Quote:

Although I really like MorphOS and I don't agree that Aros is as close as some might think to catching up, I can see that Aros (and Icaros) appear to be gaining steam and could/should overtake MorphOS and AmigaOS4.1 combined EVENTUALLY, if they continue to gain additional developers in the future, which they may or may not be able to do, depending on the hardware capabilities and availabilities of MOS and/or AOS4.x in the future.

I hope that MorphOS continues to be developed to the point that it has me seriously considering giving up on all other OSes, but how likely is that to really happen? Unless it gets ported to some more modern and available hardware over the next year or two, it will probably die out, as there is only so much time that the old Pegasos' and MacMini computers will last. (They may not last as long as our beloved Classic Amiga computers have, and even if they could, would you really want to be using a Pegasos or a G4 MacMini 15 t o20 years from now? I don't think so.)

[ Edited by amigadave on 2009/9/12 11:21 ]

Quote:
Well... Last time I tested AROS (a few days ago), it was by far behind the very first version of MorphOS I tested (was 1.2, and that was 6 (!) years ago).

Since 1.2, MorphOS has matured a lot, gained a lot of software, had lots of bugfixes/optimisations, to reach current version 2.x. And that's without talking about the excellent graphics work done on skins, icons, user gadgets, backdrops,...

While I have to admit AROS has progressed quite a lot in the last few months, it's still far behind, and really need a focus: what's AROS ? What's the goal ? It seems it's the fans that are driving it...

Sure, it's a lot more accessible (despite compatibility problems, it's a lot easier to find a PC running AROS, than a rare PPC machine running MorphOS), could potentialy attract a lot more users/developers, but for that it should go somewhere...

- I like ARM, let's create a bounty, and port it to ARM. Most of the core libs aren't still complete, but who cares ? I love ARM !
- I'd love to see UAE integrated, ok, let's create a bounty for that.
- etc...

But fact is that MUI clone still isn't complete, there still isn't drag'n'drop,... Everything is uncomplete, the recent Poseidon port showed a lot of bugs that have been known and there for a long time...

I think AROS needs someone to drive it correctly, and resources should be spent to reach this goal, rather than going into multiple directions at the same time, without knowing where.

You may agree or not to the direction followed by MorphOS (I personnaly don't), but at least it's getting somewhere, and development is focused on that direction.

That was my two cents :)

[ Edited by Leo on 2009/9/12 20:08 ]

Did you try the new Icaros Desktop on top of AROS? Not having a I86 PC around anymore can't try it. But your experiences of AROS being a little, err... unfinished is the same as mine.

Despite what I've just said I'm no CPU snob, having an Amiga type OS on Intel looks like the way to go, but AROS just aint doing anything for me.

Also http://anubis-os.org/home/ progress? anyone?

Quote:

Same experience here for Aros / Icaros (latest release).
With being out of the Amiga / Morphos / Aros scene for a couple of years I tried Icaros because I can run it during my train commute to work.
I was excited for a few minutes but the problem is that despite the great improvements in the last year or so it is neither stable nor have a fraction of the software natively I could run on MorphOS back in 2002 !
Icaros is a great thing since it puts together the best pieces you can get on Aros. Unfortunately once you want more there is not much you can do since there are very few Aros binaries.

If only I could run MorphOS in a VM ...

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 24.04.2011 - 07:23 ]

I am running it in a Fusion VM. Maybe this is what renders it unstable.
I think one situation I ran into was poseidon trying to use the USB devices through Fusion USB pass through.
I got cases where my 2 cores went up to 100% with running programs that took a fraction of my G3 and then G4 on morphOS (Scumvm) and continued to do so after closing it. Same thing when attempting a reset.
I do not think I ever had a hard reset. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions too quick but when you run into 3 problems in less then 5 minutes ...
I will give it another try. Maybe it was just bad luck.

Let me clarify my statement about AROS/Icaros overtaking MorphOS someday.

The only reason I say that is because AROS/Icaros is designed for hardware that will most likely still be in production in 5 years, but MorphOS is a big question mark as to what it will be running on by then, and if it will be running on anything that is being produced NEW 5 years from now. I am glad that AROS exists because of its potential future, but I would much rather have MorphOS in the future working on better hardware, than have AROS, unless AROS can truly "Catch Up" with where MorphOS is now and surpass it.

Unless the MorphOS development team grows larger and can somehow port to other platforms faster, they will always be developing for hardware that grows old before any port can be completed, unless it is a standardized platform where they develop for the standard and it works on later hardware designs that are released months or years later. Custom hardware will always have that drawback.

I know it may sound ugly and very "Amiga unlike" but would there be a decent way to run MorphOS in a VM ?
I know virtualization on PPC is no way reaching all the nice features supported on x86 Virtualization products but it would be a good way to abstract the hardware to avoid developping drivers every couple of years for another piece of hardware that will not be for sale anymore at release time ?
Are there any other alternatives to run hosted (Mac On Linux ?) or emulated on x86 (PearPC, QEmu) ?

Running MorphOS inside a virtual machine would not be compatible with the concept of requiring a keyfile that is locked to a particular hardware setup.

Good point. I guess that all the software company doing dongles must have had this problem and found a solution.
Bplan could manufacturate an usb dongle. That would bring some memories for the Scala users :)

Quote:

Well, nobody's forcing you to keep that concept

Quote:

Operating systems done by real men do take real control of real hardware. Virtualization is for sissies.

@Andre

Quote:

Amiga Forever manages it :)

The provided Kickstart ROMs are encrypted and are only unlocked by way of a key provided with the system.

There is no reason you couldn't create some firmware to load into QEMU if the work was worth the time and effort to get MorphOS in an emulated PPC environment on other boxes. That firmware binary could be locked and encrypted in the same way, as could the MorphOS ROM images, in which case you have two layers of security - only a licensed firmware runs with a key and only that licensed firmware can decrypt the locked version of MorphOS. You can tie it to whatever devices on the PC side you like - MAC address, hard disk IDs or whatever, the same way Microsoft does for Windows Genuine Advantage.

All this does in principle is move the licensing out to the host OS instead of "inside MorphOS".

By the way are you sure you wouldn't like to see MorphOS running on something like this?

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-343212.html

"By the way are you sure you wouldn't like to see MorphOS running on something like this?"

Me, no! I would for sure!
Though I'm not able to...

> At one point Genesi announced intentions to bring a 5121e-based
> net-top product to market. Not all that long ago. It didn't have a
> card and wasn't any 5200B. Granny talked about the project and he
> was right in general but he was wrong that it was 5200B.

No, Granny didn't talk about that project. He talked about a former project which indeed was announced by Genesi to use the MPC5200B (plus onboard Volari gfx chip).

> The 5200B has a gfx card slot.

A chip doesn't have a slot. If you mean the Efika 5200B, you are right though.

> The 5121e has onboard gfx.

No, the MPC5121e has on-*chip* gfx, as it is a chip, not a board.

> I and everyone who recalls that announcement knows that it wasn't a
> 5200B.

Yes, I think nobody in his right mind would dispute the fact that an MPC5121e based device doesn't have an MPC5200B. Apart from that, at one (former) point Genesi announced intentions to bring an MPC5200B-based net-top product to market which didn't have a card (but an onboard Volari gfx chip).

> A 5200B device doesn't have onboard gfx.

Why should an MPC5200B mean that the device couldn't have onboard gfx? What about a mainboard with MPC5200B and an onboard gfx chip? In fact, Genesi once announced exactly that (MPC5200B plus onboard Volari gfx chip), and you very well know that fact. At least you would if you read and understood what I wrote to you in that other thread some months ago.

> Genesi didn't go that 5200B route until the Efika.

...which was way before their MPC5121e based announcements.

Hey Neko, how about fixing your site?

Just now, it seems, your "efika netbook" is not longer a "netbook", but a "smartbook", so you changed the page from https://www.genesi-usa.com/products/netbook to https://www.genesi-usa.com/products/smartbook - but all the links from other pages still point to https://www.genesi-usa.com/products/netbook - not very clever.

Anyways, why not pursebook?

@ kolla

Thanks for the note. My mistake.

How about a nicer tone for future bug reports, though? They would be appreciated even more :)

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 26.04.2011 - 05:56 ]

> Freescale, which uses the term to refer to the board (with the gfx
> card slot). Click on the picture if you just can't believe it to be
> true.

What picture? Maybe wrong link? Freescale's evaluation board for the MPC5200B is called Lite5200B, not 5200B. The MPC5200B is the processor and the page you linked to is its product page.
Anyway, why are you suddenly distracting the discussion to Freescale boards when it was about which boards Genesi did or did not announce?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 26.04.2011 - 05:55 ]

> Got to the page and click on "View Product Image."

This picture shows the evaluation board called Lite5200B (already linked to) and the complete development platform called Media5200. Just compare the picture on these product pages to the picture you referred to and you'll see. And is it really that you cannot comprehend that the MPC5200B product page you linked to is about a processor and not about a board? Or you're still playing dumb?

> I'm not distracting

You are. And you're not clever enough for me not noting that.

> I just don't have the time to go with every tiny bit of minutae you
> bring up.

You have so little time that you're suddenly not only discussing Genesi boards but also want to start discussing Freescale boards?

> At least you acknowledge that the discussion was about boards.

Yes, of course, boards with processors on them.

> It was clear I referred to the board.

No, it was not clear that by "5200B" you referred to Freescale's Lite5200B evaluation board when in the sentence before you were refering to Granny's mention of the MPC5200B *processor* and in the next sentence you were refering to the MPC5121e *processor* and generally the discussion is about *Genesi* boards, not Freescale ones.

> Did I not use the exactly proper terminology?

I think you're intentionally being vague hoping your utter cluelessness doesn't shine through. That's one very bad foundation for a factual discussion.

> It was clear I referred to the board.

No, see above.

> The reason that onboard graphics means the board couldn't be 5200B
> is that the 5200B doesn't have onboard graphics.

Is it now Freescale's MPC5200B based evaluation board you call "5200B" again? If yes: What has our discussion about Genesi boards to do with Freescale boards? Nobody ever said that Genesi were going to release the Freescale evaluation board when talking about Genesi's announcement of MPC5200B based board including Volari onboard gfx. Not Granny, not me. Why do you counter-argue with a Freescale board's specification at all, then? That doesn't make the slightest sense. Do you really think that because Freescale's Lite5200B lacks onboard gfx, Genesi/bplan couldn't develop an own MPC5200B based board *with* onboard gfx?

> I don't read all of your posts

You're so misinformed that I conclude that you read nearly none of my posts.

> I don't accept your representations about "MPC5200B with onboard
> Volari gfx chip" as "fact."

You think takemehomegrandma and me are fantasizing? You believe I hacked Genesi's server and placed BBRV's announcement (which I already hinted you at) of a board with MPC5200B and onboard Volari gfx there? Absolutely ridiculous, laughable.

> My recollection is that Genesi was planning to use a Volari 3VXT
> (or whatever the number is) *card* in the Efika (which is based on
> the 5200B board), which is nothing like what you're going on about.

Geez, I explained *it all* to you before in the "Volari" thread, including the differences between these two projects, of which one became reality (Efika Open Client with Volari gfx card, the reason for Frank "pega-1" Mariak to start Volari driver development) and the other (and prior) didn't (MPC5200B based Efika with onboard Volari gfx). It's all in the other thread. You just have to read with a powered on brain.

> I don't have the patience to play these games with you anymore.

You're the only one playing a game here, one of deliberate confusion.

> I don't think you're interested in learning anything

...says the one who obviously doesn't read my posts.

> you just want to argue.

No, I want to set you straight on facts. Which is really hard with you being such a lazy bugger.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 26.04.2011 - 05:54 ]

> No, I'm not distracting.

You are. And you are doing it right now by not answering my factual arguments.

> I'm playing it straight.

Laughable. Everytime you realize your claims are exposed as the nonsense they are, you distract.

> You are the one who is the trickster.

Funny boy, you are.

> I say virtually none of the things you attribute to me in your
> insulting previous post

You said *everything* I "attributed" to you (rather: quoted you) in my previous post. It's all there, just copied.

> anymore than I said "the gfx core" when you originally began
> twisting my words

The only thing twisting was your mind twisting itself. You said everything I "attributed" to you back then.

> oh yes I believe that to be true.

The same as you believe your nonsense claims about Genesi and Freescale boards and Freescale processors to be true, right.

> You're a pathetic little boy

And you're a clueless misinformed lazy bum.

> I hope you grow up and are not still doing this when you are old.

I hope you take yourself the time and read what I wrote *for once*.