Things the Amiga didn't get right from Day 1

[grond]

I haven't read the thread but something that AmigaOS didn't get right from day 1 and thus couldn't be added later on was a resource ownership concept. Usually multitasking and flexible allocation mechanisms are tied to the idea that any resource that one process allocates is owned by that one process. You could pass on ownership to another thread implicitly or explicity but there should be a clear owner at any time. AmigaOS multitasking was a cool nerdy feature implemented by Carl Sassenrath but unfortunately he didn't go the entire way. With such an ownership concept later AmigaOS versions could have got resource tracking and memory protection without problems.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by grond

I haven't read the thread but something that AmigaOS didn't get right from day 1 and thus couldn't be added later on was a resource ownership concept. Usually multitasking and flexible allocation mechanisms are tied to the idea that any resource that one process allocates is owned by that one process. You could pass on ownership to another thread implicitly or explicity but there should be a clear owner at any time. AmigaOS multitasking was a cool nerdy feature implemented by Carl Sassenrath but unfortunately he didn't go the entire way. With such an ownership concept later AmigaOS versions could have got resource tracking and memory protection without problems.

Sadly some version of resource tracking and memory management was in the original pipeline before they went the TripOS route:


Processes
The CAOS Process structure contains (along with the Task structure) information about its stack, the program data, resource tracking, and exception code. (Once again, except for the `resource tracking' area, it sounds much like the AmigaDOS process information, right?)

The resource tracking is a key difference. CAOS was intended to keep a linked list containing blocks of resources used by the process - file control blocks, I/O blocks, message ports, libraries, memory usage, shared data, overlays and so on. (This part of CAOS lagged behind the rest; which may explain why we don't have even a semblance of it now.)

Memory Management
Another important task (sorry) that CAOS was intended to perform was memory management. Looking at the current OS one may note that Exec has a rich set of primitives for dealing with memory. CAOS added some additional functionality that AmigaDOS doesn't have (and some that it does).

CAOS basically provided well-managed regions of memory. Within this region of memory, the CAOS memory manager would reign supreme (somewhat like grabbing a portion of memory with the Exec AllocEntry call). CAOS would then manage the memory within that sub-region, allocating sections for code, data, program stack, and so on.

http://obligement.free.fr/articles_t...as_caos_en.php

[Jope]

Originally Posted by Spriteer

You could get one anyway if you wanted. Besides if you actually needed it you could buy an A2000.

I guess you were better off back then. The A2000 (without HD) was usually double the price of an A500. :-D

[Mrs Beanbag]

has anyone mentioned the hard stereo panning yet?

[chip]

I am not able to translate in the right way ...... what is the stereo "panning" ?

[sandruzzo]

Lack of fast ram to speed-up a lot 68k. Even as little as 64k would have been a great difference. Amiga was and it is a computer, not a pure consolle.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by chip

I am not able to translate in the right way ...... what is the stereo "panning" ?

a stereo sound can be "panned" left or right, or anywhere in between. However, the Amiga's sound hardware has two channels panned hard left, and two panned hard right, so if you want any sound in the middle, you have to use two channels simultaneously.

[chip]

Thanks for info

[saimon69]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

a stereo sound can be "panned" left or right, or anywhere in between. However, the Amiga's sound hardware has two channels panned hard left, and two panned hard right, so if you want any sound in the middle, you have to use two channels simultaneously.

I always wondered whether that was an intentional design or technical limitation

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by saimon69

I always wondered whether that was an intentional design or technical limitation

well it would have required a little more logic and circuitry to give all channels independent left and right volume controls. surprised they didn't address this with later versions of the hardware (in fact very disappointing that AGA Amigas didn't get any enhanced audio hardware at all..). i don't suppose they had predicted the way the hardware would be used, at that time.

[redblade]

Originally Posted by Gorf

Sadly some version of resource tracking and memory management was in the original pipeline before they went the TripOS route:


Processes
The CAOS Process structure contains (along with the Task structure) information about its stack, the program data, resource tracking, and exception code. (Once again, except for the `resource tracking' area, it sounds much like the AmigaDOS process information, right?)

The resource tracking is a key difference. CAOS was intended to keep a linked list containing blocks of resources used by the process - file control blocks, I/O blocks, message ports, libraries, memory usage, shared data, overlays and so on. (This part of CAOS lagged behind the rest; which may explain why we don't have even a semblance of it now.)

Memory Management
Another important task (sorry) that CAOS was intended to perform was memory management. Looking at the current OS one may note that Exec has a rich set of primitives for dealing with memory. CAOS added some additional functionality that AmigaDOS doesn't have (and some that it does).

CAOS basically provided well-managed regions of memory. Within this region of memory, the CAOS memory manager would reign supreme (somewhat like grabbing a portion of memory with the Exec AllocEntry call). CAOS would then manage the memory within that sub-region, allocating sections for code, data, program stack, and so on.

http://obligement.free.fr/articles_t...as_caos_en.php

I wonder how much memory CAOS would have taken compared to Kickstart 1.0 and how many more libraries would have been left on the disk.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by redblade

I wonder how much memory CAOS would have taken compared to Kickstart 1.0 and how many more libraries would have been left on the disk.

The BCPL code of TripOS is not that dense - an the compiler did not the best job in reducing size either ... CAOS would have been C and Assembler and could have possibly more functions in the same amount of ROM space ...

As a comparison:
the first Apple Mac was only 128 KB RAM and 64 KB ROM and provided a windowing system...

[Spriteer]

Originally Posted by gimbal

Theoretically yes, but you have to keep in mind that people shopping for an A500 did so probably because they were looking for something that fit within a budget.

Yes, and thats why they omitted HD controller from A500. I must say that basic A500 was not cheap or within my budget when it was released in the 80s.

[gimbal]

Neither for my parents, we got ours second hand and most of the games came from... an acquaintance. It was the curse of having to pay mortgage, put food on the table and save up to put two kids through school.

[turrican3]

the name: they should have name it :
commodore 500 or commodore 64 plus.
they were so much c64 fans back that days.
no cost for this one and easy to do.

[dreadnought]

I'm pretty sure C64 fans knew where Amiga is coming from And it's a great name.

[Mrs Beanbag]

it is a great name. but sometimes i think, what if Amiga had been backwards compatible with C64, the same way Megadrive was with Master System.. put a SID chip and 6502 in it.. lmao imagine

[redblade]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

it is a great name. but sometimes i think, what if Amiga had been backwards compatible with C64, the same way Megadrive was with Master System.. put a SID chip and 6502 in it.. lmao imagine

Wouldn't that cause more of a problem then starting from fresh? I mean if the 8bit commodore machines had been standardised at the start so that the software and BASIC ran ok from the PET to the C64/C128 (Non 8bit owner here) ??

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by turrican3

the name: they should have name it :
commodore 500 or commodore 64 plus.
they were so much c64 fans back that days.
no cost for this one and easy to do.

That would been really stupid. The Amiga is nothing like a C64.

I'm sure there were a few C64 fans who bought Amigas because they were made by Commodore, but there were many others who weren't Commodore fans. The Amiga was the first Commodore product I owned, not because I couldn't get one before but because the VIC-20 and C64 both sucked.

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

what if Amiga had been backwards compatible with C64, the same way Megadrive was with Master System.. put a SID chip and 6502 in it.. lmao imagine

That would be even more stupid. People complained about the price of the Amiga even without adding an entire C64 to it.

But they did make that mistake with the C128. Gave it a C64 compatibility mode that meant no C128 games needed to be produced, and a slow Z80 for use with an OS that was practically dead. The things Commodore didn't get right about the Amiga are nothing compared to the mistakes they made with other machines.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by redblade

I wonder how much memory CAOS would have taken compared to Kickstart 1.0 and how many more libraries would have been left on the disk.

It's really not that complicated. Essentially, it is what memory pools of exec provide nowadays, just that the pools would be linked to the tasks. There was actually still room left in kick 1.0 for things like the clist.library nobody ever used, and which was then thrown out.