Overview Features Instructions Performance Forum Downloads Products OrderV4 Reseller Contact

Welcome to the Apollo Forum

This forum is for people interested in the APOLLO CPU.
Please read the forum usage manual.



All TopicsNewsPerformanceGamesDemosApolloVampireAROSWorkbenchATARIReleases
Information about the Apollo CPU and FPU.

Are We Just Nostalgic Or Should the Amiga Advance?page  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 5008
07 Jul 2019 07:26


Olaf Schoenweiss wrote:

  You wrote Aros not even reached 3.1 after 20 years. THAT is nonsense!!!
 

 
This is not nonsense.
This depends on the view point.
I think I understand where he comes from.

 
Lets make this simple:
 
(1) Compatibility:
  - Is AROS 100% compatible to OS 3.1?
  - Can I run every OS 3.1 application on AROS?
  - Does AROS behave on each OS call the same,
    and does return the same results?
 
A: We all know that AROS is close to reach all this, but is not there yet.
 
 
(2) Performance:
  - Does AROS reach a similar speed to OS 3.1 on the same hardware?

A: AROS is unfortunately in some areas a lot slower.
 
 

I understand that if a you think about switching from OS 3.1 to AROS then these points are important.

And as long AROS will make you loose significant speed  and also AROS is not be 100% compatible.

I can fully understand that a user will say:
"AROS is not on the same level as OS 3.1 yet".
 

To make a funny car comparison:
If my car has engine problems and I give it to a garage to fix it.
And they work for it for month.
And I then talk to them and they tell me:
Look I painted it all in new colors,
and look "I planted some Flowers on the backseat! Awesome right?"
and look here "in the trunk I installed a fish tank, isn't this cool?"

Ok, but is the engine fixed?
"No sorry dude, I had no time to fix the Engine yet"

Aros progress sometimes feels a little bit like this.


Michael Borrmann

Posts 133
07 Jul 2019 08:57


nsklaus - wrote:

@boremann
  aros didn't try that yet. so far it mostly followed amigaos model from 3.1 design, and as such inherited most of the flaw amiga has.
  but it's good first step to replace amigaos as clone. improvements can come later. which is what i'm talking about.

First off, my family name is "Borrmann", you troll.

Then, my point was that you can whine as long as you want, there is simply not enough manpower left in the Amiga scene to create what you crave.

And also not enough interest in those things from the general scene, as well.

It's nice to want things, but if you are serious about this then you should put your "money" (=working time) where your mouth is and start creating this yourself.

Or just go on crying and bitching about this in this forum like a little child.




Vojin Vidanovic

Posts 1735
07 Jul 2019 13:01


Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

  (2) Performance:
  - Does AROS reach a similar speed to OS 3.1 on the same hardware?
 
  A: AROS is unfortunately in some areas a lot slower.

And that is its only week knee. But as Amiga speed progress with Vamp cores, becomes less relevant.

Question of OS optimization for Vampire is simply also more likely on AROS. In fact it could utilize extra speed of V4, more RAM and fast RTG.

AROS was never built to run on Classics. For example, x86 version states "AROS should run on almost any i386 PC hardware so long as the CPU is newer than an i486, and has a "Floating Point Unit (FPU)". Ideally around 700Mhz and above with at least 256MB of memory is recommended for desktops and around 1GHz and at least 256MB for laptops/notebooks/netbooks. For web browsing, etc above 1GB is usually needed and offers the option to run web browsers, media players and other hard disk heavy usage from RAM: disk."

Its far more relevant is that its FLOSS and has a potential of Vamps default OS or accompanying OS to AmigaOS 3.9 / Coffin / Amikit (Boot selection could be improved, not only by partition priority flagging).

Also it has few pieces of software that could be back ported to m68k AROS and that we dont have on AOS 3.x. or has bugfixed and improved versions parallel to MorphOS/OS4.

No matter how much I love AOS 3.x and its derivatives, its clear AROS has upper hand in this case. As usual, people are needed to make it happen.


Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Jul 2019 04:06


Vojin Vidanovic wrote:

Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

  (2) Performance:
    - Does AROS reach a similar speed to OS 3.1 on the same hardware?
 
  A: AROS is unfortunately in some areas a lot slower.
 

 
  And that is its only week knee. But as Amiga speed progress with Vamp cores, becomes less relevant.
 
  Question of OS optimization for Vampire is simply also more likely on AROS. In fact it could utilize extra speed of V4, more RAM and fast RTG.
 
  AROS was never built to run on Classics. For example, x86 version states "AROS should run on almost any i386 PC hardware so long as the CPU is newer than an i486, and has a "Floating Point Unit (FPU)". Ideally around 700Mhz and above with at least 256MB of memory is recommended for desktops and around 1GHz and at least 256MB for laptops/notebooks/netbooks. For web browsing, etc above 1GB is usually needed and offers the option to run web browsers, media players and other hard disk heavy usage from RAM: disk."
 
  Its far more relevant is that its FLOSS and has a potential of Vamps default OS or accompanying OS to AmigaOS 3.9 / Coffin / Amikit (Boot selection could be improved, not only by partition priority flagging).
 
  Also it has few pieces of software that could be back ported to m68k AROS and that we dont have on AOS 3.x. or has bugfixed and improved versions parallel to MorphOS/OS4.
 
  No matter how much I love AOS 3.x and its derivatives, its clear AROS has upper hand in this case. As usual, people are needed to make it happen.

I think it's hilarious that an Amiga user would use the argument of "throwing a bigger CPU at it" or how moronic the idea is of needing a 700MHz x86 with at least 256MB of RAM to match the "feel" of a high end Amiga.

I agree that FOSS is a better approach, but AROS is not there yet. In RTG mode you can literally see each. and. every. pixel. being. drawn. LOL. I'm hoping that Cloanto holds to their promise of open sourcing 3.x once they hold all the licenses. That will make AROS utterly moot overnight.


Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Jul 2019 04:20


nsklaus - wrote:

@Renee Cousins
 
  and for the records,
  no i don't believe the future of amiga was windows-nt and risc hp-pa cpu with hombre and amiga emulation.

That would be too bad, because unlike AAA, Hombre was half-decent.

nsklaus - wrote:
           
  that plan came because commodore was mismanaged and already taking the fall. they desesperately searched a way to cut the expenses and came up with this bad idea.
           
  but if commodore could have just continued to pay amigaos team,
    things wouldn't have gone that ridiculous way. it was just a coutermeasure plan.

Can I borrow your time machine? You seem to state a lot as "fact" -- care to cite some sources?
nsklaus - wrote:
           
  do you really think the original team responsible for developping the OS went thinking like that ?
  - one morning: "oh hey i have a brillant idea, let's can all our designs so far, all our previous plans and go windows-nt instead we'll emulate aos, it's not a big deal, it will be great"
  (and everyone else inside the amigaos team responded)
  - oh what a good idea..

It was more like when they were getting to the EVT phase of the AAA chipset they realized they were still hopelessly behind PC's and the gulf was only widening. Hombre was much simpler and would have been able to get to production sooner, was vastly more powerful and cheaper.

AmigaOS would still exist as an embedded OS for the CD64 and as a compatibility layer within Windows NT, and the hardware was still unique enough that we might have seen something like an Hombre-based Video Toaster that wouldn't necessarily run on x86 NT boxes.
nsklaus - wrote:
           
  no.
  that plan was imposed to them by ignorant management bosses. and they were unhappy about it.

That's your opinion. And yet, the day the Playstation came out, 2D was dead. Tell me how your precious AAA chipset would have survived that.
nsklaus - wrote:

  what commodore management wanted is irrelevent, what is important is what the amigaos team wanted, had planned. [snip]

What engineers "want" is seldom what is good or right for the future of a company -- Commodore is case and point on that since it let engineers run away with far too much. AA, AA+ and AAA were a complete waste of time. So was AGA. So was the Plus/4 and Commodore 16. So was the Commodore 128. They burned money spinning chips that had no business existing in the 80's let alone the 90's. Sorry but no, AAA was DOA.


Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Jul 2019 04:23


Olaf Schoenweiss wrote:

I see two reasons for memory protection:
 
  1.memory protection is needed to prevent the system to crash if you have problematic software
 
  2.security reasons, a system without memory protection is extremely vulnerable against a virus and similar
 
  If we need it depends on what we want to do with such a system. If it is only used as a hobby then not. If people want to use it as everyday-system and want to do online-banking with it (as a example) memory protection is urgent. I guess for most it is only hobby.

Process-level memory protection would break compatibility with existing AmigaOS software. However, a "type 0" or "embedded" hypervisor would provide the same thing for processes that put themselves into the gulag.


Nsklaus -

Posts 63
10 Jul 2019 08:29


@renee
   
Renee Cousins wrote:

    Can I borrow your time machine? You seem to state a lot as "fact" -- care to cite some sources?
   

   
    lots of interviews, reading opinions of the people involved, personal experience of that time.
    for example,
    when commodore died, it did put a full stop on amigaos 'real' development,
    but in fact, even 2 years before that, commodore feeling they would not make it, already did pull the plug on many things in desesperate attempt to stop the bleeding and cut the expenses.
   
    the post commodore attempts at keeping amiga alive were too late, too little.
    i'm speaking about aos3.5 and aos3.9.
    they were just like band aids on a very large wound.. unsufficient.
    they were good updates but not enough,
    it felt like re-heated food from the previous day. more of the same.
    user wanted real updates, and got those instead.
    they were happy to get updates and sad it was just that.
   
    i remember in 1996 a lot of pc where like pentium 75mhz, to 133mhz ..
    i remember the 060 struggled to compete with pentium 75mhz (with vga gfx cards, it was the time of doom and duke nukem 3d)
   
    amiga could have competed with that too, but the problem is that commodore had already died,
    and it happened at the worst moment. the very same time pc industry started to really take off.
    before that it was all like 486dx, amiga did compete well enough with thoses.
   
    by the time of the pentium 75mhz,
    amigaos and amiga hardware were like 2years late already,
    not getting serious updates.
    real amigaos development stopped around 1993.
    there were big plans originaly for amiga.
    but it all stopped at the bad time and never really re-started again after that.
    if there would have been no money problem and amigaos team could have work unfettered,
    things would have been a lot different.
    commodore toward the end was instead slowing things down.. a lot.
    basicaly, i'm putting a end to amiga evolution at 1992-1993, before playstation, before pentium, everything was still possible, especialy considering commodore was hurting amiga toward the end. slowing things down, refusing projects, investments into amiga, cutting staffs, putting delay on releases, scrapping previous plans and designs, and so on..
 
    to me, amiga missed its last most important ever set of upgrades, that of the post/ end of 199x, the 3d, the network, the stability. amiga got stuck in 1993, and for that time standard it is incredibly good, but for end 199x-2000 it is terribly outdated. it's obvious, no ?
   


Mr Niding

Posts 453
10 Jul 2019 09:57


@Renee

Disclaimer; im not a developer/coder, but just a enduser.

I guess AROS got initiated due to the legal state of AOS, altho Im sure wawa and Olaf can detail the timeline if they feel the need for it.

Resolving AOS legal status could still be decades away yet, altho I hope your wish comes true.
Regarding AROS performance, from a developers point of view, does it require a total rewrite to be remotely comparable in performance to AOS?

Noone wants to go the Windows path of throwing raw power to offset the failings of AROS, but look at the Apollo as a way to actually find AROS usable on 680x0 without having it grind to a halt.


Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Jul 2019 15:38


Mr Niding wrote:

@Renee
 
  Disclaimer; im not a developer/coder, but just a enduser.
 
  I guess AROS got initiated due to the legal state of AOS, altho Im sure wawa and Olaf can detail the timeline if they feel the need for it.
 
  Resolving AOS legal status could still be decades away yet, altho I hope your wish comes true.
  Regarding AROS performance, from a developers point of view, does it require a total rewrite to be remotely comparable in performance to AOS?
 
  Noone wants to go the Windows path of throwing raw power to offset the failings of AROS, but look at the Apollo as a way to actually find AROS usable on 680x0 without having it grind to a halt.

I think there are a few things that could make AROS a great and competitive choice for M68K users. The problem is that these would all be in opposition to the AROS team who all want C++ purity, ELF loading, integration of ixemul, memory protection, multi-processing and redundant layers of hardware abstraction. It's the Linux-fication of AmigaOS and antithetical to the original design goals.


Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Jul 2019 17:38


nsklaus - wrote:
<rant-snip>to me, amiga missed its last most important ever set of upgrades, that of the post/ end of 199x, the 3d, the network, the stability. amiga got stuck in 1993, and for that time standard it is incredibly good, but for end 199x-2000 it is terribly outdated. it's obvious, no ?

What does all of this have to do with AAA vs Hombre?

I wouldn't say "terribly outdated".

In terms of bloat, yes; AmigaOS can still install comfortably from 880K floppy disks. So if modern means steaming pile of shit code that eats gigabytes of disk space and gigahertz of CPU time, then yes, AmigaOS is definitely not modern.


Olaf Schoenweiss

Posts 673
10 Jul 2019 20:28


good luck with that


Wawa T

Posts 695
10 Jul 2019 21:29


Renee Cousins wrote:

  I think there are a few things that could make AROS a great and competitive choice for M68K users. The problem is that these would all be in opposition to the AROS team who all want C++ purity, ELF loading, integration of ixemul, memory protection, multi-processing and redundant layers of hardware abstraction. It's the Linux-fication of AmigaOS and antithetical to the original design goals.

what are these things?


Wawa T

Posts 695
10 Jul 2019 21:43


Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

  (1) Compatibility:
  - Is AROS 100% compatible to OS 3.1?


probably to a degree as much as os4 or morphos at least. lets keep in mind that amiga kickstarts in the range of 1.x to 3.x were hardly very compatible with each other and running certain software has in many cases required switching the kickstarts to emulating them. aros is at least theoretically designed to run software compiled for all these kickstarts, it is even bcpl compatible, all in one. so this is an advantage in my opinion.


  - Can I run every OS 3.1 application on AROS?

i have ran a lot of amiga apps on aros and still do so, for instance aminet amiga version of dopus 4 which i use regularly to copy test compiles to my amigas, among others the vampirized a600 grond lent me, im not sure why i prefer to use this aminet version rather than aros version, they look pretty the same, im probybly too lazy to compile it if i dont need.

other funny example is that you canalso run things like warpos on aros;)

one way or the other, again, the compatibility is not bad, remember its been a problem with other maiga systems as well.


  - Does AROS behave on each OS call the same,
    and does return the same results?

remains to be ensured, kalamatee set it a priority task a while ago.
 

  A: We all know that AROS is close to reach all this, but is not there yet.

so rather than moaning help us to improve it;)
 

  (2) Performance:
  - Does AROS reach a similar speed to OS 3.1 on the same hardware?
 
  A: AROS is unfortunately in some areas a lot slower.

we all know its still a problem. but also in this area aros is much closer to be resource savy as os3 that other ng alternatives.



Wawa T

Posts 695
10 Jul 2019 21:56


Steve Ferrell wrote:

  - AROS 68K lacks several key features found in OS 3.x.  One has to copy device drivers, device handlers, fonts and other software from their OS 3.x disks to their AROS 68K system if they want all the features that they had under OS 3.x

not that i know. one thing aros lacks is scsi.device for scsi equipped amigas like a3000. the skeleton is there but the driver is not implemened. we have an a3000 user among us on slack, so that was a problem for him.
but what concerns device drivers come either with the hardware or are available in net, not on kickstart disks, thats the same with aros, where you usually use them in the same way as in amiga os, namely copying them in devs:


  - And finally, AROS 68K suffers from all the instability issues that plague OS 3.x due to the lack of memory protection and process separation

aros been pretty stable here, since im testing it a lot. the problems are usually reproducible. while last time i used heavily patched 3.9 it has been also stable, but i have put a lot of effort into assembling an own kickstart and such, so that was a reason that i went looking at aros at that time, when kickstart replacement bounty has been taken by toni and jason.

other than that there is probably not that much one can do not to sacrifice amiga compatibility and philosophy. full mp and resource tracking will hardly be possible on m68k, as much as m68k smp. passing pointers between applications and shared memory space will remain with us till the bitter end.


  So convince us why we "need" AROS 68K or an enhanced OS 3.x!

you must feel like it yourself. if one doesnt need that, good for him;)


Vojin Vidanovic

Posts 1735
10 Jul 2019 22:37


Renee Cousins wrote:

      I think it's hilarious that an Amiga user would use the argument of "throwing a bigger CPU at it" or how moronic the idea is of needing a 700MHz x86 with at least 256MB of RAM to match the "feel" of a high end Amiga.
     

   
    Its time to move beyond 14Mhz EC020 or even full 030 33Mhz (A4000/030, A1200/A2000/A3000 accel. 060+RTG or PPC+040+RTG accels are and were damn too expensive so real high end was 030+FAST). I did back in the Miggy days.
    And no, its goal isnt to match AOS 3.x, its to advance from it, and make it floss and cross platform.
 
  Real high end Amiga was DraCo :)
   
   
Renee Cousins wrote:

      I agree that FOSS is a better approach, but AROS is not there yet. In RTG mode you can literally see each. and. every. pixel. being. drawn. LOL. I'm hoping that Cloanto holds to their promise of open sourcing 3.x once they hold all the licenses. That will make AROS utterly moot overnight.
   

   
    True, but its getting fixed, unlike OS4/CFE bugs I have encountered.
   
    Would love to see OS 3.9 BB4 Open sourced, OS 3.1.x is way too little to late.
   
    No, even that will not kill AROS.
   
    It started in 1995, way before any other NG feel, and it succeded
    in most of it goals. Hope next will be to have full m68k backport Vampire ready.
   
    MorphOS was first NG PPC OS to come.
   
    OS4 is just legal continuation, with little continuation.
   
    OS 3.1.4 is OS4 style milking.
   
   
wawa t wrote:

   
    we all know its still a problem. but also in this area aros is much closer to be resource savy as os3 that other ng alternatives.
   
   

   
    Also true, MOS and OS4 require way more then 700Mhz P1 style and 256MB.
   
    AEROS was fastest Linux I have seen - thanks to AROS spartan look.
    So it goes even beyond "fast and savy OS3 like clone".


Mr Niding

Posts 453
10 Jul 2019 22:54


@Vojin

Renees point is not wether we move beyond 020 as baseline performance level, but if the OS require xxx % performance increase to complete the same tasks.


Steve Ferrell

Posts 397
10 Jul 2019 23:45


wawa t wrote:

 
    not that i know. one thing aros lacks is scsi.device for scsi equipped amigas like a3000. the skeleton is there but the driver is not implemened. we have an a3000 user among us on slack, so that was a problem for him.
    but what concerns device drivers come either with the hardware or are available in net, not on kickstart disks, thats the same with aros, where you usually use them in the same way as in amiga os, namely copying them in devs:
 

 
You obviously haven't tried printing from AROS 68K recently.  It lacks several printer drivers that are included with AmigaOS 3.x and several AROS 68K device handlers are buggy or don't fully implement the full feature-set of those same handlers found in AmigaOS 3.x.  If you want anything other than postscript printing you have to drag out your OS 3.x disks and copy the correct driver over to your AROS system.
 
And I'm not saying that AROS is more unstable than AmigaOS 3.x.  I'm saying they're both equally unstable because they both suffer from the same lack of memory protection and process separation. And everyone here, some of them reluctantly, will admit that AROS 68K runs much slower than OS 3.x.  So again, I ask why would anyone choose AROS 68K over OS 3.x when it still lags behind OS 3.x in several areas?  It's sort of fun to play with and definitely a novelty to see an non-Commodore operating system running on classic hardware. But on classic hardware it's so slow as to be unusable so it's only future is on systems with more powerful CPU's.  While it may run fairly well on a Vampire at 200 MIPS, I think most people who try AROS on their Vampires will quickly switch back to OS 3.x once they see how performance suffers even with the Vampire's 68080 CPU.  I used AROS 68K on my A1200 with a 68030 clocked at 50Mhz with 16GB of RAM and it simply crawled, and as far a classic hardware is concerned, an 030 clocked at 50Mhz is no slouch.  I quickly went back to OS 3.1.
 
And here for your reading pleasure are a list of all the features that are missing in AROS 68K taken from the AROS Platform Wiki here:  EXTERNAL LINK :
 
 

 
Missing functionality:
 
intellifont/compugraphic font support (TrueType is indeed the way forward, but it is another resource pig on anything but high-end
Amigas. And besides, Intellifont should be implemented anyway for backwards compatibility.)
cdrom filesystem (missing L:cdrom-handler. Is it in Aros68k rom? It should be on disk, see note no. 1)
  no crossdos (L:fat-handler is missing. Is it in Aros68k rom? It should be on disk, see note no. 1)
recoverable ram volume support is non existant (RAD)
No Overscan support
No PCMCIA ram support

Missing disk components:
 
C/cpu
ed
edit
magtape (I dont know anyone who has used it, and I highly doubt it is required for backwards compatibility)
remrad (no rad support)
setfont (setdefaultfont does not provide the same functionality. eg.: missing setfont tooltypes)
CLASSES/DATATYPES/anim.datatype (these datatypes seem implemented, but their classes are physically absent)
animation.datatype (these datatypes seem implemented, but their classes are physically absent)
cdxl.datatype (these datatypes seem implemented, but their classes are physically absent)
CLASSES/GADGETS/tapedeck.gadget
DEVS/audio.device (AHI is fine as a way forward, but it is a resource pig on anything below a 68020 on native)
mfm.device
parallel.device
DEVS/DOSDRIVERS/aux
rad
cd0 (iso0 is present but we have the renaming issue. See note no.1)
pc1 (maybe a small omission)
DEVS/KEYMAPS/ (it is full of PC keyboard keymaps and a SUN one. But what about Amiga keymaps?)
DEVS/MONITORS/ (missing A2024, dblntsc, dblpal, euro36, euro72, multiscan, ntsc, pal, super72 and vgaonly. A generic one doesnt suit, see note no. 1)
DEVS/PRINTERS/ (missing all printer drivers but postscript. Not that it is really needed, but at least, "generic" and "file" drivers should be included)
FONTS (not a single one of the old native ones present. I understand that there are TTF replacements, but then see note no1.)
L/aux-handler
cdfilesystem (see note no. 1)
crossdosfilesystem (see note no. 1)
port-handler
queue-handler
LIBS/68040.library (680x0.library exists- specific processor libraries are unneccessary. insert setpatch at the beginning of the ss and the universal 680x0.library with the patches for specific processor will be automatically loaded. plug and play. definitely a gain with aros. no libs mess here.)
bullet.library
PREFS/overscan
pallete
printergfx
printerps
sound (yes, there is AHI, but I have already mentioned its issues)
wbpattern
REXXC/hi
rxc
rxset
tcc
tco
te
ts
waitforport
SYSTEM/diskcopy
intellifont (ftmanager doesnt cut it, as I mentioned before)
nofastmem
TOOLS/bru (not that I or anyone else care or require it for backwards compatibility, but some backup option should exist for completeness)
cmd
iconedit
lacer
memacs (dont use it or care about it, but why leave it out when it is PD?)
prepcard
TOOLS/COMMODITIES/crossdos
mouseblanker (couldnt care less. But then it is not difficult to implement, isnt it?)


 
 
 


Wawa T

Posts 695
11 Jul 2019 00:06


Steve Ferrell wrote:

So again, I ask why would anyone choose AROS 68K over OS 3.x when it still lags behind OS 3.x in several areas?

because its:
1. free
2. open
3. its lacks all the legal burdens of the genuine os, that will never be fully resolved, we have waited a quarter of the century now for this to happen.
4. it clean implementation, only limited by functional compatibility of original concepts, not by outdated code. which apparently is very cumbersome an issue with the original sources.
5. its made from the start with portability in mind, so if one hardware platform goes out of the window not all is lost. also evolving features of a hardware platform can be supported with less effort.
6. it is compatible with contemporary toolchains, rather than demanding obscure and outdated tools.
7. its just a few things that come to my mind, but isnt that obvious that aros is a platform we could gather around to improve rather than constantly bragging about opening amiga os source itself?



Wawa T

Posts 695
11 Jul 2019 00:23


@Steve Ferrell
now, what concerns your list, i wont check and answer in every detail

cdrom and fat support is in rom, as it should be, to be able to boot cd;). a lot of stuff is in rom, therefore you wont find it on disk.

there are amiga raster fonts on aros, and it can use what available in this area but it cannot contain the original fonts due to licensing/legal reasons afaik

there is no overscan support for now and i dont know about pcmcia

edit: aros has a handy editor rather than the once that comes with amiga

the datatypes you mention are im classes/datatypes

no specific cpu libs are necessary, just as you write, no mess.

port-handler is in L:

the concept of monitors has been dropped for a reason and also for lack of documentation, thor himself advised against it years ago.

palette prefs are there but not finished.


Steve Ferrell

Posts 397
11 Jul 2019 00:26


wawa t wrote:

Steve Ferrell wrote:

  So again, I ask why would anyone choose AROS 68K over OS 3.x when it still lags behind OS 3.x in several areas?
 

  because its:
  1. free
  2. open
  3. its lacks all the legal burdens of the genuine os, that will never be fully resolved, we have waited a quarter of the century now for this to happen.
  4. it clean implementation, only limited by functional compatibility of original concepts, not by outdated code. which apparently is very cumbersome an issue with the original sources.
  5. its made from the start with portability in mind, so if one hardware platform goes out of the window not all is lost. also evolving features of a hardware platform can be supported with less effort.
  6. it is compatible with contemporary toolchains, rather than demanding obscure and outdated tools.
  7. its just a few things that come to my mind, but isnt that obvious that aros is a platform we could gather around to improve rather than constantly bragging about opening amiga os source itself?
 

1.  ApolloOS is free
2.  Who cares, other than the AROS devs?
3.  Again, who cares.  The legal issues associated with AmigaOS will never be resolved and users will continue to use their gray area copies of AmigaOS for all the reasons that I mentioned earlier.  We've waited 24 years for AROS to reach parity with AmigaOS and that hasn't happened either...1 year shy of that quarter century you pointed out.
4.  Obviously not as clean as OS 3.x because OS 3.x runs rings around AROS 68K in terms of performance.
5. Portable?  Not really because all my classic Amiga software would need to be recompiled for the new target hardware (never gonna happen) or these apps would need to be run under emulation which I can already do via UAE.
6. Again, only important to AROS devs.  You're not going to convince the average user to switch to AROS based on how it was built or by the tool set used.
7. Who is bragging about anything here? And I've never advocated opening up the source to AmigaOS because that will never happen even if I wanted it to.

posts 244page  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13