Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Mar 2009 23:34 UTC
Amiga & AROS Despite the recent emergence of several new ways to actually run AmigaOS 4.0, the supply of machines is still extremely small, and not very future proof. As such, one of the most recurring questions within the Amiga community is why don't they port the darn thing to x86?
Permalink for comment 355322
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Is it special under the hood?
by SamuraiCrow on Fri 27th Mar 2009 02:21 UTC in reply to "Is it special under the hood?"
SamuraiCrow
Member since:
2005-11-19

Or is it the interface and programs that most people desire out of the AmigaOS?

I would really like to know.


It's the responsiveness of the OS that makes it popular. And, years ago, the custom graphics accelerator chips made it very well integrated. (Read that: No drivers necessary since the the hardware came from the same company as the operating system.)

Although I have a MicroA1-c that runs AmigaOS 4.1, the technology I'm watching is the Natami which promises to have an improved Amiga compatible multimedia chip set and 68030 compatible processor all in an FPGA. My only complaint about that design is that it will be running AmigaOS 3.9 since 4.0+ requires a PowerPC accelerator board.

@thread

As far as I'm concerned about AmigaOS on Intel architecture, Intel can go fly a kite. Multicore processor support isn't present in AmigaOS so that's out of the question. Intel used this wierd idea called "little endianness" which will reduce the performance of AmigaOS to the current PowerPC performance levels anyway due to all the BSWAP opcodes required to emulate big endianness on an x86.

If Hyperion Entertainment VOF was going to port to any new architecture at all, I'd recommend LLVM. It runs on either x86, PowerPC, or ARM with roughly equal efficiency. It's open source so any new architecture that comes out can be supported without requiring the entire source code of the OS (assuming they distribute it as LLVM bitcode-format rather than straight binary).

Reply Parent Score: 4