Amiga.org

Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: on May 03, 2002, 01:30:53 PM

Title: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 01:30:53 PM
In my opinon the ONLY way amiga will be able to do anything....i mean "ANYTHING" relavent is to get rid of this idea that PPC is the best thing ever...
As it stands right now! PPC G4's at 1ghz are much much slower then the AMD/Intel offerings wich are also CHEAPER/More generic/Have more apps(thus possible ports)
If amiga intends of bieng PPC proprietary and platform spacific its going to be another lump on the wall to laugh at....
its taken litterly years to get even a hint of a new motherboard in site....if all the resources that had been allocated for that where allocated toward an X86 OS it would have been done and i would be writeing this article on it right now...some people sit and scream that because Amithlon boots without a hostOS it is in effect an x86 OS of amiga.....wich i believe is total garbage...
Aros and other projects need to be taken more seriousely or im afraid not even the current community is going to get the new amigas let alone new people....chargeing 500$ for an obselete motherboad with an obselete embedded G3 at 500mhz isnt the wave of the future....anyone who deals with reality can see PPC is expensive and proprietary and on its way out the door...and X86-64 or even current X86 is here to stay for a long time'

If you took a x86 motherboard gave it custom bios and made an AmigaOS for it...and charged a rational price i'd buy it....
i wont buy some obselete G3 for insane prices... and i think alot of people can agree with me here...

sorry if this sounds like a flame...but it's getting a little late in the day to think amiga so strong that it needs its own special hardware to be viable...
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: ikir on May 03, 2002, 01:33:33 PM
Mnnnn.. I don't think so!!!!

I want my SHARK ppc G4, and i want it now!!!
I'll tell you if it are slow...
 :-D
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Coder on May 03, 2002, 01:34:42 PM
Hi,

OS4 on X86, over my dead body! :-D

But you you are entitled to your opinion. As you said, more people think like you but there are also a lot that adore PPC. Like me. And so what if I have to pay a bit more for PPC hardware.

Coder
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jj on May 03, 2002, 01:40:39 PM
Why is ppc so bad and why r people like u so obbsesed with mhz.  My old 030/50 could do things that my P200 mmx could just about do.

U cant rate a processor just on speed.  The 060 is.was a much better chip than a x86 will ever be.

And with the 68k code being run natively on a ppc we can expect at least 300mhz 060.  I would like to see a x86 300mhz even touch a 300 mhz 060

The dsign of 68k and ppc is of a much better qualty than the bug riden intel chips.

u people stop harping on about how dead amiga is and how we will never get anywhere again.

If u want an x86 AOS just wait for OS5.

 :-x
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Eer0 on May 03, 2002, 01:48:11 PM
Well, I agree why not x86?
it's fast it's cheap...
And why compare an old cpu like 030 to an old x86 ~300mhz ?

Why not think how fast Aos would be on a AMD XP 1900 for instance
that cpu is a hell of a lot cheaper than any turbo ppc cards out there today.
infact you get a good pc for the same amount of money.. with a good monitor

Well, just my opinion =)

(im on of thoose who think the OS is Amiga not the h/w)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jj on May 03, 2002, 02:01:58 PM
Indeed the main advantage of amiga is the OS, but the SO wouldnt be what it is today if it wasn't for the HW.

What is the point of having a cpu that can run at 2ghz, when everything else on the mobo, i.e the data bus, the ram, the pci slots, basically everythign else, cant run at anywhere near that speed?

Greta the cpu can process all that data so quickly and then has got nowhere to put it.

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Alkemyst on May 03, 2002, 02:08:16 PM
(im on of thoose who think the OS is Amiga not the h/w)
 
wrong as Amiga IS HW
 
& AmigaOs is SW
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jj on May 03, 2002, 02:08:48 PM
The main point is, Amiga make the best OS in the world (IMHO) and most of the ap[plication software and games have always pushed the HW to the limit and done some amazing stuff.

If Amiga brought this to the x86 market, would they be helpling themsleves , no, would they be able to rake on micro$oft, er no.

So basically if u want a proper OS that is bloatfree and runs fast, u have to but Amiga Hardware.

Whats the problem. Do u want to be able to run windoze on a mac/amiga/ps2, er no again .

So should people stop making IBM clones and say, right windowz wil lrun on anyhting.   :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?  :-?

[ Edited by JJ on 2002/5/3 12:11:05 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 03, 2002, 02:14:32 PM
PPC is good good good!!

Quote
As it stands right now! PPC G4's at 1ghz are much much slower then the AMD/Intel offerings wich are also CHEAPER/More generic/Have more apps(thus possible ports)


Buy an X86 box and run Amithlon if you like. That's probably as close as you will ever see to an X86 AmigaOS. You will see the pros and cons of AmigaOS on X86. Fast cheap hardware, but finding compatible hardware is a skull-f***.

Quote
If amiga intends of bieng PPC proprietary and platform spacific its going to be another lump on the wall to laugh at....


hahahahaha now that's funny!! Wrong, but funny!

Quote
Aros and other projects need to be taken more seriousely or im afraid not even the current community is going to get the new amigas let alone new people


Aros is a neat project that will be approaching usable to an end user in ~2005-2006 with OS3.1 functionality. I will have my new PPC Amiga ~May 17 2002.

Quote
chargeing 500$ for an obselete motherboad with an obselete embedded G3 at 500mhz isnt the wave of the future


Who's getting a G3 at 500Mhz? I'm getting a G3 at 600Mhz thank you :-P And this is the FIRST NEW AMIGA MB IN 8 YEARS! The next run of MBs will offer faster speeds and a socketed option. I will buy the socketed version also when available thank you.

Quote
anyone who deals with reality can see PPC is expensive and proprietary and on its way out the door..


Funny how much money Apple is making with PPC machines if that was reality. Proprietary? *NO* But I am starting to see your problem, it doesn't run Windows. So in your mind it is proprietary.

Quote
and X86-64 or even current X86 is here to stay for a long time'


That's also funny! Who designed the original X86 hardware? The original IBM PC who everyone has been cloning ever since? I.B.M. did.
Facts:
1) IBM stated 3 years ago that the 'PC' platform it invented was outdated and dead.
2) IBM is heavily investing in PPC and has their own line of PPC products and free reference POP designs.

Quote
If you took a x86 motherboard gave it custom bios and made an AmigaOS for it...and charged a rational price i'd buy it....


Buy AmigaOS-XL(Amithlon) and very VERY closely make sure you get EXACT supported hardware. Just make sure you don't pirate Amithlon, Bernie deserves support.

Quote
sorry if this sounds like a flame...but it's getting a little late in the day to think amiga so strong that it needs its own special hardware to be viable...


We'll it is a borderline flame insinuating that anyone who wants PPC is stupid, but otherwise you are entitled to your opinion. I do however completely disagree.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: CD32Freak on May 03, 2002, 02:24:09 PM
It will not be a G3 at 500 Mhz, but 600 Mhz. I don't know if you are an Amiga user from the good old  days, but I think you're not. Otherwise you would know that processor speed is just marketing talk created by Intel/AMD etc. and the underlying OS that runs on a motherboard is much more important. We know what you can achieve with only a 7 Mhz 68000 processor, imagine how Amiga OS 4 would run with 700 Mhz! I know, having a custom chip like Fat Agnus helped a lot, but now we are able to use an even fatter Agnus (well, sort of) created by ATI..lol  :-P

[ Edited by CD32Freak on 2002/5/3 13:26:47 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: dapsycho on May 03, 2002, 02:57:52 PM
PPC is NOT bad. Only PC people ever think in Mhz because M$ Windoze is so $#@! they need as fast a CPU as possible to make it work right.

OS3.9 loads faster than Windows no matter what you have in the startup-sequence and what programs are loading at startup, even with a ton of hacks it loads within seconds. Windows does not load within seconds even after a fresh install.

Windows needs tons of Mhz, OS4 needs any cpu at any speed.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 03, 2002, 03:01:10 PM
Quote
Windows needs tons of Mhz, OS4 needs any cpu at any speed.


Absolutely! Navigating around workbench on my 060/66 OS3.9 Amiga was faaaaaaaaaast. I can only imagine how fast OS4.0 will be on my AmigaOne that is much more than 10 times faster!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Turrican on May 03, 2002, 03:17:34 PM
Ehm am I the only one here that remebers the word AROS ???

Yiap x86 OpenSource Amiga combatible OS with potential far beyond what the official Amiga OS will ever have.

Ofcourse it is not from the official Amiga Inc. so it must be illegal that too (like MorphOS) eh?
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jumpship on May 03, 2002, 03:18:28 PM
CD32Freak said that processor speed is marketing by Intel/AMD, but AMD have themselves dropped the GHz if thier line of Athlon's now. The dastest 2000+ is only about 1.6GHz but runs circles around the P4 2GHz (For the most part P4 is better in somethings)

But for a CPU running 400MHz slower the AMD does well.

Just something I thought about!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: roadrunner on May 03, 2002, 03:21:17 PM
I have an idea of how much faster it will be.
try running quake timedemo on your 060 then I can tell you that the same timedemo on an old ibook se466 runs at about 38fps. this is with the same amount of gfx ram and bus speed as my csppc. with cvppc.
Also a quake 2 time demo on the same Mac runs at about 35 fps when it only runs at 17 fps on my PIII 800 laptop with exactly the same gfx hardware harddrive and the same amount of ram and a processor that SUPPOSED to be so  much quicker.
 On the  x86 Amiga os subject, has anyone seen the latest version of BeOS being sold at a large PC shop recently, I guess not, because it's been squashed by M$, how long do you think Amiga OS will last in the same ball park?
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jj on May 03, 2002, 03:27:32 PM
I cant wait(if hyperion sort it out, or dce stop being knobs), to have os4 on my blizzard, how fast will that be.  even thrr 68k code the reckon will run at least at 060/66, sweet.  Move over windoze your days r numbered, wait unti lthe world wakes up and realises what an OS should do and be about, instead of being force fed micro$soft $#@!.

Amiga is back, look out bad software, were coming to get u.

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 03, 2002, 03:30:46 PM
Quote
Ofcourse it is not from the official Amiga Inc. so it must be illegal that too (like MorphOS) eh?


Amiga Inc has unnofficially given the nod to AROS. Basically they seem to have accepted it and even borrow some code. AROS is not a comercial product. MorphOS is.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jarrody2k on May 03, 2002, 03:35:30 PM
quote]OS4 on X86, over my dead body! But you you are entitled to your opinion. As you said, more people think like you but there are also a lot that adore PPC. Like me. And so what if I have to pay a bit more for PPC hardware. [/quote]

You know, adoration doesn't back up an opinion much.  Objectivity, however, does that a lot more.  While waiting to be more objective on the tricky subject of cross-processor benchmarking, you can becomes at least try to be more enlightened with the material that has been produced so far

http://homepage.mac.com/nopea1/benchmark/

Benchmarks using cross-compilation tasks.  The cross-gcc benchmark shows a build of Sparc objects using GCC on Linux for two PPC machines and two X86 machines.  The task is heavily integer based and PPC suffered a whooping.


http://www.lowendmac.com/myturn/01/0910.html

Attempts to explain how benchmarking between the two processors may end up hurting Apple.  Be carefully of the benchmarking EXAMPLE he has provided.  The values were based on "personal experience".  *rolls eyes, slaps forehead!!*


http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q2/p4andg4e/p4andg4e-1.html

The Pentium 4 and the G4e: an Architectural Comparison


Happy reading.

Oh yeah, and PPC SUCKS!  :-P
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jj on May 03, 2002, 03:51:53 PM
everybody is entitled to their opnion, but if x86 is soo goo, go and harp on about on site where somebody actually wants to listen to what u have got to say, we r happy, leave us alone.  We dont go on pee cee sites telling them , that their HW is based on technology that was around in the late 70's.  

Amiga is back and it is here to stay, and PPC is the way to go, why would we want to use bug ridden old hat x86 processors.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 03, 2002, 04:10:31 PM
@jarrody2k

Throw Win2K on a 2Ghz P4 and throw OS4.0 on a 600Mhz PPC system.

1)Time bootup time.
2)Get a seat of your pants feeling.

We will be able to do this comparison soon.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Tomas on May 03, 2002, 04:15:15 PM
i can bet you think: 68k is good good good :P
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 04:19:19 PM
Woohoo yet another person complaining that the Amiga should move to x86 instead of PPC. Why have you people waited years and years before suddenly deciding that we should go x86? Amiga is going PPC and most people (including me) are very happy about this. If you don't like it you should have said so years ago.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Rodney on May 03, 2002, 04:24:49 PM
Dotn worry, there are plent of reasons to believe that Amiga Inc do plan to target more platforms then just the PPC platform.

That is, AmigaOS at version 5, will be so portable, they could target several platforms within only a small number of releases after version 5 without much effort :)

Mind you, it wont be completly portable but lots of parts of the system will be! - well, thats most peoples theorys anyway. It would be insane not to do that. Based on what technology is avaliable to them in OS5.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Argo on May 03, 2002, 04:35:59 PM
Sure, Right, uh huh... It worked SO good for BEOS...
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 04:48:08 PM
and the replys from this are exactly why amiga is doomed....
a community of people who cant see past their own bias toward a dying CPU.....you arent looking at what is plauseable or whats rational at this time...your looking and seeing what you want to see..
the complete 100% proprietary computers of the past are all dying or dead... Apple 3% of the market share...sgi all but gone...HP's Pa-Risc systems are bieng phased out...compaq's dumping the alpha...and yet you all still sit and cry'yaaaay powerpc at 1/4th the clock and 1/3rd the speed of PC's are better' ....the writeing is on the wall....the days of closed box proprietary are over...good luck to your  '600' mhz g3's...your gonna need it....because theirs no way selling 10.000 of those things world wide is going to make eyetech rich enough to make a second generation...and as for  the G3 somehow magically bieng faster because it says motorola on it..thats a crock...if any of you went to specbench.org or theregister.co.uk you could see the truth about that G3..... G3=inferior to G4=inferior the P4/Athlon........simple math.......

I could care less what the underlying CPU is...i dont sit and rub it...i dont need to code ASM anymore....so why does it matter?....personal bias is the only thing that matters .....if you could see past your own bias you could see that going to x86 is cheaper/faster and has more apps to port...

the end
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 05:07:02 PM
If you didn't notice many people want to go PPC not because of benchmarks or prices.

Just look around the internet M$ , intel/AMD are all screwing you over selling you stuff thats been lying around in their offices for years while they make up the next buzzword.

And if you want to blame someone for choosing ppc as the next amiga cpu , blame phase 5 , they decided to stick it on a card , they could have done an x86 card ... fact is if amigaOS did go x86 now alot of people would leave because their amiga would be usless.

BTw . Everyone knows that the majority of the PRO-x86 lobby are wasters that hang around on "AMIGA" channels. where they talk about ... LINUX lol
Also they haven't even used amiga's in years and still think they have some reason to decide its future.

Oh and they love Morphos , which IIRC is "PPC!" , basically their just a bunch of know $#@! arses that want to run a decent OS on their $#@!ty pc boxes .
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 03, 2002, 05:16:18 PM
The comments in here are starting to borderline on insults. Let's keep it clean. Difference in opinions are welcome, just stear clear of insults please.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Tomas on May 03, 2002, 05:17:40 PM
The problem with x86 is that it would take years to port the OS.... Also there would be NONE avaliable apps for it, since the old ppc applications dosent run on x86.... You think this would bring users?? A OS without apps?? i dont think so.... PPC is the only way if Amiga should have a chance to get back up.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 03, 2002, 05:22:37 PM
Quote

Tomas wrote:
i can bet you think: 68k is good good good :P


Yes I do think the 68k series is good, it just hasn't had new development in 10 years. If production of the 68k series continued, IMO it would be better than current X86. You trying to say the 68k series was always crap? :-?
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: DethKnight on May 03, 2002, 05:29:28 PM
From what I've read...I seem to understand that amiga will be *hardware-independent"

So the whole "what CPU do you run" thing will be a moot discussion.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: _Steve_ on May 03, 2002, 05:55:08 PM
Quote
and as for the G3 somehow magically bieng faster because it says motorola on it..thats a crock...if any of you went to specbench.org or theregister.co.uk you could see the truth about that G3..... G3=inferior to G4=inferior the P4/Athlon........simple math.......


And no doubt you'll be comparing a 700Mhz G4 to a 2.4GHz P4 yes, like its some kind of amazing comparison. If the G4 @ 700Mhz can take on a P4 at around double its clock speed (say a 1.4GHz P4) and keep a pretty close performance record, then that would indicate that the G4 is overall a better build design/quality per clock cycle. If you want to start comparing clock speeds, why not slap a 700MHz P3 (since you cant get a P4 that slow) against a 700MHz G3 and then see how much "better" your beloved x86 is.

Just because the Intel/AMD cpu runs at 3 times the clock speed, does not make it 3 times faster. In fact its probably less than two times as fast for most things. I have seen benchamrks of a G4/700 against a P4/2GHz, and the difference wasn't so great in favour of the P4. Ramp up the clock speed of the PPC (like Intel etc seem so keen on doing with their chips) and the PPC would outperform the x86.

The G3 will be inferior to the G4, just as the P3 is to the P4, they are newer generations of a design, and as such you would expect them to perform better. However, you cannot say a PPC is inferior to a P4 when your argument bases around clock speeds. Thats like comparing a 600Mhz AMD to a 1.6GHz P4 and saying "look how crap this AMD is".
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kronos on May 03, 2002, 05:56:29 PM
Quote
I will have my new PPC Amiga ~May 17 2002.


Here we go again  :-D  :-D  :-D

No you won't have a PPC-Amiga in two !! If the A1 is delieverd by then
you will have a rather slow Linux-box and UAE (without JIT) to run
68k-SW at even slower speeds.

This thing may turn into a PPC-Amiga during this summer, but
than it wouln't be new anymore


 :-P
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kronos on May 03, 2002, 06:07:50 PM
Quote
why not slap a 700MHz P3 (since you cant get a P4 that slow) against a 700MHz G3 and then see how much "better" your beloved x86 is.


Well the c't (germanys leading IT-magazine) did just that !
Actually they took a P3 and G4 at 1ghz and ran some benches
on them. Both sides were compiled with GCC and they P3
showed slighly better results (~ 10-20%).
A AthlonXP would be even faster a 1ghz (real clock).

You may put some blame on the gcc, but then its the only option
for COS4-SW (atleast if you don't want to start on ASM again).
Altivec may also have added  to a better result, but that would
need heavy work on the sources and some SW simply can't
make use off it no matter what you do.

Almost forgot: The A1 doesn't have Altivec  :-o

PPC is good when you need:
Low power-consumption.
Low heating.
Long life in hard envoirements

If you want number-crunching-power x86 is the only option.

Will this change with G5 vs AMD-64 ?
Don't know but i have some serious doubts on it.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: ksk on May 03, 2002, 06:09:45 PM
This year will be very interesting in PPC camp.

There should appear interesting new things from Motorolla and from IBM.

Also I would not be too surpriced if some big motherboard manufacturer desides to start to manufacture motherboard that works both with PPC CPU and with x86 CPU.

Also it would not bee too big surprice to see GFX chip with integrated northbridge & both x86 and PPC compatibility...

So far I'm very happy with the short term PPC decision. IMHO: it was the most safe bet for now.
(some SW base already, less competition, etc..)

[ Edited by ksk on 2002/5/3 18:12:49 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Ivan on May 03, 2002, 06:16:12 PM
>The comments in here are starting to borderline on insults. Let's keep it clean. Difference in opinions are welcome, just stear clear of insults please.

I heard that. :) But then even this post started out admitedly as a flame or very near to one. Even so, it's no excuse.

BUT, (i love that word) i like to read these sorts of posts. I think it's funny how they use some benchmark but forget to tell you that altivec wasent used on the PPC and how many other options were disabled on the other systems tested. OR, (another favorite word) the OS's used in these tests were dogs and probably did more to interfere with performance than anything else. Yet it's all plain as day for them. They arent useing 'my favorite hardware' so it has to be a dead end and 'the world needs to wake up and listen to me because i know better'. Sorry but you dont. :)

PPC is our choice and if you don't like it, go back to your 70's based proprietary x86 archetecture, we wont be stopping you. I've heard that Amiga is dead or dieing for years now. Time to give it up, nobody cares if it's dead or dieing or rotted to dust in the grave, we still like useing it because its a great OS and will continue developing. Just because it wont run on your Windows machine doesn't mean its dead or a bad OS or that the PPC hardware it's running on is useless. Fact of the matter is, PPC is slower with realeases but makes bigger leaps and x86 steals the ideas. If you knew anything about Amiga's plans you wouldnt even have mentioned an x86 version which shows how informed you are on the Amiga scene to begin with. You seem to have the same low view of MACS as well. I love your reasoning, only 3% of the market? Well they must be crap then. I wonder if you think Linux is a bad OS too because it doesnt hold the market majority? Indeed i wonder if you can think of anything but a Wintel box as the top of the line in tech. Please take your Amiga bashing elsewhere, because thats all your post was, we dont want it here.

Ivan
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: lorddef on May 03, 2002, 06:38:34 PM
Quote
As it stands right now! PPC G4's at 1ghz are much much slower then the AMD/Intel offerings wich are also CHEAPER/More generic/Have more apps(thus possible ports)


Er? I think your wrong there,  the processors are totally different architectures the Mhz means bump all!

LD :roll:
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Insanity on May 03, 2002, 06:42:59 PM
Quote
If you want number-crunching-power x86 is the only option


And here I though that Intel just abandoned the x86 architecture with its Itanium(which of course is left looooooooooong behind, in the wake of the Sun ultrasparc III).

Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).

But if that is true, won't the AmigaOS lose lots of power if you port it to an x86 based system? The basic argument for using Amiga in the beginning of the 1990:ies was that the Multitasking of the Amiga was 1 000 000 times better than that of the PC(PC has made up for this lack by increasing the processor speed to rediculus levels).

Rambus is a good attempt to increase one of the lacking speeds in The PC system. the next lack is the bus speed.

Another thing, Why doesn't the AmigaOne utilize SCSI as a standard? why even bother using the $#@!ty IDE system (yes IDE is getting faster, but SCSI is Better and will aways be)
If everybody bought SCSI then it would be a lot cheaper since it contains the same components as IDE, but nooo. Damnit.
I say integrate a Adapted u160 card and lets RoX.

Oh and one last thing Hi my Name is Insanity and I had an amiga 500 back in the day. been using PC since, but the p4 and xp are $#@!ty processors/systems, so I'm stuck at 667mhz p3. (with a asus p3v4x, the best pc mobo EVER.)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Tomas on May 03, 2002, 06:47:51 PM
Quote

redrumloa wrote:
Quote

Tomas wrote:
i can bet you think: 68k is good good good :P


Yes I do think the 68k series is good, it just hasn't had new development in 10 years. If production of the 68k series continued, IMO it would be better than current X86. You trying to say the 68k series was always crap? :-?


I never said that...... but now its totally outdated, wouldnt make sence to use a 68k cpu on the next generation amiga, only thing that made sence was to use PPC, which they did.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 06:52:40 PM
Quote
Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).


Multitasking *IS NOT* done in hardware !! damn it !!!!!
Its all to do with the OSes scheduler , Thats the part of the os that controls which task gets cpu time and decides time slices etc .. . *ITS SOFTWARE*

It just happens that amigaOS is very good at multitasking , nothing to do with hardware.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Tomas on May 03, 2002, 06:52:56 PM
Quote

Insanity wrote:
Quote
If you want number-crunching-power x86 is the only option


And here I though that Intel just abandoned the x86 architecture with its Itanium(which of course is left looooooooooong behind, in the wake of the Sun ultrasparc III).


Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).

But if that is true, won't the AmigaOS lose lots of power if you port it to an x86 based system? The basic argument for using Amiga in the beginning of the 1990:ies was that the Multitasking of the Amiga was 1 000 000 times better than that of the PC(PC has made up for this lack by increasing the processor speed to rediculus levels).

Rambus is a good attempt to increase one of the lacking speeds in The PC system. the next lack is the bus speed.

Another thing, Why doesn't the AmigaOne utilize SCSI as a standard? why even bother using the $#@!ty IDE system (yes IDE is getting faster, but SCSI is Better and will aways be)
If everybody bought SCSI then it would be a lot cheaper since it contains the same components as IDE, but nooo. Damnit.
I say integrate a Adapted u160 card and lets RoX.

Oh and one last thing Hi my Name is Insanity and I had an amiga 500 back in the day. been using PC since, but the p4 and xp are $#@!ty processors/systems, so I'm stuck at 667mhz p3. (with a asus p3v4x, the best pc mobo EVER.)
i agree, Aone should have used SCSI instead of that lousy IDE crap, which also decrease the overall perfomance....  :-x
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kronos on May 03, 2002, 06:57:39 PM
Quote
And here I though that Intel just abandoned the x86 architecture with its Itanium(which of course is left looooooooooong behind, in the wake of the Sun ultrasparc III).


With x86 i also meant the upcoming 64bit-CPUs by Intel and AMD.

Quote
Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking


Depends on what you mean.
The copper can be viewed as some type of "HW-multitasking",
but you could say the same about the 3D-GFX-chips on AGP-cards.
Exec-multitasking is only be done by the CPU and as long as it has
some basic features this could be done on any modern CPU.

Quote
Rambus is a good attempt to increase one of the lacking speeds in The PC system. the next lack is the bus speed.


Shawn ???
Rambus is good (for every system) but far to expensive.

Quote
Why doesn't the AmigaOne utilize SCSI as a standard ?


1.The A1 wasn't developed for the Amiga-market and Eyetech
had (more or less) to take whats available.

2.UDMA100 will max out any existing HD (even SCSI-ones) and
(fast)SCSI-HDs are extremly expensive.
3.SCSI in desktop-systems will be replaced by FireWire
(or maybe USB2).

Quote
Hi my Name is Insanity


Seems to fit  :-P  :-P  :-P
(just kidding)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 06:58:14 PM
Quote
Well the c't (germanys leading IT-magazine) did just that !


Check out some dual g4 500mhz vs dual P3 1ghz photoshop benchmarks .... the G4 trashes the p3.
I know that photoshop is ppc optimized , but thats what matters to designers etc and not that its the underdogs chip.

The only way to get serious benchmarks for ppc vs x86 is if you run them on exactly the same platform , hardware and software . We all know this isn`t possible so please just shut it. Go back to benchmarking GFX cards, Personally i like my V5 5500 medium speed and v high quality gfx :) , i bet u like the gforce , cuz its dirty fast , cost $#@! all to make and costs a bomb :D.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Insanity on May 03, 2002, 06:59:33 PM
Sorry about the cursing folkes. I am used to bbses in The norhern part of Europe, where we dont censur or think much of people cursing.

Anyway, how did the h/w layout of the amiga 500 (for ex) look (basically)?
Quote
Seems to fit

It does, trust me it does. :)

[ Edited by Insanity on 2002/5/3 18:02:30 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Tomas on May 03, 2002, 07:04:18 PM
Quote

68040 wrote:
Quote
Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).


Multitasking *IS NOT* done in hardware !! damn it !!!!!
Its all to do with the OSes scheduler , Thats the part of the os that controls which task gets cpu time and decides time slices etc .. . *ITS SOFTWARE*

It just happens that amigaOS is very good at multitasking , nothing to do with hardware.


I think it has a little to do with the cpus too..... But mostly its the OS thought.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kronos on May 03, 2002, 07:06:53 PM
Quote
Check out some dual g4 500mhz vs dual P3 1ghz photoshop benchmarks .... the G4 trashes the p3.


Photoshop-MAC uses Altivec while Photoshop-Win doesn't
use MMX or 3dNOW! so thats not fair.
Photoshop is the only positive benchmark for the G4.

Now what will we get for the Amiga ?

No Altivec and definitly no Photoshop !

Quote
The only way to get serious benchmarks for ppc vs x86 is if you run them on exactly the same platform ,


Well then run some linux-benches on the AOne and 600mhz/P3.

X86 is faster than PPC (now), but that doesn't mean it must be
the right choice for AOS.
The only thing that should be clear is that simply closing our
eyes to this realitiy won't help us when we try to convince
new users.

This could be done by this:" Want a new computer thats easy
to use,silent boots in less thab 30 seconds and can be turned
off immedialty ?"
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 03, 2002, 07:09:52 PM
Quote
i agree, Aone should have used SCSI instead of that lousy IDE crap, which also decrease the overall perfomance....  


Drivers for scsi PCI adapters will be available.

No different than an A4000 IMO, just a much better IDE as standard.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 03, 2002, 07:16:47 PM
MHz isn't an issue and we all know that Intel's chips are overclocked for marketing purposes... x86 is slower than PPC clock for clock and it's 'SIMD' implementation is even worse.  Besides Amiga doesn't need to worry about clockspeed as much since they have one of the lightest and fastest OSes around. I think the last thing that Amiga should think about is the x86 world (except for AmigaDE). x86 is a boring and diluted market governed by Microsoft and Intel... Amiga wouldn't last long toying with the Darkside of life. The PowerPC technology is on fertile ground now, whereas x86 is getting long in the tooth and has a unpredictable future ahead. I think Amiga Inc. made an excellent decision to go PPC and that the Amiga community will reap the benefits of PowerPC technology in the near future... just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Insanity on May 03, 2002, 07:19:01 PM
Quote
Drivers for scsi PCI adapters will be available.


Problem :
PCI 32 bit does not have sufficent speed to work a u160 adaptec card.
which needs a pci 64 bit slot to function att full speed.

I didn't see any 64 bit slot on the amigaone.

solution: ???
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kronos on May 03, 2002, 07:20:11 PM
Quote
The PowerPC technology is on fertile ground now,


That has been said for the last 5 years and still they fall further behind.

Quote
The PowerPC technology is on fertile ground now, whereas x86 is getting long in the tooth and has a unpredictable future ahead.


That most have been in the rumour-box for the last 15 years.

[ Edited by Kronos on 2002/5/3 18:21:03 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 03, 2002, 07:24:18 PM
IBM's G3 (contrary to popular belief) is tailored for both Embedded and Desktop implementations. IBM does want to stick it out with the G3 line longer than Motorola, since Moto is pushing for the G5. Better technology is yet to come for the PowerPC technology as you can see here;

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011115S0052
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011115S0055
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19991108S0039

The PCI stuff will be replaced since it was a slow bottleneck tech since day one!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 03, 2002, 07:25:31 PM
"That has been said for the last 5 years and still they fall further behind."

Only in clockspeed, not performance!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 07:31:03 PM
Quote
Well then run some linux-benches on the AOne and 600mhz/P3.


still wouldn`t work , to do a fair test you would need :

1 . a mother board that can take both x86 and ppc , we`re benchmarking the cpu not the mobo here after all.

2. a benchmark the runs binary unchanged between cpu's and has no bias towards either. As a decent compiler can make all the difference in benchmarks.

as you see it isn't possible to compair via benchmarks fairly when it comes to ppc Vs. x86.

BTw . I have also seen G3 vs x86 of the same clock photoshop benchmarks and the g3 trashed the x86 again ( not so much tho ) and a real life benchmark here ... when i did work experience at a newmedia company ... really old g3 upgraded mac one side , p3 ghz machine the other , the g3 was rendering images like fire and the p3 was atleast 10 frames behind. It was lightwave IIRC but i`m not sure .the mac smoked at mame tho :D
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: kubyx on May 03, 2002, 07:42:38 PM
1Ghz G4 = 2Ghz+ when it comes to processing power.

You gotta realize x86 is NOT all that good; it's slow, and unoptimized, meaning even though we have 1.7Ghz AMD CPU's and 2.xGhz Intel CPU's neither one is running at true Ghz speeds.

Also, if you did some research you'd find that Mac's have almost the same games, and same amount of games, that PC's do.

This reply is completely un-biased, as I am an AMD XP 2100+ (x86) PC user.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: bloodline on May 03, 2002, 08:23:43 PM
This is a cut and paste of a post I made on another topic, but it is strangely relavent:

Motorola have been planning to "kill" the PPC series for a while now (by Kill I mean give over exclusive rights to Apple). It's been no secret in the industry. It was, IMHO, a very unwise decision to choose the PPC simply for this reason.

Compared to AMD, for example, Motorola will always be a few steps behind, they don't have market forces on their side. ARM have stolen the embeded market and the x86 has stolen the desktop market.
It doesn't matter if a PPC is more powerful, at the same clock speed, than an x86. AMD and Intel can always make their chips run faster and can produce them inquantity. The x86 gets constant revision throughout it's life cycle (pushing performance up daily), the PPC only gets an upgrade once every 6 months or so.
It is important to remember that when a company like AMD release a chip, they keep redesiging it!! if you buy an Athlon one month and then you buy another one a few months down the line, you get a quite different chip with new technology!
This can be seen in the Intel P4, the first chips sucked ass, but now they have seen where improvemnts need to be made and implemented them to make the chip better (the P4 still sucks though :-) ). Motorola simple don't have a big enough market to keep this sort of constant development going. The x86 chips get faster because of newer technology, not because someone puts a faster crystal on. The 600Mhz Athlon and the 1.8Ghz Athlon run at the same themperature!!!! Run a G4 700Mhz at
1Ghz and you need some serious cooling upgrade.

IBM do make a PPC series of chip, but it is really expensive for the performance, and IMHO it is not really suited to the desktop. The IBM engineers have been pushing great speeds out of these chips but they have not been able to produce them in any significant quantity.

I think it is important to remember that Amiga Corp. and apple chose the 68k because it was the fastest thing around for the price. I think Amiga Inc. should remember that.

It would have been great if Motorola had continued the 68K, like Intel did with the x86. By now the two chips would have been almost indentical anyway!!!* But Motorola didn't have a big enough market to do that and teamed up with IBM etc to make the PowerPC chips instead, which in theory would have allowed for a bigger market and allowed them to jump over the x86 emulation stage. But the PPC did not take off, maybe a more powerful 68k would have done? Isn't hindsight great  

Apple are very lucky, they have their own CPU which they can control, but they are never going to be able to beat the x86 chips with the PPC, IMHO!

*I have spent a long time thinking about the evolution of the 68k, Motorola would have added a simd unit (maybe even Altivec?). Then they would have continued with the 060 RISC core and, then culled more of the less usefull instuctions and then added a few newer instructions (conditional moves etc...) to allow better branch prediction. Then the bus interface would have been changed to allow better cache and multiprocessor support. The RISC core would have grown lots of registers, to allow register renaming and out of order execution. The chip would be fully super scalar and super pipelined. As you can see, now the intenals of the chip would look just like an Athlon, but with the external instruction set based on the 68K and not the x86, and it would be big endien.

We all hate the x86 legacy, but it's time to face facts, the modern x86 is actually a great lump of silicon and very cheap to buy. Once real mode is switched off, the chip is great. The only thing bad is that motherboard manufactures still insist on using the IBM-PC BIOS!?!?!? I've been working on putting an AROS kernel in place of the BIOS so that a standard PC mobo would boot directly into intuition in 3 seconds (no more black and white text based BIOS screen), it's fun but I lack the technical knowledge about PC Chipsets to progress at any speed. But it really looks good to see!

Ok, my rant is over... you can get back to eating your lunch now

Remember that internally, a 600Mhz PPC and a 600Mhz Athlon don't look very different!!! Simply becuase to run a chip at such speeds, there is only one way to do it. I will grant  you that the die size of the Athlon is bit bigger, but the Athlon is also a lot cheaper so that doesn't matter in the slightest!!!!

Oh, and to say that the modern x86 (eg Athlon) is unoptimised and inefficient is blatent FUD!!! I suggest you get yourself a good book on cpu design, and read it.
I already stated that the worst thing about the x86 is the archaic "IBM-PC BIOS" (which no OS other than MSDOS and Windoze9x uses anyway...), but that is flashable!!!! I've been looking at the OpenBIOS and LinuxBIOS projects as to how AROS can replace the BIOS. It's hard but not impossible, and great to see.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 08:26:19 PM
ive been hearing that for years from people....
when is it true ghz speeds?.... when Alpha  hit 1ghz was it 1ghz? when G4 did was it 1ghz?..

apperantly  you dont believe clock speeds excist?..
granted they dont mean everything...and granted most people reading this believe 100% that the  m68040@25mhz 3.5mflops is better then the P4@2.4ghz aprox  3Gflops.....but does that mean that the Gflops arent Gflops because a 'peecee' did it?....i know that its easy to hate PC"s...because their cheap..because they generally run Windows(an OS you hate because of M$) or Linux(an OS you hate because its hard to use) or BeOS(an OS you hate because it wasnt whatever you wanted).....but i see it this way...a microprocessor is a microprocessor...
the A1 boards will use AGP/PCI anyway...so why hinder things by useing PPC if PPC is going to be slower and cost more....
From what i read PPC wont be around in the desktop in 3 years....I dont hate PPC....PPC is good quality chip codeing for PPC is much more easy  then x86...but none of that will matter if it costs more money and performs less...i care about Amiga...not about my personal bias toward a CPU wich in the end wont make a differance one way or the other except in price.
If amiga can run on so little resources why not make it 'ultra' cheap....use a Cyrix or Transmeta chip...make it low power..cool..and cheap ...so everyone can afford it ...and thus possibly gain intrest...if  it uses low powerd transmeta cpu..and runs fast...and keyword 'is cheap' wont it stand more of a chance in the end?....
i just dont see the attachment to PPC...ive owned Amiga 1200's 4000's and even a 3000....i never went the route of getting the PPC upgrade because it was over 1000$...for a 233mhz CPU...wich is rediculis...
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Jose on May 03, 2002, 08:29:36 PM
Please no x86! I think both parties expressed their point of view.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Hattig on May 03, 2002, 08:46:22 PM
Blah blah blah.

Quote
Just because the Intel/AMD cpu runs at 3 times the clock speed, does not make it 3 times faster


No, actually in terms of IPC, the G3, original Athlon and PIII are pretty close, and the current Athlon outstrips it and the G4 by quite a reasonable margin. On a per-clock basis. SPEC results and other many other benchmarks show this.

Quote
I have seen benchamrks of a G4/700 against a P4/2GHz, and the difference wasn't so great in favour of the P4


What software? Photoshop? Done by who? Apple?

Basically, the G4's saving grace is Altivec. And not all applications can benefit from it.

Quote
Thats like comparing a 600Mhz AMD to a 1.6GHz P4 and saying "look how crap this AMD is


Heh, the P4 is a crap processor in terms of per-clock IPC at the moment. It is improving though, as Intel tweak the processor to be more like the processor they wanted to release originally. As a 1GHz Athlon will beat a 1.6GHz P4 in many tests, a 600MHz Athlon won't fare too badly - for a 3 year old processor!

Strange, how people assume that because the 68060 was better than the ORIGINAL Pentium clock-for-clock, that they assume that it is better than the PII, PIII, P4, Athlon and anything else, even though these chips have been VASTLY improved over the original Pentium. The G3/G4 are good, but they are not *that* good.

Still, after all that, I am happy that AmigaOS 4 will be a PPC operating system. Just because I see the PPC as being "cleaner", and better designed. Doesn't change the fact that modern x86 chips are literally a miracle of design.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Hattig on May 03, 2002, 08:52:53 PM
Quote
i agree, Aone should have used SCSI instead of that lousy IDE crap, which also decrease the overall perfomance....


IDE performs roughly the same as SCSI at a much cheaper price point now.

Yes, the design is pretty crap, it isn't as good as SCSI either. However it works well, it works quickly, and it is cheap.

And it is integrated into the southbridge so you don't use up another PCI slot putting it onto the motherboard (because SCSI chips are PCI devices, so adding a PCI device will remove a usable slot from the motherboard design).

Don't force people to pay more for their boards in order for them to have to pay more for their hard drives and other storage media.

http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a//network/2002/04/26/nettap.html

Graham
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Hattig on May 03, 2002, 08:56:54 PM
Quote
Check out some dual g4 500mhz vs dual P3 1ghz photoshop benchmarks ...


So does MacOS come with the AmigaOne, and thus Photoshop?

Does the AmigaOne use the G4?

Is Photoshop a valid benchmark considering that it is tweaked to get the most out of the G4, but has no enhancements for the PIII?

Quote
The only way to get serious benchmarks for ppc vs x86 is if you run them on exactly the same platform , hardware and software


The tests that compare PPC using the same platform, software and (as close as possible) hardware always tend to show the x86 beating the PPC. Clock for clock. Darn it eh?

Graham
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Hattig on May 03, 2002, 08:59:56 PM
Quote
PCI 32 bit does not have sufficent speed to work a u160 adaptec card.
which needs a pci 64 bit slot to function att full speed.


Well if you are going to make a RAID 5 array then yes, you have a problem. Even then you could use a 32-bit 33MHz SCSI RAID card like the Mylex Accelleraid 170 without any problems, even if you are maxing out the PCI bus a lot.

If you are sticking a couple of hard drives and a SCSI drive on your SCSI card, then you will not be maxing out that 160MB/s - you will get around 60MB/s max on the fastest 15,000RPM Cheetah hard drives.

Graham
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Hattig on May 03, 2002, 09:07:33 PM
Quote
still wouldn`t work , to do a fair test you would need :

1 . a mother board that can take both x86 and ppc , we`re benchmarking the cpu not the mobo here after all.


A fair test in this case could be:

Here is £1500. Spec out the best PPC / x86 board you can.

Now do these tests, both compiled using gcc.

But of course, "price isn't a fair comparison because x86 is so much cheaper". Hell, it is a valid comparison for my wallet!

A processor is as good as its platform. So it can only be fair to test using the best platform available for either processor.

P4: i850E w/ RDRAM 1066MHz, 533MB/s Hub Architecture
P4: i845G w/ PC2700 memory
Athlon: The chipsets all perform roughly the same, w/ 266MB/s to 800MB/s chipset interconnects
G4: Erm, PC133 SDRAM with 133MB/s PCI (but 2MB L3 cache)
G3: Erm, PC133 SDRAM with 133MB/s PCI

Hopefully later this year the G3/G4 platforms will be enhanced to make use of DDR memory and other modern technologies. A 1.4GHz G4 will be really competitive with faster x86 processors.

Graham
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 03, 2002, 09:15:41 PM
This entire thread is moot...

[color=FF3300]Bill McEwen already said Amiga OS is being ported to x86[/color][/b]

We'll have it on both, even if the "Amiga Digital Environment" doesn't wind up being a desktop OS that is as CPU-agnostic as the AmigaAnywhere module that shall be hosted/merged in it.

I personally think attention to a port of Amiga OS to x86(+64-bit) architecture is one of the wisest decisions ever made by any Amiga company.

Amiga on an Abit board with AMD processor(s). That would rock. If I remember right, Amiga OS (either 5.0 or thereafter) will also support multiple CPUs on a motherboard. Well, that's the trend. Things are going to move toward 64-bit and multi-processor-able. I don't  see PPC being [color=0000FF]as viable[/color] as x86/64,  until and unless a LOT of companies like Apple and Motorola and IBM pull out all stops to push them with a LOT of money and advertising.... I don't see that happening. If  PPC was so great--or if these companies had the nads to begin with, to take the risky route--they would have already done so in a big way.

 :-D  I think people are just scared of Amiga being on x86, myself. I think it makes them want to wet their pants or something, because they know that's where the fun begins.

I agree with an earlier post in this long thread, about if Amiga OS had been ported to x86, we would already  have had the first version of it out the door. I also agree that the BIOS that comes on these motherboards could be replaced with our own Amiga ROMs (same as a Kickstart ROM, etc.). I mean, that's what it is isn't it? :-)

Re-read the big bold letters above   :-D  We're going to see it on x86/64 architecture.

--EyeAm
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Insanity on May 03, 2002, 09:20:59 PM
Quote
IDE performs roughly the same as SCSI at a much cheaper price point now.


No it does not.

1: SCSI is still much faster. The slowest SCSI disc (of the modern type nothing but u160 avaliable today)has a shorter Access time than the fastest IDE drive.

go figure that.

2: SCSI discs have a higher rotation speed,which meens that they shuffle data at a much higher medium speed.



3: u320 is just around the Corner. Of course it will cost blood, sweat and tears to get equipment of that magnitude when it shows up.

SCSI raid also relieves the processor of lots of work.

(all true H/W raids do this)


AND SCSI disc, ALMOST Never break down.

IDE disc break down constantly. (especially the IBM ones.)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 03, 2002, 09:32:22 PM
Quote
Oh, and to say that the modern x86 (eg Athlon) is unoptimised and inefficient is blatent FUD!!! I suggest you get yourself a good book on cpu design, and read it.


Actually it isn't.  Yeah the chips that AMD and Intel are getting fast, but not because of a good or efficient design.  The sad part is that I have seen Sun Boxes outperform Athlon Machines that had almost 3 times the clockspeed, I work around both platforms 50+ hours a week, I also love working with both platforms regardless of Sun's performance superiority.  I also own 2 PCs and 3 Macs, I know first hand about the pros and cons of both and I am convinced by the PowerPC technology, regardless of the overhyped and overclocked Intel chips and the propaganda that follows behind it.  Like it or not x86 is not a superior design, it is almost reaching its end, with Intel trying to figure out how to go about it with the IA-64 bit era.  Yeah I have also read that SPEC article from ct' and since someone was posting 'arstechnica' articles they might as well read this one as well;

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q99/benchmarking-1.html

SPEC is Intel's playground just like those totally unbelievable Photoshop tests are Apple's playground plain and simple.  SPEC's benchmarks doesn't show anything more politically correct than someone doing some Photoshop tests.  There hasn't been a good benchmark to go by yet.  Especially when you have to figure in software and its optimizations, or lack of (OSes included)!  The really funny thing is that PC (x86) folks sit here and ask why do we supposedly run more expensive and slower hardware, when they are running more expensive and slower software, it's almost like an oxymoron... Windows is the slowest OS running on the x86 platform, take Windows and BeOS on the same machine and tell me which is faster... that question has only one correct answer (I'll give you a hint... it's not Windows)!  Amiga OS is also going to put Mac OS to shame when you see its speed on PowerPC, I know that, but that wont make me sell my Macs nor will it make me sell my PCs running whatever!

For the Amiga I see no future in the x86 and it being a terrible design is not my argument, it's Microsoft and Intel... they dominate the PCdom and there is no room for outsiders.  Apple is no threat believe me, they got other fish to fry, and the only way to beat the Darkside, is for the Amiga, Mac and Linux communities (developers included) to share our resources, help each other along and get the bits together we need in order to over come this Mono solution that has plagued the computing industry... you know what I am talking about!

I might sound sorta biased, zealot or whatever, but I have been on both sides of the fence, both as a professional and a hobbyist, and I like this side of the fence... it has more to offer and that is why I am staying, PERIOD!

'nuff said
 :-D

[ Edited by AmigaMac on 2002/5/3 20:39:26 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: yoodoo on May 03, 2002, 09:54:36 PM
Amiga's real strategy is to target everything in sight with the DE.  Those of us who are really keen will carry on the by now 'traditional' Amiga association by buying PPC hardware; others will use x86.  

For most tasks a PPC box with low power cosumption and heat-output will sit just fine, running all the common household apps.  For those that really want to produce 3D animation in realtime, go ahead and buy a fast x86 box.

Personally, I don't need to use Schumacher's F1 car to take the kids to school, my family saloon will do fine.

And if you want to compare costs, don't forget to include the cost of runnig the power-hungry x86 and all the fans you need to cool it.  For Amiga's connectivity vision to work, your main box will need to be switched on 24/7.  That's a lot of power for a wintel box.

Oh, and the PPC chips in the GameCube seem cheap enough and fast enough to run games on ;)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Hattig on May 03, 2002, 09:54:54 PM
Quote
Yeah the chips that AMD and Intel are getting fast, but not because of a good or efficient design


It is - the chips are getting faster, and in AMDs case, getting faster per clock. Shame that they still lumber themselves with the x86 crap at the front, to be honest. And AMD are trying to do something about that without losing compatibility (the most important factor, sadly) with older software. Intel are faffing around though making 64-bit processors that nobody wants, and underperforming 32-bit processors. Intel got lucky in the 80's, and haven't really shown much reason recently for them to have continued luck in the desktop processor market.

Quote
The sad part is that I have seen Sun Boxes outperform Athlon Machines that had almost 3 times the clockspeed


Yes, the Sun processors are more brainiac chips, the P4's are speed demons and the Athlon less of a speed demon, and more of a brainiac. It is a design trade-off.

Unfortunately, the PPC is neither a brainiac nor a speed demon.

SPEC is not Intel's playground - it is an open benchmark that can be (ab)used by anybody. Gee, shucks, the Intel compiler is really good and makes code run really fast on the x86? Aww, thats not fair because the PPC only has gcc for AmigaOS.

Deal with it.

Quote
For the Amiga I see no future in the x86 and it being a terrible design is not my argument, it's Microsoft and Intel... they dominate the PCdom and there is no room for outsiders


Agreed. I don't want to see AmigaOS on x86. Maybe when x86-64 is available, and on that x86 platform only, but only because the platform is going to really perform excellently - 25% higher IPC in 32-bit code, 43% higher IPC in 64-bit code, etc. x86-64 eradicates more of the classic problems with x86 such as lack of registers, etc.

The best way to see x86 now is as a "compressed" in-memory representation of a program that the processor "decompresses" into native operations. And this has been done for many years already.

But for now, let AmigaOS4 run on PPC systems and run on it fast because it is such a lean OS. This is the catch-up period - lets hope that Apple don't take over desktop PPC manufacturing however.

Graham
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: HyperionMP on May 03, 2002, 10:19:26 PM
I see another PPC versus x86 discussion.

Please note that there were plenty of reasons to go the PPC route.

One of them was the fact that there are already 8000 people out there using PPC's in their Amiga's and who paid a lot of money for them.

Secondly, as the recent benchmarks from Petunia demonstrated, the PPC architecture is simpy better suited to emulate the 68K than the x86

There is no way that a Pentium 160 can emulate an 060/50 yet a BlizzardPPC will do just that.

Finally, some people suffered from a lack of historical insight.

They believe that because company x is on top now and for some time, this will always be that way.

These are the same people that believed 3DFX would rule forever and who know believe nVIDIA will always hold the performance crown.

I know this isn't true and I'm dying to tell you it isn't true.

Similarly, the PPC architecture used to be ahead of the x86 architecture for a long time during the haydays of the 603/604/ppc 750 (G3).

Then Motorola bumped up and hit a serious design flaw which kept their cpu's at 500 mhz for the longest time.

The performance gap (with respect to integer performance, not floating point performance) there is now can and will be bridged again.

I'll be here to tell you "I told you' with respect to nVIDIA soon.

I'm confident I will be able to do the same with respect to the G5
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Madgun68 on May 03, 2002, 10:21:14 PM
Quote
I personally think attention to a port of Amiga OS to x86(+64-bit) architecture is one of the wisest decisions ever made by any Amiga company.


Why? It certainly won't help AmigaOS be successful. The only thing it will really help are the people who don't want to invest any decent amount of money or commitment in to the community.

Quote
I think people are just scared of Amiga being on x86, myself. I think it makes them want to wet their pants or something, because they know that's where the fun begins.


Scared? Please. I think you've forgotten exactly what Amiga users are capable of. We believe in pushing hardware to its limits BEFORE having people play the upgrade game.

Oh yeah, I've almost forgotten how fun the x86 can be when the solution to bloated, unoptimised code is to throw more hardware at it.

MG
Title: Upcoming graphical chips
Post by: Hattig on May 03, 2002, 10:45:51 PM
Quote
I'll be here to tell you "I told you' with respect to nVIDIA soon.

I'm confident I will be able to do the same with respect to the G5


Well, with Matrox releasing Parhelia, 3DLabs releasing the P10, ATI releasing the R300, SiS releasing the Xabre, etc, nVidia can see that the market is just hotting up!

All their competitors have new cores. They have an old core nearing the end of its life. They are supposed to have a new core, the NV30, coming out to compete with the other cores however.

I think that AInc should work on the P10 - this bit of graphical hardware looks really good, and extremely suitable for AmigaOS, being optimised for OpenGL2 first and foremost. Hell, this chip is *really* worthy of being called part of a next generation Amiga!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Tigger on May 04, 2002, 12:05:29 AM
>>>Please note that there were plenty of reasons >>>to go the PPC route.

Not really given the current PPC situation, but I'm sure you'll have a few interesting theories.

>>>One of them was the fact that there are already >>>8000 people out there using PPC's in their
>>>Amiga's and who paid a lot of money for them.

Ok lets look at this, how did you get 8000, is that the number of PPC boards sold for the Amiga??   No, you and I both know that isnt an accurate number.   In addition, its fairly funny that given  Hyperion wasnt supporting 4.0 on any platform except the A1 until this week, that supporting the old hardware is the reason to pick the PPC.

>>>Secondly, as the recent benchmarks from Petunia >>>demonstrated, the PPC architecture is               >>>simpy better suited to emulate the 68K than the >>>x86.

Thats a very funny comment, anyone with a P4 (motherboard, processor and memory currently less then an A1) will tell you that the Petunia numbers were not impressive compared to what you can see with UAE on the P4.

>>>There is no way that a Pentium 160 can emulate >>>an 060/50 yet a BlizzardPPC will do just                     >>>that.

Lets see I dont you can even buy a Pentium 160 anymore, noone is talking about running the amiga on a Pentium 160, we are talking about running an Amiga on a modern x86.   A current generation Athlon or P4, both of which will greatly outperform the 600 Mhz G3 in emulating the 68060, and of course both of the x86 solutions are cheaper solutions as well.  
   
>>>Finally, some people suffered from a lack of >>>historical insight.
Yeah, but we've decided not to hold it against you.
    -Tig

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: kubyx on May 04, 2002, 12:10:56 AM
Quote

mips_proc wrote:
.....but i see it this way...a microprocessor is a microprocessor... the A1 boards will use AGP/PCI anyway...so why hinder things by useing PPC if PPC is going to be slower and cost more....


There you go again by saying it's slower, when in fact it's NOT slower. 500Mhz PPC = about 1Ghz 600Mhz PPC = about 1.2Ghz, and so on. :-)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 12:22:47 AM
Quote
by Madgun68 on 2002/5/3 14:21:14

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally think attention to a port of Amiga OS to x86(+64-bit) architecture is one of the wisest decisions ever made by any Amiga company.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why? It certainly won't help AmigaOS be successful. The only thing it will really help are the people who don't want to invest any decent amount of money or commitment in to the community.


Yes it will. The parts for x86 are cheaper, and it's easier to market/sell than PPC.

We're not going back to the old days of Amiga--the days of the $1,000+ accelerator cards are gone; and hopefully,  so is the stupidity surrounding that kind of thinking.

As far as the community, when it comes down to it,  I'll take the Capitalist route rather than the Communist route any day. Screw the community, if I  can't buy a computer that I can wring every bit of power out of for as little money as possible; leaving me with enough money to buy software that will do some good beyond just having the mere hardware.

In other words, I'd rather buy an Abit card with an AMD processor, video card, audio card, etc., install Amiga OS on it, and then look around for Amiga software, because I know once they put it on x86, I'm going to have plenty more (compared with the old  days) to buy software. Of course, there's still something to be said for the fact Amiga software can still be improved a great deal--something a little better than the developer/programmer/engineer talking up simplicity and efficiency and power and tight code, and then showing me a bland little window opening up and that's  about it.

End users want the  power, they want it cheap, and they want the features that go with it. They want it to work, they want it to work well, and they want it to look like it works. Of course, some can  point to other operating systems that look great but basically suck, yet the sales receipts will show that they still sell. I'm convinced that even people buying those others only do so because of the elusive promise of things getting better--a  lot like electing the next guy because the one before was bad, and hoping things will change. And I never much worried about the ability of Amiga programmers or engineers or developers being able to code and  implement the wish-lists of Amigans (the very reason I never needed to be technical about the ideas I post).

As far as supporting the community--if we must, beyond our own selfish needs and wants--I'd rather support it with the truth as I see and piss off all the developers and the company itself, if for no other reason than to prevent it from making the same mistakes again, and again, and again, and again.

Quote

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think people are just scared of Amiga being on x86, myself. I think it makes them want to wet their pants or something, because they know that's where the fun begins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Scared? Please. I think you've forgotten exactly what Amiga users are capable of. We believe in pushing hardware to its limits BEFORE having people play the upgrade game.

Oh yeah, I've almost forgotten how fun the x86 can be when the solution to bloated, unoptimised code is to throw more hardware at it.

 


Then, fine, do it on x86. Push it to the limits there; the CPUs and motherboards are inexpensive, plentiful, etc.. I caution you, though, not to think of x86 architecture as being related to Microsoft; and to further enhance what you said about what Amigans are capable of (though you said users, not developers there), I'm convinced they could take x86 parts and make it their own. We are, after all, talking of Amiga OS controlling that hardware; not some other OS.

Someone once told me that the latest Windows (I think it was 2000), was about 300MB in size. Someone corrected me once,  and said it was 800MB, or greater.

Amiga OS is less than 5MB. That's the Classic size, I believe. Even if a new one was 50MB, or even 100MB...big deal--if it's done the  Amiga way, none of that would be cludging up the system/memory/etc. at bootup.

I still think that PPC should be the 'high end', and in the realm of experimenting, nothing more... I don't care if they have it, doesn't bother me... If the OS is on both, won't  bother me; if it's a choice between x86 OR PPC, I'm choosing x86. OS 4.x series, to my  knowledge, is the  only one to be PPC-only. By the time 5.0 comes out,  it'll be on both (and possibly much more).

--EyeAm
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Madgun68 on May 04, 2002, 12:57:15 AM
Quote
Yes it will. The parts for x86 are cheaper, and it's easier to market/sell than PPC.


The parts for x86 are cheaper, yes.. But when you get right down to it, what REALLY is going to sell AmigaOS to Joe Average Consumer. Hardware or software? Software. You put AmigaOS on the x86 and you're competing with Windows for the desktop. Which operating system has more software that people are going to want? Windows. Same thing is happening with Linux. People are willing to put up with Windows simply because they have access to the software they want.

Will porting AmigaOS to x86 mean increased sales? Of course. Will it makes AmigaOS a success? No way.

Quote
Then, fine, do it on x86. Push it to the limits there; the CPUs and motherboards are inexpensive, plentiful, etc.. I caution you, though, not to think of x86 architecture as being related to Microsoft; and to further enhance what you said about what Amigans are capable of (though you said users, not developers there), I'm convinced they could take x86 parts and make it their own. We are, after all, talking of Amiga OS controlling that hardware; not some other OS.


Why shouldn't I think of Microsoft when I think of x86. Here's a blurb taken from the box of my Athlon XP 1600: "When you want extreme performance for WINDOWS XP, the AMD Athlon XP processor delivers." Hardware developers that work with the x86 arch. WANT you to think of Windows when you think of their products.

When you get down to it though, the real problem is drivers. Someone has to write them, and Hyperion sure aren't going to waste their time trying to support all the myriads of hardware out there the x86 world has. Whoever does 5.0 probably won't want to either. Who's going to do it?

Quote
By the time 5.0 comes out, it'll be on both (and possibly much more).


Unless AmigaOS gains a significant marketshare before 5.0's release, it won't make any difference how many platforms it'll be on. It won't be popular enough for software companies to give it a second glance.

MG
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: WalkernyRanger on May 04, 2002, 01:10:18 AM
Quote
i wont buy some obselete G3 for insane prices... and i think alot of people can agree with me here...
Quote


I, for one, do not agree.  How is the G3 obsolete?  It might not be enough to run some bloated crap OS, but it will suit OS4 just fine for now.  Sure I will upgrade to G4 or G5 when available.  But if we can emulate an 060 at 300mhz on a G3, it is already several times faster than my 060 at 50 mhz.  Think of the performance increase I will see for software designed for PPC.  Once again a G3 600mhz does not equal a PIII 600, and can not be compared on the basis of their mhz.

I am more than willing to but the AmigaOne at it's current price.  In my opinion I would rather pay more for a quality OS, then pay less and regret it every day.

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: WalkernyRanger on May 04, 2002, 01:36:59 AM
Sorry, guess I need some more practice with these posts!

[ Edited by WalkernyRanger on 2002/5/3 22:01:42 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: catohagen on May 04, 2002, 01:38:18 AM
>and as for the G3 somehow magically bieng faster because it says motorola on it
>..thats a crock...if any of you went to specbench.org or theregister.co.uk you
>could see the truth about that G3..... G3=inferior to G4=inferior the P4/Athlon
>........simple math.......


Its says IBM on the chip, not Motorola

yeah,

1. take a G3 at 6-700Mhz
2. and a P3 6-700 mhz
3. compare those, let them work

now for more fairness :)

4. remove all fans of the cpu's (oh....the G3 is fanless)

now....go crunch some RC5 keys, and lets see...
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: ShadesOfGrey on May 04, 2002, 02:03:17 AM
Quote

mips_proc wrote:
In my opinon the ONLY way amiga will be able to do anything....i mean "ANYTHING" relavent is to get rid of this idea that PPC is the best thing ever...
As it stands right now! PPC G4's at 1ghz are much much slower then the AMD/Intel offerings wich are also CHEAPER/More generic/Have more apps(thus possible ports)
If amiga intends of bieng PPC proprietary and platform spacific its going to be another lump on the wall to laugh at....


Something you may not realize is that Amiga Inc nor the AmigaOS can possibly compete on the x86 platform at this moment in time.  Remember [color=000099]B[/color][color=FF0000]e[/color]?  The only reason [color=000099]B[/color][color=FF0000]e[/color] bothered with x86 is not because they saw the x86 as a great opportunity to provide a cheap hardware platform for their users.  No, it was because Apple pulled out of the clone market and there was no open PPC platform to fall back on.

Now, eventually the AmigaOS will appear on the x86 platform.  But this is contingent on there being other platforms around to fall back on.  After all, if like [color=000099]B[/color][color=FF0000]e[/color], Amiga fails to penetrate the x86 platform they'll need to have somewhere else to go or die.  M$ is still too dominate in the x86 market and no amount of wishful thinking will change that in the for seeable future.  Especially if the courts (in particular the US courts) continue to give M$ slaps on the wrist.

Now whether you think such a platform should be based on some other processor than PPC (or x86) is a different story.  Whether you think PPC is total crap or has a sketchy future, or whatever.  But x86 right now would be suicide.

BTW, the AmigaOne is not proprietary.  It does have proprietary 'ROM' extensions as a copy protection scheme for AmigaOS 4.  But this does not prevent anyone from running Linux, BSD, QNX, or even NT4 (if you could get the drivers written) on it.

And this in no way is intended as flame bait.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 04, 2002, 02:04:56 AM
Quote
I know this isn't true and I'm dying to tell you it isn't true


God I wish you would:-D
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: bloodline on May 04, 2002, 02:18:19 AM
Every one here agree that comparing CPU's using performance at a certain clock  speed is stupid.
You can compare them, and the results are meaningless.

So I think we should compare them Performance per $ (£ or €).

Ok, now which CPU has the best ratio?

It's a sad truth that I have to chose whatever CPU gets the job done fastest for the least amount of money.

And my closing point: It doesn't matter which CPU you use anymore, they are all pretty much identical. Gone are the days when one CPU was better than another, all we have now are CPU optimised for different tasks.
When deciding which CPU to use all you do is select your application (in our case the desktop workstation) and then choose the fastest CPU for the least amount of money.

Oh and before you PPC lot start saying that the PPC is easier to program than the x86, I have one thing to say. They both suck when compared to programming the 68K, from a human (my) point of view. But no one goes near ASM for most programming projects in the modern world so it doesn't matter!!! The C compiler doesn't care. I would also like to poin out that the x86 is MORE efficient when it comes to memory usage as x86 instructions are smaller than PPC ones and the x86 needs less of them to do a perticualr task.

Nice page explaining the G4 and the P4:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q4/p4andg4e2/p4andg4e2-1.html

Better page comparing the Athlon and the G4:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html

If you read these pages you will see that the P4 and the Athlon are two different appraches to the same problem, and the the Athlon and the G4 turn out to be so similar it hurts. The only difference is that the Athlon is sigificantly cheaper.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: bloodline on May 04, 2002, 02:37:29 AM
Quote

Something you may not realize is that Amiga Inc nor the AmigaOS can possibly compete on the x86 platform at this moment in time.  Remember [color=000099]B[/color][color=FF0000]e[/color]?  The only reason [color=000099]B[/color][color=FF0000]e[/color] bothered with x86 is not because they saw the x86 as a great opportunity to provide a cheap hardware platform for their users.  


Be did not have a loyal fan base. It had no user base, it had no software base. It was a great OS, but it tried to move in on M$ market with a better system. It had no chance, until they started to give it way.

Quote

No, it was because Apple pulled out of the clone market and there was no open PPC platform to fall back on.

Now, eventually the AmigaOS will appear on the x86 platform.  But this is contingent on there being other platforms around to fall back on.  After all, if like [color=000099]B[/color][color=FF0000]e[/color], Amiga fails to penetrate the x86 platform they'll need to have somewhere else to go or die.  M$ is still too dominate in the x86 market and no amount of wishful thinking will change that in the for seeable future.  Especially if the courts (in particular the US courts) continue to give M$ slaps on the wrist.

Now whether you think such a platform should be based on some other processor than PPC (or x86) is a different story.  Whether you think PPC is total crap or has a sketchy future, or whatever.  But x86 right now would be suicide.


Why would an x86 Amiga be competing against M$ when a PPC based one isn't?
You don't buy a computer plug it in and only then find out what CPU you've just bought!

An x86 Amiga would simply be cheaper than a PPC one at the same specfication. Nothing more nothing less. They would both use the same GFX and sound hardware... just a different processor.

I simply don't understand why so many on this forum seem to think that by using a PPC they magicaly no longer compete with M$, but if they use an x86 Amiga, evil Micros0ft would come along and automatically install windoze on it!!!!

I could see a lot of Linux users getting excited about the idea of a custom Athlon motherboard which couldn't run windoze. In fact if you follow the LinuxBIOS project you will find that it is not hard to do!! Once the IBM-PC BIOS is removed (or simply switched off as Linux and AROS do) the x86 is a great platform.

x86 Amiga = Cheaper, better spec!!!
PPC Amiga = Expensive, lower spec, little support (with uncertain future).

 :-o
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jumpship on May 04, 2002, 02:48:33 AM
All I want (as a consumer) is a computer that will allow me to do some word prosessing, few spreadsheets, surf the net, and maybe watch a few DVDs, oh an play a few games. I don't need (as most people in the world don't) a 2GHz+ machine.

The other thing I want is a computer that doesn't sound as if it is about to take off by pumping more air through it then a jumbo jets engine.

When Intel/AMD can make me a CPU that doesn't need all that cooling (even at 600MHz an Intel/AMD CPU needs active cooling), I will be happy to buy another of thier products. Hopefully AmigaONE will take off with OS4.0 enough that some people will start to produce/port software and I will be happy. If it falls flat on its face then I will take a long hard look at an Apple. Don't get me wrong, the x86's are good CPUs, but in a home enviroment you don't need something in the corner making enough noise to rivial your vacum cleaner.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: bloodline on May 04, 2002, 02:51:58 AM
I've just found the definitive page for anyone want to know exactly how bad the modern x86 is!!!!

Click Here (http://arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/x86future/isa-future-1.html)

This information is something we should all read!!!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: bloodline on May 04, 2002, 02:59:02 AM
Quote

jumpship wrote:
All I want (as a consumer) is a computer that will allow me to do some word prosessing, few spreadsheets, surf the net, and maybe watch a few DVDs, oh an play a few games. I don't need (as most people in the world don't) a 2GHz+ machine.

The other thing I want is a computer that doesn't sound as if it is about to take off by pumping more air through it then a jumbo jets engine.

When Intel/AMD can make me a CPU that doesn't need all that cooling (even at 600MHz an Intel/AMD CPU needs active cooling), I will be happy to buy another of thier products. Hopefully AmigaONE will take off with OS4.0 enough that some people will start to produce/port software and I will be happy. If it falls flat on its face then I will take a long hard look at an Apple. Don't get me wrong, the x86's are good CPUs, but in a home enviroment you don't need something in the corner making enough noise to rivial your vacum cleaner.


Ok, I take your point on that. But if you want maximum performance you need maximum cooling.

But the Mobile Duron can run without a fan, and it's pin for pin compatible with the Athlon...
The excelent Crusoe is really cold especialy for the performance. A Crusoe based Amiga would have been really brilliant!!!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kay on May 04, 2002, 03:17:41 AM
What's the point really? We've been waiting to migrate to a modern CPU
for ages, and when we finally get close to the goal, a bunch of whiners pops
up to tell us it's the end of the world if we do so. What's the point of
that? What are you trying to achieve? Do you really think AmigaOS4 and
access to new PPC hardware will harm the platform? Of course it won't.

Point one: When I buy a computer, I do it because I want certain
tasks to be done by running computer software. I believe a PPC based Amiga
to be capable of running the software I want very satisfactorily. If
you're in it for the MHz, go buy yourself a bloody radio transmitter.

Point two: There is already a base of PPC based software
for the Amiga. Which I, and probably some others as well,
want to keep using.

Point three: A lot of work has been done already to move towards a
PPC native AmigaOS. Why should we throw that away? So that we
can stay with the 68k a while longer, and then when AmigaOS4 x86
is almost ready, we can start complaining about that, and throw
that work away too?

You want to have x86 hardware? Fine. Be aware that AmigaOS doesn't
run natively on it, though. That's a fact, and no whining about how
poor the PPC processor family is will change it.
 
Kay
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:30:14 AM
I agree, x86 does suck. People today are so spoiled. Who needs fast processors. And you guys all have too much money anyway. I personally buy amigas, because I believe I have too much money, and modern computers are too fast, and I dont deserve such a thing. So while you spoiled people can enjoy your x86 (maybe even x96 by next week), I'll stick with my expensive 030 @ 50 mhz. If i wanted something faster I would get a TI Calculator. Jeez!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:36:53 AM
its insane ideas like that post right above this one...a person thinking they dont 'deserve' faster speeds....they actually want a slow computer...that make me think the community is getting insane....
the sad part is its litterly true that a 030 is less powerful then a calculator...a good one at least
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:39:03 AM
No you dont understand at all. I never said I wanted a slow computer. I want a lightning fast computer, thats why I chose the amiga. Your x86 is about the speed of lightning*100. That is overkill. Anyone with common sense wouldn't use a computer like that. Name one thing that you can do on your pc, that I cant do on my amiga. JUST ONE.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:43:02 AM
i can emulate your amiga faster then your amiga run's.....you cant claim to do the same.....
but this isnt an arguement saying classic amigas sucked...
im just saying that your totally insane to think a 030 50mhz cpu is good in this modern day...

i play video games 1600x1200x32bit full screen AA...and gets 60+ FPS in OpenGL.....
I rendering 3d animations and scenes in lightwave that took me months on the amiga in days or even hours..
I have access to 4 channel 16bit audio...as opposed to 8bit on the amiga...
theirs no comparison...
your nuts
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:44:50 AM
Someone please ban this osama bin laden terrorist. Gaming? Why would I want to run around killing people. Im not a terrorist like you. You can go play your 'quack arena tournament of killing', and ill go read a book. Using a computer to run around killing/blowing up people is the sickest thing i have ever heard. Please leave this forum at once, because I for one have a hard time reading your posts after what you just said.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:47:50 AM
I rest my case....

cough"nutcase'cough
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:48:52 AM
Typical terrorist behavior, you gonna try and eliminate all amiga users now? People like you sicken me.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:54:01 AM
Lets face it the amiga is a peace of junk. All you little amiga people ever talk about is how the amiga is so much better than pc’s. You people are always saying that windows is a bad os and stuff like that. But the truth is all amiga freaks run windows. I know this because there is no way in hell the amiga computers could ever have enough power to run a web browser. My little calculator can out render an amiga and go on the Internet at the same time. Why is it that when somebody makes fun of the amiga’s crapyness you always replay buy saying you don't understand the architecture. The truth is you people probably don't even know the architecture of your jelly donut.  
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:57:13 AM
a sad when its either troll's to the left...or troll's to the right...noone seems to be in the middle trying to figure out the truth.....bias bias bias.....

maybe im just a naysayer..
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: WalkernyRanger on May 04, 2002, 08:08:33 AM
Quote

greenday5000 wrote:
Lets face it the amiga is a peace of junk. All you little amiga people ever talk about is how the amiga is so much better than pc’s. You people are always saying that windows is a bad os and stuff like that. But the truth is all amiga freaks run windows. I know this because there is no way in hell the amiga computers could ever have enough power to run a web browser. My little calculator can out render an amiga and go on the Internet at the same time. Why is it that when somebody makes fun of the amiga’s crapyness you always replay buy saying you don't understand the architecture. The truth is you people probably don't even know the architecture of your jelly donut.  


I really don't care if you like Amigas or not, but at least realize that if we have both PCs and Amigas and still favor our 10 year old Amigas then they must do something right.  And btw my Amiga surfs the web perfectly on my cable modem and I prefer Voyager 3.3 to IE 6.  My PC @500mhz is slightly faster on bringing up pages than my 50mhz Amiga.  But Voyager crashes a lot less than IE does, and it is far more configurable.  But again you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.  Why must everyone buy the same computer and OS to be considered intelligent?  I have compared Windows and Amiga.  I'll take the Amiga!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Valan on May 04, 2002, 08:48:16 AM
Admittedly, MOSTof the capabilities of the classic Amiga are now junk.
That is why we are awaiting an upgrade to the H/W and S/W.

I use Lightwave all day, everyday on a PC yet it has been held back by the loss of decent AmigaOS and H/W. I have never seen a benchmark where the fastest PPC machine can out perform the fastest Intel machine at 3D rendering.

But PPC is the quickest way we will get decent H/W.

In my view the ideal is promised in AmigaOS5.
Let's get the H/W decent first, with PPC, then allow people the option to go with the CPU of their choice.

I look forward to when we talk about AmigaOS rather then spoiling talk about CPUs.

Valan
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 08:51:54 AM
so you feel that lightwave of today is somehow 'held back' because it isnt running on Amiga?....
pfff.....LW 7.5 with SSE2 opt's....a good gforce3/4(or quadro thereof)..FireGL 2/3/4/ 8800...on 'admittadly windows isnt the best' windows...is fine....i dont see hardware as the issue...lightwave runs plenty smooth on my system.... :-x
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Argo on May 04, 2002, 08:55:09 AM
Move along, nothing to read here.
Please don't feed the Trolls, They'll only come back for more.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: DarkHawke on May 04, 2002, 09:32:17 AM
Quote
Throw Win2K on a 2Ghz P4 and throw OS4.0 on a 600Mhz PPC system.

1)Time bootup time.
2)Get a seat of your pants feeling.

We will be able to do this comparison soon.


Your point, I take it, being that OS 4 will scream vs. 'Doze on the superior hardware.  Good point that.   But why don't we just save a step and run the superior OS on the superior (and much cheaper!) hardware?  Seems the way to do it to me.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Madgun68 on May 04, 2002, 09:34:02 AM
Quote
I simply don't understand why so many on this forum seem to think that by using a PPC they magicaly no longer compete with M$, but if they use an x86 Amiga, evil Micros0ft would come along and automatically install windoze on it!!!!


Why would Microsoft need to install Windows on it? Most store bought PCs still come with it preinstalled.

Truthfully, a personal operating system like AmigaOS isn't going to bother Microsoft one bit. That isn't where the big money comes from. They get more off site licenses and other products.

Heck, they wouldn't have bothered to respond to Linux at all if it weren't for all the issues being raised about the security flaws in their products.

MG
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: whabang on May 04, 2002, 09:50:11 AM
Quote
I have access to 4 channel 16bit audio...

Wow!!!
What's that? an old SB16?
Y'know... Most stereo output computers can play Dolby surround (with a decoder). My SNES could, my SB pro could, my PC can, don't understand why it should be a problem on Amiga, thoug I've never tried it, and if one don't use a SOUND CARD (ever heard of those, or are you running with a PC-speaker) you will only get 14-bit sound.

Who cares? I bought my first miggy to play games and that have been the main purpose ever since then. However the A1 discussions on this site got me interested, made me realize that there is life beyond Windows...

I won't buy the 600 Mhz version of A1. Mainly because it's a DEVELOPER BOARD. And I ain't no good programmer.
I'll buy the  thing when OS4 hit the shelves, assuming that I can afford it. I love AmigaOS, and I would love to use it as the first choise. And heck!! If everything else fails, it can still run linux...
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: arcticandyb on May 04, 2002, 10:35:43 AM
This is more a less a repeat of the post I made on another thread.. but here goes..

When one of those Atari ST users comes on this site to trash Amigas and their users, when we reply we simply give them what they want, the knowledge their comments have wound us up.

So let's just ignore the posts, and remember that only people with inadequately small genitalia would have the need for this kind of self-gratification..

And I thought all those Atari users were dead and buried with the company that spawned them..

How do I know this is an ST user.. isn't that what PCs really are?  Just Atari STs with crappier operating systems.. I mean look at the name MultiTos.. anyone from the UK knows the correct interpretation, and I doubt this usergroup's language regulations would allow me to explain to those that don't get what I mean.. but without meaning to offend, it means multi - w*nk or in American multi-j*rking off.  Again, apologies to all if these comments offend..
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Insanity on May 04, 2002, 11:37:11 AM
Quote
They believe that because company x is on top now and for some time, this will always be that way.


I wrote this superlong post earlier about this but my IE HANGED UP!! #R%¤E&%R/(&(/)(/=)(=)=)(=? IE.

Crap browser.

And I lost it all.

Lets see if I can recreate it.

www.emulators.com (http://www.emulators.com)
This guy knows a lot about P4 and its flaws etc.

The PPC versus x86 architecture discussion is basically the same discussion as the several decades old CICS versus RISC(I am old an senile I might have gotten the abreviations wrong).  It started the same time as the two systems were compared for the first time.

This discussion was pointless then and it hasn't become more important.

The quote above says it all. Throughout the two past decades CICS and RISC have taken turns at being the best cpu core. One thing that history has proven is that no matter how much better one system is, the other one WILL get back. This is like Yin and Yang. Black and white. Good and evil.

Moving on.

An advantage the PPC has over the x86, is that programs tend to be written better for it.
The x86's biggest problem is that there are millions of different standards. SSE, MMX, SSE2, 3DNOW! etc.
This plethora of instruction sets makes it impossible for the programmers to know what the hell to do. ( the guy at www.emulators.com (http://www.emulators.com) trashes this pretty well).
The Advantage the Amiga had was that it had set H/W (kind of like a gaming console such as PS1 or whatever). This ment that the programmers learnt how to squeze more power out of what they had instead of trusting that the users will waste more money to make it easier for them.

The PC did the opposit of this. And we all know the price of it. It creates huge holes in our wallets.

Because the programmers programming PC software don't specialize their code for a processor because there are several, and the don't bother to write it as effectively as possible because they know that if their program runs slow for the user, he´ll buy better H/W.
Is this the right way to go?

I say NO!
The responsibility should lie on the programmers to utilize the power that exist, instead of relieing on the user to cough up more dough.

Dunno if I am the only one that is tired of having worthless equipment after a year or so(PC).
Not only the games demand more. The OS'es do so to. Try running millenium on a pentium. I think I need a breath.

Oh another problem for PC users.
As the guy at www.emulators.com (http://www.emulators.com) point out, there are no good compilers that optimize the code to the new processors, and as the programmers are to lazy to write in machine code, (and it the fact that it sux when it comes to math) we'll again have to settle for lesser code. This was the p4's biggest problem when it first came out.

Ins Out.

[ Edited by Insanity on 2002/5/4 10:39:36 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Quixote on May 04, 2002, 02:06:17 PM
I'd be more impressed if the trolls learned how to spell.  Misspelling words and using the wrong
words altogether detracts greatly from their credibility.  Trolls frequently mix words
interchangably.  For example:

"your" with "you're",
"there" for "their" for "they're",
"its" for "it's",
"here" for "hear",
"then" for "than",

...and so on.  It's as if they believe that any homonym is equally as suitable as another.  Futher, I
see apostrophies placed where they don't belong, -such as for the plural, which is incorrect- or
missing altogether.  And of course, there are barbarisms such as:

"different than" instead of "different from",
"people that" instead of "people who"

And on and on.  And don't get me started on punctuation.

Really now, Greenday5000, Mips_Proc.  Are the degreed engineers at Amiga, Hyperion and Eyetech
supposed to defer to your superior wisdom when you haven't even mastered your own native language
sufficently to convey your ideas to others?


Take care...
--
Quixote
--

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: whabang on May 04, 2002, 02:15:16 PM
Quote

"your" with "you're",
"there" for "their" for "they're",
"its" for "it's",
"here" for "hear",
"then" for "than",


j00R
th3R
i7z
h34w
z3N

They are 1337 h4xx0Rz ja know.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kronos on May 04, 2002, 02:19:05 PM
Quote
I'd be more impressed if the trolls learned how to spell.


So everyone who hasn't learned english as his/hers native language is a troll ?

A troll is someone who only post to insult or spreads false information.

The pro-x86 people aren't trolls, they just have a different oppinon.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Hattig on May 04, 2002, 03:09:37 PM
What you say is reasonably valid, but I wouldn't use anything that the guy at emulators.com has written as evidence. He has no credibility.

The point is, IF you have some code that can be sped up by SSE, or SSE2, or 3DNow!, you can do a simple CPUID command to see if it is supported, and if it is, you call the SSE/SSE2/3DNow! routine, otherwise you call the generic routine. There are not a plethora of instruction sets - there is x86, and generally you will just code in C for the most part, with *speed critical* regions coded with the above methodology.

Yes, the Amiga was a computer with console hardware stability. At the time, the PC was though. Things have changed from a new CPU release every year to a new CPU release every quarter, a new graphics system every 6 months. This makes the PC superior for those that want this, and for everybody else they can pick up damn fast computers for very little money.

There is no need to write in machine code except for speed critical regions - you most used inner loops, etc, and only if they can be enhanced by using code that the compiler cannot generate.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 07:14:58 PM
MWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: anarchic_teapot on May 04, 2002, 07:23:34 PM
Quote

Kronos wrote:

So everyone who hasn't learned english as his/hers native language is a troll ?


Elementary logic lesson: "Trolls tend to have poor grammar and spelling" does not equal "All people who have poor grammar/spelling in English are trolls"

I daren't even add that trolls almost inevitably have poor reading comprehension skills, even though the same logic applies.

Morality: always take walk round block to cool off before sending bad-tempered messages.

Cheers,

Rose
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jumpship on May 04, 2002, 08:13:47 PM
:lol: I think that this thread has gone on long enough!

It started off as a "my cpu is better then yours" type of thing, now we have an english lesson!

What next? I wait in anticipation :-D

Come on people! Lets not get dogged down in bitching with each other, just have some disscussion and a bit of fun!

And I am sorry if my bad spelling offends anyone ;-)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 08:21:50 PM
How about a political diatribe, jumpship?

Just tell me if you'd like one.

Be seeing you.
6
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: redrumloa on May 04, 2002, 08:26:24 PM
Quote
Typical terrorist behavior, you gonna try and eliminate all amiga users now? People like you sicken me.


Say what?
 :-?
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: jumpship on May 04, 2002, 08:39:52 PM
6,

I don't mean any offence, all I mean is the subject was about an opinion that x86 is better then PPC. Then it got into something completely irelivent which could be insulting to people who may not have english as thier first language. Hell I am english and I can't spell (no doubt you can tell from this very paragraph! :lol:)

I just feel that some folk take this all a bit too seriously and need to take some things with a pinch of salt and move on.

IMHO anyway
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Valan on May 04, 2002, 09:13:13 PM
Yes, with the lack of developement on Amiga OS and decent H/W Lightwave has been held back.

The renderer slows down when rendering is displayed in a window. Renders are not shown at their true resolution as they are rendered. The HUB has minimum communication abilities. The object cannot move while being modeled.

Also I think the lack of raytracing competition has also held back the development of LW rendering abilities. On the Amiga it had Imagine, Sculpt3d, Real3D, Alladin and Cinema4D in the same market. It's only recently has LW had any competition in the PC world.

LW[7.5] has great speed improvements and the Expression builder is great for automated movement or effects. Sliders, object selection and motion blur/DoF in Layout work really well. Multiple bounces and clearer caustics will help some. But still I wonder where it would be if the Amiga had continued to be developed.
Of course it is a waste of time to sit and wonder, and that is why we are glad that any work is being done to get us new H/W.

Valan
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 04, 2002, 10:52:09 PM
so your saying lightwave renderd faster on an 060 then on current X86?....

who the hell wants to see a preview of the saved resolution i dont...render preview at 320x320 is fine...and you can adjust the render preview size BTW.
as for not bieng able to move as you model you must be takeing some pretty sweet drugs because on my planet we move the object all we want with the 'move' button
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Quixote on May 05, 2002, 12:33:58 AM
Hey there, Kronos, everybody.


Read my post again more carefully, please.  I hadn't said that.  Just because trolls tend to use poor
english doesn't mean everyone with poor english is a troll.  All squares are rectangles, but not all
rectangles are squares.  All circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.  You get the
idea.

It's been my experience that foreign students who learn english as a second language do so very well.
 They pay attention in the classroom and study and practice in their free time, because learning the
new language is important to them.

The abuses I listed in my earlier post are most common among American born-and-raised high school
-and sometimes college- students who lived all their lives speaking only one language, but never
bothered to learn it use it well.


Sorry if you mis-understood...
--
Quixote
--

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 05, 2002, 12:47:41 AM
it isnt the point....this thread started out as my arguement why PPC sucks...and now its gone insane.......WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 05, 2002, 04:16:31 AM
KEEP THE TOPIC ALIVE!!!!!!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: kubyx on May 05, 2002, 04:43:11 AM
Quote

greenday5000 wrote:
Lets face it the amiga is a peace of junk. All you little amiga people ever talk about is how the amiga is so much better than pc’s. You people are always saying that windows is a bad os and stuff like that. But the truth is all amiga freaks run windows. I know this because there is no way in hell the amiga computers could ever have enough power to run a web browser. My little calculator can out render an amiga and go on the Internet at the same time. Why is it that when somebody makes fun of the amiga’s crapyness you always replay buy saying you don't understand the architecture. The truth is you people probably don't even know the architecture of your jelly donut.  


You're way off base, and way uneducated when it comes to Amiga!

Amiga's CAN do web browsing... there are several web browsers out, Amiga CAN play MP3's skip free, Amiga CAN render 3D, even render it in realtime... as good and better than PSX.

Hell, even the Commodore 64 can do the above, and it DOES... with a SuperCPU addon that plugs into the Commodore 64 exspansion slot in the back. :-)

So, until you know what you are talking about, keep your fingers "quiet".
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Valan on May 05, 2002, 04:49:19 AM
As I said in my original post I have NOT seen a RECENT benchmark were the fastest PPC renders quicker than an x86 machine. I guess that would include an '060 also.

Sorry I thought you were familiar with Lightwave on the Amiga.



"Renders are not shown at their true resolution as they are rendered."
On the Amiga the render rendered on another screen in the correct resolution, no slowdown of the renderer and in a screen res and colour depth configured by the user. Currently the rendering screen can only have 3 selections; Off, 320x240 or 640x480.



"The object cannot move while being modeled."
The sentence says "cannot move" NOT, cannot BE MOVED. On the Amiga the 3D perspective view ossilated as/while/at the same time as, the user modelled.

Your original post seemed to suggest to use x86 rather than PPC. Although I understand your view I also understand that the AmigaOS can better use the resorces of a PPC  than a Win machine, even though it runs at a greater Mhz rate.

Valan
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 05, 2002, 08:02:33 AM
keep the topic alive
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Tigger on May 05, 2002, 08:11:21 AM
>>As I said in my original post I have NOT seen a >>RECENT benchmark were the fastest PPC renders >>quicker than an x86 machine. I guess that would >>include an '060 also.

The Dual 1 Ghz Apple systems (fastest available, cost 3K) dont even make the 10 fastest list, a single P4 2.2 Ghz gives identical speeds, which of those systems is cheaper??  The P4 by a large margin.  

>>Sorry I thought you were familiar with Lightwave >>on the Amiga.
I am very familiar with Lightwave on the Amiga, I will never go back to rendering on a system as slow as the amiga or even as slow as the new A1, I went past the render speed of a single 600Mhz G3, 3 years ago, I am not going back there so I can say I am using an "Amiga".

>>"Renders are not shown at their true resolution >>as they are rendered."                         >>On the Amiga the render rendered on another >>screen in the correct resolution, no slowdown of >>the renderer and in a                      >>screen res and colour depth configured by the >>user. Currently the rendering screen can only >>have 3 selections; Off, 320x240 or 640x480.

First of all you most definitely can preview at larger sizes, secondly you can render to a toaster display getting to an NTSC or PAL preview if you would like (as most of us do).

>>"The object cannot move while being modeled."
>> The sentence says "cannot move" NOT, cannot BE >>MOVED. On the Amiga the 3D perspective view >>ossilated as/while/at the same time as, the user >>modelled.

You can spin the preview all you want on the PC while you model, what exactly do you think it missing???

>>Your original post seemed to suggest to use x86 >>rather than PPC. Although I understand your view >>I also understand that the AmigaOS can better >>use the resorces of a PPC than a Win machine, >>even though it runs at a greater Mhz rate

The issue is that despite Apples best effort at a making a slimmer/faster OS then Windows, and them using the fastest available PPC's (G4) (and even dual), they are still slower at rendering then x86s running windows.   So implying that a single 600Mhz G3 running AmigaOS will be not only faster then the Dual G4 1Ghz Apple but faster then X86 is a pretty strange theory.
    -Tig    
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 05, 2002, 08:17:27 AM
ossilated?...you like haveing a jumpy screen while modelling....most of us dont
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 05, 2002, 09:43:26 AM
back in the top spot again woohoo
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 05, 2002, 11:31:09 AM
stayin alive ..staying alive..wooo hooo hooo hooo..stayinnnn aliiiiiiiive
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Alkemyst on May 05, 2002, 01:07:05 PM
i dont know why ppl are still arguing about ppc & x86.

the path has been chosen & there is nothing any of us can do about it atm.

just like fighting over wich party is in power , you make your vote & thats it you have to wait 4 to
5 years in the uk to change
the ppl in power.

it no good missing the deadline to vote then start moaning about the ppl in power you had your chance
but like alot of ppl cant be botherd to get of there ass & vote. then a week after moan & say that
75% population who satt on there asses  wanted the other party.

& even if that were true the 75% would not be able to change the ppl in power untill the next time.
so you end up with ppl in power that only 25% of the ppl wanted.

its not the 25% ppls fault but the fault of the 75% who should of cast there vote when they had the
chance.

now as far ppl saying that amiga should of gone x86 this time around, its too late you should of
spoken up much sooner.
many amiga ppl knew for a very long time that amiga had a 80% chance of going ppc, as phase5 made
amigappc cards.

its seems to me that most of the for x86 ppl have not been keeping an eye on the amiga scene & have
been spending most of there time on windows & linux, thinking that the amiga is dead.

then amiga.inc,eyetech.hyperion, & others start to do things again, then the amigaone/aos4 is
announced

& still no word from the x86 ppl they dont keep up on the amiga scence.

then things move on to point where that things look like it may be really happening & its not just
vapor & then non amiga sites start to mention whats going on & there will most likelly be new amiga
products, so the x86 ppl get wind of that
& go & see what the new amiga & os spec is & then think oh damn its not useing a x86 as i had hoped,
or even if it was useing x86 would then moan that its a custom mobo useing x86 & that they wanted to
use amigaos on the x86 mobo they already have.

so then they flood into forums & try to give valid reasons why amiga should go x86 & not ppc, weather
they are right or wrong does not matter, they are to late this time around.

just like when apple had to move on from the 68k. i bet if most of the apple users asked for x86 at
the time before thing were set in stone, they most likely would of gotten it. even tho it would of
been a custom apple x86 computer.

all things change over time 68k,x86,ppc,arm,sparc, ..ect will not be around for ever, even if the
name stays the same the chip in years to come will be compleatly different.

just make sure that when its time to move cpu or anyother matter with amigaOs again, that your around
to cast your views when it matters & not after.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Kay on May 05, 2002, 01:52:54 PM
Well spoken, Alkemyst. You've got the point EXACTLY. If Phase5 had made x86 accellerators instead, and Hyperion were currently busy with AmigaOS4-x86, I would have supported that path as well.

Think of it as a fork in the road: The road you were walking will not take you further, and you have to choose between going left and going right. Both roads will eventually take you were you want to go, although one road might take longer than the other. Anyway, you have to choose, and once you have chosen, you better stick with that choice, unless you want to waste a lot of time walking back and forth. The Amiga has been walking down the PPC road for some time now. Those who disagree with that choice should have made themselves heard when we were at the fork.

Time to calm down, accept the state of things, and support the efforts that are currently being made to breathe some life into the walking corpse that is Amiga.

Kay
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Valan on May 05, 2002, 05:04:23 PM
As I said in my original post I have [color=FF3300] NOT[/color] seen a RECENT benchmark were the fastest PPC renders quicker than an x86 machine. I guess that would include an '060 also.

The Dual 1 Ghz Apple systems (fastest available, cost 3K) dont even make the 10 fastest list, a single P4 2.2 Ghz gives identical speeds, which of those systems is cheaper?? The P4 by a large margin.

Sounds like you agreeing with me??
Glad to hear it!!

I am very familiar with Lightwave on the Amiga, I will never go back to rendering on a system as slow as the amiga or even as slow as the new A1, I went past the render speed of a single 600Mhz G3, 3 years ago, I am not going back there so I can say I am using an "Amiga".

Oops, Please re-read my first comment. You will see that I said the x86 are much faster.

First of all you most definitely can preview at larger sizes,
Wow, so how?

secondly you can render to a toaster display getting to an NTSC or PAL preview if you would like (as most of us do).
Oh, so I need a Toaster, right? Hmmm, thought about getting one but not for render previews.

You can spin the preview all you want on the PC while you model, what exactly do you think it missing???

Since you are very familiar with Lightwave on the Amiga you should know that the Perspective view oscillated automatically as you model. You seem to have forgotten, but then it has been gone for 2.5 versions and even more years.

The issue is that despite Apples best effort at a making a slimmer/faster OS then Windows, and them using the fastest available PPC's (G4) (and even dual), they are still slower at rendering then x86s running windows. So implying that a single 600Mhz G3 running AmigaOS will be not only faster then the Dual G4 1Ghz Apple but faster then X86 is a pretty strange theory.

Although this is your only sensible reply you still fail to remember the knowledge you gained from using an Amiga.

The idea that AmigaOS can use the resources of the PPC far better than ApplesOSX is an everyday fact rather than theory.

OSX is now only marginally faster than OS9.x. As all users with accellerated Amigas know, AmigaOS can emulate the Mac OS at very near 1:1 speed while doing other tasks.

As I have already said I think rendering will be slower using PPC but all else may well be much faster.

Valan

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: yssing on May 05, 2002, 05:28:10 PM
Personally if I were to rander at any system, I would not chosse x86 or PPC... maybe Silly GFX instead...
or a sun system...
although a wee bit more expensive....

Og hvis mit engelsk ikke er godt nok, så er mit dansk måske....

Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 05, 2002, 05:49:35 PM
G3 *G4 Rulez   68K For Ever !!!
I never wants to buy a PPC. Not enought support, and not enought power !
I need a A1G3   !

Please visit :
Amigaland ! (http://amigaland.free.fr/forum/)
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 03:17:43 AM
keep the topic alive....PPC is bad bad bad


  e         e        eeeee            eee
     e   e         E           e         e    
        e           e eeeee          eeee
   e        e     e            e        e      e
 e           e    eeeeeee        eeeee   4eva
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 03:30:16 AM
the main thing i want to say is that the people who sit and somehow find a way to defend the choice to use a slower more costly PPC and then beyond that lie either from ignorance or from the wanting to believe that  somehow with this wishy wash Amiga Magic powers or whatever that it will make the CPU(a scientifically defineable thing) able to render much faster....or make it capable of superior things. those people are denying themselves...the best post to read about amiga ive seen yet is on the forums  where a guy useing the name techzone_tron layed it right out in the open....

 Re: Is this going the way of ANN? How about active moderation?          
Having followed along the troll-fest here, I'll jump in and make a few observations.

As a former Amiga Dealer, Authorized Newtek reseller, Authorized Scala developer, believe me when I say there was a time when there was no platform that could realistically touch the Amiga's capabilities.

Roughly a decade+ later, with basically trickles of 3rd party support, the dwindling Amiga community lives on. And those who choose to continue to use Amiga's, well more power to them.

Technical arguments tend to turn into troll-fests unfortunately. There's little denying the truth of the situation, but it's kind of pointless to argue hardware issues, especially with people who do not truly understand what they're discussing.

For people who are interested in doing professional level 3D work, professional level video work, the Amiga as a platform is irrelavent. Sure there are those who continue to work on 3rd party expanded Amiga's, and continue to do well. But for anyone who doesnt already have a considerable investment in hardware, there's simply no reason to consider the Amiga.

As a past Amiga zealot, who still remembers the excitement of the platform, and the important milestones of the day (and no....going to AmiExpo's just so I could hit on Kiki Stockhammer while I was drunk doesnt count), I can perhaps relate better than many the frustrations felt with the lack of progress on the platform.

As a hobbyist endeavor, the Amiga still holds much appeal for many people. So does other similar endeavors revolving around classic computing. But as a viable, cost effective, and capable platform for professional use, the Amiga is dead, and has been for a long time.

Does that mean that I have abandoned it? No. But would I use it as a professional development platform for 3D work or video work, when the PC universe offers so much more power and capability for little %? Of course not, and no sane person could argue this......

My comments arent meant to be troll bait, just a realistic look at the situation from someone who has had much more experience with the Amiga, and the situation in general, than many who post here.


 
thats what he said and to me and anyone with commen sense it's hard to argue with his logic
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Panthro on May 06, 2002, 03:56:06 AM
Well now....

how ever I love those bench mark's I cant abide
Wintel!!  The G3 600mhz is the first machine in
years it is *JUST* to get us off of classic hardware
this is comman sense!!

PPC migh not be cheap but it is future proof.
The smart nove has been made do you think that
eyetech would have got support for a X86 amiga
mother board? :-P  LOL you seem to want X86 as
apposed to a alternative based on principal :-o  why
not just wait & see what happens? :-D  I recon on
there being much faster Hardware in the future ;-)
Meanwhile enjoy your PC I'm sure that your render
is generated in 3 seconds (drewl)   ..just as well
your sys would crash if it took any longer :-D  (JK)

I see your points I fix wintel all day long.........
I also see the A1 as therapy at the end of the day
after fixing wintel all day who wants to go home &
fix you own?

There will be Faster Amigas but not everybody renders try every day things! A G3 600mhz will do for now I think :-)

[ Edited by Panthro on 2002/5/6 12:20:12 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: JetFireDX on May 06, 2002, 04:48:38 AM
Wintel...there it goes again, the lack of definition between MS Windows and Intel x86 or AMD for that matter. The only reason PC's are the piles they are is because of WINDOWS! You don't hear Linux x86 users complaining about stability do you? No. Why? Because it is MS's fault that a PC can't run without an crash because the software running on it is garbage. AmigaOS is NOT garbage, and it will only be better with OS4, 5, 6, 22:-D...etc.. Thus is why I say I would love to see it on both, all, every CPU available, ala OS5. I don't even care if it is on a standard PC mobo, infact I hope not like the PPC AmigaONE's, there should/could (eventually) be a board with an x86 socket if you prefered it. But this argument that a PC is a pile of junk simply because of its CPU is absurd. A speedy PC is just that, its the bloated-slow-badly coded trash of an OS running on it that makes it bad. Unfortunately that is what most of us have to put up with now.

As far as voicing opinions way way back when the PPC boards started showing up, I don't recall one poll asking anybody what they wanted. (even if they asked then, we would have said PPC anyways) At the time, x86 was too slow to be used and Amiga users hated Intel because it represented the "other side" with Windows, so the natural choice was to simply avoid it. I highly doubt they could have forseen the x86 market exploding the way it did and the rather slow development of the PPC. But it is true, we are on this path and so we must follow it.

I will wait and see what users think of the AmigaONE's before I buy. If they are all saying "THIS ROCKS! It IS SOOOOO FAST!" I will get one, but if I hear otherwise I will wait until the next gen, or OS5 which ever comes first.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 06, 2002, 04:56:45 AM
Actually the FUD being spread about PowerPC is pure crap.  I just ran across this piece just yesterday on IBM's new PowerPC breed, the 'POWER4' which has just won a major award for its effort in PowerPC design with its POWER4 CPU architecture which is beating both Intel and Compaq's Alpha at a considerable margin, which in affect the engineering tech will trickle down the pipe to the PowerPC brother no doubt.  IBM is also trying to break Moore's law with super clocking the PPC techno with some of their homebrew projects, and we all know how weird IBM can be with their experiments.  Here is a headline about IBM's latest accomplishments...

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/020430/041372.html

[ Edited by AmigaMac on 2002/5/6 4:01:06 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 05:04:45 AM
and the power4 also has 8 processor cores...is the size of a baseball.uses 500watts of power....and costs more then a human clone.its not to say it isnt good engineering..but its over engineering..theirs no way any of us WILL EVER see a power4 sitting on a desktop.
and it should beat intel and alpha..considering they both use 1 processor core...1!!!! DERRR 1!!!!!....and both of them run on the desktop useing what? at most maybe 25 watts?...compared to 500 watts...
price of a Alpha bieng maybe 1000$ for the top of the line retail...price of the intel bieng what? 500$ top of the line...not to mention cost of running it....or cost of maintaining it...

the only thing FUD and 'pure crap' is your little ignorant rant....


[ Edited by mips_proc on 2002/5/5 21:05:44 ]

[ Edited by mips_proc on 2002/5/5 21:21:07 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 05:23:24 AM
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn=12&s=1005&a=23093&app=10&ap=11,00.asp    and heres a little for you..from a slightly more noteable site..explaining how wonderful and also how stupid it is to assume that you will have that cpu on your desktop.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 06, 2002, 05:37:23 AM
mips_proc maybe you should read up on facts before spreading bad gossip...

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html

"explaining how wonderful and also how stupid it is to assume that you will have that cpu on your desktop."

Oh and I never said anything about the POWER4 being run on the desktop, that was your silly assumption... and you know what they say about assumptions!


'nuff said

[ Edited by AmigaMac on 2002/5/6 4:39:52 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 05:55:15 AM
you compared a power4(a 5000$+ dollar 8processor core half a killowat swallowing mainframe CPU) with a 32bitP4? or the now obselete Alpha? and say 'Gee look it beats the Alpha its only 7 cores and 475 watts and 4000$ more expensive but it beats it'!!! WOW the power4...maybe the Power5 will use a whole kilowat and we can start useing metric drug slang with our processors.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 06, 2002, 06:04:59 AM
I didn't compare anything, that was the people who done the article and the folks who gave the award.  Go whine to them and the POWER4 actually has 2 processor cores not 8.  And if you're speaking on power efficiency, you wouldn't be touting the x86 over the PPC since we all know how inefficient the x86 really is on power consumptions, especially for mobile computing solutions!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 06:24:15 AM
Actually, Power4 is more than a processor, it's an entire neighborhood of processors. It's sold as a module comprising two processor cores per die, and four die per module, making eight 64-bit processors and 680 million transistors in one unit. Each individual die contains 174 millions transistors and measures a sun-blocking 400 mm2 in IBM's 0.18-micron 7-layer copper process.

 thats a quote from extremetech.com '8 processors' ....
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 06:28:58 AM
so you think a 500watt cpu is an efficent processor?
if so thats pretty funny...so 'ppc' and mobile computeing....1 companys apple...makes what? 4 laptops that use PPC?...and cost how much?....hahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha i'll take my crap riddled x86 anyday
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 06, 2002, 06:32:31 AM
That part I understand.  I didn't argue the point of them implementing multiple CPUs together.  Intel's Itanium CPU is also 64 bit as well.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 06, 2002, 06:36:50 AM
"hahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha i'll take my crap riddled x86 anyday"

Yeah you can have your 1 1/2 battery life performance wonder and a under performing mobile chip that has been down tuned to be somewhat power efficient.  I'll take my Powerbook G4 over that over glorified paperweight anyday!!!


[ Edited by AmigaMac on 2002/5/6 5:39:11 ]
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 06:54:27 AM
intel's itanium is a beta CPU...and it has 1 core 1 processor...you seem to think the power4  somehow competes in the same class as those other cpu's? i guess your both a zealot and ignorant.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 06, 2002, 06:59:10 AM
No it's you being uninformed and ignorant!  No I think all the Amigans will agree that you're a pure zealot and only here to spread pure FUD about!!!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 07:28:47 AM
hahahahah resort to name calling when ignorance shines through where zealous behavior and false
information dont....
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: AmigaMac on May 06, 2002, 07:36:13 AM
Maybe you should follow your own philosophy for once!
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 08:59:42 AM
bncvbncvbncbn
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 09:38:48 AM
>> and it should beat intel and alpha..considering
>> they both use 1 processor core

That's already done, the POWER4 beats by a large margin every other processor in SPEC benchmarks (which uses only one of the 8 avaible cores, so that's single processor performance) plus it scales wonderfully (one thing that Intel processors never did and probably never will).
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 10:02:37 AM
it's still rediculis to compare a 8 processor core cpu(wich does use all processor cores this isnt SMP)
to anything of lower classes....what if we compare the Power4 to the G4? ....the Power4 is in a class by itself really and no other CPU can even touch it because of its unique design ...its a powerful chip...but you cant compare Cray's to PC's or Amiga's to Power4's or anything like that...its an industrial processor...its ignorant to compare them...only a person who really didnt know what the Power4 was would compare it to anything else...its insane.
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: Alkemyst on May 06, 2002, 10:08:12 AM
>>As a former Amiga Dealer, Authorized Newtek reseller, Authorized Scala developer, believe me when I say there was a time when there was no platform that could realistically touch the Amiga's capabilities.
 
&  thats exactly why his comment has 0 value to users as he was in the money side of amiga & not the users side.
so ofcores the amiga is dead in his view as its much harder to make money from it anymore.
 
as soon as he cant make money from a platform anymore its dead for him even if the only reason is that ppl dont want the product line he is selling anymore.
 
but some one else productline for that platform may be selling verywell.
 
& again what are you trying to again buy knocking us for wanting ppc.
 
you asume way too much about the reasons for ppl stick with Amiga through virtualy anything.
 
i have nothing against pc HW in its self.
 
the fact that you just keep ignoring is the path was chosen years again with the PPC cards if they were x86 cards then Amiga would be going PC x86.
 
its phase5 who chose ppc no one else so you should blame them not us.
 
im going to buy an Aone cos thats all that is on offer if they had a x86 amiga i would most likely get that.
 
i will support amiga in anyway i can i dont care what cpu they use but i would be no help in just moaning & not buying anything on offer cos it aint got the cpu i want.
 
that would kill it real fast.
 
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 09:41:29 PM
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 06, 2002, 10:30:21 PM
weeeeeeeeee weeeeeeeeeee weeeeeeee
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 07, 2002, 12:35:07 AM
dzxczczxczxc
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 07, 2002, 01:05:50 AM
Hi
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: on May 07, 2002, 09:38:18 AM
hi
Title: Re: PPC is bad bad bad
Post by: whabang on May 07, 2002, 10:13:29 AM
For f**k sake! Lock this thing down!