@djrikki

This could just be done as a SuperBase file, no need for writing a new application just to show the contents of a database.

@kas1e

>Plz , not here (aw.net is best place for such talks).

Incorrect, amigans.net is supposed to be for "Next Generation/Emulation/Classic", not just for OS4.

Or did this just change today and the site imagery has not yet been changed?

@kas1e

>Forget about os3 at all, or amiga.org are your best place :)

Incorrect, amigans.net is supposed to be for "Next Generation/Emulation/Classic", not just for OS4.

>We all here to make AOS and software for AOS growing up to forward, not to back.

Indeed. There is still work being done to take OS3.9 forwards. Nothing retro about it and it still can do certain things OS4 can't.

@spotUP

Make an OS3.9 version and I might be interested.

@geograph

Why waste everyone's time with this crap? There is no real content there.

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but isn't block size, etc. something dependent on the filesystem in use, and nothing to do with the physical geometry of the platter? Surely they aren't hard formatted, that hasn't been common practice for 30 years?

@BillE

>Imho, djrikki ask about normal amiga sites :) Not having modern features not that bad, but design then must be good. That all smeels a bit too retro and rare.

It's supposed to be retro and rare. Please could you explain what is wrong with the design? It's logically organized, you can quickly see what content is available and you can quickly download whatever it is you are interested in. Content is king.

@Mrodfr

Yes, the source is included, just like with all my other releases.
And it should be easily portable. Eg. sound is AHI-based, input uses lowlevel.library, etc. In fact it already does run on OS4 AFAIK, but obviously a native PPC version would run faster. Someone did do a MOS port a while back.

On the subject of MUI, I don't agree that "the majority of 68K applications use it". I think even if I only looked at what has been released this year, I would find that less than half the apps use it. When looking at the entire existing base of 68K Amiga applications, the percentage becomes even less. Unfortunately it is widely used, but luckily not by "the majority" of apps.

>If I see the software released the last 2 days I see:
>- an emulator for Atari's Lynx

Not a particularly small project IMHO.
What I don't understand is why this developer has ported the SDL version of Handy (ie. the one which has most features stripped out), instead of just recompiling my native OS3.x version, which has many more features which are not available in *any* other version of Handy, eg. gameplay recording/playback. I don't think many people are going to prefer using his version, unless they don't realize about the other version.

Well, in regards to my own site (http://amigan.1emu.net/), I've never seen any reason to want to use frames, JavaScript, CSS, etc. Part of it is wanting to be compatible with all browsers, but also I really don't see how it would improve the site.

@tonyw

There are lots of existing version strings in existing files which are not going to be parsable by this method. At least, if it fails to find the version string in the string table, it should do a byte-by-byte search as a fallback. Also, the program in question is a 68K program not a PPC program so it should be using the byte-by-byte search on it anyway.
Also, the parser should stop when it gets a valid version string. There is another version string later in the file, seems like it is using that instead of the first one. (So the problem is still there in V14.08.) It would be more efficient and also more correct to stop after the first valid version string.

@tonyw

OK, thanks for ascertaining what the problem is. I will modify the version string for V14.08 to be work around this issue.

(I still maintain that the parser should not be so easy to break, it shouldn't be put off by anything preceding the $VER. Apparently it's fixed in the latest beta though which is good.)

Just re-tested under OS3.9 CLI Version and WBInfo, both AA8.3 for OS4 and AA14.06 for OS3.

OS3.9 is not having any problems with the version strings.

I assume it doesn't require zeroes in the date field like this:

$VER: AmiArcadia 14.06 (02.06.2010)

because I have seen a lot of version strings which don't have zeroes in the date field. The actual version part (14.06) shouldn't matter I would think because it isn't parsed.

@TSK

>Do you have zero/null in front of $VER as well ? I have that one there too. Otherwise it looks correct.

#define SHORTVERSION "14.06"
#define VERSION "$VER: AmiArcadia " SHORTVERSION " (5.6.2010)"
...
WriteChunkRecords(Handle, VERSION, strlen(VERSION), 1);
...

I looked at a hex dump of the generated executable, the string is embedded as I described.
I actually tried putting a leading null at the front of the $VER, however the user didn't report any improvement so I removed it again. I should note that there is no requirement for leading nulls in the Style Guide. I assume this is still considered the official reference for what constitutes a valid version string.

@Elwood

That is odd, I will tell him it works for others who have the same setup as him :-/

Hello, I received the following bug report about http://aminet.net/misc/emu/AmiArcadia.lha:

"Here I can't get any info about version, if I open the info icon (with right mouse button on the bin file) I'm getting "not availible" in version part."

The version string in question is:

$VER: AmiArcadia 14.06 (2.6.2010)

and it is null terminated.
Apparently the CLI VERSION command works fine with it even under OS4, and of course both the CLI and WB version commands work fine with it under OS3.9.
I have checked against the official specification in the RKRM Style Guide and it is compliant.
Other similar version strings (eg. from Report+) work fine, it seems to be a bug in the OS4 WB icon info program.
The user is using AmigaOS 4.1 Update 2 on SAM Flex 800.

Regards

James Jacobs
Amigan Software

Edit: This message is not relevant to this thread. The message has be sent in PM to you for easy copying to another more relevant thread/fora.

@orgin

>fitting with the overall goal of the project (being an open source source for amigaOS4).

Count me out then, as we run OS3.9 here.

This site is supposed to be "next generation, emulation, classic" but the bias against OS3.x, MorphOS and to a lesser extent AROS is very clear to see. I could give examples, but I think everyone knows what I am talking about.

@AmiGame

Definitely not BlueHost, unless you don't mind your site suddenly being taken offline and deleted by them with no warning or explanation.

>For every developer there are at least 5 or more just plain Amiga users like yourself and me.

An interesting statistic. So if 1500 A1s were sold this would make 300 OS4 developers...