| Poster | Thread |
 Deniil715
 |  |
Re: Status report on AmigaOS 4.2 development
Posted on 2-Apr-2013 9:07:38
| | [ #21 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member
 |
Joined: 14-May-2003
Posts: 4237
From: Sweden | | |
|
| An X2000 would be really cool! Especially if it would actually be able to play 720p H264 without overlay, something the X1000 sadly can't, although I still have forgotten to test this --noscale flag...
_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes) 
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.
|
|
| Status: Offline |
|
|
Hyperionmp
| |
Re: Status report on AmigaOS 4.2 development
Posted on 2-Apr-2013 13:28:53
| | [ #22 ] |
|
|
 |
Hyperion
 |
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 502
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @fragge: The separate address spaces would be protected from access by other appications, much in the same way the base page of the kernel is already protected from unauthorised access.
This is possible on a per application basis for AmigaOS 4.x developed applications.
You're stuck in the 3.x paradigm.
_________________
|
|
| Status: Offline |
|
|
Frags
| |
Re: Status report on AmigaOS 4.2 development
Posted on 2-Apr-2013 16:26:50
| | [ #23 ] |
|
|
 |
Cult Member
 |
Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Posts: 971
From: East-Midlands (Nottingham) UK | | |
|
| @HyperionMP
I see, so it`ll break some old stuff but proper OS4 apps will benefit.
Sounds pretty cool :o)
_________________
Fraggle
- insert profound text here -
|
|
| Status: Offline |
|
|
Trixie
| |
Re: Status report on AmigaOS 4.2 development
Posted on 3-Apr-2013 7:51:36
| | [ #24 ] |
|
|
 |
Amiga Developer Team
 |
Joined: 1-Sep-2003
Posts: 2094
From: Czech Republic | | |
|
| @Frags
Quote:
| I see, so it`ll break some old stuff but proper OS4 apps will benefit. |
Of course no old stuff is going to be broken by OS4's memory subsystem. Old programs will allocate memory in a way that is still supported by the system (legacy allocation); this memory, however, cannot be protected, and a bad access to this memory caused by another task may result in a crash - just like it did in OS3.x and before.
New, OS4-native programs may (and are encouraged to) allocate memory in a private manner. The memory is then only visible and available to the allocating task. This is a significant improvement: the more programs use private (i.e. protected) memory, the more robust the multitasking environment becomes.
_________________
The Rear Window blog
AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
|
|
| Status: Offline |
|
|
eliyahu
|  |
Re: Status report on AmigaOS 4.2 development
Posted on 3-Apr-2013 15:29:20
| | [ #25 ] |
|
|
 |
Super Member
 |
Joined: 3-Mar-2010
Posts: 1968
From: Waterbury, Connecticut (USA) | | |
|
| @HyperionMP
thank you for the update. it is hugely appreciated, as is (hopefully) your return to active posting here. despite the occasional kerfuffle -- as evidenced by another, ahem, thread -- your actual customers really do look forward to talking with you and other developers about the current state of the platform and what is to come.
-- eliyahu
_________________
"Physical reality is consistent with universal laws. When the laws do not operate, there is no reality. All of this is unreal."
|
|
| Status: Offline |
|
|
Frags
| |
Re: Status report on AmigaOS 4.2 development
Posted on 5-Apr-2013 9:30:12
| | [ #26 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member
|
Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Posts: 971
From: East-Midlands (Nottingham) UK | | |
|
| I think I get it now. What I thought was, that if a legacy app tried to allocate a specific bit of memory that has already been protected by an OS4 app then it would fail - because exec can`t automatically direct it to a different bit of memory.
_________________
Fraggle
- insert profound text here -
|
|
| Status: Offline |
|
|
bison
 | |
Re: Status report on AmigaOS 4.2 development
Posted on 29-Jul-2013 0:10:25
| | [ #27 ] |
|
|
 |
Elite Member
|
Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Posts: 2112
From: N-Space | | |
|
| From the article:
Quote:
| The task scheduler was completely rewritten in C and now implements the long planned “pluggable” scheduler functionality... |
What was the scheduler written in before, does anyone know? I just assumed that it was C, unless there was some ASM in there.
AmigaDOS was originally written in BCPL, but that's long gone.
_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner
|
|
| Status: Offline |
|
|
15 crawler(s) on-line.
123 guest(s) on-line.
0 member(s) on-line.
