why Amiga then wanted an AmigaOS port to PPC. What was Amiga then had no interest in AmigaOS or PPC, they were purely out for the x86 market. The AmigaDE they produced and I may still have somewhere was PC only. It was irrelevant that TAO underlying it supported PPC because AmigaDE didn't. Did not support Amiga at all, there was no port to the CyberStorm PPC, which had a supported CPU. And at the time it was only 5 years after PPC was brought to Amiga. Apple were still using PPC. So PPC wasn't dead yet.

Quote:

68k for a little bit more...

68K is epoch!

Quote:

No, there's no 64-bit support. The bank switching for accessing memory above the first 4GB is a feature like x86's PAE, and it works on 32-bit PowerPCs.

No, I don't mean those addressing kludges. I mean 64 or 128 bit wide copy operations using 64 or 128 bit registers where available. Similar to how OS3 (utility.library?) was coded to use a 68020 when available.

Quote:

They are available for the Amiga o.s., AFAIK.

Since OS3.2.1 ROM?

They also have 64 bit aware DOS routines they prefer native apps to use.

Quote:

OK, but this could be extended to 68k.

Could be but needs revamped graphics.library and all else it depends on.

Quote:

Yes, it can, but not actually done.

I've been waiting a long time now. My XE is slow now. Should be easy enough to emulate that.

Quote:

A GUI could be provided. However QEMU isn't the most efficient / performing way for emulating PowerPC systems.

It's the only way I know of for OS4. I don't know what else is out there that could emulate a Sam for example. But, if there was a QEMU for POWER9 that used a real KVM mode, it would blow an X1000 out of the water!

@agami

No problem. I've used it for a long time now. In fact I'm about to use it now. It tastes better than a VB!

Last edited by Hypex on 14-Nov-2022 at 02:54 PM.

PADDINGX86

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK