What C setup req'd?
30 messages in this thread
I want to get started in C programming in the amiga….some screen hacks,
etc. What is the necessary documentation to get started? There are several
versions of the compilers available, "Pro", "developer", etc. Also, what
manuals do I need? ROM Kernal, Intuition Guide, etc.
Finally, will all those manuals be revised for the 4000 and 3.0, and if so,
should I wait until the new versions are out?
Sorry for being so questioning, but a few questions can save a lotta $$.
Douglas Bullard 71330,214
Douglas,
Yes the Rom Kernal manuals are a must for programming on the amiga. As
to whether there will be updated manuals for 3.0..I can't say.
As to compilers, I use SAS 6.0 which is what the amiga software is
compiled with from CBM. Others use Manax or Dice. (Dice is rapidly
gaining ground with developers.)
MikeM:) "Amiga means never having to say your sorry!"
There are several sources of information to look at. The RKMs will
constantly be updated as newer versions of the software come out and to
this end, the electronic form of autodocs are an excellent addition to any
programming repetoire [sic?]. I wouldn't recommend waiting for the 'next'
version of the manual because you will constantly be in that mode.
As for compilers, there are a couple of choices. SAS and Manx are the two
current commercial compilers with SAS being the clear choice amongst the
two (biased opinion here). There is also DICE which is currently offered
in a freeware and shareware version. If you are only doing 'screen hacks',
you might want to just try DICE for now, a number of people have been quite
happy with it.
Speaking of the Autodocs (kinda) ….
CBM is making a huge mistake in attempting to support 3 different versions
of the OS (2.0x, 2.1, and 3.0). All this does is create a support
nightmare for CBM and cause software houses to think twice or drop Amiga
development because of their increased costs of having to support various
versions of the OS (or lose profit if they only support one version,
cutting themselves out of the market from folks using the other 2 revs of
the currently supported OS).
The time has to come — AND SOON — that CBM drops all support for
anything less than 3.0. A large majority of the currently installed user
base MUST become 3.0 users if Amiga is to continue to have new software
written for it.
-sja
It seems the differences between the 3 OSs (2.0,2.1,3.0) are very minor
indeed. The difference between 2.1 and 3.0, (as far as I know) is some
support for a4000 AGA modes, while the main differences between 2.0 and 2.1
are the extra prefs, and PCMIA support. The prefs (and locale.library)
aren't really a support issue versus 2.0 which simply doesn't have them (
oops cross-dos too!), andd 3.0 is the same and only in hardware which can
see the difference. are there more major differences that I've missed? I
think 3.0 should be 4.0.. we don't want the world to think our gui is less
maturre than Windows3.1 do we? ;-}
Arnie,
If you are a developer, just take a look at the autodocs for the
differences. There are some major things (for the programmer) that are
only available in 2.1 or 3.0. Anyone programming the Amiga today cannot
assume that the end user has anything more than 2.04 — and therefore
cannot use the newer features (one obvious example is the color wheel).
With 1.3 still out there developers are forced to support 4 different
versions of the OS. That's too expensive to do so (in development and
support time). If the developer choses one OS version over another any
other (and that version is not 3.0) he severely limits the market potential
and creates a product that outdated on the day of release.
In my opinion, a perfect Amiga world would be an immediate drop of support
for all OS versions prior to 3.0 (all current models of the Amiga can run
3.0 — some more easily than others (the A1000 being the difficult one)).
CBM should immediately drop any/all non-AGA machines and have the A1200 as
the bottom of the line. Development for both games and application
software is greatly impeded by a "base machine" that is too low end. I
personally know of several developers who either will not develop for Amiga
or are currently considering dropping Amiga development because the current
low end machine (1M ram, floppy, 68000) just isn't enough. They'd have to
scale down to the point that features would have to be left out (alienating
the higher end user) or just aim at the higher end users to start with and
lose the low end market. The low end has to be moved up (the A1200 is a
GREAT machine to start this process — but to be successful, all "lower"
machines must be discontinued NOW).
IMHO, 3.0 is not yet stable enough for a true release. Remember that it
took all the way to 2.04 before it actually was stable enough to use in a
production environment. The 'advancements' that 3.0 bring to the pot are
not really that earth shattering. 2.0 was a BIG step forward in terms of
application programming and does make a reasonable drop point.
Hello,
This is a topic for which I have an opinion. First, I believe that
developers should develop for the 'latest' version of the operating
system. This causes users to buy the upgrade to the new version,
stimulating sales for Commodore. The reason new versions are developed is
to make programming easier and to add new features. If software doesn't
take advantage of the new features then users figure that they really
don't need the new version. If old versions are not supported then users
are forced into buying the upgrade. New features must be utilized in order
for the perceived value of the upgrade to be greater. For example,
applications should take advantage of ASL, notification, and the
'new-look'. These are the reasons people use OS 2.0x. I am writing
programs {not for OXXI of course} which are 2.0 specific. Forget version
1.2 and 1.3… They are not of any interest to me. If someone wants to run
MY programs, they should run out and buy the upgrade to 2.0…
Mike Uman
[]xxi, Inc. >>>
running under AutoPilot
Bravo!
Mike,
It sounds like we agree — altho where you mention 2.0 I'd substitute 3.0.
The Amiga software market is not profitable enough for companies to devote
time and money to support all revs of the OS. We can only move forward by
— moving forward.
Heck Steve, it wasn't that long ago that 2.04 was released, and people are
still currently upgrading to the 2.04 OS. Now all of a sudden CBM comes
out and says "OK, all you people who just spent $89 for the 2.04 software
wasted your money. Now you need to spend another $89 to get 3.0!!". Nope,
I don't think so, not at least until the AGA machines become a major force
in the Amiga marketplace. I'm sure all developer's would love only 1 OS to
develop for but I don't think we need to rush it. And I don't think most
developer's are creating new software that supports 1.3 anymore. It's an
OS that should be laid to rest.
It's 1.3 ROMs that bum me most.
You say "all current models of the Amiga can run 3.0". Do you have any
idea whether 3.0 will be *available* for all models? (For that matter, is
2.1 actually available in the U.S. other than on the 600?)
Jim,
If you read my previous messages, I'm advocating that CBM make 3.0
available for all Amiga models (via a softkick file and/or ROM). To my
knowledge, 3.0 is only available to 4000 and 1200 users and to developers.
I don't know the availability of 2.1. I used it for a month or so several
months ago but then switched to 3.0. 2.1 has been "ready" for quite a
while but, as usual, it's up to CBM marketing to decide when and how to
distribute it.
I've had 2.1 for a month now…….
2.0 has been available for a looooong time. I think people are ready to go
all the way to 3.0. If people are just now upgrading to 2.04, they are
really behind the times and that is there own fault. Just like
Microsoft… people were buying windows 3.0 up until the day before win
3.1 was announced. That upgrade still cost those people some bucks and it
has been the biggest software upgrade in history! Yep, my A2000 is ready
to run 3.0… Why should I run anything less?
-Jonathan
It's a support nightmare. What, Amiga developers have to keep one machine
of each type on hand, running each variation of the OS? And be ready to
add and subtract things like ARexx, startup-scripts, hard disk controllers,
etc?
There's a lot of Toasters out there running 1.3. They'll be running 1.3
for some time. Does NewTek have plans to upgrade Toaster workstation ROMs?
"Does NewTek have plans to upgrade Toaster workstation ROMs?"
They won't have a whole heck of a lot of choice if all C= produces is 2.0
& higher.
You misunderstand me. Those Toaster workstations are shipped and
installed. Unless NewTek forces customers to upgrade to 2.0 because of a
future set of Toaster software that requires 2.0, there's a large base of
Amiga users who probably won't switch. I doubt CBM can stop stocking 1.3
ROMs – what about repairs?
"what about repairs?"
Well, if you try to order Janus s/w now, I've heard you get the new Janus,
not the old. Of course, that's prolly apples & oranges. I understand what
you're saying… and pretty much feel the same way. It's just interesting
to watch the games that NewTek and C= play with eachother.
Naw… I have 2.04, 2.1, and 3.0 installed on a single machine, and can
switch between them with a fairly simple reboot when necessary. Right now
my primary system is still 2.04, although I suspect within the month I'll
be using 2.1 as my primary system, as it's not all that much of a leap.
I do my development for 2.04 currently, and when I need or want to use any
features of 2.1 or 3.0 (which I haven't yet…) I'll code it in such a way
that I could still run under 2.04, because it's going to take an awful
long time for people to switch over to the higher OS versions. (I
*won't*, however, even consider 1.3 anymore – The advantages of 2.0 from
both a user and programming view are far to important, and I see no reason
for anyone to still be using anything earlier…)
Unfortunately, one often has to support at least a few earlier OS versions
on just about any system because, lets face it, users NEVER upgrade
quickly when they're supposed to. <grin> For this reason, all my code on
the Mac still supports version 6.0.7 as well as 7.0 and 7.1, and all my
code for Windows still supports Windows 3.0 as well as Windows 3.1. And
all my code from now on for the Amiga will support 2.04 as well as 2.1 and
3.0, probably at least until 4.0 is released, then I might consider
dropping the 2.0/2.1 support… <grin>
–>Steve Bennett
Until recently, I did have 1.3 and 2.0 on my system. I had just taken my
old 1.3 WB partition, copied it to a subdirectory of itself, and altered
the startup-sequence so it would make all the assigns to the right places
if I booted under 1.3. Is that what you did?
Pretty much. For booting 3.0, though, I have that installed on a Syquest
cartridge and use a boot floppy, at least for now.
–>Steve Bennett
Steve,
On the Mac, there is absolutely NO REASON to support any version of the OS
other than the current version. Apple has always in the past made their
OS available to their users for free (CIS, GEnie, AOL, etc.) and from
their local dealer. Apple makes sure that their users worldwide has easy,
quick, and inexpensive access to the system software. In this case, there
is no excuse for a user not having the latest version of the OS. This is
how it should be on the Amiga. CBM needs to get the existing user base
onto 3.0 as soon as possible. Electronic distribution will do this. The
also need to ship all current production machines with 3.0.
-sja
The excuse, ironically enough, is that there are still some apps which act
'funny' under system 7.
Steve, you still negelect the fact that 3.0 is not yet stable enough. It
is on the same order of quality as the first 2.0 release. Until they get
all of the issues resolved, I can't see how they can push 3.0.
John,
I don't know — I've been running 39.106 for quite a while now. It's MUCH
more stable than the version of 2.0 that came with my 3000 2 years ago. It
seems to be as stable as 2.04 or 2.1 — at least I've not had any crashes
that I can attribute to the OS.
Jay Denebeim and I have both backed off 3.0 because of the Delete bug in
the file system. My machine does typically crashes several times a day
just sitting there. Different people experience different level of
problems with the system – my machine happens to run a LOT of processes –
in the idle state it has around 50 or so doing various background things
for me.
> Apple has always in the past made their OS available to their users
> for free . . .
'In the past' is the key phrase here. As noted in the MACSYS Forum, this
is no longer true for System 7.1 — it's pay for the upgrade or no play.
REC
——
Dropping 1.3 is one thing; those users who recently paid for 2.0 ROM
upgrades will be unhappy. There's been rumors that CBM will do an A2000
3.0 AGA motherboard. That would be great. But then again, I just paid
$250 for a swap from a 4.5 to a 6.2 motherboard, under 2.0.