English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > News

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01 November 2017, 02:27   #21
MartinW
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Will pick this up when it comes out, whoever it has to be bought from.

The whole 3.9 vs 3.1 thing is moot. As was said, they're very different things. For my A1200 that is pretty much just used for games I use 3.1 now as it's nice and quick in 256 colour mode relatively low res WB and I just don't need to extra bells and whistles of 3.9 just to spin up some WHDLoad games, but for my more "pro" 060 machine that will do development and have internet and all the rest of it I use 3.9 and wouldn't want to do without it!
MartinW is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 01 November 2017, 10:53   #22
Gzegzolka
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Warszawa / Polska
Posts: 1,029
Interesting stuff. So why 3.5-3.9 is so different that many of You still stay with 3.1? Is it all about speed or are there any compatibility issues with classic software and games?
Gzegzolka is offline  
Old 01 November 2017, 14:01   #23
kolla
Registered User
kolla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 767
I run OS3.9 everywhere, easier to strip down 3.9 to the level of 3.1 than to patch 3.1.
kolla is offline  
Old 01 November 2017, 16:15   #24
Olaf Barthel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lehrte, Germany
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by grond View Post
Well, I'm just curious what is stopping Hyperion from releasing OS4 for 68k. It looks like it can't be legal reasons any more.
For one thing, the APIs have diverged so much by now that you couldn't "just" backport the software, you would also have to retrofit the missing API functionality in the operating system. That might up to a point be possible, but it will cost you.

These hypothetical changes would cost you in terms of memory and CPU load. On a 1990'ies 68k Amiga this would impose additional limitations on what the operating system could do.

Again, none of these changes are technically impossible, but the target audience would shrink very quickly. I suppose we might already be in the low hundreds of active Amiga users. There is only so far how you can limit the number of Amiga users who might want to use and pay for such changes.

Finally, you'd probably have to toss the idea of having the same code base support both AmigaOS 4 and AmigaOS 68k. You'd have to fork the software and develop both platform branches separately. This is very difficult to pull off successfully, especially considering the circumstances.
Olaf Barthel is offline  
Old 01 November 2017, 21:23   #25
Michael
A1260T/PPC/BV/SCSI/NET

Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Moscow / Russia
Posts: 616
Doing a complete refresh of Reaction GUI would have been a good start and have a huge benefit on compatibility, allowing all the modern prefs and tools from the current OS4 to be recompiled for classic.
Michael is offline  
Old 01 November 2017, 21:38   #26
Amiga4000
Registered User
Amiga4000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Ford Galaxy
Posts: 45
I got to thinking, doesn't Jen's ACA 500+ have AOS3.1 in ROM for reinstalling the system to HDD?

I'm thinking that Jen's must have some sort of agreement with Hyperion for this functionality, and maybe only Jen's can answer this but, will this new OS update be made available, at some point, to download and refresh the OS in the ACA's ROM? Free? Not free?

Also, I am wondering if this AOS3.1 update will be in ROM on the new A1200 Reloaded?
Amiga4000 is offline  
Old 01 November 2017, 22:44   #27
wmaciv
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Savannah, GA / USA
Posts: 17
THIS! I would pay good money for this update; LONG overdue, and written by individuals who understand what counts...
wmaciv is offline  
Old 01 November 2017, 23:07   #28
eXeler0
Registered User

eXeler0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sweden
Age: 43
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olaf Barthel View Post
For one thing, the APIs have diverged so much by now that you couldn't "just" backport the software, you would also have to retrofit the missing API functionality in the operating system. That might up to a point be possible, but it will cost you.

These hypothetical changes would cost you in terms of memory and CPU load. On a 1990'ies 68k Amiga this would impose additional limitations on what the operating system could do.

Again, none of these changes are technically impossible, but the target audience would shrink very quickly. I suppose we might already be in the low hundreds of active Amiga users. There is only so far how you can limit the number of Amiga users who might want to use and pay for such changes.

Finally, you'd probably have to toss the idea of having the same code base support both AmigaOS 4 and AmigaOS 68k. You'd have to fork the software and develop both platform branches separately. This is very difficult to pull off successfully, especially considering the circumstances.
Yes, backporting the entire OS4 to 68k would be a "fools errand". If we are talking realism, it would probably be easier to look at it from the "other side".. Meaning, not what is actually needed or most wanted but what is easy to port and doesn't rely on a bunch of other stuff and simply do that.. (Not likely though..)
But it seems Hyperion are at least seeing that there's some movement in the 68k market likely thanx to Apollo-core. Don't want to sound too cynical, but it seems they are testing the waters with a moderate update and see if they can cash in a little. And frankly that's fine. I'll surely buy whatever patched 3.1.x to support the whole idea... And because I like 3.1 ;-) And because they contacted the right people to make this happen ;-)
eXeler0 is offline  
Old 02 November 2017, 12:37   #29
SnkBitten
Amithlon Fanatic

SnkBitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Lexington, SC / US
Posts: 514
As this continues development will there be ROMs released? Didn't the last update put out for 3.1 only work in emulation as it wasn't possible to burn it to EPROMs and no ROM was ever released (though the changes were extremely small in the KS).

I'd prefer to see the larger HD supported in ROM so you can eliminate the required under 4GB boot partition.
SnkBitten is offline  
Old 02 November 2017, 14:18   #30
Jope
-
Jope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 37
Posts: 6,360
Send a message via Skype™ to Jope
40.72 was released in rom image form and it works fine in a real Amiga when burned to EPROM.

I hope this eventual 3.1.x release will also come in rom + disk form.
Jope is offline  
Old 02 November 2017, 16:30   #31
patrik
Registered User
patrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 37
Posts: 352
@Olaf:

Will a MaxTransfer fix be included for the A600, A1200 and A4000 scsi.device? With fix I mean internally splitting transfers in 0x1fe00 large chunks and not relying on the deprecated ATA1 functionality.
patrik is offline  
Old 02 November 2017, 16:58   #32
SnkBitten
Amithlon Fanatic

SnkBitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Lexington, SC / US
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jope View Post
40.72 was released in rom image form and it works fine in a real Amiga when burned to EPROM.

I hope this eventual 3.1.x release will also come in rom + disk form.
Did that include splitting it for an A4000? I remember reading of complaints in that it couldn't be split by the known tools and rendered to Hi - Lo 256K ROMs.....or something like that.
SnkBitten is offline  
Old 02 November 2017, 17:28   #33
Olaf Barthel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lehrte, Germany
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrik View Post
@Olaf:

Will a MaxTransfer fix be included for the A600, A1200 and A4000 scsi.device? With fix I mean internally splitting transfers in 0x1fe00 large chunks and not relying on the deprecated ATA1 functionality.
Sorry, this is an area in which I must defer to Thomas. Short of tinkering with the less pleasant bits of the partitioning tools, I prefer to steer clear of the mass storage complex (there's probably a reason why "mass" and "mess" sound alike). My brain very nearly exploded when I researched how HDToolBox and scsi.device/hddisk.device of old would interact with the ST-506 interface devices.

That said, these limitations definitely should be respected by the IDE scsi.device, because just about nobody seems to bother checking the MaxTransfer properties of volumes, even if these are properly configured for a change. Some file systems do their best, but you cannot expect data recovery or disk copy software to be as diligent.
Olaf Barthel is offline  
Old 02 November 2017, 18:38   #34
Jope
-
Jope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 37
Posts: 6,360
Send a message via Skype™ to Jope
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnkBitten View Post
Did that include splitting it for an A4000? I remember reading of complaints in that it couldn't be split by the known tools and rendered to Hi - Lo 256K ROMs.....or something like that.
Probably that was the split into modules part, which is relevant if you want to build a custom kickstart for yourself.

A wordwise dissect into lo and hi roms does not care about the contents of the file. If it does, you can switch to a dumber tool.
Jope is offline  
Old 02 November 2017, 18:57   #35
Toni Wilen
WinUAE developer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 42
Posts: 19,957
Does new fastfilesystem support KS 1.x or do I need to do yet another compatibility patch?

Quote:
Maxtransfer
It is fixed (no reads from IDE CHS/LBA registers) if this driver is also based on v52+ scsi.device (which Jens licensed for ACA500/plus).
Toni Wilen is online now  
Old 03 November 2017, 16:30   #36
kolla
Registered User
kolla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 767
Re-implement all Reaction prefs programs from OS3.9 with gtlayout.library <3
kolla is offline  
Old 03 November 2017, 18:31   #37
Locutus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolla View Post
Re-implement all Reaction prefs programs from OS3.9 with gtlayout.library <3
better yet, have all the prefs tools store their shit in human readable formats :-D
Locutus is offline  
Old 03 November 2017, 18:33   #38
kolla
Registered User
kolla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locutus View Post
better yet, have all the prefs tools store their shit in human readable formats :-D

Oh man, that would be crazy... xml, json, yaml... lol

I guess parsing text files would slow down booting considerably, but having alternative prefs program that can take text as input would be great. Like an IPrefs daemon with AREXX port

Last edited by kolla; 03 November 2017 at 18:42.
kolla is offline  
Old 03 November 2017, 20:24   #39
nogginthenog
Amigan

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Posts: 493
A nice alternative is how Olaf's RoadShow config files work. They appear to be parsed with ReadArgs() or similar.

e.g.
Code:
# Each line in this file is read and parsed according to the
# following template:
#
# NAME/A,PASSWORD/K,UID/A/N,GID/A/N,GECOS,DIR,SHELL
nogginthenog is offline  
Old 04 November 2017, 20:19   #40
rare_j
Zone Friend

rare_j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolla View Post
I run OS3.9 everywhere, easier to strip down 3.9 to the level of 3.1 than to patch 3.1.
If there was a strip down guide for 3.9 I think a lot of people would like to try it.
rare_j is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would AmigaOS 3.9 be ok for me? stu232 support.Hardware 12 02 October 2013 19:20
AmigaOS 3.9 PoLoMoTo support.WinUAE 8 27 August 2011 19:06
AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 maddoc666 support.Apps 12 22 February 2010 09:02
AmigaOS koncool request.Apps 6 04 June 2003 18:45
AmigaOS XL sturme New to Emulation or Amiga scene 4 15 January 2002 03:13

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.26908 seconds with 12 queries