AmigaOS 3.2 and beyond

[alpine9000]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

If old games are your only desire, that is the best option.

It's not just old games - new games have this problem. And the reason that you have not seen it reported, is this is the workflow:

(1) New game developed by developer using 3.1 and uses as much chip ram as possible, squeezing every last asset into ram to make the game as awesome as possible.

(2) User tries on 3.1.4 and game fails - complains to developer. Developer buys 3.1.4 roms, tests game - indeed 3.1.4 uses more chip ram than 3.1 - we assume for good reason - so developer removes assets from game, making game worse - now works in 3.1.4

At no point does anyone complain to the OS developers, because we all assumed it used more chip ram for a good reason!

Not so a small number of people that run Mac emulators on their Amigas can avoid a reboot, or so the OS developers can remove a "hack".

The regression is real - many people have put 3.1.4+ roms in Amigas with 1mb of chip ram - I wonder how many know the real reason they have less chip ram now ?

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by malko

I am afraid you are not joking here...
For years, coders complain that OS calls do not allow enough flexibility/ressources/speed comparing to banging directly the hardware.
So instead of listening to coders and go the requested way, new implementation and bug fixing for the OS add more restrictions ... This is one of the smartest 'discours' I have ever heard .

Again, what is the problem? Developing for a 512K only machine? Sorry, not relevant for 3.2. The Os will require a bit more RAM, and it's really cheap to get these days.

Originally Posted by malko

By reading your replies, I now get picked by the real roadmap behind the OS updates if MAC emulation seems so important that it requires to be integrated in the AmigaOS from boot up...

It solves a convenience problem, and yes, that's more important than a 24K loss problem. RAM is cheap, and the Os needs in total a lot more RAM than 24K anyhow. Minimum specs for the Os is a bit more than 512K.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

It's not just old games - new games have this problem.

Which new games? The ones you make up for the sake of the argument?


Once again, be concrete. And no, I do not care about "demos".

Originally Posted by alpine9000

(1) New game developed by developer using 3.1 and uses as much chip ram as possible, squeezing every last asset into ram to make the game as awesome as possible.

In which concrete case is 24K an issue?

Originally Posted by alpine9000

(2) User tries on 3.1.4 and game fails - complains to developer. Developer buys 3.1.4 roms, tests game - indeed 3.1.4 uses more chip ram than 3.1 - we assume for good reason - so developer removes assets from game, making game worse - now works in 3.1.4

Then you better develop the game knowing the Os and its restrictions, and not trying to smart out the system. Or tell the user to use MoveMemLow. Not a problem either. There is no guarantee that a particular amount of RAM is available once the Os is under control. This is a multitasking system - you have always to consider the situation that you don't have all RAM available for you. How much RAM is available depends on which applications have been launched on the workbench, which other tools and extensions have been loaded, and the amount of RAM necessary for such tools is much larger than 24K. Os 3.2 is *not* for a 512K bare metal machine. Deal with it, that's not sufficient for providing new features.

Originally Posted by alpine9000

The regression is real

So real that you couldn't come up with a single case where it matters, and where the reboot cannot be tolerated?



It's again one of those Amiga stories... Complaining for the sake of complaining. I provided even a solution.

[alpine9000]

@Thomas

It seems to me you do not understand Amiga game development. You don't realise the difference 24k can make to a game, or the efforts game developers will go to recover 24k. You also seem to not understand how many games work - booting from a floppy and trying to use all available ram while still taking advantage of OS functions (dos for example).

I am not going to list names of games that don't work - because ? They have been "fixed" and now work after being modified to work with less chip ram.

If a reboot can be tolerated for a gamer, why not for Mac emulation ? I wish game developers had the same inside track on the OS the Mac emulator writers have!

Is there even a legal Mac emulator available for purchase at the moment ?

[malko]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

[...] Deal with it, that's not sufficient for providing new features. [...]
So real that you couldn't come up with a single case where it matters, and where the reboot cannot be tolerated? [...]
It's again one of those Amiga stories... Complaining for the sake of complaining. I provided even a solution.

(Read previous posts from 1899 to see how 'twilight zone' this answer is...)

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

It seems to me you do not understand Amiga game development.

I understand the principles of robust software development. Thank you, I do. That's part of my job. Yes, if you are so tight that 24K matters, you're doing something wrong.

Originally Posted by alpine9000

You don't realise the difference 24k can make to a game, or the efforts game developers will go to recover 24k.

I do not care. Get your job done, properly. Take care of the situation that you do not have all RAM. Do not make your software so tight, or provide reasonable requirements for it so it is not tight for your customer.

Originally Posted by alpine9000

You also seem to not understand how many games work - booting from a floppy and trying to use all available ram while still taking advantage of OS functions (dos for example).

Which ones? Again, make an example. Your unwillingness or unabilitiy to provide one says more than anything else.

Originally Posted by alpine9000

I am not going to list names of games that don't work - because ?

...you just want to complain. I fully understand. Troll off. Thank you.

Originally Posted by alpine9000

If a reboot can be tolerated for a gamer, why not for Mac emulation ? I wish game developers had the same inside track on the OS the Mac emulator writers have!

Which games? There is really nothing on the table here. Stop the nonsense. I don't care about an abstract situation that makes no practical difference.

Originally Posted by alpine9000

Is there even a legal Mac emulator available for purchase at the moment ?

People own shapeshifter, people use it. People also use games. No issue. Just apparently nothing on the table where it matters. If you have a self-booting floppy with a game on it, and it really matters because the developer didn't know better, use MoveMemLow, put it there. It doesn't hurt on a non-3.1.4 system.

[alpine9000]

Wow - no need to start name calling - seems you are shooting the messenger?

You know my position - rebootless Mac emulation is not worth losing 24k of chip ram - your position is that it is.

I think we can leave it at that.

[malko]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

[...] I do not care. Get your job done, properly. Take care of the situation that you do not have all RAM. Do not make your software so tight, or provide reasonable requirements for it so it is not tight for your customer. [...]

"de Charybde en Scilla".
Not that I am against hardware tuning (I did a lot BitD - gfx card, accelerator board, chip extension, fast ram extension, HD, ... - almost all my teenager money), but when it comes to the OS it has to target the most user base.
So the "I don't care non MAC emulators users" you are using is a speech from outer space...

If you want to encourage people upgrading their hardware, provide useful applications. Don't make the OS bloatware. We have enough of that kind already.

Originally Posted by alpine9000

[...] rebootless Mac emulation is not worth losing 24k of chip ram [...]

+1

[boemann]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

Wow - no need to start name calling - seems you are shooting the messenger?

You know my position - rebootless Mac emulation is not worth losing 24k of chip ram - your position is that it is.

I think we can leave it at that.

The current developers of AmigaOS 3 have followed this debate and will come up with a solution. It it our position that catering for MacOS emulation is not the job of AmigaOS.

What this means in detail we have yet to decide.

[girv]

13.3 * I have now 28 KB less Chip RAM

When in the boot sequence is this allocated?

[Michael]

Originally Posted by girv

When in the boot sequence is this allocated?

Very early on before the system is up

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by malko

So the "I don't care non MAC emulators users" you are using is a speech from outer space...

Hold on. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is "I do not care about coders that plan so tight that 24K matter". The Os will always take more or less memory, depending on revision, and depending on which expansions you have in the system. Deal with this situation.

Originally Posted by malko

If you want to encourage people upgrading their hardware, provide useful applications.

Oh, you're saying the Os is not useful? Why then use it?

Originally Posted by malko

Don't make the OS bloatware. We have enough of that kind already.

24K is not "bloat", that's just nonsense. You want the memory back? You got a tool.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

Wow - no need to start name calling - seems you are shooting the messenger?

You are not messaging anything. You would be a messager if you would say "I have here a list of the following applications that do not work". Instead, you come up with a private demo that does not run, and ... guess what .. even if you had this 24K back, it would not run on some systems.



Reason being that expansion.library and its configdevs is sometimes (but not always) also taking this chip memory for storing its structures and its configdevs. Thus, just assuming that you have a particular amount of chip memory available in the system is bad practise. It does not hold. The amount of free chip mem varies with the system configuration.

[alpine9000]

Originally Posted by boemann

The current developers of AmigaOS 3 have followed this debate and will come up with a solution. It it our position that catering for MacOS emulation is not the job of AmigaOS.

What this means in detail we have yet to decide.

Awesome maybe the current OS developers would be interested in touching base with the active game developers to explore if there are other things the OS could do to improve gaming on the Amiga?

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by boemann

The current developers of AmigaOS 3 have followed this debate and will come up with a solution. It it our position that catering for MacOS emulation is not the job of AmigaOS.

What this means in detail we have yet to decide.

That also means that users would have no longer the freedom to select a MMU page size as they please in MMU-Configuration without requiring an adjustment tool (yet again). In the current situation,you can go for 32K pages without running into any conflicts with MuForce, no matter how you configure your system.


Consider which users you are aiming at - those people that really play with 512K demos are not the users that buy an updated Os anyhow. Makes no sense.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

Awesome maybe the current OS developers would be interested in touching base with the active game developers to explore if there are other things the OS could do to improve gaming on the Amiga?

What about game developers willing to use the Os in first place and go for something more than an unexpanded 512K A500. What's your target user base anyhow?

[boemann]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

Awesome maybe the current OS developers would be interested in touching base with the active game developers to explore if there are other things the OS could do to improve gaming on the Amiga?

There are none of the current developers that have enough interest for gaming to be spending time on it, but we would welcome if someone would be interested in contributing.

Like we don't want to put MacOS emulation ahead of eveyone else, any kind of gaming framework/enablers should not be to the detriment of everyone else.

If someone is interested feel free to contact us.