AmigaOS 3.2 and beyond

[boemann]

Originally Posted by Warty

Amiga on the Lake says my CD-ROM is coming on Monday, so excited about that! I downloaded the NDK just now, and am starting to look through it, but of course without an actual OS to compile for, it's a very theoretical exercise. But one question I did have: if we convert our apps to Reaction, they won't work on systems without Reaction. As I understand it, Hyperion actually bought the rights to Reaction. Any chance that Reaction can be made available to non-3.2 systems, so that our apps work on older systems?

Maybe it's dependent on something in the KS, or another updated library, which would make it a no go from a technical point of view.

It is dependent on the KS now yes for several important fixes.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Romanujan

- they are limited to fixed-width fonts, and they are using the same one as the console window; I don't know any single font that would look nice both within console (or ASCII editor) and within normal application window - the OS 3.9 prefs fixed this

- they use old-style gadgets

You can set the font used for the shell windows separately in shell prefs.
So nothing is stopping you from having different fixed width system font for prefs and cons, textedit can have it's own font too.

You can do some face lifts with VisualPrefs if you fancy other looks.

Only thing you will miss is skinning. Adding proportional font support to a gui that relies on text layout is not that simple and would have required a complete overhaul. But don't worry, there are plans to improve that, you can't have everything immediately with limited resources.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Minuous

ReAction has been part of the OS for over 20 years now, since OS3.5.

And if you do not need any modern features, you can even go back to ClassActs that are freely available, so nothing stops the users from using applications with ReAction GUI. But if you use new features, you probably also need 3.2, so interested users should upgrade from stock 3.1. It's the same for other gui toolkits.

[Romanujan]

Originally Posted by Michael

You can set the font used for the shell windows separately in shell prefs.
So nothing is stopping you from having different fixed width system font for prefs and cons, textedit can have it's own font too.

I can use the SetFont command for the shell, but it seems the TextEdit can only switch between monospace / proportional font, I can't find a way to specify concrete font for the TextEdit.

Originally Posted by Michael

Adding proportional font support to a gui that relies on text layout is not that simple and would have required a complete overhaul. But don't worry, there are plans to improve that, you can't have everything immediately with limited resources.

Of course, I fully understand this is not something that could be done in one evening.

[bubbob42]

Originally Posted by Romanujan

Coincidence. They typically share the same problems:
- they all lack the window close gadget, which is irritating

That's intentional. A close gadget would duplicate the function of the cancel-buttonsgadget and an inexperienced user (yes, those exist and just discover Workbench after having played only games in their youth) wouldn't now whether it meant use (like on other OS where every change is instant) or cancel.

- they are limited to fixed-width fonts, and they are using the same one as the console window; I don't know any single font that would look nice both within console (or ASCII editor) and within normal application window - the OS 3.9 prefs fixed this

I agree; this is might be a todo. They're currently using system font.

- many of them lack any graphics, or the graphics is very simplified (Input, Locale)

Yes, there's was no way to display graphics in GadTools-Listviews this time. A colorful map and flags for Locale were considered as being cosmetic, too.

What I personally miss are improved previews for font and palette, like you mentioned.

[QkiZ]

I just found bug in 3.2. I updated system from 3.1.4.1 and when I'm trying to run TextEdit it says that requires version 47 of window.class. But i have that version installed on system.
Another thing: preview window of Reaction preferences is broken, when I'm changing some settings whole window become empty.
----EDIT:
I found some old window.class in LIBS: dir. After delete TextEdit starts working.

[ExiE]

Just a curious question, if it hasn't been answered yet. Why was version 3.2 chosen and what are the plans for the numbering of next versions (in relation to AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9)?

[gulliver]

Originally Posted by ExiE

Just a curious question, if it hasn't been answered yet. Why was version 3.2 chosen and what are the plans for the numbering of next versions (in relation to AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9)?

AmigaOS versioning is as complex as someone else has label it here "it is like Star Wars movies".

[wiser3]

I think the next Amiga OS version should be 5. I realized the difference between 3.2 and 5 isn't as huge as the number suggests. However, 5 would clearly indicate that it's better then 3.9 and different then 4/4.1.

[Matt_H]

Originally Posted by wiser3

I think the next Amiga OS version should be 5. I realized the difference between 3.2 and 5 isn't as huge as the number suggests. However, 5 would clearly indicate that it's better then 3.9 and different then 4/4.1.

Release 5 would imply that it includes everything from 4.x and then some, which it (probably?) won’t. And that it would include multiple major overhauls throughout the system, but I get the impression the focus for the development roadmap is on steady, incremental improvements for the time being.

But I agree that some revised numbering would be helpful. I think we now find ourselves in a MacOSX-like situation, where major releases were still under the 10.x brand. So in our case my recommendation would be to skip ahead to 3.10. It’s still AmigaOS3, but it’d be very clear that we’re well beyond 3.9.

[Predseda]

Next version will be Vista. Or maybe from preventing legal infrigments, Waste?

[E-Penguin]

IMHO should have kept going after 3.1.4 - > 3.1.5 - > 3.1.6...

as it's based on the 3.1 code line.

Perhaps more confusing, what will happen after things reach V49, as V50 is AOS 4.

It's a good problem to have.

[captain_zzap]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

IMHO should have kept going after 3.1.4 - > 3.1.5 - > 3.1.6...

as it's based on the 3.1 code line.

I heard, it’s actually using quite some code from OS4.

[Olaf Barthel]

Originally Posted by gulliver

AmigaOS versioning is as complex as someone else has label it here "it is like Star Wars movies".

To dispel any rumours, no producers, directors, screenwriters or script doctors involved in the making of the "Star Wars" franchise have contributed to AmigaOS 3.1.4, 3.1.4.1 or 3.2.

We didn't ask around and nobody applied. There could be a reason for that beyond the reaction to the last three movies made, but this is just me speculating.

[Olaf Barthel]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

IMHO should have kept going after 3.1.4 - > 3.1.5 - > 3.1.6...

as it's based on the 3.1 code line.

Irrational numbers are involved, too. Which would have meant 3.1.4 -> 3.1.4.1 -> 3.1.4.1.5, etc. This turned out to be impractical for a surprising number of reasons. One of which likely includes that combining mathematics with humour or even irony is very challenging even at the best of times.

Perhaps more confusing, what will happen after things reach V49, as V50 is AOS 4.

It's a good problem to have.

We already have an idea or two how to approach the problem when it arrives

[ExiE]

It looks like the real answer will remain hidden from me. Maybe it is a secret...

[boemann]

Originally Posted by ExiE

It looks like the real answer will remain hidden from me. Maybe it is a secret...

Not that secret. As to why: I think we just wanted to have enough time before having to deal with clashing with the 4.0 numbers.
The next couple of major releases will most likely be 3.3 and 3.4. We will probably skip 3.5 and 3.9 to avoid confusion for the same reason we don't want to conflict with 4.0. In any case there are probably as many reasons as there were people discussing.

The real version numbers (the 3.2 is just a PR number) are much more important as programs rely on these numbers to do the right thing. We are now at 47.

We can not go higher than 49 ever. We have resigned ourselves to the fact than going higher will end up in problems. So we are contemplating other mechanisms to allow us to change the API going forward. But none that we have settled on and much less experimented with so it would be premature to say more.

[Warty]

Originally Posted by boemann

We can not go higher than 49 ever.

Is it like crossing the streams? What happens? End of the world type stuff? And who is responsible for this V49(non)K problem?

In all seriousness, where will it go wrong with a '50'? Some kind of backwards compatibility thing?

[Matt_H]

Originally Posted by Predseda

Next version will be Vista. Or maybe from preventing legal infrigments, Waste?

Originally Posted by boemann

The real version numbers (the 3.2 is just a PR number) are much more important as programs rely on these numbers to do the right thing. We are now at 47.

Out of curiosity, what are your internal criteria for bumping up the internal version numbers? In other words, what makes 3.2 v47 instead of e.g. v46.5?

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Warty

Is it like crossing the streams? What happens? End of the world type stuff? And who is responsible for this V49(non)K problem?

In all seriousness, where will it go wrong with a '50'? Some kind of backwards compatibility thing?

see here:
https://wiki.amigaos.net/wiki/AmigaOS_Versions

Versions 50+ are already in use as Kickstart 4 and software could easily get confused when requesting specific versions of libraries if they ask for v50 (or higher) of a particular library assuming that they are getting a kickstart 4 (compatible) version.