PPC is bad bad bad

[Insanity]

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.)

[Insanity]

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)?

Seems to fit

It does, trust me it does.

[ Edited by Insanity on 2002/5/3 18:02:30 ]

[Insanity]

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:

[Insanity]

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.)

[Insanity]

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
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 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 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 ]