What happens if Stefan decide to make MUI4 for OS4 or Aros? Mui is closed source not connected to MOS, right? So there would be no legal obstacles in doing it, afaik.

I am also theme like guy, don't like messing 2 hours and still not like what i did. But in hands of good designer, mui can be much prettier that reaction because of more options. Me? My design skills are worst than you might ever seen before. Example; i work as php+js programmer, i am forbidden to make any design stuff! Yep, for even basic popupBox i made, noone liked the colors. Not to mention my other work. And so, company assigned part-time designer :)

Claimed by experienced people, mui is programmers heaven. Most important application are all written using mui; ibrowse, simplemail, yam, amirc, wookiechat etc... Naming these because internet apps are 99% of what i do on computer.

_________________
May the force be with you...

@ Tomppeli :
Quote:

Yes you can save a lot of time using other peoples existing work like 50% (at least) of MorphOS is AROS code. Have the MorphOS team helped AROS community porting MUI4 to AROS, for example. AFAIK nope.

There's no strings attached Tomppeli , it's APL after all, otherwise it would have another kind of license, still it would be good if it had 50% of it's code on MorphOS, sadly it doesn't...

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Tomppeli:
Quote:

Yes you can save a lot of time using other peoples existing work like 50% (at least) of MorphOS is AROS code.

This 50% claim really made me LOL, thank you. On the other hand, as far as i remember, OS4 people had the whole OS 3.x source base to start with. Surely, that's more a complete AmigaOS to start with, than AROS ever was, wasn't it? So much for saving time by getting code from elsewhere. Not to mention that if they wanted, AROS sources were also available for the OS4 project, with the same rules (specified by APL) as for MorphOS, i think.

Quote:

Have the MorphOS team helped AROS community porting MUI4 to AROS, for example. AFAIK nope.

No, they haven't ported MUI4 to AROS, but advancements on the "borrowed" code were given back, as far as i know. Sounds like a fair trade for me.

Last edited by Chain-Q on 14-Aug-2009 at 01:30 PM.

_________________
MorphOS, classic Amiga, demoscene, and stuff
"When a bridge is not enough, build a Viaduct!"
"Strip the Amiga community of speculation and we can fit every forum on a 720k floppy" (by resle)

@Srbin

What if the moon falls down? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence! MUI4 won't be
available for any other OS in the near future.. That's a fact until you get Stefan himself
making an OFFICIAL statement telling that he's given the source for porting to the OS4 team
or even the AROS team (you know he doesn't do the porting himself?).

Yes, MUI may be easier to code with.. But it's the end result that's important to users.
Other than Wookiechat, how many of those programs was started by people with a fresh
look on things? By that I mean comparing MUI to ReAction of today not gadtools or ClassAct.
Most application even go way way back when MUI really was the only option if you wanted
a GUI that was somewhat good looking. You don't change GUI after coding several years.
Of course it depends if you're making a portable application, then there's really no choice
today unless you want to update 2 GUI's at the same time.

Still not defending ReAction compared to MUI, so please don't think I prefer ReAction to MUI4
or either way really. I am however pro OS4 if that should matter?!

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

Quote:

Yes, MUI may be easier to code with.. But it's the end result that's important to users. Other than Wookiechat, how many of those programs was started by people with a fresh look on things?

NoWinED, and it permits to change every part of its GUI according with user desire... try the latest version on IcAROS... Only MUI give user drag&drop feature between GUI objects like modern UIs like Firefox' UI, OSX' UI etc... and this feature came with MUI3, so 1995... And of course, Zune offers this, while Reaction actually no...

Last edited by ShInKurO on 14-Aug-2009 at 02:29 PM.

Quote:

Anyway.. The simple reason why OS4 aren't using MUI or CyberGfx is ownership/control. Most people should understand this reason when making a closed source OS.. Never use closed source parts that you haven't control over, however good they may be.

You mean like Hyperion using AmigaOS 3.x (controlled by Amiga inc.) as base of their entire operating system?

Quote:

This 50% claim really made me LOL, thank you. On the other hand, as far as i remember, OS4 people had the whole OS 3.x source base to start with. Surely, that's more a complete AmigaOS to start with, than AROS ever was, wasn't it? So much for saving time by getting code from elsewhere. Not to mention that if they wanted, AROS sources were also available for the OS4 project, with the same rules (specified by APL) as for MorphOS, i think.

On the other hand we were already playing with MorphOS 0.4 on CSPPC Amigas back in the year 1999 or 2000 AFAIR, when OS4 development wasn't even started, and the AmigaOS 3 sources were not very portable, had a lot of hardware dependencies, consisted of a mixutre of C, Assembly, and Modula too AFAIR But MOS 0.4 alraedy booted and was functional, but I didn't know it used AROS parts back then as I haven't even heard of AROS at the time, I thought that one came a bit later.

@Cobra:
Quote:

On the other hand we were already playing with MorphOS 0.4 on CSPPC Amigas back in the year 1999 or 2000 AFAIR

It was in late 2000. The first public beta was available in august. MorphOS 0.4 was released in early 2001. The press release even describes in detail, which components were native in the system at the time. The rest was used from the 68k system, under emulation. (No AROS parts were used at the time, AFAIK.)

(BTW, OS4 was first scheduled for release 1st week of october, 2001, along with AmigaOne for A1200. There's lots of other nice reads from the time at ANN.lu. All the non existing products and missed promises perfectly reserved. Recommended read for everyone wanting to have a good laugh. Or a good cry...)

_________________
MorphOS, classic Amiga, demoscene, and stuff
"When a bridge is not enough, build a Viaduct!"
"Strip the Amiga community of speculation and we can fit every forum on a 720k floppy" (by resle)

And a few months/years later, AROS DOS, Gadtools and Intuition libraries were ported and required months of extensive bugfixing to actually make them compatible with AmigaOS in real world applications.

@Jupp3

Quote:

You mean like Hyperion using AmigaOS 3.x (controlled by Amiga inc.) as base of their entire operating system?

Are you serious with that or just trolling?

You know very well how it started out..

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

@Chain-Q

So when was MorphOS 2.0 planned to be released originally?

Yeah I know why it was delayed.. But that's just it.. Anything can happen (and did) and it's
just silly to joke about old press releases after all this time.. So AInc lied or was too trigger
happy with the PR.. That was then this is now.. Same goes for BBRV btw!

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

@ChainQ

So the first public beta of MorphOS was released on August 2000. We know from the court documents that Hyperion and Amiga Inc. signed the contract for developing AmigaOS4 on November 2001. So development of AmigaOS4 started 15 months after the first public release of MorphOS, right?

Regarding the other news item from Eyetech, why do you think they would announce something like that when AmigaOS4 development hasn't even started? Wasn't it something like MorphOS was going to be the new AmigaOS and since MorphOS was already in beta state at the time and negotiations ongoing with the MOS team? Maybe the AmigaOS4 they were talking about in that news item was actually MorphOS, or something based on MorphOS?

@Cobra:
Quote:

Regarding the other news item from Eyetech, why do you think they would announce something like that when AmigaOS4 development hasn't even started?

How do i know? Go ask them. Still the fact, they did.

Quote:

So development of AmigaOS4 started 15 months after the first public release of MorphOS, right?

Right. And what does that mean exactly? Do you think it explains benchmark results, eight years later, on a five point five years old hardware? Please...

Quote:

Maybe the AmigaOS4 they were talking about in that news item was actually MorphOS, or something based on MorphOS?

You're confused. Seriously. As i said, there are plenty of OS4/A1 news of the time on ANN.lu, go and learn more.

_________________
MorphOS, classic Amiga, demoscene, and stuff
"When a bridge is not enough, build a Viaduct!"
"Strip the Amiga community of speculation and we can fit every forum on a 720k floppy" (by resle)

ChainQ:

Quote:

Right. And what does that mean exactly? Do you think it explains benchmark results, eight years later, on a five point five years old hardware? Please...

Sigh... did I say that? I figured we can have an intelligent conversation about the two OS'es. Seems I was wrong.

Quote:

You're confused.

Come on... Hyperion signed the deal with Amiga Inc. in November 2001. There's an announcement in June 2001 of an "OS4.0 scheduled for October 2001" that you linked. You're also aware of the fact that Amiga Inc. was negotiating with the MOS team and the reason they ended up going a separate route with Hyperion taking up development of AmigaOS4 was because they couldn't come to an agreement with Amiga Inc. I mean, you even talked about this to me before. So an announcement of a "scheduled OS4.0" in June 2001 couldn't have been about something that Hyperion was to develop, and unless there were any other plans prior to the November 2001 agreement beside OS4 being developed by the MOS team based on MorphOS, then they indeed were announcing OS4.0 which was to be derived from MorphOS by the MOS team for the AmigaOne. Of course only someone from the MorphOS team pr Amiga Inc. would know when those negotiations were taking place and when they came to an end.

@Cobra:
Quote:

Sigh... did I say that?

No, you did not. Read back in the thread, to see where this "which started earlier" discussion started, and you'll understand why i said that. I hope. Well, i admit it was maybe a mistake to target that statement to you, while it was more for the thread in general.

Quote:

Come on... *snip*

Again, you're speculating, instead of reading back news archives. But everyone is free to belive whatever he wish to believe.

Last edited by Chain-Q on 14-Aug-2009 at 09:51 PM.

_________________
MorphOS, classic Amiga, demoscene, and stuff
"When a bridge is not enough, build a Viaduct!"
"Strip the Amiga community of speculation and we can fit every forum on a 720k floppy" (by resle)

@ChainQ

Quote:

Read back in the thread, to see where this "which started earlier" discussion started, and you'll understand why i said that. I hope.

I know very well what's been discussed in this thread, I participated in it after all, I even posted some test results showing the sharp difference in memory operations as one the main reasons for what we were seeing in the benchmarks. It was also discussed that OS4 is behind in some areas, with 3D and USB being the two main ones where it's lacking the most but I haven't seen anyone suggest that the benchmark results should be explained by the fact that MorphOS development started much earlier. That would explain though why it's ahead in some areas.

Quote:

Again, you're speculating, instead of reading back news archives. But everyone is free to belive whatever he wish to believe.

If you know better what happened in what order, why don't you enlighten me?

Last edited by COBRA on 14-Aug-2009 at 10:36 PM.

@Tomppeli

Quote:

Yes you can save a lot of time using other peoples existing work like 50% (at least) of MorphOS is AROS code.

Why OS4 team didnt ditch the original OS3 source code and use AROS code instead?

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

I'm not surprised that MorphOS is faster on a Peg, after all, it was developed & optimized for the Peg. On the other hand, OS4 was developed & optimized to run on the A1. It would be nice to see the same benchmark tests run on a 1GHz A1 for a better comparison between the 2 OS's.

_________________
Hate tends to make you look stupid...

Now back to this test:

This is one of the most unprofessionally made tests I've seen.

Opening drawer:
David Brunet from/for Obligement got 20 secs for WB and 10 + 29 secs for Ambient icons mode and 6 secs for WB and 2 + 15 secs on Ambient. Because he compared Workbench's 6 secs to Ambient's 2 secs he assumed that Workbench loads only file names. But in reality Workbench loads always names, icons plus file types no matter of selected mode (anybody can verify this easily). So correct comparison is 6 secs for Workbench and 15 secs for Ambient. That means AmigaOS4 & Workbench is more than 2 times faster than MoprhOS & Ambient. I don't know if Ambient loads file types so in that case Workbench does more work in the recorded time. So Ambient is quite poor. Also if somebody wants to test loading time of file names only that person can download Filer from os4depot. Filer would perform this job on his machine in an eye blink (calculated compared to my slower system) compared to Ambient's poor 2 secs.

Lha test:
Everybody knows AmigaOS4 uses OFS on Ram disk. I got much better results with JXFS on a hard drive which were comparable to Brunet's results on MorphOS and Ram disk using an estimation that G4-1000MHz is two times faster than my 750CXe-600MHz. RAM is always faster than a hard drive (that's why they're using caches in RAM to speed up disk operations) so that means results of MorphOS are not that good. Somebody should remake Lha test using FFS and SFS on both machines and JXFS on AmigaOS4. (That's one of the reasons why that test made by Brunet was very unprofessional.) Ram disk was more important in 1980's when all Amiga's were floppy based. With nowadays fast hard drives Ram disk is less meaningful. I save usually small ascii text files onto Ram disk so small differences on Ram disk speeds is irrelevant. Also if somebody's testing speeds of unpacking I noticed that used con-handler and size of the Shell window affects results so when doing tests with Lha tester should use quiet (-q) option or ">nil:". (That's another reason why Brunet's test was unprofessional.)

Boot time:
That Obligement article doesn't say was it using DHCP or static IP for network or did the tester add "run" into Startup-sequence in front of "addnetinterface" command. So if we can assume he used DHCP so swithing to static IP or adding that run command into the S-S will take at least 3-4 secs away from the boot time. Also MorphOS uses single boot.img file to load the system and AmigaOS4 uses many small Kickstart files. On modern hard drives and their DMA loading a single file is faster than loading multiple small files. But the end user can't change the configuration of MorphOS because its source code is not available to let user to compile his own version. But anybody can modify human readable Kicklayout file (AmigaOS4). So if there's still a couple of seconds difference in boot times I'm happy to sacrifice those couple of seconds for full configurability.

Using MPlayer for testing:
I hate to say this because I do appreciate Afxgroup's efforts and hard work to give modern important apps to us but I'm forced to say this. So I'm sorry. That MPlayer test tests more porting skills of two individuals rather than anything in two operating systems. April version of MPlayer doesn't have Altivec acceleration enabled. There's older versions which have it enabled on the very same web page. (But they might print more debug info and are older code base.) So somebody have to make this kind of tests either on a G3 machine which doesn't have Altivec to affect results or somebody have to help Afxgroup to enable Altivec for MPlayer. But it's said that Altivec can give 10-30% speed up so taking 10-30% away from AmigaOS4's results makes it quite comparable to those MorphOS results. Altivec might help some codecs more than the others that's possibly why there's so much difference between different codecs.

More later... Now it's time to go to bed.

_________________
Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

MorphOS wasn't exactly developer for the Pegasos. It was started and initially developped for PowerUP Amigas. Many of the developers got the first Pegasos boards after MorphOS was already being shipped to the first customers.