English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08 January 2016, 09:25   #161
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 39
Posts: 1,498
@Olaf Barthel

Speaking about differences between 3.1 and 3.5/3.9, could youu shed some light on the compilers used for 3.5/3.9?

At first sight, it seems that some code on 3.5/3.9 was compiled with StormC. Did you still use GreenHills for that one?

Thank you in advance
gulliver is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 08 January 2016, 09:50   #162
Olaf Barthel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lehrte, Germany
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliver View Post
@Olaf Barthel

Speaking about differences between 3.1 and 3.5/3.9, could youu shed some light on the compilers used for 3.5/3.9?

At first sight, it seems that some code on 3.5/3.9 was compiled with StormC. Did you still use GreenHills for that one?
Those components which Haage & Partner produced may have been created using StormC (I did not check). As for the components which replaced existing Commodore-created software (e.g. icon.library) or updated them (e.g. workbench.library, printer.device), these were all created with SAS/C 6.59.

The Green Hills compiler by that time had long lost its relevance. It had been necessary to compile intuition.library, was used for certain printer drivers, but that was it. Nobody at the time (1998/1999) would have found it necessary, helpful or even useful: it did not support ANSI 'C', there was no source level debugger, and the list goes on.

Last edited by Olaf Barthel; 08 January 2016 at 11:10. Reason: It was SAS/C 6.59 after all.
Olaf Barthel is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 10:38   #163
Gzegzolka
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Warszawa / Polska
Posts: 1,029
Thanks Olaf for answer. So would it be wise to switch from wb 3.1 to 3.9? And try to fix and update 3.9 if it's more actual and still compatible? I left amiga scene in 98 and have no idea what had happens next (I use winuae with wb3.1 because I have it on my real amiga). Would result of tweaking 3.1 be doomed to end as 3.5/3.9? Aren't people lose their time?
Gzegzolka is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 11:31   #164
Olaf Barthel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lehrte, Germany
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzegzolka View Post
Thanks Olaf for answer. So would it be wise to switch from wb 3.1 to 3.9? And try to fix and update 3.9 if it's more actual and still compatible? I left amiga scene in 98 and have no idea what had happens next (I use winuae with wb3.1 because I have it on my real amiga).
Regardless of its flaws and the abrupt termination of development work on the 68k AmigaOS 3.x branch I would still consider the Workbench 3.5/3.9 updates to be worthwhile. A lot of work went into improving the stability and quality of the software.

It may not sound like much, but for example the datatypes are a lot more robust and functionally complete (3.1 sound.datatype did not play stereo sound correctly - 3.5 sound.datatype did; 3.1 anim.datatype was very crash prone - 3.5 anim.datatype performed a huge number of sanity checks on the data, it also supported many more IFF-ANIM formats than the 3.1 version). This is just one of example of how the overall software quality improved significantly during the 3.5 development work.

Many parts of the user interface had been revamped for the 3.5 update. It looks and works differently. Significantly more changes happened under the hood in order to provide more robust performance.

The 3.5 update was the kind of update we, the developers, were keen to use.

Quote:
Would result of tweaking 3.1 be doomed to end as 3.5/3.9? Aren't people lose their time?
From my point of view (I had/have been heavily involved in the 3.5 and 3.9 updates, and subsequently AmigaOS 4) I doubt that enhancing the 3.1 code from its late 1994 state makes good sense.

I already did that three times so far, and while each iteration brought new challenges and changes (e.g. we cleaned up all the shell commands during the transition to AmigaOS 4), you look back at a mountain of work and wonder how everybody involved managed to pull it off.

Starting over from the 3.1 code without the benefit of having access to the massive set of changes that occured during the development of the 3.5 and 3.9 updates I would consider exceptionally challenging. For starters, one would have to make the old code build and work correctly again, which is very tough to begin with. Enough said
Olaf Barthel is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 12:38   #165
jayminer
Registered User

jayminer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Umeå / Sweden
Posts: 164
I really do like 3.9 and think it's a good improvement over 3.1, what I don't like is GlowIcons, I don't like how they look and they are really slow so I always replace them with MagicWB instead, and then 3.9 feels just as fast and a little more modern than 3.1.
jayminer is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 13:22   #166
Minuous
Coder/webmaster/gamer
Minuous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canberra/Australia
Posts: 1,658
OS3.9 is far superior to OS3.1 of course. I feel crippled when having to use, or code for, OS3.1... :-(

Anyway, I have compiled a preliminary "Undocumented AmigaOS" document. It is available from my site at http://amigan.1emu.net/releases/

Before anyone yells, I am not necessarily advocating use of any private functions. Still it is interesting reading at least.

@gulliver: are any of these later versions than OS3.9 and/or have functionality not in OS3.9?

@jayminer: are you using BB4 (ie. the faster icon.library)?

Last edited by Minuous; 08 January 2016 at 13:59.
Minuous is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 14:00   #167
Olaf Barthel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lehrte, Germany
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayminer View Post
I really do like 3.9 and think it's a good improvement over 3.1, what I don't like is GlowIcons, I don't like how they look and they are really slow so I always replace them with MagicWB instead, and then 3.9 feels just as fast and a little more modern than 3.1.
The slowness is a result of the shortcomings of the workbench.library/icon.library architecture.

Workbench has to scan the contents of a directory and at the same time figure out what to do with the icons when it encounters them.

Directory scanning in general is slow to begin with, but reading the icons throws another spanner into the works, so to speak. There is no cache, and there is no shortcut to reading only the icon file portions immediately relevant for Workbench (that would be the image data).

What does help to cut down the scanning times is to use icon files which are small and can be read quickly, and limiting the number of files stored in a drawer.
Olaf Barthel is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 17:11   #168
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,076
Wouldn't it have helped not to read the icons when opening a window in list view?
idrougge is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 18:51   #169
RobertJDohnert
 
Posts: n/a
Amiga OS 3.1 Source code leaked yesterday

You can stand by it all you want but its wrong. Plain and simple. Secondly, when did you become a spokesman or an employee for Hyperion or Cloanto? I dont know what kind of strange perversion you are getting out of this whole ordeal but its over. Really this whole leak is none of your business or non of your affair. If you turned in Github or any of the other 10 download sites you can get it from now, good for you. You deserve a lollipop. But otherwise man get on with real life. I sure as hell wouldnt be making defensive statements for either of those companies unless they paid me a crap ton of money to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olaf Barthel View Post
I am sorry, there is more to it, and I stand by my statement.

The day the repository went up (Thursday, December 31st 2015) a DMCA takedown notice was submitted to GitHub. That takedown notice was not processed until Monday, January 4th 2015, but not executed. The notice came back with a request to resubmit it.

This was frustrating, as you can imagine.
 
Old 08 January 2016, 20:11   #170
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 39
Posts: 1,498
@Minuous

Filename, Size, Version, and Date

utilities/clock 13164 42.1 (4.2.94)
libs/locale.library 17272 42.1 (23.8.93)
libs/iffparse.library 5852 42.2 (16.8.93)
l/CrossDOSFileSystem 27640 40.24 (21.10.93)
classes/images/led.image 2924 42.1 (24.2.94)
classes/gadgets/tabs.gadget 6008 42.3 (23.2.94)
c/wait 976 42.1 (12.7.93)
c/sort 2280 42.1 (9.8.93)
c/binddrivers 1248 42.1 (27.8.93)

classes/datatypes/pcx.datatype 4160 42.1 (31.7.93)
classes/datatypes/macpaint.datatype 2532 42.1 (2.8.93)
classes/datatypes/ico.datatype 2024 42.1 (30.7.93)

Notes:
Regarding these last three datatypes, you can find even newer official versions on Aminet (picdt_42_1.lha).

I also intentionally omitted from this list cdaudio, cdprefs, and player.library since they seem to provide less functionality than what PlayCD offers on 3.9.

Note 2:
You can find on Aminet (GI1_led_ic.lha) further official updates:
led.image 42.2 (7.3.94)
calendar.gadget (11.3.94)

And in picdt_42_1.lha there is also a .bmp datatype

Last edited by gulliver; 08 January 2016 at 23:16. Reason: Information update
gulliver is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 20:47   #171
nogginthenog
Amigan

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliver View Post
@Minuous

Filename, Size, Version, and Date

utilities/clock 13164 42.1 (4.2.94)
libs/locale.library 17272 42.1 (23.8.93)
libs/iffparse.library 5852 42.2 (16.8.93)
l/CrossDOSFileSystem 27640 40.24 (21.10.93)
classes/images/led.image 2924 42.1 (24.2.94)
classes/gadgets/tabs.gadget 6008 42.3 (23.2.94)
c/wait 976 42.1 (12.7.93)
c/sort 2280 42.1 (9.8.93)
c/binddrivers 1248 42.1 (27.8.93)

classes/datatypes/pcx.datatype 4160 42.1 (31.7.93)
classes/datatypes/macpaint.datatype 2532 42.1 (2.8.93)
classes/datatypes/ico.datatype 2024 42.1 (30.7.93)
Some of these are newer than the versions on the AmigaOS3.9 CD!

clock 40.1 (25/08/93)
iffparse.library 40.1 (09/02/93)
CrossDOSFileSystem 40.19 (09/06/93)
wait 37.3 (05/04/91)
sort 37.3 (06/06/91)
binddrivers 38.2 (31/03/92)

Unless I am doing something stupid
nogginthenog is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 21:04   #172
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 39
Posts: 1,498
@noggingthenog

Yes, all of them. That was my postīs point
gulliver is offline  
Old 08 January 2016, 22:35   #173
nogginthenog
Amigan

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliver View Post
@noggingthenog

Yes, all of them. That was my postīs point
Sorry, I thought you was comparing to 3.1 :-)
Looking at the wait command I can only see a 37.3 binary so I assume you are looking at the source.

Wait V42 has an additional FILE parameter (wait for file). This seems like quite a nice addition.

I found a note here about v42: http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/wb_b32_40.html
Quote:
Heinz Wrobel corrects Holger Kruse's earlier comments in regards to v42: "V42 was not used for stuff done by/for Amiga Technologies/Amiga International. V43 is the number." Holger's earlier comments read as follows: "V42 was used for a few modules of an internal WB 3.2 alpha version, consisting, among other things, of some new and updated shell commands ("list" with sort function, "owner" etc.), which were eventually distributed with Envoy. This happened in the first half of 1993, i.e. before Commodore died and long before AT took over. AT later continued to use the version number V42 for its own stuff though (Setpatch etc.)."
nogginthenog is offline  
Old 09 January 2016, 10:05   #174
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 39
Posts: 1,498
Just checked kickstart modules to see what was new since 3.1:

dos.library 42.1 (also newer than AmigaOS 3.9)
filesystem.resource 42.3
filesystem 40.4
intuition.library 42.86 (also newer than AmigaOS 3.9)
shell 42.1
gulliver is offline  
Old 09 January 2016, 12:38   #175
Minuous
Coder/webmaster/gamer
Minuous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canberra/Australia
Posts: 1,658
For those components that are newer than the OS3.9 versions, they can be considered for inclusion in BB4 V1.2, after sufficient testing/code review.
Minuous is offline  
Old 09 January 2016, 14:35   #176
Locutus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 768
Just because the version number is higher doesn't mean they are 'newer' or 'better' then the ones included in OS3.9......
Locutus is offline  
Old 09 January 2016, 17:31   #177
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 39
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locutus View Post
Just because the version number is higher doesn't mean they are 'newer' or 'better' then the ones included in OS3.9......
hahaha, remember this a is a source leak, there is no hidden secret
gulliver is offline  
Old 09 January 2016, 18:49   #178
Minuous
Coder/webmaster/gamer
Minuous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canberra/Australia
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locutus View Post
Just because the version number is higher doesn't mean they are 'newer' or 'better' then the ones included in OS3.9......
Of course for components that were upgraded for OS3.5/3.9 (V44/45) these wouldn't be replaced with V41/V42 components. I'm only talking about those OS3.1 components (V40) that were unchanged in OS3.5/3.9 (which is not many, contrary to myth).

For example, to take the first 3 from gulliver's list:
OS3.9 Clock is 40.1 (25/8/93), this could be replaced with clock 42.1 (4.2.94)
OS3.9 locale.library is 44.6 (7/11/99), so wouldn't replace it with locale.library 42.1 (23.8.93)
OS3.9 iffparse.library is 40.1 (9/2/93), this could be replaced with iffparse.library 42.2 (16.8.93)
Minuous is offline  
Old 09 January 2016, 19:08   #179
xArtx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 637
Was that Boing demo ever released on a demo disk or something?
I’m not sure if I’ve seen the real one or remakes of it.
xArtx is offline  
Old 09 January 2016, 19:33   #180
kamelito
Zone Friend
kamelito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: France
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertJDohnert View Post
You can stand by it all you want but its wrong. Plain and simple. Secondly, when did you become a spokesman or an employee for Hyperion or Cloanto? I dont know what kind of strange perversion you are getting out of this whole ordeal but its over. Really this whole leak is none of your business or non of your affair. If you turned in Github or any of the other 10 download sites you can get it from now, good for you. You deserve a lollipop. But otherwise man get on with real life. I sure as hell wouldnt be making defensive statements for either of those companies unless they paid me a crap ton of money to do it.
He's writing interesting posts, I can't say the same thing about the quote above.
Kamelito
kamelito 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
games with source code available which could be release on amiga ? turrican3 support.Games 12 20 December 2013 16:44
Petition Team17 to release old Amiga games source code Conundrum Retrogaming General Discussion 8 11 October 2012 03:28
Misc Amiga Assembler Source Code copse Coders. General 11 16 December 2009 12:06
Commercial Amiga Disks with source code on it. redblade Coders. General 5 16 November 2009 11:10
Source code for commercial Amiga software Minuous request.Other 5 31 March 2009 06:53

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 22:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.23914 seconds with 11 queries