> Aros x86 is not source and binary compatible

AROS (no matter the ISA) is source-compatible with AmigaOS 3.1.

> aros has not memory protection, resource tracking, suport for multicore.

Yes, that's because it is source-compatible with AmigaOS 3.1.

> Aros 68k with many patches and libraries made for Amiga Os 68k is
> enough source and binary compatible with Amiga Os 68k.

AROS/m68k doesn't need any "patches and libraries made for Amiga Os 68k" to be source-compatible and binary-compatible with AmigaOS/m68k.

> vampire [...] is still slower than 68060 80 MHz

That's not true from what I can see from reports and videos. Vampire V2 seems about as fast as an accelerator with 120 to 175 MHz 68060.

http://www.apollo-accelerators.com/wiki/doku.php?id=minibench
http://minibench.apollo-accelerators.com

Quote:

I might even be tempted to take up coding again.
Frankly, I never wanted to try to familiarize myself with the 3.1 API in the first place.

@Jim

I did ask him... if I remember right he was praising AmigaOS and now he recommends MorphOS to drop the API

And yes if you make a clean start and accept a very different API you can make something more modern

But I doubt that most existing amiga fans would like it, porting would be more or less impossible and I do not see developers rushing to develop new MorphOS software then

But of course all speculating we do not know what team will make, perhaps they not even know it themselves

The point is that since it will be incompatible anyway, why keep all the legacy problems too? Give people a new reason to use the OS besides using 20 year old software or program like you did 20 years ago.

There are a lot of people saying the same thing: they want an AmigaOS but modern so let's drop the legacy software and be done with it. Those who are only interested in 3.1 will never go NG anyway so their opinions don't count.

I don't see why dropping datatypes would mean that this new OS would become basically a Linux with an AmigaOS skin. Most things would still be there, including the kernel. I think you are reading in too much with what has been said.

@bigfoot

I so hope I will experence this new OS someday not in the far future

Quote:

Not a lot more complicated, and certainly not impossible; if you have enough knowledge to understand how to use datatypes for loading/saving media, it shouldn't be that much of a deal to replace it with Reggae (many well written examples exists), and it opens up a lot of possibilities as a bonus.

Datatypes is obsolete. It should go.

Hopefully it does.


Quote:

I meant *you*, not Andreas...


Quote:

The definition of "success" is kind of crucial in that statement. I think nobody is expecting MorphOS to be a general desktop competitor to Windows or Mac anytime soon, so that is probably not a goal to measure success for anyone. But today MorphOS is tied to PPC, and that platform is rapidly dying. MorphOS has already covered everything worth supporting regarding PPC HW, and MorphOS hit the Amiga legacy boundaries many years ago. MorphOS has come as far as it possibly can on PPC. The alternative to "NG NG" is stagnation and death, and because of this I think most of us will define a continued life and evolution of MorphOS on a new ISA as a success in itself.



Quote:

This may apply to the Amiga retro crowd, but hardly to the MorphOS community. I doubt any MorphOS users ever chose MorphOS for retro reasons (the same goes for OS4 I think). We all had Amigas already, what we wanted was the Next Generation, not the past. The retro segment is a completely different one. The problem with current MorphOS is that it turned out to be neither really retro, nor really modern either. It's stuck in the middle. On a sinking 2005 level PPC ship. A MorphOS NG will hopefully cure this.


Quote:

I'm praising SW that makes use of all the new features introduced by MorphOS, since this was the reason I chose MorphOS over a Workbench 3.1 based Amiga retro system in the first place. Advocating that SW should restrain itself and only use old standards goes totally against everything I want from MorphOS! SoundBankster is a shining bright example of SW that depends on things like MUI and Reggae as well as the upcoming MIDI and isochronous USB. I don't care if Amiga 68k don't have these features, I'm glad MorphOS does (will have). This is an example of how new and evolved features are enabling development of SW that wouldn't be possible otherwise. And hopefully more SW will be developed for a MorphOS that is alive and evolving, than a MorphOS that is stagnating on a dead PPC platform. Your option of just rolling over and die "because it will probably not be successful" seems less feasible to me. I'm glad the MorphOS Team is trying, and hopefully good things will come out of it.


Quote:

Quite possible. So MorphOS should just roll over and die, instead of at least trying to go forward?

MorphOS will have all important Internet applications, it will play movies and music, it will have competent text editors, gfx editors, etc, from the start. It will have a new SDK with a new IDE, and it will have new options and possibilities for non-retro oriented Amiga SW developers that simply aren't here today. Hopefully developers will appreciate this and find good use for it.

> using 20 year old software or program like you did 20 years ago

Amiga software from the 1970s? ;-)

> Most things would still be there, including the kernel.

And the Quark kernel isn't even Amiga-ish ;-)

> MorphOS has already covered everything worth supporting regarding PPC HW
> [...] MorphOS has come as far as it possibly can on PPC.

PCIe-based G5 Macs, anyone? :-)

> 2005 level PPC

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=11137&start=319 :-)

> MUI and Reggae as well as the upcoming MIDI and isochronous USB.
> I don't care if Amiga 68k don't have these features

On AmigaOS/m68k there's been isochronous USB support for 8 years:

http://morph.zone/modules/news/article_storyid_1501.html

MIDI has been supported well on AmigaOS/m68k like forever. And MUI, well, you know for yourself :-)

>PCIe-based G5 Macs, anyone?

That would be a nice addition.

Re:Vampire 2 boards and Apollo core vs. 68060 cards

It would be nice to have a 64-bit OS to take advantage of the new features of the Apollo core not present on the '060. In addition to 64-bit addressing, it has vector support also. If it ends up being "Aros 68k done right" then I'm all for it!

Once I get my V500 baord I'm going to try to hand-compile the AHI software mixing routines for the Paula chip to take advatage of the vector ops to hopefully cut the processor overhead by 75% or so. That should be enough to bring the software mixer in line with the overhead of the other sound-card drivers.

From there it should be possible to mix to the HDMI output once that get's implemented in the FPGA. That way there can be the possibility of surround sound and CD quality sound or better per channel.

Does this sound like the capabilities of a stupid old '060 card to you?

As You may easily find Vampire with core5 in sysspeed is still slower than 68060.
Especially in higher resolutions.
Vampire with core5 get 95,73 MIPS while 68060 80 MHz get 106,10 MIPS.
68k "altivec" is interesting but for now there is no software which use it.

Quote:

This is very good summary of the problems with aros x86.
Aros x86 is not source and binary compatible and has all problems which amiga os has like lack of memory protection, resource tracking, suport for multicore.

>> The point is that since it will be incompatible anyway,
>> why keep all the legacy problems too?

> This is very good summary of the problems with aros x86.
> Aros x86 is not source [...] compatible

As I already told you in comment #42 a week ago, AROS (no matter the ISA) is source-compatible with AmigaOS 3.1.

> and has all problems which amiga os has like lack of memory
> protection, resource tracking, suport for multicore.

As I already told you in comment #42 a week ago, that's because it is source-compatible with AmigaOS 3.1.

AROS is not source-compatible with AmigaOS 3.1.
You have to spend some time coding for aros x86 and You get that most functions from amiga os are not compatible with amiga os because they were never tested with 68k software.
Especially ZUNE is worth nothing crap which is far away from MUI 3.8 from 1997.

> AROS is not source-compatible with AmigaOS 3.1.

It may not be 100% compatible at this point. Actually, it's 82% compatible with AmigaOS 3.1 according to http://aros.sourceforge.net/introduction/status/everything.php (as of 6 years ago), but it clearly aims at full source compatibility, hence the restrictions.

> You get that most functions from amiga os are not compatible with amiga os

I've a hard time believing this "most functions" (i.e. >50%) claim (assuming that one of the two "amiga os" occurences means "aros).

> because they were never tested with 68k software.

Isn't this what OlafSch and wawa have been doing for years?

> ZUNE is worth nothing crap which is far away from MUI 3.8 from 1997.

MUI has not been part of AmigaOS 3.1, so Zune's MUI compatibility status has no bearing on AROS' source compatibility with AmigaOS 3.1.

Quote:

Aros is source compatible, there are small differences on library level like missing or unimplemented fuctions but also new ones compared to 3.5 f.e. but it is very compatible. The 68k branch also is binary compatible and MUI 3.8 and even the newer one (however you call it) can be easily used by copying. Developers are indeed testing it together with Aros 68k and compatibility has improved considerably in recent time. Your posting does not sound like you having any experience with it so where do you know current state of Zune?

[ Editiert durch OlafSch 09.06.2016 - 11:59 ]

Quote:

nobody (or at least almost nobody :) ) realistic expects such a solution outperforming modern hardware. I do not know where you get your numbers, the last information I had wad that it runs comparable to 68060 100 Mhz. Also it includes lots of new commands so software can be optimized and run faster on it. Yes it is a toy and I do not expect it to overrun the market, it is filling a need in the 68k community where people wanted better hardware for their aging amigas and that at least affordable. So it fills the gap there but 68k is still way faster running in UAE on modern hardware. Amiga today is a retro market mainly with at least parts of the community being interested in better software and that needs truecolor, more processing power and more ram (partly much more ram). BTW at the moment all PPC options are toys compared to modern platforms because of no up-to-date browser and no Javascript JIT even beaten by simple smartphones.

[ Editiert durch OlafSch 09.06.2016 - 12:10 ]

>>> vampire [...] is still slower than 68060 80 MHz

>> That's not true from what I can see from reports and videos. Vampire V2
>> seems about as fast as an accelerator with 120 to 175 MHz 68060.

> Vampire with core5 in sysspeed [...] get 95,73 MIPS while
> 68060 80 MHz get 106,10 MIPS.

SysSpeed's MIPS "benchmark" seems flawed, as are most MIPS ratings actually. What are the results of the other SysSpeed benchmarks?

> I do not know where you get your numbers

He wrote where he got (i.e. selectively chose) them from :-)

I do not know how realistic all these benchmarks are. But if it now performs like 68060 80 Mhz or 100 Mhz most amiga users (here I mean the old amigas) do not own one of the rare expensive old accellerators so if you want a upgrade card that is not costing a fortune (if you find one on ebay or other sites at all) you do not have any other realistic chance. It is already offering fast processor, 128 MB and RTG, I think planned is also chipset (SAGA) and better sound.

[ Editiert durch OlafSch 09.06.2016 - 12:08 ]

The MIPS figure for the 68060 are still pretty impressive.
I have a project I am working on (not Amiga related) that uses a 20 MHz 68HC000 and the MIPs/MHz ratio is a fraction of the '060's figure.

But since I need the E output clock, an overclocked 68HC000 is the best option for me.

Sysspeed is well known, reliable benchmark.
Sysspeed works on almost every amiga configuration.
There ara many sysspeed results called modules on aminet.

>> What are the results of the other SysSpeed benchmarks?

> There ara many sysspeed results called modules on aminet.

Unless there're also ones with Vampire2/Apollo results, your answer to my question doesn't make sense.

"Happy" users of vampire post many screenshots from syspeed working on vampire.
Poor performance of vampire is no secret.
You just have to find it.

> "Happy" users of vampire post many screenshots from syspeed working on vampire.
> Poor performance of vampire is no secret. You just have to find it.

Why so secretive? Just give links to some of these "many screenshots" showing also SysSpeed benchmarks other than MIPS for Vampire2/Apollo.

It is easy to find. Just try.