What's the deal with NG Amiga OS's?

[Samurai_Crow]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

AROS x86 is not good enough to use standalone.
By not support AROS x86 You loose none, but You can gain still very good GUI libraries - MUI and Reaction.

Zune is only compatible with MUI. Reaction doesn't exist in open-source state, let alone AROS.

Also x64 implements memory protection and SMP in the experimental version even if x86 doesn't in the 32-bit form.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

Gorf think that if he lie nobody check.

displaying that kind of attitudes towards everybody that happens not to worship os4 and ppc as an ultimate solution will likely earn you nothing except restrictions on yet another site. instead you can well attribute to people like yourself, when the audience get tired and simply turns away from what you are trying to force them into.

[MartinW]

Since I started this thread a week ago I've spent a week looking at the options as I see them. ALL options struggle on the hardware front as far as I'm concerned, some for very different reasons to others.

I don't really want to try to compare OS4 vs. MorphOS because I don't have real hardware for OS4 and as such I don't like the experience too much. I did fire up the VM last night and it works quite well but without native graphics it's never going to cut it for me and of course I don't want to spend the kind of money that the hardware demands so for now, it remains out of contention.

Out of the other two, I probably like MorphOS the most in terms of it's stability and it's features / look and feel. But again, for what I have available to me the hardware is a problem. I've already said it in this thread but my Mac Mini isn't really suitable for all but the most basic usage. It will do for now but to get something more capable is a bit of a crap-shoot with old hardware and auction sites. I'll keep my eye out.

So, Aros. I geuninely think that despite it clearly getting the hardest time - and it may be that's deserved, I'll not pass judgement on that - it's very promising, but AGAIN hardware is a problem. I can run on a similarly under powered machine to the Mac Mini (a netbook for example) or I've got to go rummaging around for old kit that is maybe not SO old, but still needs IDE mode and graphics cards that I have yet to determine, but it certainly doesn't look like anything that I can buy new?

What is becoming clear is that when I start to dig into ABIv0 Aros (32bit) it is nicely capable. As a user I couldn't care if it has memory protection or SMP (OK, SMP would be nice), as long as it doesn't crash too often and runs quick with good graphics then I don't really care.

So for now I have some options that work well enough to get on and start to get into actually doing some stuff instead of spending my time installing etc. and it's time to see where that leads me

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

Gorf think that if he lie nobody check.
Of course Amiga Os 4 and MOS ar binary compatible with 68k Amiga Os 3.x software.

Please don't accuse other people of lying, just because you don't understand English well enough ...

I wrote AOS4 and MOS binaries are not 68k compatible - and that is true:
they are compiled for PPC and will not run on your 68k Amiga.

So again: please be careful about your attitude.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Minuous

However it's rather meaningless because AROS, for example, is supposed to be one of these "NG" operating systems, yet nearly two decades later they haven't even implemented OS3.9 levels of functionality, let alone OS4.0/4.1.

AROS is way past OS3.9 levels of functionality, it's just that they went a different path from OS3.1 than what H&P did with OS3.5 and OS3.9. To equal the functionality of OS3.9 was never a goal for AROS, API compatibility with OS3.1 was the goal.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Amiga development will be effectively stuck in 1994.

That is perhaps the goal of most Amiga developers

[Minuous]

>AROS is way past OS3.9 levels of functionality

No, it isn't. In fact according to their own page http://www.aros.org/introduction/status/everything.php the OS3.1 implementation is only 82% complete, let alone OS3.5/3.9 support.

>>Amiga development will be effectively stuck in 1994.
>That is perhaps the goal of most Amiga developers

Unfortunately that seems to be the case.

>To equal the functionality of OS3.9 was never a goal for AROS

That is exactly the problem. How can it be an Amiga Replacement Operating System if it doesn't replace AmigaOS?

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Minuous

>AROS is way past OS3.9 levels of functionality

No, it isn't.

Yes it is, SMP and partly memory protection is already mentioned, being able to run on several hardware platforms is also functionality. Being able to use more RAM than 68k AmigaOS can dream of. Plenty of other things are also way beyond what OS3.5+ can offer.

In fact according to their own page http://www.aros.org/introduction/status/everything.php the OS3.1 implementation is only 82% complete, let alone OS3.5/3.9 support.

What do you mean "OS3.5/3.9 support"? What you _should_ mean are v44+ changes to the actual APIs, but I suspect you are for most part talking about 3rd party additions like Reaction etc.

>To equal the functionality of OS3.9 was never a goal for AROS

That is exactly the problem.

Well, ironically, the "official" OS3 developers are facing the same problems as AROS, and are starting on OS3.1 again - even though Hyperion claim ownership to both OS4.1 sources and OS3.1 sources, the OS3.1.4 developers say that Reaction sources - which indeed is part of OS4.1FE - are off limits. Why is that, do you think?

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Minuous

That is exactly the problem. How can it be an Amiga Replacement Operating System if it doesn't replace AmigaOS?

Aha, so that is why you are so confused - the R in AROS was never "Replacement".

[Minuous]

They would be better getting it compatible with AmigaOS first, shouldn't try to run before they can walk. Given that the most AROS software is just ports, I can't see any benefit to adding AROS-specific extensions that are unsupported by everything else (OS3, OS4, MOS).

>What do you mean "OS3.5/3.9 support"? What you _should_ mean are v44+ changes to the actual APIs, but I suspect you are for most part talking about 3rd party additions like Reaction etc.

Just what I said, support for the features of OS3.5/3.9, eg. the V44+ API calls. ReAction is of course a part of the "actual APIs". Just because it isn't in OS3.1 has nothing to do with it. GadTools, ASL, locale.library, BOOPSI itself, etc. were not in AmigaOS once, that doesn't mean anything.

>Well, ironically, the "official" OS3 developers are facing the same problems as AROS, and are starting on OS3.1 again - even though Hyperion claim ownership to both OS4.1 sources and OS3.1 sources, the OS3.1.4 developers say that Reaction sources - which indeed is part of OS4.1FE - are off limits. Why is that, do you think?

I don't know, better to ask Hyperion that. Sounds like you have some theory about it, I'd like to know what it is. In any event, that would not stop AROS supporting ReAction as they say they never look at the source code for what they are reimplementing anyway.

[Samurai_Crow]

Originally Posted by kolla

Aha, so that is why you are so confused - the R in AROS was never "Replacement".

It originally was but later became "AROS Research Operating System" because of a threat of a lawsuit by Amiga Inc. over the name.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Samurai_Crow

It originally was but later became "AROS Research Operating System" because of a threat of a lawsuit by Amiga Inc. over the name.

No, it was Amiga Research Operating System, later AROS Research Operating System for the reasons you mention.

Just look on web archive, mailing lists etc, or for that matter, screenshots...

[Samurai_Crow]

Name sources, Kolla.

It has had 3 names so far. First "Amiga Replacement Operating System", then "Amiga Research Operating System", now "AROS Research Operating System".

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Samurai_Crow

Name sources, Kolla.

It has had 3 names so far. First "Amiga Replacement Operating System", then "Amiga Research Operating System", now "AROS Research Operating System".

Yes, you are right - I see that when I go back to announcements in 1997, it is "Amiga Replacement OS" - however, by end of 1998, it has become "Amiga Research OS". But to put things in context, OS3.5 was released in late 1999.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ce/EcI9Q2lrlBI - v1.11 announcement Sept. 2. 1997 says "replacement"
https://web.archive.org/web/19981201...nz.de:80/aros/ - website from December 1998 says "research"
http://aminet.net/package/misc/antiq/AROS-docs - v1.12b says "research"

Anyways, it has been close to 20 years since the name change suggested that replacing AmigaOS was not a priority.

[plasmab]

I am / get confused when people talk about the "way forward" with the Amiga OS. Amiga OS is what Commodore gave us. Everything since is either tweaks or attempts to grab money from rich fanboys.

There is no "way forward", there is only enjoying what we have using Emulators, FPGAs or Real Hardware.

If anyone is expecting there to suddenly be a huge uptake of a new version of Amiga OS then they need their medication adjusted. I wouldnt be surprised if Windows was gone in ten years. The desktop computer itself is possibly an endangered species. Given that we're never going to see Amiga come back with a new OS.

But thats OK. Because we have AmigaOS 3.1. Enjoy.

[Minuous]

@plasma:

>Amiga OS is what Commodore gave us.

I don't see what's so special about Commodore. That's like saying an Escom A1200 is not a real Amiga, only the Commodore ones are.

>Everything since is either tweaks or attempts to grab money from rich fanboys.

I wouldn't call the enhancements in OS3.5/3.9/4 "tweaks", they are considerably more significant than the enhancements between certain Commodore versions (eg. 2.04 -> 2.1).

I don't recall OS3.9 or OS4.1FE being very expensive and I don't think the developers of them made much money out of them.

[kolla]

@plasmab
I totally agree. Anyone should be allowed to goof around with, develop, program and publish and distribute whatever left-overs there are of Amiga without fear of the so called "exclusive rights holders". But that is not the case today, the "rights holders" are selective about who they strike down upon when it comes to infringements, depending on whether they see some hope of revenue for them down the line or not.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I don't see what's so special about Commodore. That's like saying an Escom A1200 is not a real Amiga, only the Commodore ones are..

Escom did not develop any new products whatsoever (unless you somehow count Walker), they merely kept spinning out what CBM already had done.

I wouldn't call the enhancements in OS3.5/3.9/4 "tweaks"

Oh they full of tweaks, just ask the developers, and rely heavily in incorporating third party code and concepts into the OS.

I don't recall OS3.9 or OS4.1FE being very expensive and I don't think the developers of them made much money out of them.

Of course not - developers making money? Not Amiga developers, that would be a new concept. No, the money went to management, as usual.

[plasmab]

Originally Posted by Minuous

@plasma:

>Amiga OS is what Commodore gave us.

I don't see what's so special about Commodore. That's like saying an Escom A1200 is not a real Amiga, only the Commodore ones are.

>Everything since is either tweaks or attempts to grab money from rich fanboys.

I wouldn't call the enhancements in OS3.5/3.9/4 "tweaks", they are considerably more significant than the enhancements between certain Commodore versions (eg. 2.04 -> 2.1).

I don't recall OS3.9 or OS4.1FE being very expensive and I don't think the developers of them made much money out of them.

I simply think that the evolution of the OS is irrelevant. Being invested in where the OS is "going" is futile. The OS is where it is.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Minuous

>Well, ironically, the "official" OS3 developers are facing the same problems as AROS, and are starting on OS3.1 again - even though Hyperion claim ownership to both OS4.1 sources and OS3.1 sources, the OS3.1.4 developers say that Reaction sources - which indeed is part of OS4.1FE - are off limits. Why is that, do you think?

I don't know, better to ask Hyperion that. Sounds like you have some theory about it, I'd like to know what it is.

My theory is that Hyperion are limited by a contract which only allows them to develop ReAction for OS4+, and not for OS3.

Anyways, personally, I would rather have an updated 68k AmigaOS where everything ReAction is stripped away. (Ideally, I wish the entire Prefs system could be reworked - IPrefs should be modular and talk arexx, so Prefs programs could easily be written using any GUI toolkit or no GUI toolkit at all.)