English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 28 June 2016, 23:45   #1
Xebec
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Posts: 51
What Software does 68K Amiga need?

Hi folks!

Just curious.. what are some applications out there that folks wish they had on the Classic Amiga that aren't / are available on other platforms today? Are there any of these seemingly 'simple' to do?

Is there a wishlist out there? I know of the bounty sites but was curious what else there might be..

Thanks!
John
Xebec is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 29 June 2016, 00:08   #2
matthey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
The most needed 68k software is a modern C99/C11/C++ compiler which generates good quality code for the 68020-68060 and has good compatibility with GCC/Clang. One mythical program to create them all.
matthey is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 00:12   #3
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,070
Modern SSH/SSL implementation.
idrougge is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 00:13   #4
DrBong
HOL / AMR Team Member

DrBong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,210
@Xebec
Galahad asked the same basic question in a thread a little while back and got quite a few answers......

http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=77271
DrBong is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 13:31   #5
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
A new operating system that's NOT compatible with AmigaOS.
Thorham is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 13:55   #6
meynaf
son of 68k
meynaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 44
Posts: 2,457
We don't need new software, at least not yet. It's new hardware that's badly needed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by matthey View Post
The most needed 68k software is a modern C99/C11/C++ compiler which generates good quality code for the 68020-68060 and has good compatibility with GCC/Clang. One mythical program to create them all.
And then you'll discover that the hardware is underpowered for the task.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
A new operating system that's NOT compatible with AmigaOS.
And then you'll discover that your brand new operating system doesn't work well with existing hardware.
meynaf is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 14:44   #7
Devlin
Sorcerian

Devlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradford, UK
Age: 31
Posts: 232
I would second a proper SSL/TLS layer for OS3.x

That and the C compiler but then again that is easier said than done.
Devlin is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 14:57   #8
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
And then you'll discover that your brand new operating system doesn't work well with existing hardware.
The problem with a new OS is drivers and software, not that it can't work well with existing hardware. That problem keeps it from being practical.
Thorham is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 15:03   #9
Locutus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
A new operating system that's NOT compatible with AmigaOS.
.....what for? why?
Locutus is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 15:04   #10
meynaf
son of 68k
meynaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 44
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
The problem with a new OS is drivers and software, not that it can't work well with existing hardware. That problem keeps it from being practical.
It can't work well with existing hardware simply because it'll necessarily be more bloat than regular AOS - or else you won't have the features you wish, like full memory protection. Things have a cost.
meynaf is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 15:31   #11
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locutus View Post
.....what for? why?
Because 68k+fastram+chipset can do better than AOS3. That's not to say I really need this to happen, it's hypothetical. Would make for a nice test project, just to see what's really possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
It can't work well with existing hardware simply because it'll necessarily be more bloat than regular AOS - or else you won't have the features you wish, like full memory protection. Things have a cost.
I don't want it to be like Windows 10 Basically the idea is to do what AOS3 does, but better and faster.

As for full memory protection, I've already explained how I want full memory protection to be an option that can be turned on and off at will, where the main purpose is development (an important part of an OS). Just Enforcer slows things down already. Not to a crawl, but still.
Thorham is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 15:44   #12
Daedalus
Registered User

Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 2,322
Would a new OS that included baked-in memory protection not have a similar performance hit to running Enforcer? and to even include the option of memory protection, all parts of the hypothetical OS have to be built with this in mind, meaning no shared memory space for IPC etc., thus slowing things down. Having an option to disable it is fine, but then all the IPC needs to be rerouted to shared memory in order to gain a little efficiency - otherwise why not leave memory protection on all the time. Turning it off won't give you the full speed benefits of not having the option at all, so you're already losing the edge on responsiveness that AOS has.

There's always NetBSD that has reasonable hardware support and memory protection.
Daedalus is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 16:13   #13
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalus View Post
no shared memory space for IPC
Tasks can easily share memory.
Thorham is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 16:49   #14
idrougge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
Tasks can easily share memory.
Yeah, is there any reason that won't work?
idrougge is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 16:57   #15
meynaf
son of 68k
meynaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 44
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
Yeah, is there any reason that won't work?
There can be many.
If you pass a message to another app, then any data in your message needs to be in shared memory, which may involve extra data copying, buffer allocation for strings, etc.
Exec itself has many linked lists, in which items can be located anywhere (new tasks, interrupts, etc, can be in memory allocated by any task). But most of it runs in user mode. And programs walking these lists also do. Because it's much faster this way.
meynaf is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 16:59   #16
Daedalus
Registered User

Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 2,322
@Thorham

Yep, that's fine, but what's to stop another task accessing that memory once it's marked as shared, possibly resulting in corruption? That's not total memory protection when one task can corrupt another's data, even if most memory isn't shared. It just reduces the risk of issues.
Daedalus is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 17:05   #17
ReadOnlyCat
Code Kitten

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Montreal/Canadia
Age: 46
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorham View Post
As for full memory protection, I've already explained how I want full memory protection to be an option that can be turned on and off at will, where the main purpose is development (an important part of an OS).
Well, I want memory protection all the time since I am not interested in one unknown program taking the whole machine down because of a stupid bad pointer while I am busy using it. And that includes my own programs because bugs and crashes will always exist. Also I do not want other programs to be able to spy on my memory. Memory protection forces programs to be clean and properly use proper APIs rather than pilfer around public OS structures and fuck things up for every other well behaved tasks.
Keeping programs well behaved is not my job, it's the OS's. I have better things to do than dichotomic searches of crashing programs/drivers.

Now, whether memory protection is worth the cost on an underpowered 030 is a valid debate to have but then again why would I want to work regularly on such a machine?
ReadOnlyCat is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 17:52   #18
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
Exec itself has many linked lists, in which items can be located anywhere (new tasks, interrupts, etc, can be in memory allocated by any task). But most of it runs in user mode. And programs walking these lists also do. Because it's much faster this way.
Programs don't have any business doing that in most cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalus View Post
@Thorham
Yep, that's fine, but what's to stop another task accessing that memory once it's marked as shared, possibly resulting in corruption? That's not total memory protection when one task can corrupt another's data, even if most memory isn't shared. It just reduces the risk of issues.
The OS can give a receiving task read-only privileges for the received message buffer. If the receiving task wants to reply to the message, it uses it's own buffer, and sends that pointer over. The task that receives the reply then also has read-only privileges for the received buffer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat View Post
Well, I want memory protection all the time since I am not interested in one unknown program taking the whole machine down because of a stupid bad pointer while I am busy using it.
In my hypothetical OS that would mean that you just never turn memory protection off, at the cost of speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat View Post
Keeping programs well behaved is not my job
Yes, it is. Just because the OS doesn't force you to do anything in particular, doesn't mean that you should mess around simply because you can. An OS without memory protection actually forces you to play nice, or your software ends up being crappy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat View Post
Now, whether memory protection is worth the cost on an underpowered 030 is a valid debate
I think everyone can agree that optional memory protection is useful for development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat View Post
but then again why would I want to work regularly on such a machine?
Why use an Amiga, then?
Thorham is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 18:04   #19
DrBong
HOL / AMR Team Member

DrBong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadOnlyCat View Post
Keeping programs well behaved is not my job, it's the OS's.
Sounds OK in theory, but not so much in practice......especially in the retro-computing world.

Quote:
Now, whether memory protection is worth the cost on an underpowered 030 is a valid debate to have but then again why would I want to work regularly on such a machine?
Just like anything else really, because it has the software that suits one's needs/wants. If not, then that's fine too......people can stick with regular use of a modern PC/Mac/WHY.
DrBong is offline  
Old 29 June 2016, 18:08   #20
matthey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
We don't need new software, at least not yet. It's new hardware that's badly needed.
It is the chicken and the egg problem. I agree that we need affordable standard hardware to solve the software problem not that anyone is listening to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
And then you'll discover that the hardware is underpowered for the task.
GCC 2.95.3 did a good job back in the day. Then came newer C standards, GCC bloat and deteriorating code generation quality. If compilers could generate good quality code, the hardware would not feel so underpowered. Compilers need affordable standard hardware to receive development. This gets us back to the chicken and the egg problem.
matthey 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
Dropbox on a 68k Amiga TenLeftFingers Amiga scene 15 18 July 2015 18:03
amiga 68k emulator petee1979 support.OtherUAE 11 28 June 2008 11:07
sdl 68k on my amiga mrodfr support.Apps 0 19 November 2006 17:23
Looking for a 68k amiga coder anakirob Coders. General 0 15 October 2004 06:22
68k Mac software Fissuras Retrogaming General Discussion 9 12 August 2002 11:26

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 08:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.22956 seconds with 11 queries