MorphZone

MorphOS x86 I want this badly

Andreas_Wolf

# 101
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> 3.12 Beta was also presented for Classic + PPC?

"3.13 PowerUP Beta" is what it said.
»19.10.19 - 00:48

redrumloa

# 102
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1424 from 2003/4/13

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote:
I use MOS because it run on PPC, it is binary compatible with 68k software and has MUI.
MOS is not good enough to use it exclusively on pc.
It is simply waste of comfort and procesing power of pc.
Without memory protection, unix compatybility, good drivers it will end in vb.
It is not too late to make something usable.
MUI on top of unix may have some chance.

Why do you keep going on a single person rant about MorphOS ceasing to be MorphOS? If you want Linux badly, there are literally thousands of distros out there that you can add Amiga-like icons to and call it a day.
»19.10.19 - 00:52

Roland

# 103
Caterpillar

Posts: 36 from 2013/2/10

Lets hope initial MorphOS will run on my hardware. That will give me a reason to buy a license :)

MorphOS developers can take a look at the Haiku OS source code. This OS is based on BeOS and made the transition from PPC to X64, but lost PPC support. The result is a surprising good and fast OS, and it has drivers for a lot of hardware. I believe HaikuOS is C++ based, I don't know what the MorphOS team uses.
»19.10.19 - 07:38

ppcamiga1

# 104
Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 215 from 2015/8/23

Problem with MOS AMD64 port it is for pc and is not good enough to resign from win/oxs/lnx.
As long as MOS works on something that is not a pc it is nice hobby.
But!!! pc is pc. Buying another pc for hobby is stupid idea.
It is obvious that thing like this should work on any pc, should be as comfortable as win/oxs/lnx.
It means memory protection, unix compatybility, good drivers and necessary tools like java and db.
Othervise it end in vb as worse uae as AROS x86 end.
»19.10.19 - 08:42

takemehomegrandma

# 105
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 2720 from 2003/2/24

Quote:

Buying another pc for hobby is stupid idea.

Unless your hobby is MorphOS of course...

MorphOS is Amiga done right!
MorphOS NG will be AROS done right!
»19.10.19 - 12:38

snurf_T

# 106
Just looking around

Posts: 8 from 2019/8/31

To be honest, I do not care about the hardware (that much anymore!), I just like to run alternative OSs. Preferably Amiga(-like) systems. Since IBM compatibles can be quite cheap, it is a good platform to run those on ;) - And if you need a more modern OS (for whatever) you can easily switch over to GNU/Linux or Windows without the need to start another machine. Sounds very tempting to me.
»19.10.19 - 13:46

Andreas_Wolf

# 107
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Haiku OS [...] is based on BeOS and made the transition from PPC to X64

Actually, BeOS made the transition from PPC to x86 and then Haiku made the transition from x86 to x64 :-)
»19.10.19 - 14:12

ASiegel

# 108
Posts: 1370 from 2003/2/15

From: Central Europe

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
> Haiku OS [...] is based on BeOS and made the transition from PPC to X64

Actually, BeOS made the transition from PPC to x86 and then Haiku made the transition from x86 to x64

Just to add to this, BeOS made the transition from AT&T Hobbit to PowerPC and then x86.
»19.10.19 - 14:31

Everblue

# 109
Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 167 from 2004/1/6

My theory is that once MOS is out for x64 hardware, due to off the shelf availability, more people would be interested, and as a result more devs will jump on board, perhaps even by starting porting over open source stuff.

Feel free to file this under "wishful thinking" :D
»19.10.19 - 14:53

TheMagicM

# 110
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1217 from 2003/6/17

Quote:

Kronos wrote:
Register before you have the HW?

That requires quite some special sauce ;)

ie. if it was released today, I do not have any hardware it can run on. I'd just go and buy MorphOS x64 and figure out the hardware when I get a chance. No point with the silly "try before you buy"...I'd just buy.

EDIT:I see what you're saying now. IOW, no point in waiting in my eyes.

[ Edited by TheMagicM 19.10.2019 - 14:27 ]
»19.10.19 - 20:20

Andreas_Wolf

# 111
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

>> Register before you have the HW?
>> That requires quite some special sauce ;)

> I see what you're saying now.

Do you? ;-)
»19.10.19 - 20:58

terminills

# 112
Butterfly

Posts: 95 from 2012/3/12

Quote:

Kronos wrote:
Register before you have the HW?

That requires quite some special sauce ;)

I usually have all my hardware serial numbers and mac addresses long before I order. >.< :P
»25.10.19 - 11:37

Kronos

# 113
Moderator

Posts: 2236 from 2003/2/24

Would still require hacking RegTool to insert that MAC.
»25.10.19 - 11:57

terminills

# 114
Butterfly

Posts: 95 from 2012/3/12

Quote:

Kronos wrote:
Would still require hacking RegTool to insert that MAC.

crap it doesn't run on my telegraph? :D
»25.10.19 - 12:44

vox

# 115
Priest of the Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 524 from 2003/11/25

From: Belgrade

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
> 3.12 Beta was also presented for Classic + PPC?

"3.13 PowerUP Beta" is what it said.

True. Is x64 3.13 beta also?
------------------------------------------
iMac G5 1GB with MorphOS and MacOS X
Lame PC with AmiKit XE
YT channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdHl_msNWHEVPf229h_gijQ
Telegram Amiga group: https://t.me/amigaranchorelaxo
»25.10.19 - 13:31

Andreas_Wolf

# 116
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Is x64 3.13 beta also?

See the video (at 0:43) linked in your comment #95 from your Youtube channel.
»25.10.19 - 14:29

kriz

# 117
Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 309 from 2005/10/18

From: No(R)way

Will be really nice to have on Amd64 or similar x86, fast enough hardware for high quality videos and hopefully "easier" to port/maintain web browser ... Any more news about this btw ?
MacMiniG4 MOS 3.18 rulez ... For music check: Horrordelic Records - Dark Psychedelic Music Since 2011 -
»21.02.20 - 22:06

Andreas_Wolf

# 118
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Amd64 or similar x86

AMD64 ist just another name for x86-64. Intel's CPUs also use AMD64 ISA.
»21.02.20 - 22:33

kriz

# 119
Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 309 from 2005/10/18

From: No(R)way

Yes for sure :) x86 is what we always said before at least, even if there were a lot of different cpu makers even then.. Maye best optimized for Amd64 though ?
MacMiniG4 MOS 3.18 rulez ... For music check: Horrordelic Records - Dark Psychedelic Music Since 2011 -
»03.03.20 - 23:03

Andreas_Wolf

# 120
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

>>> Amd64 or similar x86

>> AMD64 ist just another name for x86-64. Intel's CPUs also use AMD64 ISA.

> x86 is what we always said before at least, even if there were a lot of different
> cpu makers even then.

Exactly, that's why "similar x86" doesn't make sense.

> Maye best optimized for Amd64 though ?

What should that mean? If it is 64-bit, it's automatically AMD64. There is no other 64-bit ISA in x86 world than AMD64.
»04.03.20 - 22:44

vox

# 121
Priest of the Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 524 from 2003/11/25

From: Belgrade

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
What should that mean? If it is 64-bit, it's automatically AMD64. There is no other 64-bit ISA in x86 world than AMD64.

In gereneral terms yes. But there used to be differences in supported post MMX instructions, levels of cache and core design, and AMD64 (As opposed to i7 or Itanium) optimisations are still possible, using those. I have not being bored enough to compare late designs, such things made more in K10 CPU era / PII-PIII.

Nowaday, PeCee coders are laisy anyway.

However, since you do pick certain boards and CPUs (I assume FM2+ or Ryzen socketed boards)
question completely makes sense, beside noob nosepicking.
------------------------------------------
iMac G5 1GB with MorphOS and MacOS X
Lame PC with AmiKit XE
YT channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdHl_msNWHEVPf229h_gijQ
Telegram Amiga group: https://t.me/amigaranchorelaxo
»12.03.20 - 00:41

Andreas_Wolf

# 122
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

>> If it is 64-bit, it's automatically AMD64. There is no other
>> 64-bit ISA in x86 world than AMD64.

> In gereneral terms yes. But there used to be differences

Indeed, there are very subtle differences between AMD's and Intel's interpretation of the ISA. And yes, they may be relevant for OS developers. I'm not sure kriz was referring to those.

> in supported post MMX instructions

Not according to the Wikipedia article linked above.

> levels of cache and core design

These are not instruction set architecture level but microarchitecture level.

> AMD64 (As opposed to i7 or Itanium) optimisations are still possible, using those.

Itanium (IA-64) is a completely distinct ISA which just happens to be invented by Intel. It has nothing to do with x86-64, AMD64 etc.

> I have not being bored enough to compare late designs

Mind you, this is not about differences in microarchitectural design, which are of course enormous between AMD CPUs and Intel CPUs, and even between different CPU families from either manufacturer. This is about programming an OS against an instruction set architecture, which abstracts from the microarchitectural differences.

> since you do pick certain boards and CPUs [...] question completely makes sense

This decision for certain boards and CPUs has to do with providing drivers for the on-chip controllers and on-board peripherals (as well as long-term availability of the board), not with the ISA peculiarities of the used CPU.
»12.03.20 - 09:47

terminills

# 123
Butterfly

Posts: 95 from 2012/3/12

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
>> If it is 64-bit, it's automatically AMD64. There is no other
>> 64-bit ISA in x86 world than AMD64.

> In gereneral terms yes. But there used to be differences

Indeed, there are very subtle differences between AMD's and Intel's interpretation of the ISA. And yes, they may be relevant for OS developers. I'm not sure kriz was referring to those.

> in supported post MMX instructions

Not according to the Wikipedia article linked above.

> levels of cache and core design

These are not instruction set architecture level but microarchitecture level.

> AMD64 (As opposed to i7 or Itanium) optimisations are still possible, using those.

Itanium (IA-64) is a completely distinct ISA which just happens to be invented by Intel. It has nothing to do with x86-64, AMD64 etc.

> I have not being bored enough to compare late designs

Mind you, this is not about differences in microarchitectural design, which are of course enormous between AMD CPUs and Intel CPUs, and even between different CPU families from either manufacturer. This is about programming an OS against an instruction set architecture, which abstracts from the microarchitectural differences.

> since you do pick certain boards and CPUs [...] question completely makes sense

This decision for certain boards and CPUs has to do with providing drivers for the on-chip controllers and on-board peripherals (as well as long-term availability of the board), not with the ISA peculiarities of the used CPU.

To be clear technically the development of IA64 actually started at HP and then became a join venture with intel. The HP PA-Risc was a IA64 chip. So technically IA64 would be the correct future according to C= for all Amiga based OSes. lol :D
»12.03.20 - 10:49

Andreas_Wolf

# 124
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12074 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

>> Itanium (IA-64) [...] just happens to be invented by Intel.

> the development of IA64 actually started at HP and then became a join venture with intel.

You are correct. Thanks for the correction.

> The HP PA-Risc was a IA64 chip.

No, the ISAs are completely different. Even the underlying paradigms are completely different (RISC vs. EPIC).
»12.03.20 - 13:11

terminills

# 125
Butterfly

Posts: 95 from 2012/3/12

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
>> Itanium (IA-64) [...] just happens to be invented by Intel.

> the development of IA64 actually started at HP and then became a join venture with intel.

You are correct. Thanks for the correction.

> The HP PA-Risc was a IA64 chip.

No, the ISAs are completely different. Even the underlying paradigms are completely different (RISC vs. EPIC).

whoops... Yeah to early was basing off of memory.
»12.03.20 - 19:07