AROS World Exec
General => General Chat => Topic started by: nikos on December 13, 2020, 04:34:22 PM
-
I was so happy that we finally got an update to AROS that is usefull.
To my great surprise it is faster than before. At least 10% faster in 3D games with my IntelGMA 950.
Here I show Quake II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpMfzEA444s
I will make more videos cause this is cool. Thanks Deadwood.
-
Thats a positive surprise. Thanks go mostly to people who worked on AROS beginning of 2017 ;)
-
I was so happy that we finally got an update to AROS that is usefull.
To my great surprise it is faster than before. At least 10% faster in 3D games with my IntelGMA 950.
Here I show Quake II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpMfzEA444s
I will make more videos cause this is cool. Thanks Deadwood.
https://kalamatee.blogspot.com/2016/
-
I was so happy that we finally got an update to AROS that is usefull.
To my great surprise it is faster than before. At least 10% faster in 3D games with my IntelGMA 950.
Here I show Quake II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpMfzEA444s
I will make more videos cause this is cool. Thanks Deadwood.
https://kalamatee.blogspot.com/2016/
Thanks for the link. Interesting read and seams like Kalamatee did some great work here.
Problem is that I never got IntelGMA to work on any ABI v.1 build. 32 or 64 bit. Even if it worked, what
software is there to test the 3D hardware? I know there are some test demos but that is it.
-
deadwood will also update gallium but not now :)
-
I was so happy that we finally got an update to AROS that is usefull.
To my great surprise it is faster than before. At least 10% faster in 3D games with my IntelGMA 950.
Here I show Quake II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpMfzEA444s
I will make more videos cause this is cool. Thanks Deadwood.
https://kalamatee.blogspot.com/2016/
Thanks for the link. Interesting read and seams like Kalamatee did some great work here.
Problem is that I never got IntelGMA to work on any ABI v.1 build. 32 or 64 bit. Even if it worked, what
software is there to test the 3D hardware? I know there are some test demos but that is it.
Doom3 :)
-
That is great and I know Kalamatee had Doom 3 running for many years.
-
I've had Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy running with accelerated 3D on my AROS box, if that's what you mean?
-
I've had Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy running with accelerated 3D on my AROS box, if that's what you mean?
He was talking abiv1 since that's where Nick's changes were done. Apparently, nikos cannot grasp that the changes he's receiving to abiv0 are literally the changes to abiv1 backported to abiv0. It's absolutely wonderful that users are getting the updates they've been wanting but credit where credit is due in the last 3 years 90% of the work done on AROS was done by Michal and Kalamatee.
-
I've had Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy running with accelerated 3D on my AROS box, if that's what you mean?
He was talking abiv1 since that's where Nick's changes were done. Apparently, nikos cannot grasp that the changes he's receiving to abiv0 are literally the changes to abiv1 backported to abiv0. It's absolutely wonderful that users are getting the updates they've been wanting but credit where credit is due in the last 3 years 90% of the work done on AROS was done by Michal and Kalamatee.
Why is that Terminills? I know most credits recent years go to Kalamatee and Michael. It is not that a hell of a lot happened. It is a big task for 2 developers to do everything. From a users standpoint AROS have almost not changed the last 10 years. It is nice that IntelGFX is a little faster and some internal, kernel updates but it also introduced a lot of bugs and problems. Maybe with the backport to ABI v.0 we can solve some of the problems introduced in ABI v.1
-
I've had Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy running with accelerated 3D on my AROS box, if that's what you mean?
He was talking abiv1 since that's where Nick's changes were done. Apparently, nikos cannot grasp that the changes he's receiving to abiv0 are literally the changes to abiv1 backported to abiv0. It's absolutely wonderful that users are getting the updates they've been wanting but credit where credit is due in the last 3 years 90% of the work done on AROS was done by Michal and Kalamatee.
Why is that Terminills? I know most credits recent years go to Kalamatee and Michael. It is not that a hell of a lot happened. It is a big task for 2 developers to do everything. From a users standpoint AROS have almost not changed the last 10 years. It is nice that IntelGFX is a little faster and some internal, kernel updates but it also introduced a lot of bugs and problems. Maybe with the backport to ABI v.0 we can solve some of the problems introduced in ABI v.1
A hell of a lot has happened. ACPI fixes which you're just now getting happened years ago, Scheduler enhancements, Display system enhancements, NVME support, MSI interupts, SANA2 enhancements, MUFS and the list goes on so please stop speaking of what you do not know. You telling everyone nothing has happened hinders AROS as a whole.
-
As far as I can tell, Nick Kalamatee Andrews is a man of amazing performance and competence. I think other mentioned and well-known developers who develop ABIv1 are not weaker. The user will vote for ABIv0 until he (the user) has the opportunity to actually use ABIv1 at his level. Here the problem is that AROS have stars, but developers are needed for simple (and uninteresting), monotonous and low-level work. This problem cannot be solved at the level of cool developers who are flooded with tickets. Now you had 50 tickets and now you have 100500+ tickets, what has changed? You now have 100500+ tickets...
I would rather believe that the number of ABIv0 users may grow for some reason, and this growth will give an impetus to the stabilization of ABIv1 (quantity turns into quality). Because out of every 100 users, 10 will be experienced and 1 developer.
Here is another problem: I cannot think of a reason for this growth or suggest how to create it. In general, it is clear that if (for example) on ABI0 there will be more gimmicks for the desktop, actual and working applications for high-quality emulation of other platforms, or some unique things useful for debugging, demoscene and retro-scene, then this will attract a certain number geeks. For example, if AROS has everything for developing for the ZX Spectrum, part of this scene may start using it instead of Windows because everything is in one place here. But in AROS and many (ported) applications are buggy or inoperable, and their contribution reaches 70%. There are not so many applications transferred from the Amiga. Therefore it turns out to be nothing more than a fantasy.
I'm also sure that very few people would switch to AROS because, for example, a blender and a lightwave appeared here. It also sounds fantastic. Real users of AROS are more specific. This does not mean that 3D is not needed, but its significance is exaggerated. Has the 3D-cube in the desktop greatly increased the number of MorphOS users? I don't think he influenced anything.
-
I cannot think of a reason for this growth or suggest how to create it. In general, it is clear that if (for example) on ABI0 there will be more gimmicks for the desktop, actual and working applications for high-quality emulation of other platforms, or some unique things useful for debugging, demoscene and retro-scene, then this will attract a certain number geeks. For example, if AROS has everything for developing for the ZX Spectrum, part of this scene may start using it instead of Windows because everything is in one place here. But in AROS and many (ported) applications are buggy or inoperable, and their contribution reaches 70%. There are not so many applications transferred from the Amiga. Therefore it turns out to be nothing more than a fantasy.
I'm also sure that very few people would switch to AROS because, for example, a blender and a lightwave appeared here. It also sounds fantastic. Real users of AROS are more specific. This does not mean that 3D is not needed, but its significance is exaggerated. Has the 3D-cube in the desktop greatly increased the number of MorphOS users? I don't think he influenced anything.
Trying to bring users to AROS has been 1st mission of Icaros Desktop. And it brought many in the past. I am constantly trying to enhance it and let it do things it couldn't before, or trying to implement ideas that can borrow the interest from other platforms (example: HostBridge), but obviously this is only part of the grand scheme. I would like to have a finalized ABIv1 64 bit version of AROS just to see if this would be enough to leverage the platform. A the moment, Icaros 64 is just a curiosity that 'ok, it works, let's forget it'.
-
I've had Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy running with accelerated 3D on my AROS box, if that's what you mean?
He was talking abiv1 since that's where Nick's changes were done. Apparently, nikos cannot grasp that the changes he's receiving to abiv0 are literally the changes to abiv1 backported to abiv0. It's absolutely wonderful that users are getting the updates they've been wanting but credit where credit is due in the last 3 years 90% of the work done on AROS was done by Michal and Kalamatee.
Why is that Terminills? I know most credits recent years go to Kalamatee and Michael. It is not that a hell of a lot happened. It is a big task for 2 developers to do everything. From a users standpoint AROS have almost not changed the last 10 years. It is nice that IntelGFX is a little faster and some internal, kernel updates but it also introduced a lot of bugs and problems. Maybe with the backport to ABI v.0 we can solve some of the problems introduced in ABI v.1
A hell of a lot has happened. ACPI fixes which you're just now getting happened years ago, Scheduler enhancements, Display system enhancements, NVME support, MSI interupts, SANA2 enhancements, MUFS and the list goes on so please stop speaking of what you do not know. You telling everyone nothing has happened hinders AROS as a whole.
I did not say nothing happened, but it is not sexy stuff like updated gfx drivers, enhanced wanderer, updated web-browser etc. I did say that much more could happen if we did not have all this mess with ABI v.1 where it is not even now a stable branch. ABI v.0 where ditched much to soon. If you do not see that this kind of killed the whole project you are blind. ABI v.1 should have taken over when it is a stable branch and at least one reference system work at least on level with ABI v.0 from 10 years back. Until I see something in that direction I'm very happy to see Deadwood backporting to ABI v.0 and see the future in that direction. It at least woken my interest in AROS. I said my last about this.
-
I'm not a coder and I understand nothing about abi v0 and abi v1. I'ìm a simple user that want a full working system full of useful application. This is what I know:
ABI V0
Stable - full of application - lots of users - new users must use it to have a good AROS experience - system files outdated - status abandoned
ABI V1
Unstable - a lot of application are missing - under slow development - more advanced than ABI V0 - no users wants to use it because it's unstable and full of bugs
I think this is something really wrong. All the changes should be done on ABI V0 and then, when the changes are stable enough, backported to ABI V1. This way all the users of ABI V0 will keep AROS alive, all the bugs can be solved and all working code can be ported to the more advanced ABI. Leaving ABI V0 behind is/was a bad idea, IMHO.
-
I'm not a coder and I understand nothing about abi v0 and abi v1. I'ìm a simple user that want a full working system full of useful application. This is what I know:
ABI V0
Stable - full of application - lots of users - new users must use it to have a good AROS experience - system files outdated - status abandoned
ABI V1
Unstable - a lot of application are missing - under slow development - more advanced than ABI V0 - no users wants to use it because it's unstable and full of bugs
I think this is something really wrong. All the changes should be done on ABI V0 and then, when the changes are stable enough, backported to ABI V1. This way all the users of ABI V0 will keep AROS alive, all the bugs can be solved and all working code can be ported to the more advanced ABI. Leaving ABI V0 behind is/was a bad idea, IMHO.
Well written. This is exactly how I feel to. It is not with disrespect to Kalamatee and Michael that worked hard on ABI v.1 but they needed a lot of help that never came. Now the project been almost abandoned and thankfully Deadwood stepped up and did something about it.
-
I'm not a coder and I understand nothing about abi v0 and abi v1. I'ìm a simple user that want a full working system full of useful application. This is what I know:
ABI V0
Stable - full of application - lots of users - new users must use it to have a good AROS experience - system files outdated - status abandoned
ABI V1
Unstable - a lot of application are missing - under slow development - more advanced than ABI V0 - no users wants to use it because it's unstable and full of bugs
I think this is something really wrong. All the changes should be done on ABI V0 and then, when the changes are stable enough, backported to ABI V1. This way all the users of ABI V0 will keep AROS alive, all the bugs can be solved and all working code can be ported to the more advanced ABI. Leaving ABI V0 behind is/was a bad idea, IMHO.
You don't keep something stable by making changes to it. The entire point of ABIv1 was to fix incorrect assumptions from when AROS was started. As for making changes and then back porting to ABIv1 that's pointless MC68K, X86_64,ARM,PPC are all ABIv1, X86 is literally the only port that is abiv0. As for software don't worry I've got plans for that too. The joys of owning my source(Finalwriter isn't all that I own) is I can control where it ends up.
-
I'm not a coder and I understand nothing about abi v0 and abi v1. I'ìm a simple user that want a full working system full of useful application. This is what I know:
ABI V0
Stable - full of application - lots of users - new users must use it to have a good AROS experience - system files outdated - status abandoned
ABI V1
Unstable - a lot of application are missing - under slow development - more advanced than ABI V0 - no users wants to use it because it's unstable and full of bugs
I think this is something really wrong. All the changes should be done on ABI V0 and then, when the changes are stable enough, backported to ABI V1. This way all the users of ABI V0 will keep AROS alive, all the bugs can be solved and all working code can be ported to the more advanced ABI. Leaving ABI V0 behind is/was a bad idea, IMHO.
Well written. This is exactly how I feel to. It is not with disrespect to Kalamatee and Michael that worked hard on ABI v.1 but they needed a lot of help that never came. Now the project been almost abandoned and thankfully Deadwood stepped up and did something about it.
Abandoned? There you go again the project wasn't abandoned ABIv0 was abandoned.
-
I'm not a coder and I understand nothing about abi v0 and abi v1. I'ìm a simple user that want a full working system full of useful application. This is what I know:
ABI V0
Stable - full of application - lots of users - new users must use it to have a good AROS experience - system files outdated - status abandoned
ABI V1
Unstable - a lot of application are missing - under slow development - more advanced than ABI V0 - no users wants to use it because it's unstable and full of bugs
I think this is something really wrong. All the changes should be done on ABI V0 and then, when the changes are stable enough, backported to ABI V1. This way all the users of ABI V0 will keep AROS alive, all the bugs can be solved and all working code can be ported to the more advanced ABI. Leaving ABI V0 behind is/was a bad idea, IMHO.
Well written. This is exactly how I feel to. It is not with disrespect to Kalamatee and Michael that worked hard on ABI v.1 but they needed a lot of help that never came. Now the project been almost abandoned and thankfully Deadwood stepped up and did something about it.
Abandoned? There you go again the project wasn't abandoned ABIv0 was abandoned.
Yes, 1 developer in a project like this is almost like abandoned. The user base also shrank to almost nothing.
Thinking developers is all there is about in a project like this is a big mistake. There should, and most be a joined effort by dedicated people that do different things.
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. I suggest you and Kalamatee do your thing and let others do what they think is best for this open source project. Do you have any problem with that?
-
Life is so short and the older we are the faster it runs away. Is this the best way of spending your energy?
First of all, as I mentioned in the second post here, while I patch things here and there advancements you see are work of people who pushed their changes to AROS master branch over years. Give them credit where credit is due.
Secondly developers around AROS have different passions. Some prefer lower level kernel work and advancing hardware support, some prefer more user facing aspect and look for stability and continuity. What I've seen over the years is that sometimes their values clash and cause conflicts, however I believe they are both needed to make progress. Neither approach will suffice on its own.
What I wish us all is to enjoy aspects of AROS we favor and let others in the community enjoy their favorite aspects. Accept the difference in opinion and move forward.
[end of topic from me]
-
Just to be clear: I don't care if the AROS ABI is 0 or 1. I want a more advanced AROS than the one I'm using now. So the exact instant it will be available, I'll switch to it. Until then, it's still not available and not ready for everyday use. AROS on X86 was born as ABI V0 and all available software was made for it. On other systems there was no need to mantain the older ABI, so on these systems the right choice was to use ABI V1. On X86 we should have made something to slowly transition from ABI V0 to ABI V1. I'm not a coder and I really don't know if this was possible, the only thing I know is that no one would switch from a working OS to one not fully working and with almost no software. ABI V1 is much better than ABI V0... the bad thing is that it doesn't work as it should.
-
You are 100% right Yanosh. What you say is what most feel.
Deadwood also explain exactly what I'm thinking. We are most in a age where most of life is behind us. It is not to put on a chair that we are all old Amiga fans and it is very unlikely that this OS will attract other people. I think that is proven already.
It would be rediculous to favour anything other than we want something useful, and ABI v.1 i386 or AMD64 is not. If it where, we would not have this conversation at all!
-
You are 100% right Yanosh. What you say is what most feel.
Deadwood also explain exactly what I'm thinking. We are most in a age where most of life is behind us. It is not to put on a chair that we are all old Amiga fans and it is very unlikely that this OS will attract other people. I think that is proven already.
It would be rediculous to favour anything other than we want something useful, and ABI v.1 i386 or AMD64 is not. If it where, we would not have this conversation at all!
I can only comment this discussion from 68k side... abandoned I would not say. There are much more users than before using AROS. Of course the X86 branch is in a more difficult situation. The problem is what is Aros about and what are the goals? There are different views. Some time Kal was very active in the 68k branch (and got financial support at that time). But the requirement was amigans only accept aros if it really replaces 3.1. Over the time a lot of situations and places were identified where aros not behaves like 3.1 and is not compatible to 3.1 for unknown reasons. Kal was not interested so Aros is forked now. And it is accepted by users. So the requirement (in my view) is that Aros is easy to install and configure and is setup like amiga with same look & feel. Also the desktop must be like amiga (or at least as similar as possible) and 68k integration is extremely important. Then there is a chance that more people use it.
I do not know if I explained it right... people must feel at home when they start Aros, they must forget that they use Aros and not 3.1. "Classic" users are by far the biggest crowd, so there are the chances to attract users.
-
You are 100% right Yanosh. What you say is what most feel.
Deadwood also explain exactly what I'm thinking. We are most in a age where most of life is behind us. It is not to put on a chair that we are all old Amiga fans and it is very unlikely that this OS will attract other people. I think that is proven already.
It would be rediculous to favour anything other than we want something useful, and ABI v.1 i386 or AMD64 is not. If it where, we would not have this conversation at all!
I can only comment this discussion from 68k side... abandoned I would not say. There are much more users than before using AROS. Of course the X86 branch is in a more difficult situation. The problem is what is Aros about and what are the goals? There are different views. Some time Kal was very active in the 68k branch (and got financial support at that time). But the requirement was amigans only accept aros if it really replaces 3.1. Over the time a lot of situations and places were identified where aros not behaves like 3.1 and is not compatible to 3.1 for unknown reasons. Kal was not interested so Aros is forked now. And it is accepted by users. So the requirement (in my view) is that Aros is easy to install and configure and is setup like amiga with same look & feel. Also the desktop must be like amiga (or at least as similar as possible) and 68k integration is extremely important. Then there is a chance that more people use it.
I do not know if I explained it right... people must feel at home when they start Aros, they must forget that they use Aros and not 3.1. "Classic" users are by far the biggest crowd, so there are the chances to attract users.
Yes, very true. I agree 100%
Janus-UAE tried to integrate 68k AmigaOS with AROS and never got quite good enough. More help and effort should have been put into that direction from the start.
-
My 2 cents:
There are so few users that, if there is already so hard to maintain a niche & alt OS, imagine maintaining 2. All energies should focus in Abi1, because splitting energies with abi0 is what it is holding Abi1 back (vicious circle), and already for YEARS.
"So it will leave abi0 users orphan" some would say. And I say: so what?? Let's face the truth: almost nobody use Aros on a daily basis. Wasting energies in an abandoned distro just because it is sometimes used by 10-20 people? (at most) is plain stupid. All the scarce energies and time need to be put in the only version with future: abi1 64bits. I don't care if x86 64 or arm, but at least on something that makes sense, not on another OLD and ABANDONED OS/kernel which NOBODY CARES ABOUT.
And I LOVE aros, but ignoring the truth will just hurt ourselves.
-
I agree
68k makes sense
and 64bit ABI1 makes sense
generally concentrate on ABI1
(addktionally perhaps ARM RPi)
generally there should be a agreement on less platforms. For example I had a lot of problems because commits obviously broke software on 68k. Less platforms less problems. If Aros (outside 68k) shall have a chance it is important to concentrate
-
As a former C.Amiga user, I just joined you.
Aros has been with great success, a spark to morph os and others. This is beautiful.
Users continue on their old system with AmigaOs 4.01 or Morph os and with aros.
In this sense, Aros has completed its mission perfectly. Because, with winuae etc, they somehow use and play classic applications.
With this success of Aros, Users were so impressed that they now want to see a 64-bit complete Aros.
this seems very clear in correspondence.
There seems to be no need to defend the 32-bit Aros. Already AmigaOs 4 and morph Os, Winuae is doing that part.
What more can Aros do at this stage in 386x32?
I believe that Amiga ideas will come true with 64bit, even after us.
They start a search just because they want it.
whereas the option is right in front of us.
Arosx64!
-
As a former C.Amiga user, I just joined you.
Aros has been with great success, a spark to morph os and others. This is beautiful.
Users continue on their old system with AmigaOs 4.01 or Morph os and with aros.
In this sense, Aros has completed its mission perfectly. Because, with winuae etc, they somehow use and play classic applications.
With this success of Aros, Users were so impressed that they now want to see a 64-bit complete Aros.
this seems very clear in correspondence.
There seems to be no need to defend the 32-bit Aros. Already AmigaOs 4 and morph Os, Winuae is doing that part.
What more can Aros do at this stage in 386x32?
I believe that Amiga ideas will come true with 64bit, even after us.
They start a search just because they want it.
whereas the option is right in front of us.
Arosx64!
Everyone dreamed of that, and it is what we like to see.
The problem is that it is not there, it is not ready.
OS developers can blame that they lack a distribution, dedicated developers.
Problem is that it is buggy and distribution maintainers tried to make this happen.
Years pas by and if ABI v.1, AMD64 version would not have stalled ABI v.0 there would have
been more activity.
This made diversity among developers, users and many AROS promoters left. It there are no progress that is useful
there are no use for the system. This is like you have a better car but you have no wheels for it.
The car is useless in that state. It is absolutely no garantee the car will ever have its wheels!
Last but not least this better car can not compete with the best out there.
It is a hobby OS and we have fun with it. We enjoy what we have and like to keep that alive.
I think this is where classic Amiga OS and other classic systems survive. They accept the limitations and embrace it, not everything has to go forward. I understand that modern stuff is all 64-bit now but why do we really need 64-bit? SMP is not even possible without breaking compatibility with classic Amiga OS. There been talks about a new Amiga like OS but then we already have Linux and other alternatives. What would be the point?
-
As a former C.Amiga user, I just joined you.
Aros has been with great success, a spark to morph os and others. This is beautiful.
Users continue on their old system with AmigaOs 4.01 or Morph os and with aros.
In this sense, Aros has completed its mission perfectly. Because, with winuae etc, they somehow use and play classic applications.
With this success of Aros, Users were so impressed that they now want to see a 64-bit complete Aros.
this seems very clear in correspondence.
There seems to be no need to defend the 32-bit Aros. Already AmigaOs 4 and morph Os, Winuae is doing that part.
What more can Aros do at this stage in 386x32?
I believe that Amiga ideas will come true with 64bit, even after us.
They start a search just because they want it.
whereas the option is right in front of us.
Arosx64!
Everyone dreamed of that, and it is what we like to see.
The problem is that it is not there, it is not ready.
OS developers can blame that they lack a distribution, dedicated developers.
Problem is that it is buggy and distribution maintainers tried to make this happen.
Years pas by and if ABI v.1, AMD64 version would not have stalled ABI v.0 there would have
been more activity.
This made diversity among developers, users and many AROS promoters left. It there are no progress that is useful
there are no use for the system. This is like you have a better car but you have no wheels for it.
The car is useless in that state. It is absolutely no garantee the car will ever have its wheels!
Last but not least this better car can not compete with the best out there.
It is a hobby OS and we have fun with it. We enjoy what we have and like to keep that alive.
I think this is where classic Amiga OS and other classic systems survive. They accept the limitations and embrace it, not everything has to go forward. I understand that modern stuff is all 64-bit now but why do we really need 64-bit? SMP is not even possible without breaking compatibility with classic Amiga OS. There been talks about a new Amiga like OS but then we already have Linux and other alternatives. What would be the point?
I will put it in short as I don't want endless discussions and too much text:
- SMP is already DONE! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4is9ZHeFfIs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4is9ZHeFfIs) and it's a perfect example of what's wrong with this situation: After hard work, it was acheived 3 years ago! then? ... nothing happened with it. Nobody test/used it because it never officially appeared. meanwhile a lot of work, time and effort was put on Abi0.
- "Aros 64 is not there", so what? while abi0 aros was being developed, it wasn't also there. Does it mean their devs should focus on developing os3 further? the answer was NO, right? the right way was keep working on aros until "it is there". Later, they were aware of the design flaws of the original kernel, so they decided to start again doing it right (not an easy decision at all). Why screw all their efforts concentrating our attention in the wrong version?
- "We cannot compete" that's very debatable: While we won't create windows 10 overnight, there niche devices and configurations which may have a good market for Aros: Raspberry Pi, RiscV boards, old wintel machines, etc...
- "We enjoy what we have and like to keep that alive" Sorry but IMHO that's preciselly the wrong way to see it: it may live a bit for some time, but it is the way to a secured death: devices get old, it is harder everyday to get new connectors, cables, screens supporting our screenmodes, IDE hardrives, even compact flash cards. Let's not even talk about disk drives (rip). What will happen when we cannot find those devices? That's why I insist in keep going forward: I don't want a slow death of the Amiga. I want it alive. Even it does not have everything, if it has only a decent (modern) browser, it can do a lot of things (there are office suites, and even all kind of design, music and programming tools for browsers) and a couple other basic tools, which we alreadty have (just need updates), that's enough for me. But the only way to atract new devs and users is with a competent OS, and mnost important: an OS that they can use in their main computers. I have a very powerful (gamer) PC but I would switch in a heartbeat to use AROS as much time as possible instead of the terrible windows10 if it supported its hardware.
- And this bring me to the final argument "impossible to support all hardware". Sure. I agree. But I'm also sure people would understand that just maybe 1, 2, 3 or 5 at the most configurations are "officially" supported by an AROS dev board (which their devs can select at their taste) and everybody will understand and support.I propose something like: 1 powerful/gaming config (I know kalamatee has an OpenGL/vulkan update almost ready), 1 office/modest/old hardware, and 1 risc/mobile device (RPi, Mobile, Risc board).
But I'll say it for the last time: time is running out. This is the last chance. If the aros devs don't keep all their priceless time in the future/sustainability of aros, it will slowly die.
-
Why screw all their efforts concentrating our attention in the wrong version?
No one want this to happen. The only wrong choice was made is to not transition the older and working ABI into the new one. A little change at a time. This is IMHO. All the user base on X86 is on the older ABI. All the application are on the older ABI. You are asking to people to switch from a working environment to a buggy, not fully working and application less one all of the sudden. Do you really want to switch from a working Windows system to a buggy and application less one just because when completed is better than the working one?
-
Why screw all their efforts concentrating our attention in the wrong version?
Because this version (ABIV0) exists in our real world. Welcome to the real world!
Later, they were aware of the design flaws of the original kernel, so they decided to start again doing it right (not an easy decision at all).
Later, they were aware of the design flaws of ABIv1, so they they decided to start again doing it right in ABIv2. This is an iteration. Here we aren't talking about fears, but it is simply clear that this will be so. Because there is simply no planning. People don't believe in miracles more than once.
If the aros devs don't keep all their priceless time in the future/sustainability of aros, it will slowly die.
Amiga already died. The reason was the same: lack of planning. About AROS can be said as about Amiga: it was. It can only be about bringing it closer to existence for a small handful of people while they are alive. But we all have been for many years. Operating systems don't live on their own. Operating systems don't live without users, in the minds of developers. Therefore, users will use what exists in the real world, not potentially.
But I'm also sure people would understand that just maybe 1, 2, 3 or 5 at the most configurations are "officially" supported by an AROS dev board (which their devs can select at their taste) and everybody will understand and support
Sumptuously! We all love to talk right! In this place you need to write specific configurations, the choice of which will be obvious to everyone. When you see that everyone likes this idea, you will coordinate it with all the remaining developers. Are you sure you are right? ;)
-
Why screw all their efforts concentrating our attention in the wrong version?
Because this version (ABIV0) exists in our real world. Welcome to the real world!
Later, they were aware of the design flaws of the original kernel, so they decided to start again doing it right (not an easy decision at all).
Later, they were aware of the design flaws of ABIv1, so they they decided to start again doing it right in ABIv2. This is an iteration. Here we aren't talking about fears, but it is simply clear that this will be so. Because there is simply no planning. People don't believe in miracles more than once.
If the aros devs don't keep all their priceless time in the future/sustainability of aros, it will slowly die.
Amiga already died. The reason was the same: lack of planning. About AROS can be said as about Amiga: it was. It can only be about bringing it closer to existence for a small handful of people while they are alive. But we all have been for many years. Operating systems don't live on their own. Operating systems don't live without users, in the minds of developers. Therefore, users will use what exists in the real world, not potentially.
But I'm also sure people would understand that just maybe 1, 2, 3 or 5 at the most configurations are "officially" supported by an AROS dev board (which their devs can select at their taste) and everybody will understand and support
Sumptuously! We all love to talk right! In this place you need to write specific configurations, the choice of which will be obvious to everyone. When you see that everyone likes this idea, you will coordinate it with all the remaining developers. Are you sure you are right? ;)
In short:
- ABI1 exist exactly the same as Abi0. It just have more bugs because it was less tested
- Aros don't die as long as there are devs working on improving it. You consider it dead and just wanna concentrate on what you got, so fine by me! you already have what you want, what's the problem in now concentrate in what others want (and the OS needs)?
- I didn't want to write the post to "lead" or "command" the community, that's why I carefully said "a developer board": a group of the active developers to decide what configurations THEY WANT to work on. I sure have my own ideas, but the ones working on it are the ones that must feel confortable. And I think (not sure, but almost sure) everybody would understand that decision given the situation (they can't cover it all)
- There is an alternative explored years ago: use linux as an underlying layer to take care of drivers, network and some other bits&pieces, but as integration has proven difficult, I came back to the idea of just a few fixed configurations.
-
Why screw all their efforts concentrating our attention in the wrong version?
No one want this to happen. The only wrong choice was made is to not transition the older and working ABI into the new one. A little change at a time. This is IMHO. All the user base on X86 is on the older ABI. All the application are on the older ABI. You are asking to people to switch from a working environment to a buggy, not fully working and application less one all of the sudden. Do you really want to switch from a working Windows system to a buggy and application less one just because when completed is better than the working one?
I don't agree to those premises: There is NO user base (sad, but true), there is no "working" or "buggy" envs, they are just more or less buggy. But even if it was like you said, I never said you cannot enjoy ABi0 anymore, or you should stop using it. I just asked devs to conventrate their work on Abi0, and users to please stop asking them to support Abi0, cause is not fair for them, and not good at all for the future of Aros.
But, as you consider Abi0 so good, you can keep using it. It's not that hard, isn't it? ;)
-
- ABI1 exist exactly the same as Abi0. It just have more bugs just because it was less tested
No. ABIv1 doesn't exist. ABIv1 doesn't even load (https://github.com/aros-development-team/AROS/issues/168).
I checked all nightly2/<date>/AROS-<date>-pc-x86_64-boot-iso.zip within a last month.
Do you want to argue? Ok.
1) Download AROS-<any_date>-pc-x86_64-boot-iso.zip
2) Show us your Wanderer/AROS/About...
Let's arrange a competition for the freshest ABIv1 "Wanderer/AROS/About..." ?
condition one: ISO image must be downloaded from https://sourceforge.net/projects/aros/files/ and launched the same day.
Are you participating? Why not? :D :D :D
-
When someone with the knowledge as Deadwood have, and you question what is right or wrong, you better come up with some dammed good arguments why he stick with ABI v.0!! and do not want to get involved with the ABI v.1 version
I'm not a developer, but ABI v.1 is for sure a mess!!
For political reasons he does not want to make a statement about that.
It is not war!! if you do not like abi v.0 stay away from it!
It is an open source platform, and people do as they want with it.
I followed this project almost since the beginning, and one thing I learned is that what might be promised, might never happen!
We are not going to take over the world anyway! It is a fun platform that is in the spirit of AmigaOS, and the most powerful there will ever be! Forget multi core, SMP, memory protection, bla bla. It is not going to happen. If that is important to you f... off. End of story!
-
The answer is very simple and very well known, and it was already reported tons of times: AROS developers work on what they like.
Which is mostly ABIv1, because that's what they think is the future of AROS (albeit, as I've already said, the specs aren't yet finalized).
ABIv0 stays and lives only because there is people like deadwood which is backporting what it's being made on v1. So, enjoy it until this work is being done.
Currently the main problem for the ABIv1 is that developers aren't actively working on the most common and promising architectures (x64 AKA x86-64, ARMv7, ARMv8), but are involved on the less interesting, already died long time, and without a future: the 68K one.
What's worse is that they forked AROS and are removing (if not even already done) the HIDD and rewriting parts of the o.s. to mimic the crappyness of the original Amiga o.s. (which is strictly tight to the chipset) just to improve the performance on this very under powered platform, which is struggling otherwise (and which is expected, since it's an ultra-outdated hardware: "Pentium" class).
Years an years of work to abstract AROS from the hardware which are thrown into the trash can...
-
(albeit, as I've already said, the specs aren't yet finalized).
Who writes the specs? Does he have coordinates?
If the answer is: everyone writes specifications, then this is the same answer: nobody writes specifications.
No specifications = No plan = No future = No ABIiV1
What was planned to be achieved had to be agreed and described BEFORE the development of ABIv1 began.
If the developers don't know this even now, after so many years, then what should users expect?
-
The developers aren't fully planless ;)
From documentation:
https://aros.sourceforge.io/documentation/developers/specifications/drafts/abiv1.php
From project page:
https://github.com/aros-development-team/AROS/projects
-
The developers aren't fully planless ;)
From documentation:
https://aros.sourceforge.io/documentation/developers/specifications/drafts/abiv1.php
From project page:
https://github.com/aros-development-team/AROS/projects
Thank you!
Didn't know that github could look like Jira.
I want to clarify: when I write about planning, I don't mean documenting (although it's important).
The code as documentation has not been canceled. ;)
But when I read: do something in core components, there must be a list of those components somewhere.
Otherwise, my question is, where do core components end and user-space components begin?
The person who wrote the text on the links you indicated clearly understood what he was writing.
It's more difficult for readers to understand because of the use of vague concepts.
If you believe the grouping of tasks under the second link, then nothing has been done in the last year.
This is certainly not the case, which means that such a description of the tasks is incorrect.
-
The answer is very simple and very well known, and it was already reported tons of times: AROS developers work on what they like.
Which is mostly ABIv1, because that's what they think is the future of AROS (albeit, as I've already said, the specs aren't yet finalized).
ABIv0 stays and lives only because there is people like deadwood which is backporting what it's being made on v1. So, enjoy it until this work is being done.
Currently the main problem for the ABIv1 is that developers aren't actively working on the most common and promising architectures (x64 AKA x86-64, ARMv7, ARMv8), but are involved on the less interesting, already died long time, and without a future: the 68K one.
What's worse is that they forked AROS and are removing (if not even already done) the HIDD and rewriting parts of the o.s. to mimic the crappyness of the original Amiga o.s. (which is strictly tight to the chipset) just to improve the performance on this very under powered platform, which is struggling otherwise (and which is expected, since it's an ultra-outdated hardware: "Pentium" class).
Years an years of work to abstract AROS from the hardware which are thrown into the trash can...
Cdimauro before posting you should have a clue what you talk about
Which of the Aros devs is involved in 68k currently? Kal not (you see it on changelog). Schulz is developing a kind of Amithlon-solution on ARM. Both are not involved in the vampire related fork. None of the devs involved there was or is active on the main branch, they are new. And they are only active because of 68k. Nothing is thrown in the trashcan, both are different forks. It is planned to give back changes but those will certainly adding features or removing bugs. The structure of Aros will not change. And if 68k or other architctures will be more successful has to be seen.
-
When someone with the knowledge as Deadwood have, and you question what is right or wrong, you better come up with some dammed good arguments why he stick with ABI v.0!! and do not want to get involved with the ABI v.1 version
I'm not a developer, but ABI v.1 is for sure a mess!!
For political reasons he does not want to make a statement about that.
It is not war!! if you do not like abi v.0 stay away from it!
It is an open source platform, and people do as they want with it.
I followed this project almost since the beginning, and one thing I learned is that what might be promised, might never happen!
We are not going to take over the world anyway! It is a fun platform that is in the spirit of AmigaOS, and the most powerful there will ever be! Forget multi core, SMP, memory protection, bla bla. It is not going to happen. If that is important to you f... off. End of story!
SMP or 64bit needs dedicated software, who will write it? MP breaks almost any amiga software. You would start at zero then, a modern platform but without software except some 68k software running in emulation. That would hardly convince new users. As I wrote... amiga users must feel at home that means a environment including 68k that makes people forget that they are sitting at a PC and not a new amiga.
-
Are you participating? Why not? :D :D :D
Because even kalamatee already told you why?
"Yeah - I wouldn't worry about that build, it was expected to be broken. A
newer nightly should work correctly though." ;)
No. ABIv1 doesn't exist
So: False. YES, it does. There are tons of proofs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg4NAscOw7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdB1Vc_CbsI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E8rYDOrlfI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAVrnxUz2tw
A nightly build is never a proof that something does not work, much less it does not exist. If you are a developer you should know that already. If you wanna test something, you must try a more stable version
https://vmwaros.blogspot.com/2019/10/icaros-64-v000-pre-alpha-is-available.html
So trying to deny the facts is just your speech, not reality. And for me this is enough waste of time or energy spent into childish arguments: do as you please. I won't maintain endless discussions in amigaland style.
-
When someone with the knowledge as Deadwood have, and you question what is right or wrong, you better come up with some dammed good arguments why he stick with ABI v.0!! and do not want to get involved with the ABI v.1 version
I'm not a developer, but ABI v.1 is for sure a mess!!
For political reasons he does not want to make a statement about that.
It is not war!! if you do not like abi v.0 stay away from it!
It is an open source platform, and people do as they want with it.
I followed this project almost since the beginning, and one thing I learned is that what might be promised, might never happen!
We are not going to take over the world anyway! It is a fun platform that is in the spirit of AmigaOS, and the most powerful there will ever be! Forget multi core, SMP, memory protection, bla bla. It is not going to happen. If that is important to you f... off. End of story!
Your post is full of biased oppinions, much rudeness and bile, but 0 proofs or facts, so I will keep around just to see you rage that much, and because you are no one to dictate what should I say or where should I stay. Cheers! ;D ;D ;D
-
When someone with the knowledge as Deadwood have, and you question what is right or wrong, you better come up with some dammed good arguments why he stick with ABI v.0!! and do not want to get involved with the ABI v.1 version
I'm not a developer, but ABI v.1 is for sure a mess!!
For political reasons he does not want to make a statement about that.
It is not war!! if you do not like abi v.0 stay away from it!
It is an open source platform, and people do as they want with it.
I followed this project almost since the beginning, and one thing I learned is that what might be promised, might never happen!
We are not going to take over the world anyway! It is a fun platform that is in the spirit of AmigaOS, and the most powerful there will ever be! Forget multi core, SMP, memory protection, bla bla. It is not going to happen. If that is important to you f... off. End of story!
Your post is full of biased oppinions, much rudeness and bile, but 0 proofs or facts, so I will keep around just to see you rage that much, and because you are no one to dictate what should I say or where should I stay. Cheers! ;D ;D ;D
Ignore him as he’s angry and not as informed as he likes to think.
-
Because even kalamatee already told you why?
"Yeah - I wouldn't worry about that build, it was expected to be broken. A
newer nightly should work correctly though." ;)
In Russian it is called "ПЦ". I cannot translate this concept into English so that it becomes clear.
The user has been trying to download the image and run it for a month and get the result: it shouldn't have worked!
Is it adequate? Nightly builds are usually much less stable than regular releases, but they run!
I can't imagine Ubuntu, FreeBSD or ReactOS nightly build not starting within a month and it is considered "and should not have"..
If it shouldn't, then it doesn't exist. Who can use it? Nobody.
So: False. YES, it does. There are tons of proofs
These aren't your proofs. I seem to clearly wrote what you need to do?
Don't show me what others people have done in the past.
Look at the calendar: what date is it today?
A nightly build is never a proof that something does not work, much less it does not exist. If you are a developer you should know that already. If you wanna test something, you must try a more stable version
The stable version of ABIv1 doesn't exist. Nobody is interested in ABIv1 builds made 3, 5 and more years ago. So I am trying to use nightly build. Which doesn't exist in the same way. Doesn't start = doesn't exist. You understand this perfectly when your formal logic is good.
https://vmwaros.blogspot.com/2019/10/icaros-64-v000-pre-alpha-is-available.html
Say: thank you paolo. How does this relate to the life of ABIv1 today (27-12-2020)? It doesn't matter.
So trying to deny the facts is just your speech, not reality. And for me this is enough waste of time or energy spent into childish arguments: do as you please. I won't maintain endless discussions in amigaland style.
Fact: you couldn't run nightly build and show us screenshot. ;) If you open the guinness book of records, you will find even more facts there. Only these facts do not concern us in any way. because for us - ordinary people, jumps of 3 meters from a place simply don't exist. I hope this is a clear comparison.
AROS-20201227-pc-x86_64 doesn't start: https://youtu.be/nHH1AYRlBfk (https://youtu.be/nHH1AYRlBfk)
Who would tell you how and why to test something that doesn't start?
And how to switch to ABIv1? Let's say we want to do this: how? ;D
-
(albeit, as I've already said, the specs aren't yet finalized).
Who writes the specs? Does he have coordinates?
If the answer is: everyone writes specifications, then this is the same answer: nobody writes specifications.
No specifications = No plan = No future = No ABIiV1
What was planned to be achieved had to be agreed and described BEFORE the development of ABIv1 began.
If the developers don't know this even now, after so many years, then what should users expect?
AFAIR the specs are written by the core developers, after discussions. They are already available, as Mazze reported, but not yet finalized.
The answer is very simple and very well known, and it was already reported tons of times: AROS developers work on what they like.Which is mostly ABIv1, because that's what they think is the future of AROS (albeit, as I've already said, the specs aren't yet finalized).ABIv0 stays and lives only because there is people like deadwood which is backporting what it's being made on v1. So, enjoy it until this work is being done.Currently the main problem for the ABIv1 is that developers aren't actively working on the most common and promising architectures (x64 AKA x86-64, ARMv7, ARMv8), but are involved on the less interesting, already died long time, and without a future: the 68K one.What's worse is that they forked AROS and are removing (if not even already done) the HIDD and rewriting parts of the o.s. to mimic the crappyness of the original Amiga o.s. (which is strictly tight to the chipset) just to improve the performance on this very under powered platform, which is struggling otherwise (and which is expected, since it's an ultra-outdated hardware: "Pentium" class).Years an years of work to abstract AROS from the hardware which are thrown into the trash can...
Cdimauro before posting you should have a clue what you talk aboutWhich of the Aros devs is involved in 68k currently? Kal not (you see it on changelog). Schulz is developing a kind of Amithlon-solution on ARM. Both are not involved in the vampire related fork. None of the devs involved there was or is active on the main branch, they are new.
It was written by Gunnar (AFAIK), in the Apollo forum, that Kal was contributing to the Vampire, and that two boards were sent to Kal and Schulz.
So, I was assuming that they were involved in the project and in the fork.
And they are only active because of 68k. Nothing is thrown in the trashcan, both are different forks.
A fork isn't a good thing, because it's a waste of resources.
It is planned to give back changes but those will certainly adding features or removing bugs.
Changes should be given back as soon as a binary is released.
The structure of Aros will not change.
Then what happens to the HIDD in the fork?
And if 68k or other architctures will be more successful has to be seen.
68K (as well as PowerPC) is a dead architecture, so there cannot be a discussion about which architecture is successful: certainly not the 68K one.
When someone with the knowledge as Deadwood have, and you question what is right or wrong, you better come up with some dammed good arguments why he stick with ABI v.0!! and do not want to get involved with the ABI v.1 versionI'm not a developer, but ABI v.1 is for sure a mess!!For political reasons he does not want to make a statement about that. It is not war!! if you do not like abi v.0 stay away from it! It is an open source platform, and people do as they want with it.I followed this project almost since the beginning, and one thing I learned is that what might be promised, might never happen!We are not going to take over the world anyway! It is a fun platform that is in the spirit of AmigaOS, and the most powerful there will ever be! Forget multi core, SMP, memory protection, bla bla. It is not going to happen. If that is important to you f... off. End of story!
SMP or 64bit needs dedicated software, who will write it?
Not necessarily. There's a reason why a pillar of AROS is source-level compatibility (binary-compatibility is only about 68K).
MP breaks almost any amiga software.
True. This (as well as resource tracking, and other things) cannot be changed.
You would start at zero then, a modern platform but without software except some 68k software running in emulation. That would hardly convince new users.
Nobody is talking about writing a new o.s. here: the AROS's goal is different.
As I wrote... amiga users must feel at home that means a environment including 68k that makes people forget that they are sitting at a PC and not a new amiga.
paolone already replied to you about it: Amibridge is what you need for integrating 68K stuff in a trasparent way.
And AROS is already giving you the same Amiga o.s. feeling...
-
@cdimauro
That is exactly what I meant with "no clue". That was the case end of 2019 and from this time the post of Gunnar. Kal left all related to vampire if I remember right December 2019. Yes he got a board. The same is true for MSchulz. He got a board and indeed contributed some time but then also left. He has his own project now (a kind of Amithlon on ARM based on Aros 68k). Then Aros was forked, the dev contributing now are involved because they are interested in Aros 68k on Vampire, nothing else. Kal on the other hand has different views so, in my view, forking was best solution. The forked branch does not affect the main branch, even if something is removed there. And regarding future, of course anything 68k related cannot become mainstream again but in amiga terms the 68k market is multiple of all NG related platforms together regarding sales and number of users. How many active Aros (X86) users are there currently should be known to you. BTW I personal do not see the real potential for another exotic OS out there. It is difficult today to really attract new users that not know amiga. The biggest potential are current amiga interested people and people knowing amiga from the past. And 68k is what people know, the biggest software base is there, the most compiler and development environments and so on.
"Not necessarily. There's a reason why a pillar of AROS is source-level compatibility (binary-compatibility is only about 68K)."
I do not understand how this helps... you still need people who adapt software to 64bit and recompile them, SMP-support alone makes no software faster, you need software that uses it. And you need OS-support that makes it possible for software to use it.
Certainly 68k as architecture in the real world is dead but we talk here about a micro market. It would be stupid to compare to one of the big platforms. The platforms we can compare with are exotic platforms (in most cases retro related too). In this niche world 68k as amiga platform is not "dead" (at least it depends how you define dead here). A market is living when it is growing in both number of users and products. This is the case for the amiga 68k market currently.
-
This is how I feel about classic and NG Amiga systems.
Classic Amiga is mainly a gaming, demo scene platform. That is where the system is great. For applications it is mostly not very useful. Maybe for tracking with ProTracker and a few other programs.
For NG systems MorphOS is the most advanced with the best software. What you need there is a dedicated computer for it.
AROS can be run on most computers people have from before. At least hosted or with a VMPlayer.
If you look at how many times AROS been downloaded you will notice there are interest. Even my little distribution is downloaded over 10 000 times.
I'm sure people feel at home after installing AROS. It does for sure feel Amiga, and feels responsive and fast.
I agree with Olaf, and said it myself. It should be a very good Amiga emulator included. That is the first thing people are looking for.
-
This is how I feel about classic and NG Amiga systems.
Classic Amiga is mainly a gaming, demo scene platform. That is where the system is great. For applications it is mostly not very useful. Maybe for tracking with ProTracker and a few other programs.
For NG systems MorphOS is the most advanced with the best software. What you need there is a dedicated computer for it.
AROS can be run on most computers people have from before. At least hosted or with a VMPlayer.
If you look at how many times AROS been downloaded you will notice there are interest. Even my little distribution is downloaded over 10 000 times.
I'm sure people feel at home after installing AROS. It does for sure feel Amiga, and feels responsive and fast.
I agree with Olaf, and said it myself. It should be a very good Amiga emulator included. That is the first thing people are looking for.
I have not really in deep tested Amibridge (only now and then installed Icaros Desktop in virtual environment) so I cannot judge what is already possible and how difficult to install. It would be a good solution if there is not much difference when installing and starting 68k software compared to X86 and the emulation should start and close automatically, at best without being visible at all. On Windows you can define for every application (on Windows 10) that it should run in Win 7 or even Dos. Perhaps something similar could be created, that you define it for every application or game that it runs on A500, A1200 and so on. Just a idea. The screen the programs run in should look like amiga, resources like clipboard should be exhangeable between host environment and 68k software in emulation. Printing of course the same, mounted adf and similar be accessible from host. On the other hand f.e. mounted resources in host environment should be visible in emulated environment (perhaps with different naming). Just a idea how it could be like.
-
This is how I feel about classic and NG Amiga systems.
Classic Amiga is mainly a gaming, demo scene platform. That is where the system is great. For applications it is mostly not very useful. Maybe for tracking with ProTracker and a few other programs.
For NG systems MorphOS is the most advanced with the best software. What you need there is a dedicated computer for it.
AROS can be run on most computers people have from before. At least hosted or with a VMPlayer.
If you look at how many times AROS been downloaded you will notice there are interest. Even my little distribution is downloaded over 10 000 times.
I'm sure people feel at home after installing AROS. It does for sure feel Amiga, and feels responsive and fast.
I agree with Olaf, and said it myself. It should be a very good Amiga emulator included. That is the first thing people are looking for.
I have not really in deep tested Amibridge (only now and then installed Icaros Desktop in virtual environment) so I cannot judge what is already possible and how difficult to install. It would be a good solution if there is not much difference when installing and starting 68k software compared to X86 and the emulation should start and close automatically, at best without being visible at all. On Windows you can define for every application (on Windows 10) that it should run in Win 7 or even Dos. Perhaps something similar could be created, that you define it for every application or game that it runs on A500, A1200 and so on. Just a idea. The screen the programs run in should like like amiga, resources like clipboard should be exhangeable between host environment and 68k software in emulation. Printing of course the same, mounted adf and similar be accessible from host. On the other hand f.e. mounted resources in host environment should be visible in emulated environment (perhaps with different naming). Just a idea how it could be like.
As you say Olaf Amiga is not Amiga. There are different models and configs. There are ECS, AGA and RTG. 68000, 020, 060 etc. etc. On 68k we have whd-load that solves a lot of problems. This program also works under emulation. We even have a whd-load launcher specially made for AROS. To have a solution that is integrated just as running 68k native is not that easy. 98% want to play the old Amiga games and run some demos. AROS is already working great for that but the 68k emulator should be updated.
-
A whdload-luncher?
Something like that... it should be possible to start a game by simple double clicking without even care that it is whdload and you are on X86. In best case without even needing to launch a program for it. The barriers between X86 and 68k should become as invisible as possible. Also resource sharing is important. There should be no basic difference if you use a 68k application or a X86 application. I know that this is propably not easy to do. I just wrote what I assume would be accepted by more people.
-
A whdload-luncher?
Something like that... it should be possible to start a game by simple double clicking without even care that it is whdload and you are on X86. In best case without even needing to launch a program for it. The barriers between X86 and 68k should become as invisible as possible. Also resource sharing is important. There should be no basic difference if you use a 68k application or a X86 application. I know that this is propably not easy to do. I just wrote what I assume would be accepted by more people.
We all know this would be perfect, but not easy.
Most Amiga games are NODOS so you can not simply click on any game to run it.
This whd-load solved on top of a lot of other things.
-
@cdimauro
That is exactly what I meant with "no clue". That was the case end of 2019 and from this time the post of Gunnar. Kal left all related to vampire if I remember right December 2019. Yes he got a board. The same is true for MSchulz. He got a board and indeed contributed some time but then also left. He has his own project now (a kind of Amithlon on ARM based on Aros 68k). Then Aros was forked, the dev contributing now are involved because they are interested in Aros 68k on Vampire, nothing else.
OK. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know those details, which weren't publicly available (at least to me, looking at the usual sites which I frequent).
Kal on the other hand has different views so, in my view, forking was best solution. The forked branch does not affect the main branch, even if something is removed there.
As I've said, if you remove the HIDD to get something similar to the original Amiga o.s. then it's a bad thing, because you're wasting resources.
And regarding future, of course anything 68k related cannot become mainstream again but in amiga terms the 68k market is multiple of all NG related platforms together regarding sales and number of users. How many active Aros (X86) users are there currently should be known to you.
It looks like that the AROS "market share" is bigger than the 68K one, according to the numbers (and only his numbers) that nikos reported...
BTW I personal do not see the real potential for another exotic OS out there. It is difficult today to really attract new users that not know amiga. The biggest potential are current amiga interested people and people knowing amiga from the past. And 68k is what people know, the biggest software base is there, the most compiler and development environments and so on.
Which can run under an emulator, if needed.
"Not necessarily. There's a reason why a pillar of AROS is source-level compatibility (binary-compatibility is only about 68K)."
I do not understand how this helps... you still need people who adapt software to 64bit and recompile them,
If you follow the guidelines you don't need explicit support for 64-bit software (as well as for the endianess): it should be enough to recompile.
However some bug can be left in the code, and it can eventually be easily fixed.
SMP-support alone makes no software faster, you need software that uses it. And you need OS-support that makes it possible for software to use it.
On AROS there's already o.s. support for SMP, and even allowing single applications to run concurrently (e.g.: not requiring explicit SMP support. Just launch them, and let the system assign them to one of the available core / hardware threads) it's already a vast improvement compared to the single-process-for-all-threads Amiga o.s. model, especially nowadays where even cheap phones have several cores.
Certainly 68k as architecture in the real world is dead but we talk here about a micro market. It would be stupid to compare to one of the big platforms. The platforms we can compare with are exotic platforms (in most cases retro related too). In this niche world 68k as amiga platform is not "dead" (at least it depends how you define dead here). A market is living when it is growing in both number of users and products. This is the case for the amiga 68k market currently.
The Amiga 68K "market" is made by the same people which are splitting their interests on one or more of the available "post-Commodore" platforms: AROS, MorphOS, OS4, FS/WinUAE, Minimig/Mist/Vampire/FPGA*.
The only ones from those which are used as a normal platform aren't the 68K ones, because they have not enough processing power, and their are mostly used to run videogames, where compatibility is the biggest needed feature, and WinUAE wins hands down.
Talking about applications, which is the second use case, the non-68K platforms are the most widespread (because you need more resources / performances).
So, the Amiga 68K market is mostly a retrogaming platform: insert the "disk" and play. And it has no future other than that.
68K is dead because it's a legacy platform, and the fact that there's a "FrankenstIEn" (cit.) being actively developed doesn't mean that it's back alive, or will have any chance in the future to increase the market share of the whole Amiga nano-niche.
Even because it's ultra-expensive for what you get, whereas a MiniPC costing a few bucks can give better results in terms of both compatibility (you can configure WinUAE as you want, contrary to all hardware solutions) and performance. There's no point on getting an FPGA/hardware-devices other than people which psychologically needs to "touch the physical hardware" (SIGH!).
A whdload-luncher?
Something like that... it should be possible to start a game by simple double clicking without even care that it is whdload and you are on X86. In best case without even needing to launch a program for it. The barriers between X86 and 68k should become as invisible as possible. Also resource sharing is important. There should be no basic difference if you use a 68k application or a X86 application. I know that this is propably not easy to do. I just wrote what I assume would be accepted by more people.
There always will be differences because you cannot fully integrated 68K and native apps. This can only happen on big-endian & 32-bit systems, like OS4 and MorphOS are doing.
However sharing some resources (filesystem, clipboard, networking, etc.) and intercepting and launching 68K apps or WHDLoad games in a transparent way should be enough.
The best in my opinion is realizing a "virtualizer", like VAMOS, and allowing to run 68K apps transparently on any host o.s., but this requires time as well.
-
Are we going to continue from the old aros-exec forums in that every thread is hijacked with nonsense about ABI's/API"s and whats more, and what or shouldn't be done by the developers etc ?
It was tiring then and even more tiring now and for sure clouds the question related to the original poster. Can't you just start your own wank- or distortion- channel or something ?
-
Please, can a moderator move the above posts in the following thread: https://ae.amigalife.org/index.php?topic=647.msg5707#new ?
-
I have not really in deep tested Amibridge (only now and then installed Icaros Desktop in virtual environment) so I cannot judge what is already possible and how difficult to install. It would be a good solution if there is not much difference when installing and starting 68k software compared to X86 and the emulation should start and close automatically, at best without being visible at all. On Windows you can define for every application (on Windows 10) that it should run in Win 7 or even Dos. Perhaps something similar could be created, that you define it for every application or game that it runs on A500, A1200 and so on. Just a idea. The screen the programs run in should look like amiga, resources like clipboard should be exhangeable between host environment and 68k software in emulation. Printing of course the same, mounted adf and similar be accessible from host. On the other hand f.e. mounted resources in host environment should be visible in emulated environment (perhaps with different naming). Just a idea how it could be like.
I like when people insist describing what Amibridge is all about, in terms of "there should be something doing this, that, and that more".
-
@cdimauro
Apollo team's 68K version of AROS will be a special fork of AROS aimed at replacing AmigaOS at every level, it won't require portability since it will work on some 68K architectures only, with original custom chips and Vampire expansions. So there is no need for the hidd system and for the HAL, which will still be included with main AROS system and ports to other architectures, as usual.