Blasphemy (I know, I know ...... but ?????)

[melgross]

Everyone should know it by now, that a company named Parallels has released a beta of a $49 program that does just that, using Intel's virtualization techniques built into the new Core chips.

The beta is free. Here:

http://www.parallels.com/

Here's a video that someone made using it.

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9170/

uncharted wrote:
HEATHEN!

Just kidding ;-)

Use what you need.  Although it looks like you might not need it by the time Leopard hits, there are various efforts to bring Windows emulation to OSX, including an Intel version of Microsoft's own VirtualPC rumoured to be in the works.[/quote]

[melgross]

That's not even in the slightest bit right. I'm getting a lot of interest from people who have been interested in switching, over the years,  who are ready to take the plunge.

These will be the only machines able to run all operating systems at full, or near to full, speed.

Now, if the moron's who are crapping their way through finishing some form, any form, of Amiga OS, would get off the pot, and move it to x86, it would run there, on the Mac,  far better than on any piece of junk that MIGHT ever see the light of day as Amiga native hardware.

[melgross]

I'm willing to bet dollars for donuts that OS X is a vastly more complex and sophisticated OS than any Amiga version that is being worked on.

The numbers that came out were that Apple has 350+ programmers on the main thread of its development.

That compares to, how many for the Amiga?

The point is that it wouldn't take nearly as much work to do it.

And, I'm not talking about some sideways version, as was brought up, but the main development model.

The PPC is now officially a dead end street. The G4 models have been relegated, for several years, to Freescale's embedded line. Now that Apple is no longer going to be buying them, any features that were useful for desktops will be expunged form the future line as being unnecessary, and wasteful of silicon, and power.

It saddens me to think that, but it's true.

All major operating systems that can be considered as being desktop systems now run on x86. This will have to as well.

With Parallels virtualization software, and the virtualization now being built into Intels chips, Amiga OS can be run on a Mac Mini quite well. Better than on any proposed hardware that will likely never see the light of day anyway.

It would therefore not require anyone to buy hardware. If you have hardware, you're set to go.

Fransexy_ wrote:

melgross wrote:
That's not even in the slightest bit right. I'm getting a lot of interest from people who have been interested in switching, over the years,  who are ready to take the plunge.

These will be the only machines able to run all operating systems at full, or near to full, speed.

Now, if the moron's who are crapping their way through finishing some form, any form, of Amiga OS, would get off the pot, and move it to x86, it would run there, on the Mac,  far better than on any piece of junk that MIGHT ever see the light of day as Amiga native hardware.

Apple a more big an active company has taken year of development of their OS for x86 in the background (or do you think that apple magically decided the stwitch an in a night made the port?) And even more OSX is based on BSD kernel that has an X86 port for much more years.An in these years a lot of apllications has been made for osx.
And do you want that amigaos will be ported to x86 in a night day from a small company with a small userbase and a small software library??? you are a crazy man, baby

[melgross]

Ok. First of all, embedded cpu's are not usually multi-core chips. Embedded chips, for the most part, do not have a need for great performance. The greatest need is for low power consumption, and reliability.

If you go through the catalogs of the embedded lines of several manufacturers, you will notice that.

Apple, as part of the Power alliance, influenced the development of the various chip lines, including supplying microcode and engineering. In turn, the manufacturers developed features that were exclusively needed by Apple. Altivec was one of those developments.
While I'm not saying that Freescale (and IBM) will strip these chips of all of these features, anything that hasn't proven to be required by the other embedded applications wou't remain. It's survival of the fittest.

Despite what you may have read, the Cell is only marginally a PPC chip. While the Xenon is closer to the older G4 line, with improvements, and deletions, the Cell is vastly different. It requires a very different programming model.

Intel will sell 300 million chips to desktop, workstation, and minicomputer manufacturers this year. Those numbers increase about 10 to 15% a year, particularly with Apple now using them as well. They will also sell tens of millions of x86 cpu's optimised for embedded applications to auto manufacturers and others. And AMD will do the same on a smaller scale.

Both IBM and Freescale will sell PPC chips in the tens of millions to the same kinds of manufacturers.

Together, MS and Sony will use perhaps 8 million Xenon and Cell chips this year, and perhaps 25 to 30 million each year until new models come out. The Revolution will not be using the Xenon, it will be using a much simpler chip. These chips, unlike those designed for the computer industry, and even for the embedded one, where chip designs change more slowly, will not be enhanced for the life of those consoles. While both IBM and Sony will sell some to Toshiba for their large screen TV's (the other intended use for the Cell), any workstations that will be based on them will have, at best, a VERY limited market.

Which one's the dead end?

SamuraiCrow wrote:
@melgross

Amigas have always run on embedded controller versions of the 680x0 series so why would embedded PowerPC models be any different?  They don't have anything missing from the desktop models except that they are more frequently multicore and less frequently involve out-of-order execution.

With the Cell processor being used in game systems and a triple-core PPC in Microsoft's own XBox 360 and the Nintendo Revolution it would seem that all of the most computationally intensive applications (games) will be running on PowerPC.

It seems, then, that Intel is getting relegated to the desktop in a market where embedded systems and consoles are taking over.  Which one's the dead end?

[melgross]

It entirely means that they will be less competitive. The computer market is nothing at all like it was back when people bought the C64, and put them in the closet after a couple of months because there was nothing useful they could do with them. and please don't say that that wasn't done, because it was the big joke at the time. I remember it very well. The C64 was the best selling single model in history — at the time. today, almost any single model, from anyone,  will outsell it.

People were told how easy balancing their checkbooks would be with a computer. When they found that it wasn't, and that there wasn't much else they could do with them, they either threw them away, or relegated them to the closet or attic.

Perhaps, using Amiga software, and hardware, you aren't aware of the modern computer scene, but chips change constantly. A one year old chip is already consigned to the trash.

The G4 is totally obsolete, useful for nothing. The G5 requires too much in ancillary support in the machine. The programming for the G5 is also different on several significant levels. Anything optimized for a G4 would have to be partly re-written to work properly on a G5. Sure, the older code will work, but as we found out on the Mac, portions will actually run slower, if the re-write isn't done.

And who will be using the G5's these days, other than some very small specialized manufacturers?

Your wish for the chips you mention is nothing more that that. It simply isn't relevent that the consoles will be competitive. Competitive with what? Each other? The hottest PC games already are superior to the ones coming out on the latest consoles. And so it will always be.

If the Amiga community lives with the expectations you have, then it will continue its rush to the grave.

The only chance it has, is to take advantage of the superior hardware out there, either Mac, or PC.

Any chips unique to the Amiga are totally irrelevant these days. CPU's and GPU's have made certain of that. No one will fund the development of new chips for what amounts to a few tens of thousands of users.

The Amiga OS teams have to get into the real world. The Amiga OS is today, no more than a hobby OS. As a program run under virtualization, it will sell to people who are interested in such things. But, if it is dependent on new hardware, then it has no hope.

Some understanding of this must be acknowledged. All of the infighting has done no one any good.

Most likely, there will never be any money to be made here, and the project should be relegated to Sourceforge. At least that way there will be some people working on it who really care. Unlike now.

SamuraiCrow wrote:
Speaking of not changing, the Playstation 3 will probably not change for the life of the product for compatability reasons.  The Commodore 64 also followed that same pattern.  The C64 was the best selling single-model computer in history.

Just because the chips change less doesn't mean they'll be any less competitive in the console market than they are today.  If anything, that gives IBM the incentive to be more creative as the Cell processor and the Kilocore processor indicate.  IBM is making great strides since Apple forced them out of their comfort zone.

[melgross]

That's not aimed at the normal embedded market. I didn't say that no chips for that market were multi core. That's intended for super computers, and the like.

And are you telling me that you expect a future Amiga to run on that? Because if you do, then you have no credibility.

Fransexy_ wrote:

Ok. First of all, embedded cpu's are not usually multi-core chips. Embedded chips, for the most part, do not have a need for great performance. The greatest need is for low power consumption, and reliability.

Sure? Well, this CHIP is aimed at embedded market and has 1025 cores

[melgross]

It doesn't matter much what Sony, or IBM wants. There are no tools available to work with these chips. And just what OS is going to be used with them, other than a Linux implementation, which, so far, hasn't succeeded in getting any of the SPE's to work? So, they have one in-order two thread enhanced (sotra) G4, with a truely wonky memory model that no one has ever used before, that can only handle 512MB of RAM without the SPE's.

Great!

So, you want the Amiga OS to be re-written for that, rather than for x86?

[melgross]

I agree with what you say.

The PPE actually does some work of its own. But without the SPE's, there really isn't much point to it.

Waccoon wrote:
er*

melgross:  Despite what you may have read, the Cell is only marginally a PPC chip. While the Xenon is closer to the older G4 line, with improvements, and deletions, the Cell is vastly different. It requires a very different programming model.

I've heard the PPE core in the Cell is more or less used as a preprocessor to keep the SPEs fed.

[melgross]

Interleaved memory? Do you understand the memory model?

It's called a "ring memory" scheme. It comes from Rambus.

It has nothing to do with the C64, or the 8086.

SamuraiCrow wrote:

The memory model has been used on the RAM expanders for C64s and 8086-based IBM PCs before and works.  The reason it works so well is that interleaved memory is really fast when accessed sequentially and a DMA-based approach delivers that kind of sequential access.

As for being rewritten for the x86 I'd be cheering for the AMD64 if it weren't for that funky little-endian byte ordering.

[melgross]

They can try as much as they want. It isn't worth the effort. The memory scheme is responsible for much of the chips performance. Once that's gone. Poof! As of now, their efforts haven't produced a working model.

They want to change, because the memory is expensive, and programming the Cell for anything other than games, is extermely difficult. They hope that by simplifing the memory model, it will take less work. It's a waste of time.

The Cell is good for what it does because of the entirety of its design. Alter one part, and you have to alter another.

As I said, a waste of time.

SamuraiCrow wrote:
RAMBUS memory isn't the only memory that will work with the Cell processor as Mercury Semiconductor is trying to make DDR memory work with the Cell as well using a custom northbridge.

[melgross]

What I'm trying to do, now that I've been a member for a while, and have read many threads, and posts, it to shake things up.

It must be realized that the community must get up off its collective arse, and make known its opinion. That opinion should be that all of these incompetent concerns that are supposedly working towards the day when the Amiga will again rise, are doing nothing more than squabbling like children.

Projects that will never get off the ground have to be abandoned, and the efforts put into those that have some chance of being completed.

But, the truth is that, in here, and in all the other places I've visited, other than the help groups, all I see is complaining and whining.

The people who run these groups have got to get together, pool their members and resources, and then, as a group, make it clear to those morons who have been screwing around for so many years, what it is that is expected.

And then, support for those who don't seem to understand, should be withdrawn.

The most realistic route has got to be taken. I've looked at this for a long time, and I truly can't find any better idea than to move to x86 at this point.

What does the community really want? Does it want an updated OS that they can actually run? Or do they want to keep their fingers crossed in the hope that maybe SOMEDAY, someone will finally release something useful?

As the OS really doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and the hardware is going to fewer places than the software, someone has to say; Enough!

The longer it takes, the fewer people who will wait around and care. It will get to the point that it will never be finished, because they see a smaller market each time they look. It's a downward spiral. Let it go on too long, and all will be left is the one or two sites that have almost no costs.

When I see boards that cost absurd amounts of money for what are basically obsolete products, I feel disgusted.

When a Mac Mini, or cheap Dell can run rings around these products, I see doom, and I don't mean the game!

[melgross]

Unfortunatly, I don't know the parties involved. If it were Apple...

This is why I suggested that those who do have some influence, and who are known, the site operators, and such get together on this. They have to agree about what a common goal should be.

I know that everyone has their favorite version, distro, or whatever anyone wants to call it. But that has to be worked out. People have to bow to the common good, even if it doesn't meet their own private wishes. A consensus.

A forum about it on each site would help. User groups have to be involved. But, people have to decide what has a best chance, and build from there. The entire community has to speak with one vioce, at the same time, with one organization.

In other words, if the "best" version is run by a group that simply usn't interested in cooperating, then tell them; Screw you. Then go to the next. but, of course, first everything has to be explained.

The other problem is to keep calm in discussions, and not get frustrated if most people don't want your choice. That's going to happen.

This isn't something that will take a month. It might take a good part of a year. But it has to start somewhere, and the sooner the better.

I see things slipping away.

[melgross]

Nope! I have three G4 towers here at home, along with two G5 towers.

By obsolete, I don't mean that they can't still be used if you have them. I mean that we won't be seeing anything new using those chips.

The question is; Do you always want to be about two generations behind in everything?

Do you expect a G5 model anytime soon? How about dual core?

Nvidia 7900, or ATI 1900 boards?

Should I go on?

Even running in virtual mode on a new machine, the OS will fly.

The new machines are so much faster that all of the specialty chips can be emulated in software, and STILL be faster.

Sparky wrote:

melgross wrote:

The G4 is totally obsolete, useful for nothing.

Aww crap .. you mean I've taken to many happy pills lately and I'm not really ripping a CD (and listening to it), re-encoding a video and reading Amiga.org on a G4 CPU'd computer ?

Bugger!

;-)

[melgross]

That's very cute.

Fransexy_ wrote:

The question is; Do you always want to be about two generations behind in everything?

On x86 world running windows you always have the perfomance of two generations behind.To run the current version of windows at happily speeds you need the processors of tomorrow and then you will be forced to run a new version of windows that need the next generation chip to run at reasonable speeds and then...........So what´s the point

Linux has become as bloatware as windows in the lastest years so........

And onother os on x86 is only another win for windows as every pc sold is money for microsoft  :madashell:

[melgross]

Technically, then, the old 68000 isn't obsolete either, but we know that it is as well. Obsolete means that the purpose or performance or cost to manufacture is superseeded by more current models. I'm sure the C64 is still useful, that doesn't mean that it hasn't been obsolete for 20 years.

Waccoon wrote:

melgross:  By obsolete, I don't mean that they can't still be used if you have them. I mean that we won't be seeing anything new using those chips.

Well, technically something is obsolete, or outmoded, when it is no longer useful.  :-)