»

[spirantho]

@Nostromo

Believe me, money is a problem for me. I wasn't referring to you because you weren't knocking OS4, only those people who say that OS4 is bad because the hardware is expensive (those people need a better understanding of economics...).

What does annoy me, however, is how a question about AmigaOS has - as usual - been turned into a "My OS is better than your OS" red vs. blue argument as has been done to death so many times and is no good for anyone. It was pretty much this kind of argument that stopped me buying MorphOS at all.

'nuff said. I'm out of this thread now - seen it all before.

[ck1200]

I do really like the look of OS 4.1 though !

[Varthall]

So if you are to choose one of the two new OS options, I think it would be fair to compare them in four key areas before making your choice:

1) Level of compatibility to the original OS.
2) Performance
3) Features
4) HW options, including "bang for the buck" ratio

Take this "blind test" to see which one (option 1, or option 2) you would prefer:

1) In the first OS of the two, Amiga compatibility has been a top priority since day one. In the second, it hasn't.

I think that a better comparison would be how legacy software actually performs under both systems, and if there are programs that run only on one system, how many of them do so and how much important/relevant/useful they are and if a native version of them already exist.

2) The first of the two is faster than the second one, running on exactly the same HW.

True, at least according to a benchmark done some time ago.

3) The first of the two has more, better and more modern features in important areas than the second one, as well as most of the Amiga "3rd party standards" (CGX, Poseidon USB, MUI4, TurboPrint, etc) *integrated* into the OS.

I don't know about all the features of MOS, what about the following ones that have been integrated in OS4, are they integrated in MOS as well and if so how do they compare?

- TCP/IP stack (MOS has MosNet integrated AFAIK, how does it compare with Roadshow?)
- PTP support (is it integrated in MOS? Does it have e.g. thumbnail support as in OS4?)
- HW compositing
- integrated Cairo library
- third party HW driver support (I don't really know here how do the two systems compare)
- journaling filesystem (JXFS vs. SFS, how do they compare feature-way?)

BTW, MUI3 is integrated in OS4, although not to the same degree as MOS and it's not configurable as much as in MOS, but at least it is installed together with the base installation of OS4. Also, regarding third party standards, Picasso96 is integrated by default.

4) The first one runs on a much wider selection of (second hand) HW, including very cheap yet powerful Mac G4 computers, offering performance levels previously completely unseen in an Amiga context. The second one completely lacks the option of similarly affordable and powerful HW, but runs on new (with warranty), expensive, low-power HW, on which it hasn't come out of "beta state" since over a year (for unknown reasons).

I wouldn't rule out the fact that, if you'd prefer to have a new machine, OS4 runs on machines which are in production and sold, while MOS not (at least for the "in production" bit, I have read that there is still at least one reseller offering Efika systems).

Varthall

[cv643d]

You forget a big point...

If AmigaOS is going to be what is known as Amiga I want more than just an up to date OS on 1000 dollar sub 1 GHz hardware.

I want a roadmap, a vision and above all a sign of passion that the commitment we make to the system is going to be worth it in the end. After all, Amiga is supposed to be the best system out there, if OsX can do it, so can Workbench. I believe, why can not a company believe to and not be scared of showing their big balls.

So IMHO anyone can produce a kind of "next-gen" Amiga that looks like the real thing.

But the real Amiga is the system which can take us into the future as a serious alternative to PC and Mac. IMHO that is currently not AmigaOS4.1, it is just a hobby OS, something for us who have invested 20 years into Amiga to amuse ourself with.

[jorkany]

Regarding the subject: no, because OS4.1 is no more "Amiga" than MorphOS, AROS, or any other Amiga-like OS. In it's day the Amiga was able to do things no other computer in it's class could, OS4 and it's contemporaries simply don't measure up.

[zylesea]

I think OS4 is worth the Amiganame - but the real question is: How much worth is the name Amiga today?

[Fab]

Originally Posted by Varthall

I think that a better comparison would be how legacy software actually performs under both systems, and if there are programs that run only on one system, how many of them do so and how much important/relevant/useful they are and if a native version of them already exist.

Well if you're interested in such a compatibility comparison, let's also remember MorphOS avoid breaking compatibility when it's not required. So programs like magellan or golded6 still run on MorphOS, unlike OS4. Also MorphOS is more compatible with Warp3D/WarpOS applications (which is quite ironic), and Hyperion games actually run better on MorphOS.

I don't know about all the features of MOS, what about the following ones that have been integrated in OS4, are they integrated in MOS as well and if so how do they compare?

I shouldn't do it, but since this thread has turned into a comparison, let's reply anyway. Also note that MorphOS has almost all features that OS4 still lacks and plans to have in next versions (such as USB2, DDC support, usable shell with history/completion/tabs, window shadows, ...)

- TCP/IP stack (MOS has MosNet integrated AFAIK, how does it compare with Roadshow?)

It's not Mosnet, but AMITCP 5 more integrated into the system, basically.

- PTP support (is it integrated in MOS? Does it have e.g. thumbnail support as in OS4?)

PTP is implemented as a dos handler by Poseidon, so Ambient can directly browse the device, and obviously show thumbnails it wanted.

- HW compositing

There's hardware compositing since 2.0 (which gives eyecandy like transparent windows, window shadows, triple buffered display and so on).

- integrated Cairo library

No, but let's note that the supplied cairo library in OS4 is totally unaccelerated and even slower than the plain image surface, which is why joerg used a straight cairo recompilation for OWB instead.
I also use my own cairo "port" for OWB MorphOS port and related projects.

- journaling filesystem (JXFS vs. SFS, how do they compare feature-way?)

Trusting a new filesystem takes time. How does JXFS perform in all aspects?

[persia]

I think most would concur that in 1995, OS 4.1 would hold it's ground against anything else out there....

[cha05e90]

@jorkany
So, if you take yourself seriously, everything later than ...hmm... OS2.1 isn't AmigaOS anymore...

[smf]

Originally Posted by bernd_afa

>But if you like the classic AmigaOS like i do. then OS4 is great and the only true >successor to the classic amigaos.

And wy is only OS4 the true sucessor and not MOS or maybe AROS if you want native Hardware ?

Because AmigaOS is AmigaOS?
I cant build cars in my garage and call them Porsche, even if i used better parts than the original it would still not be a porsche.

[tone007]

Originally Posted by smf

Because AmigaOS is AmigaOS?
I cant build cars in my garage and call them Porsche, even if i used better parts than the original it would still not be a porsche.

Names are important.

OS4.1 is so nice I rarely boot my <4.0 machines anymore.

[trekiej]

Another question I would like to ask, is OS4.x based on OS 3.x code?
That may be a not so smart question.
Did they have to fill in the blanks in areas?

[persia]

@treklej

Yes, the OS4 folks (Hyperion) have an exclusive license to use OS 3.1 and have done so.

If you are interested there are also two unofficial Amiga-like OSs

Morphos, originally scheduled to be OS 4, is available to run on old PPC Mac Minis and soon G4 Power Macs, they had access to 3.1 source but may or may not have license to it currently

Morphos

AROS, a rewrite of AmigaOS into open source, they had no access to source (of course). Runs on several platforms including industry standard Intel/AMD boxes.

AROS
ICAROS

[amyren]

I wote for Yes.

And I dont think its fair to bash Hyperion for slow development on the SAM, my guess is that they had to use a considerable amount of time and effort on legal issues while the trial was going on. Besides the OS4 stuff they do, they need to make a living, as I dont think their main income come from OS4 coding (probably even not their second main income).

[Gulliver]

Is OS4.1 worthy of the Amiga name?
As worthy as Amiga Inc is of the Amiga name!