Amiga.org
Operating System Specific Discussions => MorphOS => MorphOS -- Hardware requirements and availability discussion => Topic started by: Piru on July 25, 2010, 08:15:05 PM
-
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
-
Wow! that @$#*& is going to fly!.
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
-
And MorphOS takes the lead. Leaving the AOS4.x bite the dust...
-
This is GREAT news! I no longer have a PowerMac G5, but I bet the iMac G5 support won't be too far along.
Kinda strange to hear they jumped over the iMac though in favor of PowerMac's based on the previous incarnations. Hmmm. Oh well. If/when iMac support becomes a reality, might just give me the excuse to turn my main computer into a MorphOS machine and purchase a shiny new 24" or 27" iMac :)
-
And MorphOS takes the lead. Leaving the AOS4.x bite the dust...
Just can't have a single thread about this crap can we ?
Nobody is coming in to all the Morph OS threads and crapping over it, because it can't run dual core or whatever. Just appreciate each piece of technology for what it is, on its own.
-
Hot damn... :eek:
-
Just can't have a single thread about this crap can we ?
Nobody is coming in to all the Morph OS threads and crapping over it, because it can't run dual core or whatever. Just appreciate each piece of technology for what it is, on its own.
What's this all about? Why can't I be happy for MorphOS getting support for the fastest PPC computer build for consumers?
-
What's this all about? Why can't I be happy for MorphOS getting support for the fastest PPC computer build for consumers?
You can be happy. It's just that your post does not in expresses joy over what MOS achieved but joy that AOS4 failed in your opinion.
So you just come across as a AOS4 hater instead of a MOS fan. Haters are sad people IMHO.
-
You can be happy. It's just that your post does not in expresses joy over what MOS achieved but joy that AOS4 failed in your opinion.
So you just come across as a AOS4 hater instead of a MOS fan. Haters are sad people IMHO.
Well my SAM440ep flex should arrive next week, but I'm still happy for MorphOS.
-
Well my SAM440ep flex should arrive next week, but I'm still happy for MorphOS.
You're now forever marked as blue troll. Enjoy :lol:
-
T but I bet the iMac G5 support won't be too far along.
Ok I'll take you on on that one. Lets say for 1,000,000 Euro ?
Well maybe I should tell you that all iMacs feature NVidia-GFX chips, and that sofar noone in the MorphOS-team has shown real interest in those ;)
-
This is GREAT news! I no longer have a PowerMac G5, but I bet the iMac G5 support won't be too far along.
Kinda strange to hear they jumped over the iMac though in favor of PowerMac's based on the previous incarnations. Hmmm. Oh well. If/when iMac support becomes a reality, might just give me the excuse to turn my main computer into a MorphOS machine and purchase a shiny new 24" or 27" iMac :)
Many iMacs use nvidia gfx chips. an yet MorphOS is lacking drivers for nvidia. I am hoping (and kind of suggested that yesterday to Frank and/or Jacek) to maybe do a bit more cooperation with the AROS project and and maybe participate on the latest nvidia AROS drivers. I think AROS and MorphOS could in parts profit from each other if a few resources (a *few*. Am really not suggesting to make AROS MorphOS and vice versa) were shared.
Anyway the G5 thing is a hammer! But myself I am looking very forward to the Powerbook version first - I hope it'll make it for X-mas.
-
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
Bill Gates former partner, Paul Allen is in Helsinki on his 120 meter yacht,
look him up, demo the latest Morphos, you never know, he did much thinking outside the box after leaving the dark empire. Its worth a shot.
Congratulations on the progress. It is nice to see 2700 mhz in a config photo,
instead of 25mhz!
Cheers
-
Bill Gates former partner, Paul Allen is in Helsinki on his 120 meter yacht
The yacht was here the 15th, and it left the same day. Not that it makes any difference...
-
Very nice, so maybe I should go looking for a G5 Powermac now that I canceled my eMac for a Powerbook j/k :)
But anyways.. the G5 system, are we talking about that shiny alu tower that uses 5-600 watt?
-
What does G5s go for these days anyways ?
-
What does G5s go for these days anyways ?
I almost bought a dual G5 for 250 euro last week. Prices are very sharp compared to the competition. If I was looking for a PPC Amiga like OS I know what I would buy.
MorphOS is looking really good and the chosen hardware route (older Mac hardware) is excellent, with lots of choice.
-
What does G5s go for these days anyways ?
Depends. If you want a low end G5, I've seen $100-$200. The top end is about $600 - $700 or so.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Power-Mac-G5-Early-2005-2-7GHz-Dual-8Gb-Ram-Raid0-1Ter-/190418045421?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item2c55ccc9ed
-
And MorphOS takes the lead. Leaving the AOS4.x bite the dust...
OS4 may not be biting the dust just yet, but it's true, though, the number of machines that can run MorphOS at this point dwarfs (to put it lightly) the number that can run OS4. I'd bet it does make for a larger user base, potential and realized.
-
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
Nice :)
Now, to respond in the manner I've come to expect of many in the community:
This really sucks. Old hardware that's less powerful than my N year old PC. Bet there's no 64-bit support and dual G5 boxes are totally out. A 32-bit OS running on just one 64-bit capable CPU out of a possible 2, yada yada etc.
-
Nice :)
Now, to respond in the manner I've come to expect of many the community:
This really sucks. Old hardware that's less powerful than my N year old PC. Bet there's no 64-bit support and dual G5 boxes are totally out...
And that's a valid statement, nothing to say against that (except that since it's old, there are more excuses for being slow :)).
-
Depends. If you want a low end G5, I've seen $100-$200. The top end is about $600 - $700 or so.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Power-Mac-G5-Early-2005-2-7GHz-Dual-8Gb-Ram-Raid0-1Ter-/190418045421?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item2c55ccc9ed
I'd imagine even a low end machine would still play very well with Morph
-
Well maybe I should tell you that all iMacs feature NVidia-GFX chips, and that sofar noone in the MorphOS-team has shown real interest in those ;)
Politics getting in the way here?
MorphOS developers aren't crazy about WiFi or Bluetooth either, yet MacMini platform is supported. Okay, so you don't need WiFi or BT to display a picture. :)
-
@save2600
Maybe it's just that they don't have unlimited resources?
-
@save2600
Maybe it's just that they don't have unlimited resources?
These are extremely bright lads. Do we need to supplant the MorphOS license with an NVidia development book fund too? lol
If so, I'd be happy to donate. May as well get 'em a Mac Bluetooth and WiFi book too while we're at it :laughing:
-
This is great news! Ill start looking on our Swedish eBay for Power Macs with ATI gfx right away :)
-
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
This really does make me smile, Piru. Thank you for all your support.
-
And that's a valid statement, nothing to say against that (except that since it's old, there are more excuses for being slow ).
Nice to see some honesty... Better than some "well, we know how to implement SMP support and 64bit ;) It's just not ready yet."
-
It's good to get that out of the way in advance!. ;)
Nice :)
Now, to respond in the manner I've come to expect of many in the community:
This really sucks. Old hardware that's less powerful than my N year old PC. Bet there's no 64-bit support and dual G5 boxes are totally out. A 32-bit OS running on just one 64-bit capable CPU out of a possible 2, yada yada etc.
-
Haha! I knew this would be coming eventually. Well done, lads! Planning support for anything other than 7,3? 11,2, perhaps? :)
The G5 just made my hardware purchase priorities list.
EDIT: New fuel for the flamewar that these Slashdot (http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/07/23/2314248/What-To-Do-With-an-Old-G5-Tower) guys are engaged in. :)
-
Nice news!
:)
-
Haha! I knew this would be coming eventually. Well done, lads! Planning support for anything other than 7,3? 11,2, perhaps? :)
)
According to the Apple Museum site these are the PowerMac G5 revisions:
PowerMac7,2 Power Macintosh G5, Power Macintosh G5 (Early 2005, dual 2.0 + 2.3 GHz)
PowerMac7,3 Power Macintosh G5 (June 2004), Power Macintosh G5 (Early 2005, dual 2.7 GHz)
PowerMac9,1 Power Macintosh G5 (Late 2004)
PowerMac11,2 Power Macintosh G5 (Late 2005)
There was also a PowerMac12,1 which was an iMac G5
and an earlier PowerMac8,1 and 8,2 which were also Imac G5's.
source: http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=36#
-
It's just that your post does not in expresses joy over what MOS achieved but joy that AOS4 failed in your opinion.
And if you consider that the X1000 has a comparable chip - it even comes across as uninformed.
-
lots of iMac (G3,4, and 5) sitting in peoples' back shelves or closets just begging to be put to use again!
-
What does G5s go for these days anyways ?
I just got one for 300 €. Dual 2.5GHz with 3GB RAM, 160GB HDD, Superdrive and Radeon 9600XT, incl Mac OS X Leopard.
I bet you can find ones cheaper in the US or elsewhere in europe, but the darn thing weighs 20.2 kg (44.4 pounds). This one is located by the Helsinki tram line...
-
Thats a monster of a machine. I don't dare think of the shipping costs...
-
Big step forward. Congratulations.
-
Bill Gates former partner, Paul Allen is in Helsinki on his 120 meter yacht,
look him up, demo the latest Morphos, you never know, he did much thinking outside the box after leaving the dark empire. Its worth a shot.
Cheers
The only way to make him stop by MorphOS is to throw some heavy hardware (eMac may work) at the yacht and sink it.
-
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
My guess is that it's still very far away, if it will ever be released. And the same goes for this I guess:
(http://image.bayimg.com/bangnaace.jpg)
-
What does G5s go for these days anyways ?
Depends. If you want a low end G5, I've seen $100-$200. The top end is about $600 - $700 or so.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Power-Mac-G5-Early-2005-2-7GHz-Dual-8Gb-Ram-Raid0-1Ter-/190418045421?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item2c55ccc9ed
Ranging in between 1/25 to 1/4 of "Definitely North of UKP £1500" then...
:)
-
And MorphOS takes the lead. Leaving the AOS4.x bite the dust...
The picture says: 2700 MHz CPU, 1350 MHz FSB. :)
The Powermac G5 is the fastest PPC desktop ever, isn't it? Definitely the fastest platform any PPC based *miga OS will ever see!
And you won't have to sell your first born (*and* your car) to get it! :)
The MorphOS team's strategy to support every kind of suitable Mac model worth supporting has really been the way to go, it's clearly the winning strategy! Making the most out of the PPC platform makes sense, since this is where MorphOS is ATM. What happens "post PPC" remains to be seen, but it's a good thing to make use of all cheap Mac HW that people more or less throw at you! :)
I couldn't be more happy with my 1.5GHz Mac Mini though. Silent, very small and neat, and does pretty much everything (except 1080p x264) I want of it!
The G5 isn't for me... :)
-
Wow I have a 1.8 ghtz G5 that is showing it's age but will make the perfect Moprhos box. Folks can't give away the G5's becuase they just can't run the new MacOS intel only stuff. ***JOYGASM!***
-
Wow I have a 1.8 ghtz G5 that is showing it's age but will make the perfect Moprhos box. Folks can't give away the G5's becuase they just can't run the new MacOS intel only stuff. ***JOYGASM!***
Yeah, and companies are beginning to offload vast quantities of G5 Macs as support for PPC SW on Mac is diminishing!
:)
The MorphOS Team are finalizing the picture! The palette is getting complete! After the...
Mac Mini (Small)
eMac (Cheap)
PowerBook (Laptop)
PowerMac G4 (Cheap, expandable, "real" case)
PowerMac G5 (Powerful (the very top of the line of what PPC had to offer when it comes to performance))
...they will fully have covered all reasonable PPC options there is!
:)
-
Nobody is coming in to all the Morph OS threads and crapping over it
:lol: :lol: :lol:
No, that's something OS4 users simply don't do, right?
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32121&forum=28
:lol:
-
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
Wow that will be smokin'!
-
Haters are sad people IMHO.
And people who adopt ghetto slang are sad, too. :)
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
No, that's something OS4 users simply don't do, right?
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32121&forum=28
:lol:
If waving red herring makes you happy, then so be it. :lol:
-
And people who adopt ghetto slang are sad, too. :)
Hey, show some restecpa for tha hood, yah! ;-)
-
EDIT: New fuel for the flamewar that these Slashdot (http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/07/23/2314248/What-To-Do-With-an-Old-G5-Tower) guys are engaged in. :)
I noticed that to on Slashdot, was quite surprised most thought the best idea was to recycle it, strange how that site changed over the years (been following it since 98) :)
-
nice to see at least an upgrade from radeon 9200 ;) is 9600 the highest going to be supported?
will morphos do anything with >1 cpu, or does it just spin it up? hopefully its in idle state..
is there any plans as far as 64bit goes? hopefully it wont crash when it sees 8gb ram..
those g5's were bastards for cooling, gen1 g5's also had issues.. still I'd take one :)
-
MAby one could run spare vacuum cleaner hose from G5 fan intake to nearest air conditioner ?
Ham radio operators who became irritated with excessive fan noise have been known to put big fan outside and duct LOTS of cool air to tube amplifiers.
Then again ,I could just run one USB 2 cable to a USB hub installed in a case with 2 DVD/CD drives,card reader,mouse and keyboard leaving the CPU/power supply/noisy fans at least a couple meters further from my ears?
-
lots of iMac (G3,4, and 5) sitting in peoples' back shelves or closets just begging to be put to use again!
Aren't the G3 and G4 PowerMacs to slow to run MorphOS or just UAE?
or most G4's and then you would have to be careful what you got because of motherboard changes and upgrade ability (with the exception of some pricey processor upgrades)
And then the other question will MorphOS eventually make the move to intel as Apple has done?
-
WOW!!! I'll be getting a free G5 in short time and this is just wonderful news!!
-
And then the other question will MorphOS eventually make the move to intel as Apple has done?
Imho if MorphOS Team will ever consider moving to x86 architecture (which is unlikely to happen), supporting overpriced Apple intel hw wouldn't be the best idea.
-
Aren't the G3 and G4 PowerMacs to slow to run MorphOS or just UAE?
or most G4's and then you would have to be careful what you got because of motherboard changes and upgrade ability (with the exception of some pricey processor upgrades)
And then the other question will MorphOS eventually make the move to intel as Apple has done?
Its unlikely that G3s are going to be supported. G4s are certainly fast enough (the fastest common Pegasos uses a G4 at 1Ghz). Right now, they've only shown Powermac support for the last G4s, the MDD/FW800 models. Since they top out at 1.42Ghz they should be a upgrade to most Pegasos owners.
Most of the users of the Mac Mini seem quite satisfied with their machines (which top out at 1.5 Ghz).
All these G4s are going to be faster than the boards manufactured by Acube (who's Applied Micro PPC based boards use less powerful CPUs).
The G5 is going to be a brute. G5s processors are slightly more powerful then the PA6T and are available at speeds up to 50% faster then that of the X1000 (at a much lower price).
-
The G5 is going to be a brute. G5s processors are slightly more powerful then the PA6T and are available at speeds up to 50% faster then that of the X1000 (at a much lower price).
Untrue. The PA6T outperforms the G5 quite comfortably at the same clock, at least for floating point and is on par for integer performance. Try your google fu and you'll soon see.
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=566253&postcount=31
The advantages of the G5 mac are cost and maximum clock rate. Both of which still equate to a better price/performance ratio than the PA6T, of course.
-
The advantages of the G5 mac are cost and maximum clock rate. Both of which still equate to a better price/performance ratio than the PA6T, of course.
Yes indeed this Mac will be faster. From the picture from the G5 Mac from the show:
Processor: 2700 MHz, FSB: 1350 MHz
AFAIK the PA6T processor in the "X1000": 1800 MHz, FSB: 1067 MHz.
So yes, performance wise it will kick "X1000" butt, at a quarter of the cost (in the worst case, probably much less). Even more so if the difference in OS/SW performance between MorphOS and OS4 remains, and I have seen no signs suggesting otherwise.
We will know for sure *how much* behind OS4 on the X1000 will be compared to MorphOS on a fast Powermac G5 when we see a complete comparison benchmark of the two, like the obligement test some time ago. But it will be behind.
-
Untrue. The PA6T outperforms the G5 quite comfortably at the same clock, at least for floating point and is on par for integer performance.
Indeed.
For integer performance PA6T has 500 SPECint2000 per GHz. 970FX has 472 per GHz. So already 2GHz 970FX beats X1000.
For floating point performance PA6T has 750 SPECfp2000 per GHz. 970FX has 564. This means that 2.5GHz 970FX is faster than X1000.
Note: For 970MP the performance per clock is higher, so these comparisons only apply to 970FX models. The numbers I could find would suggest 571 SPECint2000 per GHz and 830 SPECfp2000 per GHz, but I couldn't confirm these figures.
-
Yes indeed this Mac will be faster. From the picture from the G5 Mac from the show:
Processor: 2700 MHz, FSB: 1350 MHz
AFAIK the PA6T processor in the "X1000": 1800 MHz, FSB: 1067 MHz.
So yes, performance wise it will kick "X1000" butt, at a quarter of the cost (in the worst case, probably much less). Even more so if the difference in OS/SW performance between MorphOS and OS4 remains, and I have seen no signs suggesting otherwise.
We will know for sure *how much* behind OS4 on the X1000 will be compared to MorphOS on a fast Powermac G5 when we see a complete comparison benchmark of the two, like the obligement test some time ago. But it will be behind.
Of course it will. What you are suggesting is like comparing a 50MHz 030 against at 33MHz one, it's a complete no-brainer as to which will be faster in processor intensive tasks.
However, it's not all doom and gloom for the PA6T. The mac G5 machines are complete pigs when it comes to power consumption, the very issue PASemi sought to address when they designed the PWRFicient system in the first place.
-
Indeed.
For integer performance PA6T has 500 SPECint2000 per GHz. 970FX has 472 per GHz. So already 2GHz 970FX beats X1000.
For floating point performance PA6T has 750 SPECfp2000 per GHz. 970FX has 564. This means that 2.5GHz 970FX is faster than X1000.
Note: For 970MP the performance per clock is higher, so these comparisons only apply to 970FX models. The numbers I could find would suggest 571 SPECint2000 per GHz and 830 SPECfp2000 per GHz, but I couldn't confirm these figures.
It's probably fair to say that, whichever camp you are in, both the PPC970 and PA6T give ample processing power for people used to G4 class machines or slower.
For myself, if I need computational grunt, I use my Core2, which is fast enough for almost everything. If I need even more computational grunt and the problem is of the appropriate class, I use my GPU. The latter delivers throughput that makes code running on the Core2 and any desktop PPC (even with full vector unit optimisation) look utterly pitiful.
-
Untrue. The PA6T outperforms the G5 quite comfortably at the same clock, at least for floating point and is on par for integer performance. Try your google fu and you'll soon see.
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=566253&postcount=31
The advantages of the G5 mac are cost and maximum clock rate. Both of which still equate to a better price/performance ratio than the PA6T, of course.
That doesn't actually agree with figures I've received from other sources. In fact, while the PA6T clearly beats Applied Micro's new Titan cores and other Applied Micro products the drystone figures I've been given (which is an alternate if fairly artificial measurement) reflect different performance figures than your floating point comparison.
These comments were post by Andreas Wolf on MorphZone.
Just for the purpose of overview I compiled a list of the DMIPS/MHz per core figures for various PPCs in ascending order (AltiVec capability is generally ignored, obviously):
e300: 1.9
PPC440: 2.0
PPC460: 2.0
Titan: 2.0 (presumably PPC450 based (http://www.morphzone.org/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7186&forum=11&start=20#74317))
PA6T: 2.2
PPC750: 2.3
e600: 2.3
PPC470: 2.3 or 2.5 (varying with information source)
e500mc: 2.5
PPC970: 2.9
e5500: 3.0
What seems really weird is the rather low value for the PA6T (which was provided by P.A.Semi themselves btw), especially compared to the PPC970, which I thought it should have been on par with. Or maybe the PPC970 figure is too high (i.e. with AltiVec)?
[unquote]
While PA6T figure may be low, its important to remember the figures came from PA Semi.
Frankly, I don't think the PA6T demonstrate a "quite comfortable" advantage and if these figures are even close to correct then even a G4 at comparable speeds may offer competition for the PA6T.
Once you balance both these measures, you come to realize that at similar speed the performance of the PA6T and the G5 are going to be close. And the PA6T is a far more energy efficient processor. Of course, on the other hand, the G5 (PPC970) operates up to 50% faster.
The real shocker is that while it doesn't support nearly as good floating point performance, Freescale's new 64bit e5500 communications oriented core may outperform all of these (at similar speeds).
-
However, it's not all doom and gloom for the PA6T.
No I'm sure the PA6T and the "X1000" will have a long, bright and glorious future. People are probably already lining up to pay premium money for yesteryear technology...
The mac G5 machines are complete pigs when it comes to power consumption, the very issue PASemi sought to address when they designed the PWRFicient system in the first place.
Yes. Well, the point with the PA6T was to be in Apple laptops AFAIK, so the goal was probably to not consume much more than a G4, while still offering performance above the G4's they were using at the time. It would never compete on Apples power desktop market though; it wouldn't replace the G5.
But obviously Steve Jobs thought it was no point with PPC anyway, since Apple left the platform half a decade ago. Since then, what once was "PA Semi" as well as its IP was assimilated into Apple along with its developers. Apple obviously "scrapped" the technology, used the engineering competence and patents to create their own ARM "A4" processor or whatever, and AFAIK, most of those old PA Semi developers even left Apple since then...
-
Wow I have a 1.8 ghtz G5 that is showing it's age but will make the perfect Moprhos box. Folks can't give away the G5's becuase they just can't run the new MacOS intel only stuff. ***JOYGASM!***
Sounds like we have the same machine, Crom! I bought my dual G5 1.8 in early 2004 and its been a workhorse. Since I can't move beyond OSX 10.5 I've mostly moved to my intel Powerbook for most work. Nice to have a future for the machine since it still runs great and is loaded with memory and hard drives!
Looks like I'd better start paying attention to MorphOS!
Bob
-
No I'm sure the PA6T and the "X1000" will have a long, bright and glorious future. People are probably already lining up to pay premium money for yesteryear technology...
No need for the sarcasm, I already said it was not a cost effective part in comparison to the G5.
Yes. Well, the point with the PA6T was to be in Apple laptops AFAIK, so the goal was probably to not consume much more than a G4, while still offering performance above the G4's they were using at the time. It would never compete on Apples power desktop market though; it wouldn't replace the G5.
The G5 was a disaster for apple. The worst performance per watt of any CPU they'd ever used at that point. Given that one of apple's then long running claimed benefits over "hot, power hungry x86 processors", releasing dual processor, water-cooled CPU machines with over 60W per CPU, the G5 was an embarrassment to them. They'd promised 3GHz but couldn't manage it. They promised lower power, cooler workstations and couldn't manage it. Meanwhile, x86 continued to get faster and less power hungry the entire time.
But obviously Steve Jobs thought it was no point with PPC anyway, since Apple left the platform half a decade ago. Since then, what once was "PA Semi" as well as its IP was assimilated into Apple along with its developers. Apple obviously "scrapped" the technology, used the engineering competence and patents to create their own ARM "A4" processor or whatever, and AFAIK, most of those old PA Semi developers even left Apple since then...
And it was the smartest move he ever made. As much as I like PPC, and I do like it, it just cannot compete with current x86/AMD64 based architectures. Not on performance, not on power consumption, not on cost and not on any permutation of the three. Whatever your CPU needs, there are faster, cooler, lower power and cheaper x86 parts available.
Which is why this G5 v PA6T pissing contest that you are so happily engaging in is a bit of a joke, really. The PA6T may be newer, perform better per watt and depending on which source you believe, better per MHz than the G5. The G5 may clock higher and ultimately perform faster, but whichever way you look at it, they are both obsolete. Thoroughly and utterly.
Finally, what will you do on your obsolete PPC platform of choice that requires either a G5 or PA6T that you can't already do more than comfortably on a G4?
Last time I looked, there wasn't really any Amiga specific software in existence that really needs the horsepower that even these old processors can deliver.
-
Looks like I'd better start paying attention to MorphOS!
Bob
You do that!
:)
-
The worst performance per watt of any CPU they'd ever used at that point.
...Performance per Watt?! Well, indeed, but also the best performance per se that the PPC could ever offer...
As much as I like PPC, and I do like it
Personally, I have no "feelings" for PPC whatsoever. Why would I? Did you really believe so?
It's dead Jim, DEAD...!
it just cannot compete with current x86/AMD64 based architectures.
Are you kicking in open doors here?
The PA6T may be newer, perform better per watt and depending on which source you believe, better per MHz than the G5. The G5 may clock higher and ultimately perform faster, but whichever way you look at it, they are both obsolete. Thoroughly and utterly.
*Definitely* kicking in open doors then! (And the PA6T is everything but new...)
But it's better to pay 1/4 of the price for one kind of "obsolete" hardware, than paying £1500-£2000 for another "obsolete" hardware that performs **worse** than the cheaper one...
Finally, what will you do on your obsolete PPC platform of choice that requires either a G5 or PA6T that you can't already do more than comfortably on a G4?
Well, as I've said plenty of times before, I'm certainly not in the market for *neither* of these two.
But to answer your question, for one thing, I would hope they could play 1080p x264 streams. The Mac Mini does 720p (on MorphOS)
Last time I looked, there wasn't really any Amiga specific software in existence that really needs the horsepower that even these old processors can deliver.
Depends on your user pattern I guess.
Personally, I'm quite media centric. HD movies of today requires power!
:)
-
But to answer your question, for one thing, I would hope they could play 1080p x264 streams. The Mac Mini does 720p (on MorphOS)
...
Depends on your user pattern I guess.
Personally, I'm quite media centric. HD movies of today requires power!
:)
Which means you have even less reason to use MorphOS or AmigaOS. You can get a totally silent, low power usage PC for less than the price of a second hand G5 mac (let alone a new X1000!) that will play 1080p media, record TV etc. using completely free OS and software.
I mean no disrespect to MorphOS, but if you are trying to sell the concept of a buying a second-hand, power hungry G5 box to run an OS you have to pay for just to be able to watch 1080p media, when free alternatives will do the same job on cheaper hardware you can get anywhere, then I'm sorry but it isn't working. I'm not saying you can't use it for that purpose, I'm quite sure you can* It's just that you'd have to be pretty stupid in the cold light of day to go out of your way to do so in light of said alternatives.
Face it, MorphOS is what OS4 is: an OS aimed squarely at people that want to be able to run Amiga compatible 68K/PPC software and that really is it. What's more, that's all the justification there needs to be. I'm perfectly happy with that, but I can see no other sensible justification for either platform. They just don't do anything beyond running Amiga compatible software that other systems don't already do far more effectively and trying to suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, delusional.
*When my GTX260's display croaked, I even used my A1 to watch standard definition) media streamed over the network from my storage box where it lived. It worked fine, but I wouldn't do it just because I can.
-
But to answer your question, for one thing, I would hope they could play 1080p x264 streams. The Mac Mini does 720p (on MorphOS)
I think it can. Some quick test bigfoot was kind enough to perform indicated it was fast enough for the provided x264 clip, at least.
So, a G5 machine should a nice combo for viewing HD content during the cold winter nights, given its heating potential. :)
@Karlos
While it would be stupid to use a G5 machine + MorphOS just for HD content (since there are far better suited platforms or devices for that), it's not that stupid for people who actually use MorphOS as their main desktop operating system. MorphOS (and OS4 i hope) users don't all just play around with their windows and icons.
-
@Karlos
While it would be stupid to use a G5 machine + MorphOS just for HD content (since there are far better suited platforms or devices for that), it's not that stupid for people who actually use MorphOS as their main desktop operating system. MorphOS (and OS4 i hope) users don't all just play around with their windows and icons.
Looking at most of the forum gallery images here and elsewhere, I'd say that's exactly what they do :roflmao: Wait, wut? That includes me then ;)
Seriously, though, a thread asking how many people use MOS/OS4/AROS as their main OS cropped up recently. I'd never be so myopic as to suggest a single thread/poll is indicative but, well you can see where this is going...
-
The G5 was in no means a disaster. Apple's primary dissatisfaction was in IBM's inability to get this chip to scale up in speed high enough. The decision to move to X86 had been considered tor years. Blaming it on the G5 isn't completely fair.
>Quote:
But it's better to pay 1/4 of the price for one kind of "obsolete" hardware, than paying £1500-£2000 for another "obsolete" hardware that performs **worse** than the cheaper one...>
Damned right! Frankly, I consider this a hobbyist pursuit, so the less I pay the better. And as a user of AMD processors, performance per watt was not really a concern I was worried about (I have no problem with 125watt processors - my water heater uses 5500 watts). Overall performance, yes. Electricity costs concerns making me want to buy a computer that costs $2000 more and doesn't perform better, no.
>Quote:
Finally, what will you do on your obsolete PPC platform of choice that requires either a G5 or PA6T that you can't already do more than comfortably on a G4?>
What are you trying to do Karlos, make our point? I have an eMac that was purchased dirt cheap. Sometime this summer I'm likely to see my Powermac (also purchased dirt cheap) supported under MorphOS.
And, if 7448 processor upgrades are supported, I'd love to run some real benchmarks against the X1000.
Right now, except for the AmigaOne and the Pegasos, most AOS machines are based on Applied Micro based SAM boards. Even DVD decoding is a challenge to these boards (although they can do it, which is probably better than the Natami will do).
So, no I don't need any better computers than the G4's. And I'm not fixated on new hardware, but some AmigaOS users are. And that leaves them with a choice between under powered and over powered.
I'm looking forward to Nemo, as I've been in contact with the designer in the past. I've been impressed with Varisys since I started using XMOS components. But the X1000 is not based on the most powerful PPC, that's still the 970/G5 (unless you want to count the cell and its related products or future Freescale releases).
And this isn't a pissing match, its just healthy competition. Someone out there is going to be able to afford to buy those high priced X1000s with AOS4 (I hope). And I'm still going to be happy using something more economical.
-
What are you trying to do Karlos, make our point? I have an eMac that was purchased dirt cheap. Sometime this summer I'm likely to see my Powermac (also purchased dirt cheap) supported under MorphOS.
And, if 7448 processor upgrades are supported, I'd love to run some real benchmarks against the X1000.l.
The question was actually for those people getting excited about G5, PA6T and which will be "teh fasterest amiga!" of the two and not those, such as yourself that are happy enough with their existing systems.
As I've said, other than running amiga specific applications, there is absolutely nothing that you can do on a G5/PA6T class machine that you can't do more effectively and for less expense (taking that as hardware cost or in energy usage or both) with alternative systems. So if you already have a G4 class machine, what would be your main incentive to upgrade?
Of course, as Fab said, if you already use MOS or OS4 as your sole, everyday OS and I'd further add, you cannot bear the thought of using any alternative for any purpose (such as a linux/mythtv box), no matter how stable and free, then yes, if you want HD playback then you have a justification for upgrading.
Don't get me wrong on this. The desire to run MorphOS or OS4 on the fastest hardware upon which it can be run is certainly a motivation I understand and can sympathize with. However, once you've marvelled at how fast you can open a big drawer far too full of icons (by which I mean you have no sense of hierarchical organisation and put all your years of crap into one directory), dragged a few composited windows and watched some 1080p media, that wow effect kind of wears off. In your everyday regular usage, you probably aren't going to notice any difference. Neither OS is slow or unresponsive even on machines considerably slower than your typical G4.
-
That was a well thought out and succinct reply. I find myself, once again, in agreement with you..
I'd rather see a focus on better video cards and software development. Otherwise I'm happy with where we are now.
If we focus solely on the high end of our markets' hardware, we snub developments in systems people can afford to buy.
Right now, I'm not nearly as excited about the announcement of eventual G5 support as I am about the latest statements that All AGP G4 Powermacs are likely to be supported by MorphOS (as soon as this summer).
This type of hardware is everywhere and, to me, it seems better suited to MorphOS than 64bit multi-processor speed machines.
And AOS vs. MOS, its an apple vs apples argument. Who cares?
-
re: all the negativity
I've been seeing G5s going for super dirt cheap and the trend should keep in the direction. I think this is huge news! Right, it may sound like a vacuum cleaner. I'm sure I can find a solution to fix that. Right, it is a power hog but so is my PC video card. I won't leave it running 24/7, so the power usage cost difference will be negligible.
MorphOS 3.0 on a PowerMac G5 will be insanely fast, stupid fast! I will be hobby computing at the speed of light for a bargain price? I'm there.
-
Yes Red, its going to be fast and they are cheap, but this summer we may see the next revision of MorphOS supporting all the AGP G4 Powermacs which are cheaper still and more than fast enough.
You've been using an eMac similar to mine. The Mac Mini and the eMac are already pretty fast aren't they?
I'd just like to get this massive one piece unit off my desk and get back to using my LCD display (and recover some of my desk space).
Currently, the development teams next move is to support the AGP G4 Powermacs (apparently pretty soon).
After that, we'll probably see Powerbook support some time in early 2011.
Who knows when we'll see G5 support? But you're already moving a few eMacs and I've already built a G4 Powermac.
Rather than spending a lot of time discussing potential hardware, I wouldn't mind focusing on what's here or close to here.
-
What about iBooks? I have this iBook that I've replaced with a MacBook and it is just waiting for Morphos to give it a second life!
-
What about iBooks? I have this iBook that I've replaced with a MacBook and it is just waiting for Morphos to give it a second life!
You're amongst a large group of people who'd like to see support for those. But, right now it looks like only Powerbooks.
The MorphOS developer you need to bug goes by the name Bigfoot. Apparently none of the developers feels like writing the necessary routines for ADB keyboard/touchpad support.
-
Which means you have even less reason to use MorphOS or AmigaOS. You can get a totally silent, low power usage PC for less than the price of a second hand G5 mac (let alone a new X1000!) that will play 1080p media, record TV etc. using completely free OS and software.
I completely fail to see your point. I have several x86 systems myself, laptops and desktops, including a core i7 running Windows 7. But that's not why we are here, right? Linux or other systems? It's rather the Amiga hobby, right? The only x86 capable *miga OS there is, is AROS. Maybe AROS will reach MorphOS's level at some point far in the future, but it's certainly not a worthy alternative *miga system for "Morphers" today. And chances are MorphOS has gone x86 itself before that happens. But for now it's tied to PPC, and the MorphOS team are making the most out of it by supporting all the Apple PPC hardware worth supporting. This G5 is the crown in this effort, it's as far as the PPC ever went. And MorphOS will support it! It's a great thing!
I mean no disrespect to MorphOS, but if you are trying to sell the concept of a buying a second-hand, power hungry G5 box
I'm not selling anything. As I said before, I won't be buying a G5 myself, I'm perfectly happy with my Mac Mini 1.5GHz G4, and I'll happily sell you the idea of buying one of *those*! :) But nevertheless, this Powermac G5 will be the fastest solution ever for people in need (or want) of power, it's as far as the PPC went, and it will be a so much better option than a "X1000". Better performance at a fraction of the cost. Nobody can argue about that.
-
But to answer your question, for one thing, I would hope they could play 1080p x264 streams. The Mac Mini does 720p (on MorphOS)
I think it can. Some quick test bigfoot was kind enough to perform indicated it was fast enough for the provided x264 clip, at least.
That's great! :)
So, a G5 machine should a nice combo for viewing HD content during the cold winter nights, given its heating potential. :)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
But to answer your question, for one thing, I would hope they could play 1080p x264 streams. The Mac Mini does 720p (on MorphOS)
I know I'm OT here so please forgive me but, I have several G4 Macs, all running Mac OS X Snow leopard and not one of them can play 720p - not even close, it's like watching a slideshow.
On the Mac forums I frequent I was told that the G4, even at 1.5Ghz or 1.67Ghz just isn't fast enough to decode a 720p x264 stream in real-time. If that is the case, how can MorphOS play back the same stream on the same hardware?
-
I completely fail to see your point
My point is very simple. I asked "what amiga stuff does anybody do that requires G5 levels of performance that they can't already do perfectly well on a G4?"
You answered "play back HD content"...
I replied "why on earth would anybody pick a 2nd hand, power-hungry machine (G5) and pay for an OS to run on it to play back HD content, when they can get a brand new machine at a similar price or less, that draws less power and have the OS/software for free?"
It's a pretty obvious question, don't you think?
I find it amusing that you can't grasp this point when so many people say "oh yeah, but I have an XBox360 for gaming" but don't make the same connection that you equally can have dedicated computers for media centre purposes. And by far the best tool for that is an inexpensive x86 box with linux/MPlayer/etc.
So again, the only people that need a G5 class machine to watch HD content are those that simply refuse to have anything to do with any other system.
-
Not to be to nit picky but Snow Leopard only runs on intel Macs.
I know I'm OT here so please forgive me but, I have several G4 Macs, all running Mac OS X Snow leopard and not one of them can play 720p - not even close, it's like watching a slideshow.
On the Mac forums I frequent I was told that the G4, even at 1.5Ghz or 1.67Ghz just isn't fast enough to decode a 720p x264 stream in real-time. If that is the case, how can MorphOS play back the same stream on the same hardware?
-
re: all the negativity
It's not negativity, just bemusement :)
MorphOS 3.0 on a PowerMac G5 will be insanely fast, stupid fast! I will be hobby computing at the speed of light for a bargain price? I'm there.
Insanely fast at what, though? That's my whole point. What will you be doing with it where you can honestly say "wow, this is so much slicker and more responsive now that I have a G5" that isn't already on a G4 mac / Peg 2?
So far, we've seen HD playback suggested as an option. Ok, I am sure the G5 will play 1080p fine, but as I say, so will a dozen other systems that will cost you less.
Are there any amiga/mos applications out there that are just unusable on a G4 that I'm somehow unaware of?
If the motivation is simply "I just want to run MOS on the best, most powerful hardware it can run on", that's fine, I totally get it. But if the motivation is "I need a G5 because MOS on my G4 is too slow at X", then I don't get it, because I have no idea what 'X' is.
Is that any clearer?
-
I have a power mac g5 1.8ghz (clocked to 2ghz) single core (no dual core), 900mhz bus and i play it without problems 1080p running mac os x leopard ppc.
-
More speed/performance is always good cant understand why that is a problem. Just think how fast Photogenics5 would run etc...
-
More speed/performance is always good cant understand why that is a problem. Just think how fast Photogenics5 would run etc...
What, like it's actually slow on a 1.5GHz G4, is it? I mean we are talking about software that ran respectably on actual RTG 680x0 machines here.
-
It could open the door to port more powerful programs and games that may struggle on a G4. But, as you already said "Why not just use a $50 PC and be done with it! ";)
What, like it's actually slow on a 1.5GHz G4, is it? I mean we are talking about software that ran respectably on actual RTG 680x0 machines here.
-
It could open the door to port more powerful programs and games that may struggle on a G4. But, as you already said "Why not just use a $50 PC and be done with it! ";)
Finally :)
I sense people are misinterpreting me as either being anti MOS or unhappy about it being released for G5 etc. I'm not, I just don't see the big motivation for it at this stage. It's clear that MOS is a polished - but incomplete - product that is nowhere near close to bringing a G4 to it's knees. There's also plenty of G4 machines out there, I don't imagine that supplies will dry up that soon.
So all considered, it seems odd to me that going to G5 should be a priority over things like expanding the gamut of drivers for video, audio, wifi etc.
-
It could open the door to port more powerful programs and games that may struggle on a G4. But, as you already said "Why not just use a $50 PC and be done with it! ";)
Primarily because I already have a PC (with a power hungry AMD processor that's also useful as a space heater). It plays back HD video content fine.
Now I'd like similar capability on my PPC hoobyist computer.
What is actually more of a problem with HD content on Amiga related PPC systems is the lack of HD video decoding functions built into the older video cards we support. While my X86 processor could still decode these videos, CPU usage would be much higher without the video card I'm using.
While MorphOS plays DVD level content fine on G4s, I have no doubt it would struggle with HD. However, should anyone ever get ATI or Nvidia to fully document their later GPU releases, designing drivers to enable this playback on lower processors (thasn the G5) should be possible.
You don't think I want to waste all my CPU power on HD playback do you?:)
-
It's not negativity, just bemusement :)
Insanely fast at what, though? That's my whole point. What will you be doing with it where you can honestly say "wow, this is so much slicker and more responsive now that I have a G5" that isn't already on a G4 mac / Peg 2?
So far, we've seen HD playback suggested as an option. Ok, I am sure the G5 will play 1080p fine, but as I say, so will a dozen other systems that will cost you less.
Are there any amiga/mos applications out there that are just unusable on a G4 that I'm somehow unaware of?
If the motivation is simply "I just want to run MOS on the best, most powerful hardware it can run on", that's fine, I totally get it. But if the motivation is "I need a G5 because MOS on my G4 is too slow at X", then I don't get it, because I have no idea what 'X' is.
Is that any clearer?
Here's one for you, FLASH ;)
But seriously, I don't "need" the speed for anything useful, just like I don't need to do any retro computing at all. Everything truly useful I can do on my PC already. The speed would be nice though, applications like MAME, blender, video conversion etc will benefit. Speed is nice and there will not be a huge price difference between a G4 box and a G5 box.
-
Here's one for you, FLASH ;)
But seriously, I don't "need" the speed for anything useful, just like I don't need to do any retro computing at all. Everything truly useful I can do on my PC already. The speed would be nice though, applications like MAME, blender, video conversion etc will benefit. Speed is nice and there will not be a huge price difference between a G4 box and a G5 box.
Sure, but the list of apps you just cited are all surely available for your PC already and, unless it is equally retro, it should be able to run them better than the G5?
-
Rather than spending a lot of time discussing potential hardware, I wouldn't mind focusing on what's here or close to here.
Exactly my approach. There is a saying in German: That's unlaid eggs.
Use what's there or very close. In case of MorphOS that is Pegasos 1&2, Efika 5200B, Mac mini G4, eMac G4 1.25 GHz and, close (probably late August/early September), several PowerMac G4.
PowerMac g5 and Powerbook are both nothing to expect too soon - worked on, but unlaid eggs.
-
You're amongst a large group of people who'd like to see support for those. But, right now it looks like only Powerbooks.
The MorphOS developer you need to bug goes by the name Bigfoot. Apparently none of the developers feels like writing the necessary routines for ADB keyboard/touchpad support.
The latest iBooks G4 had kdb/TP by usb and not by ADB. For these models the adjustemnet of the drivers may be an effort worthwile to consider.
-
Sure, but the list of apps you just cited are all surely available for your PC already and, unless it is equally retro, it should be able to run them better than the G5?
Why do people restore and drive old cars? Certainly a brand new hybrid is much more efficient? It's a hobby. Why do I go online with my accelerated 8bit Commodore 128(T)? My PC can certainly do it much better... Either you enjoy the hobby, or you don't...
-
Sure, but the list of apps you just cited are all surely available for your PC already and, unless it is equally retro, it should be able to run them better than the G5?
I don't know. My slowest X86 PC is a dual core with a standard clock of 2.6Mhz running at 3.0.
The fastest G5 runs at 2.7 (and while there are dual and quad machines, MorphOS can only use one core).
For tasks that aren't heavily threaded and when not running a lot of concurrent apps, the G5 could potentially match the performance of the X86s.
It would definitely outperform most Intel Atom systems.
Flash...I was wondering if I was the only one who missed that (instead of just attacking it). Well, I can't get that (or a least a good variation of that) under PPC Linux either.
-
The latest iBooks G4 had kdb/TP by usb and not by ADB. For these models the adjustemnet of the drivers may be an effort worthwile to consider.
With all the noise about them, I wouldn't be surprised to see them supported. Thanks for the point about those Zylesea. It doesn't sound like there's a lot separating the final ibooks from the Powerbooks. What video GPU did they use?
-
Flash...I was wondering if I was the only one who missed that (instead of just attacking it). Well, I can't get that (or a least a good variation of that) under PPC Linux either.
I downloaded the linux 64-bit version whilst it was available, but it seems they withdrew it again. I'm still using it though, it's fast enough :)
Most people need flash for youtube but to be fair the HTML5 stuff seems to have that base covered nicely. Especially in OWB/MOS.
-
I downloaded the linux 64-bit version whilst it was available, but it seems they withdrew it again. I'm still using it though, it's fast enough :)
Most people need flash for youtube but to be fair the HTML5 stuff seems to have that base covered nicely. Especially in OWB/MOS.
Valid point. I have no interest in playing Flash based games. I wish I'd caught the 64bit version you mentioned, I still regularly dabble with Linux (probably because even with my dissatisfaction with it, I appreciate its UNIX underpinnings).
-
Valid point. I have no interest in playing Flash based games. I wish I'd caught the 64bit version you mentioned, I still regularly dabble with Linux (probably because even with my dissatisfaction with it, I appreciate its UNIX underpinnings).
It's open, I can probably send you the .so :D
-
It's open, I can probably send you the .so :D
That is a good point and it would be useful.
Its always good to see that even when we've got open debates raging, we're still (mostly) a civil lot.
I'm not even vaguely aware of how to send a PM on Amiga.org, but I can get you may e-mail address somehow.
Thanks
-
That is a good point and it would be useful.
Its always good to see that even when we've got open debates raging, we're still (mostly) a civil lot.
I'm not even vaguely aware of how to send a PM on Amiga.org, but I can get you may e-mail address somehow.
Thanks
PM info is in the site FAQ: http://www.amiga.org/forums/faq.php?faq=vb3_user_profile#faq_vb3_private_messages (http://www.amiga.org/forums/faq.php?faq=vb3_user_profile#faq_vb3_private_messages)
The simplest way to send me a PM would be to click on my username to the left of this post and select "send a private message to karlos" from the menu that pops up :)
-
I don't know. My slowest X86 PC is a dual core with a standard clock of 2.6Mhz running at 3.0.
The fastest G5 runs at 2.7 (and while there are dual and quad machines, MorphOS can only use one core).
For tasks that aren't heavily threaded and when not running a lot of concurrent apps, the G5 could potentially match the performance of the X86s.
It would definitely outperform most Intel Atom systems.
Flash...I was wondering if I was the only one who missed that (instead of just attacking it). Well, I can't get that (or a least a good variation of that) under PPC Linux either.
Is not only Ghz, G5 have a lot of power, more than any high-end pentium 4 or dual pentiums for example the parallel data structure supporting up to 216 simultaneous in-flight instructions, simultaneous issue of up to 10 out-of-order operations. It likewise has a dual-pipeline Velocity Engine for 128-bit single-instruction, multiple-data (SIMD) processing, two independent double-precision floating-point units and advanced three-stage branch-prediction logic.
Mips test:
Pentium 4 HT 631 Cedarmill 4Ghz (overclocked) FSB=1066Mhz 10.050 mips (faster than more intel dual cores)
Power PC G5 970FX 1.8Ghz FSB=1000Mhz 7.500 mips
Power PC G5 970MP Dual 2,5Ghz FSB=1350Mhz 15.400 mips
-
@DaNi
I see your altivec and raise you SSE3.
I see my SSE3 and raise it CUDA, but meh :lol:
-
Here's one for you, FLASH ;)
But seriously, I don't "need" the speed for anything useful, just like I don't need to do any retro computing at all. Everything truly useful I can do on my PC already. The speed would be nice though, applications like MAME, blender, video conversion etc will benefit. Speed is nice and there will not be a huge price difference between a G4 box and a G5 box.
I have been looking on eBay and it actually seems that the price for the best G4 PowerMacs is VERY close to the price you can find for many of the G5 models being sold, including some of the dual core Dual 2.7GHz G5s and quad core Dual 2.5GHz G5s.
I wonder if a single core of the quad core Dual 2.0 to 2.5GHz last models of the G5 PowerMac will be supported by MorphOS someday?
OFF TOPIC:
Another valid question is; what will be a better option for the MorphOS Dev Team, 1) concentrate their work on MorphOS to better optimize performance on the G5 CPU and G5 PowerMacs until a more interesting architecture is introduced some time in the next 1 to 3 years or more, or 2) instead of spending a lot of time optimizing performance on old used Mac hardware beyond their initial release which supports them, should the team instead start working on switching to supporting i3/i5/i7 based hardware designs?
I could see the team easily spending years of their part time efforts toward taking full advantage of G4 & G5 Mac models, perhaps even some day trying to take advantage (in some limited way, shape, or form) of multiple cpu's or cores, which would make MorphOS many times more powerful than it is today. I can just as easily see the team deciding that once they have a basic, but very usable release on most G4 & G5 Mac models, switching to another architecture and away from PPC, be that x86, or ARM, or something else.
I guess my personal preference would be for them to complete a very good implementation of MorphOS on the G4 PowerBook and G5 PowerMac before they begin work on any other platform and become distracted. That will keep me a loyal MorphOS user for at least the next couple of years or more I would imagine. The way the current state of SLOW progress appears to be happening all around the computer industry, I don't think there will be anything Earth shattering that is going to happen in the next two years that will tear me away from wanting to use MorphOS. So, if it takes the MorphOS Dev Team another 6 to 12 months to finish working on all the G4 & G5 Mac models they decide are worth their efforts, my 2 year estimate would give the team another 12 to 18 months to work on another architecture before I think I would give them any complaints about which direction they are going to go in the future.
-
The G5 was a disaster for apple. The worst performance per watt of any CPU they'd ever used at that point.
Not true, the late G4s were worse than the late G5s.
Given that one of apple's then long running claimed benefits over "hot, power hungry x86 processors", releasing dual processor, water-cooled CPU machines with over 60W per CPU, the G5 was an embarrassment to them.
They were competitive with x86 at the time, AMD was topping out at 125W, Intel were topping out at 150W. The 2.7GHz G5 was closer to AMD.
They'd promised 3GHz but couldn't manage it.
IBM got pretty close at 2.7GHz, Intel were quoting 5GHz at the time and got nowhere near it.
They promised lower power, cooler workstations and couldn't manage it. Meanwhile, x86 continued to get faster and less power hungry the entire time.
See above, IBM were quite competitive.
And it was the smartest move he ever made. As much as I like PPC, and I do like it, it just cannot compete with current x86/AMD64 based architectures.
Not on performance, not on power consumption, not on cost and not on any permutation of the three. Whatever your CPU needs, there are faster, cooler, lower power and cheaper x86 parts available.
Erm, look at POWER7, it's the fastest processor you can buy at the moment (the POWER CPUs have been PPC since POWER2)
At the other end there's the embedded PPCs, Intel aren't even close to those on performance/watt.
As for cost, this is determined by the size of the chip - the G5 was small, so small in fact they had problems cooling it - that's why they had to use water cooling.
Which is why this G5 v PA6T pissing contest that you are so happily engaging in is a bit of a joke, really. The PA6T may be newer, perform better per watt and depending on which source you believe, better per MHz than the G5. The G5 may clock higher and ultimately perform faster, but whichever way you look at it, they are both obsolete. Thoroughly and utterly.
In absolute terms yes, however if you are trying to argue they are using an old architecture you should be aware the Core i7 is based on an architecture that goes back to the mid 90s. AMD is remarkably similar.
Last time I looked, there wasn't really any Amiga specific software in existence that really needs the horsepower that even these old processors can deliver.
So, they're obsolete and not very powerful - but you don't don't need them because they're too powerful?
-
Yes. Well, the point with the PA6T was to be in Apple laptops AFAIK, so the goal was probably to not consume much more than a G4, while still offering performance above the G4's they were using at the time. It would never compete on Apples power desktop market though; it wouldn't replace the G5.
They were specifically designed to produce G5 performance levels. If they upped they clock (which they said was quite possible) they probably would have replaced the G5.
As for comparisons with the G4? PA-Semi's power numbers were below the Core2Duo.
Since then, what once was "PA Semi" as well as its IP was assimilated into Apple along with its developers. Apple obviously "scrapped" the technology, used the engineering competence and patents to create their own ARM "A4" processor or whatever,
I doubt they had anything to do with the A4. It takes years to design chips, It'll be another year or so before we see what PA-Semi have done inside Apple.
And then there's what Intrinisity will do...
and AFAIK, most of those old PA Semi developers even left Apple since then...
Erm, a small number (6) of the senior people left.
-
"Last time I looked, there wasn't really any Amiga specific software in existence that really needs the horsepower that even these old processors can deliver."
There are some Amiga programs that will benefit from as much "horsepower" as you can provide. More important is future software that will most likely be written to take advantage of more powerful cpu's. There are many Amiga users that would rather do more, or ALL of their work/play on a modern Amiga(like) system, if they only could do so if the software were written or ported from the other OSes and if we had sufficiently powerful systems. So for me, there is no such thing as "too much power" for an Amiga system, but I also can appreciate energy efficient systems like the SAM440ep/flex (if it were only priced right, say about $100 to $150 for the mobo) and the Efika, which can still be bought brand new from a couple of places for $99 for the mobo.
-
I'll agree with all the pro G5 points I've seen except for Dave's one on price. Older G4 AGP Powermacs are routinely given or thrown away (rather like some Commodore hardware).
There are later G4 Powermacs (933Mhz and above) starting at $.99 on Ebay. I have a Quicksilver Powermac that built from components that cost me well under $100.
Unless your talking bout 1.6 or 1.8 Mhz G5s, the prices are almost always significantly higher.
For truly fast G5 of 2.5 to 2.7 Mhz, while they are at good prices, generally they command about $500 or more.
While I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with more power, I can't agree with you that G4s and G5 have similar pricing.
We're just lucky that Apples switch to Intel processors has so devalued the G5s (since their still remarkably powerful computers).
-
Morphos is quite robust. The only offerings that can run Amiga os4 are expensive hobbyist specialty machines. Love the idea of taking readily available mass market machines repurposed as Amiga compatibles.
At this point Hyperion should consider porting AmigaOS to mac PowerPC and start on an intel version.
-
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-G5-4x2-5GHz-Power-PC-clean-/120599619279?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Apple_Desktops&hash=item1c144c26cf
Current bid? 269$ As I write this...
This blows the doors off any X1000, and its one tenth of the price I expect x1000 to be. Of course, yes I know that morph or amiga os can only support one cpu currently, but they better start thinking about smp.
I see machines like this go on ebay for 300 bucks alot. People just don't want non-intel macs right now because all the new software no longer supports non intel mac.
On the subject of smp...
There will very soon be desktops for power users with 8 and 16 cores.
Its really time for every amigoid os to make smp a reality. Its the future,
and why would I want to use a computer with one core when I can use one with 16, and soon... 32 cores?
People saying there is no software that requires that much power are just sour graping multi-cpu's or hella power computers. I can do things on my quad core pc I could never do on my aros box.
The more power, the better I say. Cpu power IS creative power.
In the right hands of course.
Steven
-
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-G5-4x2-5GHz-Power-PC-clean-/120599619279?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Apple_Desktops&hash=item1c144c26cf
Current bid? 269$ As I write this...
Right, if I went bottom fishing I could probably get one for $300-$400 maxed out.
Speaking of MorphOS and Mac, I really gotta get off my butt repair and chop the head off this eMac....
-
what are you doing taking it apart and recasing it?
I was thinking about doing that myself, but I think I'll just leave it as it.
Put a boingball or better yet MorphOS butterfly sticker over the apple logo and your all set...
Steven
-
I know I'm OT here so please forgive me but, I have several G4 Macs, all running Mac OS X Snow leopard and not one of them can play 720p - not even close, it's like watching a slideshow.
On the Mac forums I frequent I was told that the G4, even at 1.5Ghz or 1.67Ghz just isn't fast enough to decode a 720p x264 stream in real-time. If that is the case, how can MorphOS play back the same stream on the same hardware?
Well it can! Under MorphOS! :)
I guess it's the power of a low overhead OS and smart use of available resources...
-
My point is very simple. I asked "what amiga stuff does anybody do that requires G5 levels of performance that they can't already do perfectly well on a G4?"
You answered "play back HD content"...
It was just the first thing I could think of. Having power is *not* a bad thing. An Efika can be used for lots of things, but a 1.42GHz Mac is a lot more fun. BTW, ask Fab what computer he compiles OWB on, and why...
-
Its really time for every amigoid os to make smp a reality. Its the future
By design, no *miga OS can have true SMP, at least not what people outside this community would recognize and acknowledge as being true SMP.
-
I'll agree with all the pro G5 points I've seen except for Dave's one on price. Older G4 AGP Powermacs are routinely given or thrown away (rather like some Commodore hardware).
There are later G4 Powermacs (933Mhz and above) starting at $.99 on Ebay. I have a Quicksilver Powermac that built from components that cost me well under $100.
Unless your talking bout 1.6 or 1.8 Mhz G5s, the prices are almost always significantly higher.
For truly fast G5 of 2.5 to 2.7 Mhz, while they are at good prices, generally they command about $500 or more.
While I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with more power, I can't agree with you that G4s and G5 have similar pricing.
We're just lucky that Apples switch to Intel processors has so devalued the G5s (since their still remarkably powerful computers).
You are right, most of the time you can find a bigger price difference between the two, but I was making a comparison to the average selling price of the dual G4 @ 1.42GHz models compared to the lowest cost selling G5 dual 2.7GHz w/2 cores and dual 2.5GHz quad core deals. When you look at those numbers I have been seeing the G4's at around $275 to $300 and the lowest prices for the Quad Core 2.5GHz G5 systems have been very close to those numbers. Not the average price, or the crazy $2,000 and up prices you see from some idiots trying to sell G5 systems, I am talking about the rock bottom price that you might be able to get a dual 2.7GHz, or dual 2.5GHz quad core G5 system at. If we include the 2.0GHz G5 systems it is even easier to make this comparison.
And yes, we are very lucky that these systems have devalued so quickly. Their loss is our gain. :)
-
By design, no *miga OS can have true SMP, at least not what people outside this community would recognize and acknowledge as being true SMP.
True, that has been stated several times by many of the MorphOS Team members. But........... if (big IF) the AmigaOS4.x developers can figure out a way to utilize multiple core usage in ANY way, I am confident that the MorphOS Team members can find a way to do it even better! Sorry for the dig Hyperion and team, but I just have great confidence in the MorphOS Team. So if it can be done, in any way, shape or form, the MorphOS Team will eventually do it too.
I mean really, do any of you think that Hyperion and team AmigaOS4.x have a magic trick up their sleeve that the MorphOS Team has not already thought of and considered?:roflmao:
-
Well it can! Under MorphOS! :)
I guess it's the power of a low overhead OS and smart use of available resources...
Can it. Cool will have to give that a whirl on MorphOS. through Mplayer ?
-
True, that has been stated several times by many of the MorphOS Team members. But........... if (big IF) the AmigaOS4.x developers can figure out a way to utilize multiple core usage in ANY way, I am confident that the MorphOS Team members can find a way to do it even better!
I don't think it will that difficult to "utilize" extra cores, but that still won't make it SMP...
-
I don't think it will that difficult to "utilize" extra cores, but that still won't make it SMP...
Yes, that is what I meant when I wrote that it has been mentioned several times by MorphOS Team members, but I could have spelled it out more clearly. No SMP for MorphOS, AmigaOS4 and I think that applies to AROS and WinUAE running any version of AmigaOS1.0>3.9 as well. I actually don't think it was a good idea for Hyperion and the AmigaOS4.x Developers to announce plans for some kind of multi-core or multiple CPU support until they were on the verge of releasing such support. It looks like it will be well over a year, or two years from the date they first mentioned such support being part of their plans, to the date they are ready to release a version of AmigaOS4.x that has such support, but maybe they will prove me wrong and release a version with some kind of support shortly after they release a version of AmigaOS4.x which supports the X1000?
Any implementation of AmigaOS4.x, or MorphOS2.x which can use both Cores in the X1000, or CPUs in the dual G4 PowerMac models & dual G5 Macs with 2 or 4 Cores, will hopefully be faster/more powerful and allow new software to be written which will enable these "Next Gen" Amiga(Like) systems to do things that no other Amiga systems could ever dream of doing and tide us all over until AmigaOS4.x and MorphOS2.x can be ported away from the dead-end PPC architecture to something better.
............... I have several G4 Macs, all running Mac OS X Snow leopard ............
That is an interesting statement, please tell us how you have gotten Snow Leopard to run on all of your several G4 Mac's? Snow Leopard is for x86 only!
:laughing:
I have resisted upgrading my 2.0GHz Core2Duo black MacBook to Snow Leopard, MacOSX 10.6, from 10.5.8 which I am currently running, but after looking at the features in 10.6 again and seeing that the upgrade only costs $29.00, I think I will go ahead and order it. The fact that it will give me back about 7gb of hdd space is a nice plus, and the speed improvements in many areas will help as well.
-
gussing he meant leopard
-
MorphOS (and OS4 i hope) users don't all just play around with their windows and icons.
That, appearantly, is what the betatesters are doing. :)
-
Oops sorry I did mean my G4's are running Leopard, I didn't disassemble and recompile Snow Leopard for PPC or anything. It's my MBP that has 10.6 on it.
-
Sure, but the list of apps you just cited are all surely available for your PC already and, unless it is equally retro, it should be able to run them better than the G5?
Take the OS in account, too; given the same apps and similarly specified HW, some people might prefer AmigaOS/MOS/AROS over Windows/MacOS/Linux.
Varthall
-
I am in favor of what I would call a user directed multiprocessor system.
Though it would certainly not be true smp, it may be better for some things...
Imagine you click on the top window border of a running program and there is a little dialog box. It says "using core" then a # - 1 2 3 4
You could assign which core the app should use to process its work.
core 1 could be given to the main gui/window manager.
Leaving cores 2 3 and 4 to be assiganable to whatever task you want.
Alternatively, what if you could assign video playing tasks to a specific core, sound processing tasks to another core, and rendering tasks to another and so on....
On the newer 8 and 16 core systems coming, you could distribute the workload over all the cores, making for a truly snappy system.
That kind of setup, sounds very amiga like to me...
Steven
-
Can it. Cool will have to give that a whirl on MorphOS. through Mplayer ?
Yes, MPlayer. While a 720p H264 clip is totally unwatchable with VLC and slow with MPlayer on OSX, MPlayer on MorphOS can deal with it at full speed very often. But you'll still find some high profiles videos that will be slightly too demanding and will cause some audio desync, unfortunately (using -lavdopts skiploopfilter=all can help too).
In any case, it deals with that much better than OSX, and the only explanation for this is that OSX has a huge overhead in graphic rendering.
-
As far as the OSX graphics overhead. At an Apple Con an Apple employee told me OSX interface is totally PDF vector based... So there you go. Still amazing the fucntionality of it on the Imac G3400 with tiger.
-
As far as the OSX graphics overhead. At an Apple Con an Apple employee told me OSX interface is totally PDF vector based... So there you go. Still amazing the fucntionality of it on the Imac G3400 with tiger.
I thought Apple graphics were rendered via OpenGL. Are you sure that they weren't referring to graphics functionality in documents. Even before OSX, Apple seemed to rely on PDFs for printing (or at least supported postscript).
Somehow, I just can't see what PDF format would have to do with screen display and vector functions (while they may be the wave of both the past and future) would not convert efficiently in OpenGL calls.
-
The G5 may clock higher and ultimately perform faster, but whichever way you look at it, they are both obsolete. Thoroughly and utterly.
That's a very bold statement you make. And I think it's more opinion than fact. Obsolete I would contend is relative. If a single core G5 allows me to do everything I possibly need in a computer, is it truly obsolete?
By definition, obsolete means: no longer produced or used. Well, my MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.4 GHz model is no longer produced. Is it obsolete? I would say no since it's still useful to me. By the same token, a G5 would absolutely be useful to me so therefore it is NOT obsolete.
-
That's a very bold statement you make. And I think it's more opinion than fact. Obsolete I would contend is relative. If a single core G5 allows me to do everything I possibly need in a computer, is it truly obsolete?
By definition, obsolete means: no longer produced or used. Well, my MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.4 GHz model is no longer produced. Is it obsolete? I would say no since it's still useful to me. By the same token, a G5 would absolutely be useful to me so therefore it is NOT obsolete.
I use my 128T almost daily and I find it very useful, but it is certainly obsolete :)
-
I use my 128T almost daily and I find it very useful, but it is certainly obsolete :)
You tell 'em Red!!!
AS for OSX pdf thing... I know, it didn't make sense but the way he explained it to me was that I should look at the icons... they never pixelate when you use the genie effect becuase they're rendered in vectors. When I aske the goy some other questions he cas totally clueless and told me apple flew him to the convetion to fill in for someone else.
-
You tell 'em Red!!!
AS for OSX pdf thing... I know, it didn't make sense but the way he explained it to me was that I should look at the icons... they never pixelate when you use the genie effect becuase they're rendered in vectors. When I aske the goy some other questions he cas totally clueless and told me apple flew him to the convetion to fill in for someone else.
Long live the obsolete hardware!
Commodore diehards prove that obsolete doesn't mean it can't still be useful.
What, an Apple expert that may not know what he's talking about? No....
-
That's a very bold statement you make. And I think it's more opinion than fact. Obsolete I would contend is relative. If a single core G5 allows me to do everything I possibly need in a computer, is it truly obsolete?
I still use my classic amiga machines and they are of more use than an arcane hobby. My 1200 is still my main music production system, for example. It doesn't make it any less obsolete.
You may contend it is a relative term but, well, you correct yourself here:
By definition, obsolete means: no longer produced or used. Well, my MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.4 GHz model is no longer produced. Is it obsolete? I would say no since it's still useful to me. By the same token, a G5 would absolutely be useful to me so therefore it is NOT obsolete.
Your entire computer may not be produced and used but the components that it is made from are. However, no desktop systems are built with G5 processors, nor have been for some time.
You say "a G5 would absolutely be useful to me". To do what, exactly? This is what I have been asking. What do you routinely do in MOS (assuming you are a user) that is too slow on your current machine that none of your other machines (core2 macbook included) can't do for you already?
I dunno why people are interpreting my position here as particularly contentious. All I actually asked was what do people need G5 (or PA6T) for when it comes to running amiga apps? And, to be entirely honest, I only asked that thanks to the stupid and utterly predictable "yay G5 mac FTW totally pwns PA6T!!111!" remarks from certain members that have posted in this and related threads. Sure, a 2.7GHz G5 is going to outperform a 1.6GHz PA6T, I'd be surprised if it were not true, but what does it actually matter? It isn't as if G5 is an option for OS4 users and nor is PA6T an option for MOS users, so who cares either way?
Now, I've already said I totally understand the "I want to run my favourite OS on the fastest hw available" motivation. However, there is not one single amiga application that actually requires a G5 or PA6T that you can't get for an x86/64, so if you need to run those apps, cheaper and faster alternatives exist. Logically, you can only justify the former option if you are basically opposed to the latter one.
Now, for a long time, the point of how insanely fast and efficient MOS is on G4 mac hardware has been stressed and I am quite sure of it. Moving to G5 is an obvious and natural progression but why now, exactly? Obviously, I'm not privy to the development plan for MOS, but I am aware that there are plenty of other things that could be focused on instead - support for more graphics cards (especially now that gallium opens up nVidia support, also used in apple machines), support for wifi and other stuff that is surely of more immediate use to more people.
-
I still use my classic amiga machines and they are of more use than an arcane hobby. My 1200 is still my main music production system, for example. It doesn't make it any less obsolete.
I hear what you're saying Karlos but you can widen your horizons a bit... Blender for example would benfit greatly from the G5's power. You may not be into GFX but the bottom line is for the price of a nice A1200 030 based setup you gain a really powerfull system that has access to Mac OSX leopard 10.58. The best of both worlds for many of us.
-
I hear what you're saying Karlos but you can widen your horizons a bit... Blender for example would benfit greatly from the G5's power. You may not be into GFX but the bottom line is for the price of a nice A1200 030 based setup you gain a really powerfull system that has access to Mac OSX leopard 10.58. The best of both worlds for many of us.
Of course, but given that most people here also seem to have x86 boxes too:
However, there is not one single amiga application that actually requires a G5 or PA6T that you can't get for an x86/64, so if you need to run those apps, cheaper and faster alternatives exist. Logically, you can only justify the former option if you are basically opposed to the latter one.
Perhaps it's just me, but I can't imagine myself sitting there thinking:
"I need to run blender. My time is important! I have a stinky quad core PC already with free OS and blender available, but what I really need is to run it on a considerably slower G5 and buy an OS to run on it so that I can wait several times longer for it to render my stuff!"
Perhaps is my only system was a G4 box, I might think:
"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, a G5 would be nice."
But I'm much more likely to think
"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, what's the cheapest and best performing kit I can get to do it?"
I downloaded blender for OS4, it works and is fine, but if I needed to render seriously, my PC is far, far faster. SSE3 optimised and blender can use all four cores. I'd have to have real issues to choose the former in preference to the latter if it was something I wanted to do seriously.
-
Of course, but given that most people here also seem to have x86 boxes too:
Perhaps it's just me, but I can't imagine myself sitting there thinking:
"I need to run blender. My time is important! I have a stinky quad core PC already with free OS and blender available, but what I really need is to run it on a considerably slower G5 and buy an OS to run on it so that I can wait several times longer for it to render my stuff!"
Perhaps is my only system was a G4 box, I might think:
"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, a G5 would be nice."
But I'm much more likely to think
"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, what's the cheapest and best performing kit I can get to do it?"
I downloaded blender for OS4, it works and is fine, but if I needed to render seriously, my PC is far, far faster. SSE3 optimised and blender can use all four cores. I'd have to have real issues to choose the former in preference to the latter if it was something I wanted to do seriously.
G5 on morphos is perfect and the fastest "amiga" never see, you can launch a amiga program, like lightwave 3d, aladdin, art effect etc at the speed of 75% of ppc cpu using jit trance... this is a lot and a lots of mips, 1.8ghz give more than 5.000 mips for amiga native 68k aplications, warpos/powerup and morphos more than 7.000 mips, i think morphos can boot on a micro sencond :P and with very little memory usage windows is slow loading system, loading, loading loading... and consumes a lot of ram, morphos is ultra fast and mega-optimized, and of course, amiga compatible.
-
@Karlos,
As you well know, there are fanboys in the extreme for just about everything on the face of the planet, both Amiga Next Gen systems have more than their share of them that make stupid comments all the time.
As for why the G5 now, I would counter that support for the G5 is not coming now, nor is it going to be any time soon that it is released, as the MorphOS Dev Team does have higher priorities to work on. I think part of the confusion is that many MorphOS users spread their wishful thinking as rumor like they are facts and the Dev Team is fairly silent about what they are working on at any given moment. Also, from what I have observed and guessed, I believe that the MorphOS Dev Team is a much more loosely organized group of enthusiast developers that are basically free to work on which ever parts of the OS to see if it will work, explore new possible targets to port MorphOS to in the future, etc. There is obviously some coordination and discussion about priorities and desired completion dates for certain items or targeted models that the Team as a whole wish to support and which models or platforms would be good candidates to support next, but only a member of the Team could know exactly how they are organized and how the workload is assigned, or otherwise divided between them. With very little information officially released by the Team regarding what they are working on, or even which models of the PPC Macs they intend to support, there is a ton of speculation and rumor everywhere.
I haven't checked the official website lately, but the last time I was there, no mention of official support being planned for even the G4 PowerBooks was listed, not to mention the G5 PowerMacs, even though videos and at least two public demonstrations of the G4 PowerBook running a beta version of MorphOS have been presented, by Piru I think. I am very sure that support for the G4 PowerBooks will eventually be released, but unless the support for the G5 PowerMacs is much easier than myself and most other people assume, it will likely be a long way off before such support is released, or even announced officially.
As to your other question about what do we need the G5 power for, and there are no Amiga apps that need that kind of power, you are obviously right for 99% of the apps, but with the old 68k apps needing to be run through a JIT engine and not natively, any demanding Classic Amiga app, such as 3D rendering, will benefit from the extra power. But more important in my minds eye is that the extra computing power will open a few programming opportunities that everyone thought could not be accomplished on any Amiga computer in the past. With G5, or PA6T power and if/when better graphics cards are supported, it will be possible to create better Amiga applications in the future than might be possible with only the current power of a 1.5GHz G4 MacMini, or in AmigaOS4.x's case, a 1GHz G4 Pegasos2, or AmigaOne.
Concerning your argument that we all have other computers that can run anything that can be run on a G5 or PA6T Amiga system faster and cheaper, not everyone wants to have to switch back and forth between different systems and many of us hope that with a sufficiently powerful Amiga system, more Amiga programmers will return to coding new programs for us to use and we might be able to do 100% of what we now do on multiple computers on just one powerful Amiga computer. Not everyone here HAS to have all the latest software, or web plug-ins to satisfy our computing needs and I would say that many of us here at A.org are the die-hard few remaining Amiga enthusiasts that would prefer to ONLY use an Amiga computer and OS and not have to boot into any other OS ever again. Maybe that is not realistic, and some will say it is not possible, but everyone has different computing styles and needs, so I say to those nay sayers, don't tell me what I have to own, or have to run to be happy with my computing experience.
-
@Karlos,
One thing I don't understand where your coming from is that you keep asking us why we would want to run say Blender on a G4/MorphOS machine when we have a PC sitting here.
when you yourself just said that An A1200 is your main music production machine?
Under your logic, why use an A1200 and not your new x86 PC to do your music production?
I still use my classic amiga machines and they are of more use than an arcane hobby. My 1200 is still my main music production system, for example. It doesn't make it any less obsolete.
You may contend it is a relative term but, well, you correct yourself here:
Your entire computer may not be produced and used but the components that it is made from are. However, no desktop systems are built with G5 processors, nor have been for some time.
You say "a G5 would absolutely be useful to me". To do what, exactly? This is what I have been asking. What do you routinely do in MOS (assuming you are a user) that is too slow on your current machine that none of your other machines (core2 macbook included) can't do for you already?
I dunno why people are interpreting my position here as particularly contentious. All I actually asked was what do people need G5 (or PA6T) for when it comes to running amiga apps? And, to be entirely honest, I only asked that thanks to the stupid and utterly predictable "yay G5 mac FTW totally pwns PA6T!!111!" remarks from certain members that have posted in this and related threads. Sure, a 2.7GHz G5 is going to outperform a 1.6GHz PA6T, I'd be surprised if it were not true, but what does it actually matter? It isn't as if G5 is an option for OS4 users and nor is PA6T an option for MOS users, so who cares either way?
Now, I've already said I totally understand the "I want to run my favourite OS on the fastest hw available" motivation. However, there is not one single amiga application that actually requires a G5 or PA6T that you can't get for an x86/64, so if you need to run those apps, cheaper and faster alternatives exist. Logically, you can only justify the former option if you are basically opposed to the latter one.
Now, for a long time, the point of how insanely fast and efficient MOS is on G4 mac hardware has been stressed and I am quite sure of it. Moving to G5 is an obvious and natural progression but why now, exactly? Obviously, I'm not privy to the development plan for MOS, but I am aware that there are plenty of other things that could be focused on instead - support for more graphics cards (especially now that gallium opens up nVidia support, also used in apple machines), support for wifi and other stuff that is surely of more immediate use to more people.
-
You tell 'em Red!!!
AS for OSX pdf thing... I know, it didn't make sense but the way he explained it to me was that I should look at the icons... they never pixelate when you use the genie effect becuase they're rendered in vectors. When I aske the goy some other questions he cas totally clueless and told me apple flew him to the convetion to fill in for someone else.
if they brought the Graphics System over from the NeXT then it still might be the case. NeXT was a color postscript display.
-
@Karlos,
One thing I don't understand where your coming from is that you keep asking us why we would want to run say Blender on a G4/MorphOS machine when we have a PC sitting here.
when you yourself just said that An A1200 is your main music production machine?
Under your logic, why use an A1200 and not your new x86 PC to do your music production?
Well, that's a case of chalk and cheese. You are comparing very different tasks.
My A1200 runs OctaMED SS as a MIDI sequencer. First of all, OctaMED SS is my preferred tool as I have years of experience with it. There is, or was, a version for windows but frankly, I didn't like the interface and secondly I tend not to run windows. Now, MIDI sequencing is not an intensive task; the 68040 in that machine is already more than fast enough for the job, hence there is nothing to be gained from running it on a faster box. In fact, I did try using UAE but in the end, there was little gain and rigging up my existing MIDI gear to it was a PITA. So, my A1200 is totally up to the job I ask of it. When I'm making music on it using my preferred application, it's already as good as it needs to be and no amount of additional go faster stripes actually help it.
Secondly, my PC does factor into music production. Recording, mixing, post production and soft synthesis. All of which IO/compute bound tasks for which my A1200 is underpowered.
Unlike MIDI sequencing, raytracing, is very much a compute/memory bound task. It's great that blender exists for AmigaOS4/MOS and hopefully time will see it fine-tuned and optimised, but even by then, I don't see it competing with an SSE3 optimised build on a fast x86-64 machine with several GB of high speed memory, running parallel render tasks on a true SMP platform.
In short, it's horses for courses. If you start justifying your choice of hardware by choosing compute bound tasks, why pick underpowered hardware to run them on? As cheap as you can pick up a G5 for, it isn't going to compete with an x86 box you spent the same total on (assuming you factor in the cost of the OS, which if you pick linux, is nada).
-
I think this answers your original questions of why anyone would want a faster MorphOS/OS4 or classic machine. There are apps that run on the Amiga that people really like or are used to using. many of them run just fine on the next Gen Amiga systems.
Octamed is not one of them but, there are many trackers for the PC that have many more features including VST support. Why not tell people to just use those? You like Octamed, maybe another user really likes ImageFX?. That program would fly on a G5 and only runs on Amiga's.
Well, that's a case of chalk and cheese. You are comparing very different tasks.
My A1200 runs OctaMED SS as a MIDI sequencer. First of all, OctaMED SS is my preferred tool as I have years of experience with it. There is, or was, a version for windows but frankly, I didn't like the interface and secondly I tend not to run windows. Now, MIDI sequencing is not an intensive task; the 68040 in that machine is already more than fast enough for the job, hence there is nothing to be gained from running it on a faster box. In fact, I did try using UAE but in the end, there was little gain and rigging up my existing MIDI gear to it was a PITA. So, my A1200 is totally up to the job I ask of it. When I'm making music on it using my preferred application, it's already as good as it needs to be and no amount of additional go faster stripes actually help it.
Secondly, my PC does factor into music production. Recording, mixing, post production and soft synthesis. All of which IO/compute bound tasks for which my A1200 is underpowered.
Unlike MIDI sequencing, raytracing, is very much a compute/memory bound task. It's great that blender exists for AmigaOS4/MOS and hopefully time will see it fine-tuned and optimised, but even by then, I don't see it competing with an SSE3 optimised build on a fast x86-64 machine with several GB of high speed memory, running parallel render tasks on a true SMP platform.
In short, it's horses for courses. If you start justifying your choice of hardware by choosing compute bound tasks, why pick underpowered hardware to run them on? As cheap as you can pick up a G5 for, it isn't going to compete with an x86 box you spent the same total on (assuming you factor in the cost of the OS, which if you pick linux, is nada).
-
You like Octamed, maybe another user really likes ImageFX?. That program would fly on a G5 and only runs on Amiga's.
I'm sure it would, but again, does it not already fly on a 1.5GHz G4, considering that it was written for m68K machines that never really got past ~80MHz?
I suppose, though, it's a much better example of a potential candidate application, certainly a far better suggestion than any so far (given that it's not a port from another system). Image processing can always use more power; you just have to work with bigger images or more complex processing to get the benefit of it.
-
if they brought the Graphics System over from the NeXT then it still might be the case. NeXT was a color postscript display.
OS X uses a more advanced system called display PDF.
-
In short, it's horses for courses. If you start justifying your choice of hardware by choosing compute bound tasks, why pick underpowered hardware to run them on? As cheap as you can pick up a G5 for, it isn't going to compete with an x86 box you spent the same total on (assuming you factor in the cost of the OS, which if you pick linux, is nada).
But nobody is doing this. They are picking their hardware based on the OS, and MorphOS or OS4 do not run on x86.
Given this people do want the latest greatest hardware, and in this case the choice is X1000 or a G5.
I don't know about OS4 but the MorphOS developers work exactly like open source developers, i.e. they do things because they feel like it. The G5 is cool* and it's a lot easier than a port to a different CPU architecture.
*Despite their reputation the later G5s ran easily cool enough to go in a laptop. They were a lot cooler than the equivalent clocked G4s.
-
G5s have definitely gotten a bad rap as far as their thermal properties go. Apple didn't help by using liquid cooling on the last units. It makes it look like that was necessary, it isn't, it's quieter. G5s at 2.7 Ghz have no more rigorous cooling requirements than an Intel or AMD processor (in fact, compared to some of those, their cooling requirements are lower).
And I understand Karlos' argument really well. I fact, since I recognize that I'm not going to be doing anything with a G4 Powermac that I can't do with a 1.25Ghz eMac, the first Powermac I've put together is a 1 Ghz Quicksilver. I'm pretty sure I can overclock this to 1.2 Ghz (which is close to my current 1.25) and if third party CPU upgrades are supported I can go as high as a 2.0Ghz 7448 (the fastest MDD upgrade is a 7447 which would be less powerful).
I don't expect to be able to decode HD video without high CPU usage or a video card based decoder. And, as before, there's going to be some applications that the system is either not powerful enough for or that software doesn't exist for under MorphOS. I also not pinning my hopes on hardware that's not going to be available in the immediate future and I'm glad to see that AmigaDave thinks the same way.
Will G5 support be cool? Will we be able to keep pace with AmigaOS4 hardware? Of course, its going to seriously kick ass, and we'll be paying less for our hardware.
The thing that Karlos is aware of and that I must admit I'm painfully aware of (as someone who worked for a company selling 68K based computers in the late 80's and early 90's) is that even if we have reasonably powerful hardware we're facing an impossible task.
Its simple, with the number of Windows and OSX computers sold each year the market for software for those machines is very large. As the time and energy necessary to create good software is also quite great, developers gravitate toward those markets with the greatest potential to make a profit.
As such, many great ideas and even better alternatives (to the current dominant platforms) have failed in the past. We need to keep our feet on the ground and remain realistic. The chances of a mainstream revival are slim. Our market does seem to be enjoying a period of renewal and growth. But, our systems and our software still serve a hobbyist market. Whether they will ever serve as primary systems of production remains questionable.
-
Well, that's a case of chalk and cheese. You are comparing very different tasks.
My A1200 runs OctaMED SS as a MIDI sequencer.
A1200 is obsolete because it doesn't have built in midi-ports and cubase like my Atari Mega ST. Plus the Atari doesn't multitask, so every bit of cpu's prosessing time goes to midi sequencing. ;)
-
Thanks Iggy.
I am sure I am not the typical user in that I would gladly sell this 3.0GHz Quad Core Intel CPU powered PC with two video cards and SLI, w/4gb RAM and Vista Ultimate/XP Pro and a couple TB of hdd space and never boot into any Windows OS again if I could get a decent price for it and replace it with a Quad Core, 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac running MacOSX 10.5.8 and hopefully MorphOS some day. I don't need any more power than the Quad Core G5 can provide and could probably run the one or two Windows programs I need through Virtual PC (yuck) until I could find replacement software on MacOSX or MorphOS. I also just purchased a pristine 17" 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook w/2 year warranty (listen up new hardware buyers) and a bunch of software for less than 1/5 what it will cost to get an X1000 (when it is released???) and AmigaOS4.x. The PowerBook should have MorphOS support in the relatively near future, maybe even before the production of consumer (not beta-tester boards) X1000 are released. I might now sell my 2.0GHz Core2Duo MacBook. It would be great to be back to running just one nice laptop and one nice desktop tower and then maybe my Classic Amiga collection would get some more attention than it does now.
I am sure this idea is not for many other people, but it will suit me just fine. I might even install Linux PPC on a G5 PowerMac if I go through with this idea and try to go "Window-Less" in the near future (and yes I KNOW that Linux will be much better, faster and have more software and features on my current Intel powered PC, but I don't care about all that power, I just care about having the most "Amiga" power I can have).
-
I still use my classic amiga machines and they are of more use than an arcane hobby. My 1200 is still my main music production system, for example. It doesn't make it any less obsolete.
You may contend it is a relative term but, well, you correct yourself here:
Correct in that I somehow support your point? As if my point that a G5 is not obsolete is invalid?
Your entire computer may not be produced and used but the components that it is made from are. However, no desktop systems are built with G5 processors, nor have been for some time.
That is irrelevant.
You say "a G5 would absolutely be useful to me". To do what, exactly? This is what I have been asking. What do you routinely do in MOS (assuming you are a user) that is too slow on your current machine that none of your other machines (core2 macbook included) can't do for you already?
I find the user experience to be more pleasant under MorphOS so that's the first point. What do I need my computer for? 1) Web browsing, 2) IRC, 3) Secure Shell client, 4) Remote Desktop client. That's about it.
Yes, my MacBook Pro can do that but so can Windows... and Windows is certainly does not provide me with a pleasant user experience.
At the end of the day, ANY computer platform can perform these tasks so for me it's more about a pleasant and enjoyable user experience. Windows is absolutely out of the question. OS X becomes ore bloated with each release. I use Linux and MorphOS for my need.
I dunno why people are interpreting my position here as particularly contentious.
I am not. I simply disagree with your obsolete comment.
-
Take the OS in account, too; given the same apps and similarly specified HW, some people might prefer AmigaOS/MOS/AROS over Windows/MacOS/Linux.
Varthall
Indeed, thanks for that comment! :)
I think it's funny that an Amiga enthusiast has to defend his preferred choice of OS and HW for his Amiga hobby here on Amiga.org. This is something I would expect over at slashdot, i.e. "Linux on x86 is cheaper, faster and better". Well it might be, but it won't be MorphOS. With the G5 support, MorphOS will support the fastest PPC architecture ever made. That's a good thing IMO, not a bad thing. And if it isn't for you, the MorphOS team has showed MorphOS running on a broad spectrum of Mac HW, a whole palette, where each option has it's own individual key benefit:
Mac Mini (Small)
eMac (Cheap)
PowerBook (Laptop)
PowerMac G4 (Cheap, expandable, "real" case)
PowerMac G5 (Powerful)
I know that it isn't Linux on x86, but for an Amiga enthusiast, this is a lot to choose from depending on your needs and wants. This are the best mainstream machines the PPC had to offer, and none of the options will ruin you. MorphOS doesn't run on x86, and the G5 is the most powerful PPC there is. Supporting it is a good thing, not a bad thing, it makes the picture above complete.
-
You tell 'em Red!!!
AS for OSX pdf thing... I know, it didn't make sense but the way he explained it to me was that I should look at the icons... they never pixelate when you use the genie effect becuase they're rendered in vectors.
Apples icons are not vector images. They are 128x128 pixels and provide some downscaled versions in the ressources.
-
A1200 is obsolete because it doesn't have built in midi-ports and cubase like my Atari Mega ST. Plus the Atari doesn't multitask, so every bit of cpu's prosessing time goes to midi sequencing. ;)
:lol:
However, for the Atari Mega ST:
1) I don't have one
2) As nice as the built in MIDI interface is, it's actually less versatile than the one I already own.
3) It doesn't run OctaMED SS
4) I don't really want to buy another machine to do a job my machine does perfectly well,
5) Irrespective of all the above, the Mega ST probably doesn't the job as well as my existing machine anyway ;)
-
I think it's funny that an Amiga enthusiast has to defend his preferred choice of OS and HW for his Amiga hobby here on Amiga.org. This is something I would expect over at slashdot, i.e. "Linux on x86 is cheaper, faster and better". Well it might be, but it won't be MorphOS.
:lol:
Fear not, help is available. (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2983876261_d5cace1ecb.jpg?v=0)
I find it funny that you find a perfectly reasonable question something you need to "defend" against. All I asked was "what do you already do with MOS on your G4 that you actually need a G5 for?"
And frankly, you brought that question on all by yourself with your e-pine rubbing over the G5 slaying all competition ;)
With the G5 support, MorphOS will support the fastest PPC architecture ever made. That's a good thing IMO, not a bad thing.
Nowhere in this thread or anywhere else have I suggested it is a bad thing. That inference is entirely in your going on in your mind.
In fact, I think you will find that the very first thing I did was to ridicule the sorts of arguments I was expecting from certain trolls regarding obvious lack of 64-bit/SMP support. You know, exactly the same arguments that were raised by some people when it was announced that the equally 32-bit, non SMP OS4 would be migrating to a 64-bit dual core processor.
And if it isn't for you, the MorphOS team has showed MorphOS running on a broad spectrum of Mac HW, a whole palette, where each option has it's own individual key benefit:
Mac Mini (Small)
eMac (Cheap)
PowerBook (Laptop)
PowerMac G4 (Cheap, expandable, "real" case)
PowerMac G5 (Powerful)
I am fully aware of the machines MOS is available for. As I have said more than once, I am slightly puzzled as to why migrating to G5 seems to be happening ahead of improving support on the above machines.
To reiterate, there are plenty of G4 class Mac machines that used nVidia GPUs, but you can't run MOS on them thanks to the lack of video driver support. Yet, AROS already has gotten nVidia support thanks to Gallium, so it's no great leap of intuition to contemplate MOS (and OS4 for that matter) to examine the possibility. Or how about getting wireless networking up and running on the boxes that are supported?
I know that it isn't Linux on x86, but for an Amiga enthusiast, this is a lot to choose from depending on your needs and wants. This are the best mainstream machines the PPC had to offer, and none of the options will ruin you. MorphOS doesn't run on x86,
Not yet. But, ask yourself seriously though, where do you go after the G5? Or is the G5 to be to MOS what the 68060 was to OS3.x?
The same argument is true for the PA6T.
and the G5 is the most powerful PPC there is. Supporting it is a good thing, not a bad thing,
There you are again, rubbing your behind as if I just kicked it for asking a perfectly reasonable question.
it makes the picture above complete.
No it doesn't. It would be complete if the major features of each device were adequately supported. They aren't. As I said, fixing wifi and video support would make it far more complete than adding support for one more CPU, which you can still do afterwards.
-
I am slightly puzzled as to why migrating to G5 seems to be happening ahead of improving support on the above machines.
I'm slightly puzzled why you think G5 is going to happen before the said machines. Sure there will be things that won't be supported anytime soon (nvidia, wlan, bluetooth), but basic robust support for the announced machines definitely comes first. Adding support for any of those technologies would require too much resources for a limited gain.
how about getting wireless networking up and running on the boxes that are supported?
I'd think it's main because adding support for for Wi-Fi Protected Access would be painful. We haven't ruled WiFi out completely but it certainly isn't a high priority at the moment.
-
I'm slightly puzzled why you think G5 is going to happen before the said machines.
Well, the initial announcement and subsequent excitement might have had something to do with it ;) The key phrase in the above is "seems to be".
Sure there will be things that won't be supported anytime soon (nvidia, wlan, bluetooth), but basic robust support for the announced machines definitely comes first.
Thank you, Piru, that's reassuring to hear.
-
And I understand Karlos' argument really well. I fact, since I recognize that I'm not going to be doing anything with a G4 Powermac that I can't do with a 1.25Ghz eMac, the first Powermac I've put together is a 1 Ghz Quicksilver. I'm pretty sure I can overclock this to 1.2 Ghz (which is close to my current 1.25) and if third party CPU upgrades are supported I can go as high as a 2.0Ghz 7448 (the fastest MDD upgrade is a 7447 which would be less powerful).
No doubt you'll barely notice any real loss in performance in everyday usage, since most of the things we do on our amiga/amiga-like systems are not compute bound.
I don't expect to be able to decode HD video without high CPU usage or a video card based decoder. And, as before, there's going to be some applications that the system is either not powerful enough for or that software doesn't exist for under MorphOS.
However, I'm guessing that pretty much every Amiga specific application you can run on it, will run extremely well indeed, right?
Will G5 support be cool? Will we be able to keep pace with AmigaOS4 hardware? Of course, its going to seriously kick ass, and we'll be paying less for our hardware.
Agreed. As I said, the "I want to run my preferred OS on the fastest hardware it can run on" is a motivation I can completely understand.
The thing that Karlos is aware of and that I must admit I'm painfully aware of (as someone who worked for a company selling 68K based computers in the late 80's and early 90's) is that even if we have reasonably powerful hardware we're facing an impossible task.
Its simple, with the number of Windows and OSX computers sold each year the market for software for those machines is very large. As the time and energy necessary to create good software is also quite great, developers gravitate toward those markets with the greatest potential to make a profit.
As such, many great ideas and even better alternatives (to the current dominant platforms) have failed in the past. We need to keep our feet on the ground and remain realistic. The chances of a mainstream revival are slim. Our market does seem to be enjoying a period of renewal and growth. But, our systems and our software still serve a hobbyist market. Whether they will ever serve as primary systems of production remains questionable.
QFT.
-edit-
Seems I missed this post:
As to your other question about what do we need the G5 power for, and there are no Amiga apps that need that kind of power, you are obviously right for 99% of the apps, but with the old 68k apps needing to be run through a JIT engine and not natively, any demanding Classic Amiga app, such as 3D rendering, will benefit from the extra power. But more important in my minds eye is that the extra computing power will open a few programming opportunities that everyone thought could not be accomplished on any Amiga computer in the past. With G5, or PA6T power and if/when better graphics cards are supported, it will be possible to create better Amiga applications in the future than might be possible with only the current power of a 1.5GHz G4 MacMini, or in AmigaOS4.x's case, a 1GHz G4 Pegasos2, or AmigaOne.
I have to admit, I'd love to see that, for to me that would be a sign of genuine progress. I honestly think that OS4 and MOS are operating systems without software more than they are operating systems without hardware. Sure they run a large slice of legacy applications, but tiny minority of those actually benefit from the step up in performance, which has been my point of contention throughout.
Aside from apps and codecs ported from other systems where the required performance to run is considered minimal at best, neither OS4 or MOS presently seem to have applications that would appear to have been made possible solely by the improved performance they have over classic machines. And in my book, that's a real pity.
Concerning your argument that we all have other computers that can run anything that can be run on a G5 or PA6T Amiga system faster and cheaper, not everyone wants to have to switch back and forth between different systems and many of us hope that with a sufficiently powerful Amiga system, more Amiga programmers will return to coding new programs for us to use and we might be able to do 100% of what we now do on multiple computers on just one powerful Amiga computer. Not everyone here HAS to have all the latest software, or web plug-ins to satisfy our computing needs and I would say that many of us here at A.org are the die-hard few remaining Amiga enthusiasts that would prefer to ONLY use an Amiga computer and OS and not have to boot into any other OS ever again. Maybe that is not realistic, and some will say it is not possible, but everyone has different computing styles and needs, so I say to those nay sayers, don't tell me what I have to own, or have to run to be happy with my computing experience.
A reasonable argument, honestly presented. However, I don't think the various polls over the years (not to mention the server stats) really support your idea that many regular visitors here are amiga-only folk. There is a vocal minority, but the majority would seem to have other machines, at least for internet access.
-
G5 on morphos is perfect and the fastest "amiga" never see, you can launch a amiga program, like lightwave 3d, aladdin, art effect etc at the speed of 75% of ppc cpu using jit trance... this is a lot and a lots of mips, 1.8ghz give more than 5.000 mips for amiga native 68k aplications, warpos/powerup and morphos more than 7.000 mips, i think morphos can boot on a micro sencond :P
Whereas I think you'll find that you could get a similar percentage of native speed for any of the above applications a core i7 just using UAE. Or just run Lightwave 3D at 100% native speed on the same machine, since all versions from about 5.0 onwards are for x86 anyway ;)
Of course, you could say "yeah but you have to emulate the chipset". Funny that, because running it in RTG mode seems to cause that problem to vanish. And, of course, it still can emulate the chipset, so it's even more compatible with original amiga applications.
and with very little memory usage windows is slow loading system, loading, loading loading... and consumes a lot of ram, morphos is ultra fast and mega-optimized, and of course, amiga compatible.
:)
Super effective meme, much?
FYI, not all x86 machines are running super slow slow mega drag lag winblows ;)
-
But, ask yourself seriously though, where do you go after the G5?
When all the above mentioned machines are covered, there doesn't seem to be any more PPC options left to port to that makes sense. They will then have covered the smallest machine, the cheapest, the laptop, 'the cheapest normal case', and 'the most powerful normal case'.
As far as I see it, it would make sense to migrate to a different CPU architecture. ARM or x86.
"But why would they go x86, I mean, how could Amiga *possibly* benefit from the power of modern x86 HW...?" :rolleyes:
-
As far as I see it, it would make sense to migrate to a different CPU architecture. ARM or x86.
"But why would they go x86, I mean, how could Amiga *possibly* benefit from the power of modern x86 HW...?" :rolleyes:
It isn't the power it would benefit from, at least not for some time*, it's the fact that they are cheap, plentiful and are extremely unlikely to go out of production at any time in the foreseeable future. In contrast to the G5, which has already been out of production for some time.
-edit-
*Of course, one obvious benefit of all that horsepower is that you'd be able to preserve backwards compatibility for PPC applications via emulation. After all, Rosetta and PearPC have shown it can be done.
-
I don't know Karlos, with current AOS and MOS revisions not supporting SMP I'm not convinced that X86 is the way to go yet.
And how would a 32bit OS without memory protection (and in the case of MorphOS a 1.5GB memory limitation) compete against existing X86 OS'?
With MorphOS, assembly language is still within my reach (as the number of PPC instructions is still manageable). With an X86 processor? No, I'm going to need higher level programming tools.
There are a lot of reasons I can't support another platform change just yet.
And AROS is there's for those that want to switch. Right now we're spread across 68K, PPC and X86 platforms. That diversity may be of benefit to us.
-
I don't know Karlos, with current AOS and MOS revisions not supporting SMP I'm not convinced that X86 is the way to go yet.
Point taken, but both OS4 and MOS as 32-bit non SMP are moving towards hardware SMP capable 64-bit platforms regardless, so really, that boat has already sailed.
And how would a 32bit OS without memory protection (and in the case of MorphOS a 1.5GB memory limitation) compete against existing X86 OS'?
The same way AROS does - or rather doesn't; by appealing to an existing user base instead of taking on the world. In truth, the only competition OS4 and MOS have is each other and that isn't going to change by moving to a more popular hardware platform. Alternative OS for x86 are legion; none of them are curling up and dying just because windows, osx and linux are in town.
I actually think that an x86 port of MOS (or OS4) would face far more of a threat from AROS than it does any of the "big" ones.
Regarding the memory limitation (which I wasn't actually aware of TBH), the observation applies equally to the PPC mac hardware it already supports.
With MorphOS, assembly language is still within my reach (as the number of PPC instructions is still manageable). With an X86 processor? No, I'm going to need higher level programming tools.
Actually, the assembler for x64 is quite clean. You'd be surprised (I know I was), it's a far cry from the arcane old x86 stuff. And of course, you can dispense with the horrid old stack based x87 nonsense and go straight for SSE. Of course, there's not as much call for it, but if you must, it is still there.
That said, I still prefer writing m68k assembler over everything else ;)
There are a lot of reasons I can't support another platform change just yet.
And AROS is there's for those that want to switch. Right now we're spread across 68K, PPC and X86 platforms. That diversity may be of benefit to us.
Sure, that's understandable and FWIW, despite how it may sound, I actually enjoy PPC. Variety is the spice of life. What worries me is the long term viability of supporting hardware that is no longer in production (not the PPC per se, but desktop systems built on it).
-
Anyone considering purchasing a G5 tower should stay away from the water cooled models, as they have not aged gracefully and are leaking all over the motherboard.
Unless of course you're handy repairing water cooling systems.
-
G5s have definitely gotten a bad rap as far as their thermal properties go. Apple didn't help by using liquid cooling on the last units. It makes it look like that was necessary, it isn't, it's quieter. G5s at 2.7 Ghz have no more rigorous cooling requirements than an Intel or AMD processor (in fact, compared to some of those, their cooling requirements are lower).
The problem wasn't power consumption but power density. The 970 was so small it spread it's heat over a smaller area (i.e. the chip was small the heat per mm sq was higher) and the only way to avoid this was use liquid cooling. The actual power figures were close to AMD and better than Intel.
-
ImageFX?. That program would fly on a G5 and only runs on Amiga's.
A multicore PC with multiple instances of UAE beats a G5 running MorphOS easily.
-
A multicore PC with multiple instances of UAE beats a G5 running MorphOS easily.
Really? You will just have to show me how a PC running UAE can run MorphOS. (before you get all riled up, I know you were responding to the ImageFX running on MorphOS being faster on the G5 posting) :)
If ImageFX and other Classic Amiga programs were the only apps us MorphOS users were running on our MorphOS computers, I would agree that there is almost no reason except the OS experience itself, which is good in my opinion, to use MorphOS at all. But that is not the case, there are MorphOS native apps that can only be run on a MorphOS capable computer. Granted, as Karlos likes to point out, most of those apps that we can run on MorphOS (AmigaOS4 is in the same boat) exist on other platforms that run orders of magnitude faster than any MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x machine at a fraction of the price, but I fail to see the logic of why any MorphOS or AmigaOS4 user would want to keep using underpowered hardware that limits the kinds of things we can do on the OS we prefer to use, not are forced to use because the software we want to run is only available on other OSes that we do not enjoy using as much as an Amiga-Like OS. Does Karlos use either MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x? I know he uses AmigaOS3.x as he uses his A1200 for music. Maybe we should look backward to the days when there were many more Amiga programmers and remember how after the PC and Mac moved to Pentium and PPC CPU's they were forced to make a choice between limiting what there software could do, or look like compared to what they could accomplish on PC's or Mac's, or they could walk away from programming for the Amiga and follow the money to the mainstream computing world. What I mean is that without the added power provided by the Pentium, or PPC and later more powerful CPU's much software that is available today would not have been written. MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x need the power to enable the few remaining programmers we have to write more power hungry applications and games. It is kind of a chicken or egg situation. Does the software that requires more power and graphics capability come first and run crappy on what we have today, or do we port our OSes to more powerful machines so that more power hungry software can be written? I think it is the latter.
Why not just use the more capable OSes and hardware in the first place? Because we are MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x users that wish to use those OSes and computers, that is why we are here discussing this. I don't see many PC and Mac users here that are not at least in some way interested in MorphOS2.x and/or AmigaOS4.x.
Doesn't that make sense to everyone?
-
The problem wasn't power consumption but power density. The 970 was so small it spread it's heat over a smaller area (i.e. the chip was small the heat per mm sq was higher) and the only way to avoid this was use liquid cooling. The actual power figures were close to AMD and better than Intel.
That is a common misconception about the 970 (along with the idea that Apple overclocked the processor to run at 2.5 and 2.7 Ghz).
It can and has been air cooled in other applications.
I have considered switching cooling solutions as part of a repackaging project, but it might be easier to retain the cooling blocks.
A multicore PC with multiple instances of UAE beats a G5 running MorphOS easily.
As UAE only runs 68K apps, that's hardly the point. We're talking about a PPC OS.
-
Really? You will just have to show me how a PC running UAE can run MorphOS. (before you get all riled up, I know you were responding to the ImageFX running on MorphOS being faster on the G5 posting) :)
Yes, I was responding to the issue of ImageFx - your comment above makes no sense.
If ImageFX and other Classic Amiga programs were the only apps us MorphOS users were running on our MorphOS computers, I would agree that there is almost no reason except the OS experience itself, which is good in my opinion, to use MorphOS at all. But that is not the case, there are MorphOS native apps that can only be run on a MorphOS capable computer.
Like what exactly? I have yet to see any native MorphOS app that justifies the hassle over running equivalent m68k software under UAE or native app under host OS.
Granted, as Karlos likes to point out, most of those apps that we can run on MorphOS (AmigaOS4 is in the same boat) exist on other platforms that run orders of magnitude faster than any MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x machine at a fraction of the price, but I fail to see the logic of why any MorphOS or AmigaOS4 user would want to keep using underpowered hardware that limits the kinds of things we can do on the OS we prefer to use, not are forced to use because the software we want to run is only available on other OSes that we do not enjoy using as much as an Amiga-Like OS.
The hardware is not the problem - the OSes themselves are, it's the OSes that are underpowered, and lacking just about any modern features I can think of - providing kick ass hardware is rather pointless when the OS you want to run on it is a relic of 20 years ago with some 3D fluff and nice icons thrown ontop of it. Glorified emulators are what they are, with a handfull of native apps each.
Does Karlos use either MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x?
I have both, but I rarely use them since they lacking so much behind that I dont really see the point - I get more done with UAE and old m68k apps than with any of OS4 and MorphOS, since the host systems I run UAE on can transparently give UAE and the m68k apps access to data over modern protocols, something none of the so called NG systems are capable of. And as a bonus I also get much faster amiga systems, that can be live migrated, backed up and have hardware upgrades whenever it fits _me_, without having to jump through burning hoops and whatnot.
MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x need the power to enable the few remaining programmers we have to write more power hungry applications and games.
Nonsense. Programmers flee MorphOS and AmigaOS4.x mostly due to lack of modern features in the OSes, features that core developers see no point in adressing for whatever reasons.
It is kind of a chicken or egg situation.
No it's not, it's a "too many old hens laying rotten eggs" situation.
Does the software that requires more power and graphics capability come first and run crappy on what we have today, or do we port our OSes to more powerful machines so that more power hungry software can be written? I think it is the latter.
You are wrong. There is no need for more CPU power, there is a desperate need for updating the core functionality of the OSes, providing modern features to them so that it becomes even slightly interesting for developers to provide software for it.
Why not just use the more capable OSes and hardware in the first place? Because we are MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x users that wish to use those OSes and computers, that is why we are here discussing this.
Not really - MorphOS and OS4 were originally meant to be quite different beasts than what they are today - both went from being systems with promising roadmaps to glorified emulators with nice icons. Do you remember what OS4 looked like on the paper back in 1996? Or how abox in MorphOS was just meant to be a temporary stopgap? Today they are just short of being cought up by AROS - I find that highly ironic, sad and hilarious at the same time.
I don't see many PC and Mac users here that are not at least in some way interested in MorphOS2.x and/or AmigaOS4.x.
OS4 and MorphOS are not that much more interesting than OS3.x, really.
Doesn't that make sense to everyone?
Nope :)
-
Big surprise that it doesn't make sense to someone that "rarely use them since they lacking so much behind that I dont really see the point". Other MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x users have a different opinion and attitude than you do, or there would be no MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x at all. They would have ceased to exist years ago. Also, your statement that my joke makes no sense, doesn't make any sense! It's a JOKE with a smiley face after it and it is even followed with the text to explain that I knew what you were referring to. Jeesh! Grow a sense of humor.
As for the rest, I have no problem with the reality that both OSes are unfinished, even though they are no longer labeled as beta releases. As long as work continues on them, not just work to port them to different machines, I will continue to use them because I want to do so. Is it rational, not really. But I am sure my computing needs are much lower than yours, as well as my expectations of both NG PPC systems, so my enjoyment of using them is not dependent on me being rational during the time I am using a NG Amiga system.
I understand your disappointment and/or displeasure with MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x and why you don't use them except rarely. I have no problem with you having your view and opinions regarding MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x, I do have a problem when some people (maybe not you) label people like me who like to use MorphOS2.x, or AmigaOS4.x as; stupid, wasting their time, wasting their money, unrealistic dreamers (even if some of the fanboys are), or any other remarks that imply that we are somehow less intelligent, or less of a person because of our choices and preferences.
I don't agree with most of your comments, but I am not going to waste my time trying to rebut any of them, because you have every right to think what ever you want and it is not my job to try to convince you otherwise. I also don't need anyone's approval to use the computer and OS of my choice, or their blessing of my reasons for those choices.
Enjoy your Amiga experience any way you want and let me enjoy mine, while also working toward improving it, hoping and wishing for others to join me in the same pursuit of a better NG Amiga system and new software, and allow me and others to praise and support what we see as efforts of the developers to provide what we are hoping for.
-
Damn, I hate being sucked into defending myself on forums and it is always a "No Win" situation, but I just can't seem to stop myself this time.
Yes, I was responding to the issue of ImageFx - your comment above makes no sense.
That's because it's an obvious joke.
Like what exactly? I have yet to see any native MorphOS app that justifies the hassle over running equivalent m68k software under UAE or native app under host OS.
What do you mean "Like what exactly"? I made a statement that to run native MorphOS apps you need a MorphOS compatible computer, not a PC running an emulator on a host OS and you counter that you haven't seen any native apps that justify using MorphOS. The decision to use or not use MorphOS (or AmigaOS4) is not in question. I and many others have already made that choice, so we want as many native applications and games as we can get. We have made a choice to use MorphOS2.x, and/or AmigaOS4.x either in addition to, or instead of another OS on other hardware. For myself, I would rather get to a point where I never have to boot any Windows OS ever again for many reasons (but as I have said my needs and requirements are much lower than most people. I don't expect you to understand this as you appear to be caught in the wheels of the machine).
The hardware is not the problem - the OSes themselves are, it's the OSes that are underpowered, and lacking just about any modern features I can think of - providing kick ass hardware is rather pointless when the OS you want to run on it is a relic of 20 years ago with some 3D fluff and nice icons thrown ontop of it. Glorified emulators are what they are, with a handfull of native apps each.
You really missed the mark with this one. You are trying to tell me that decoding HD video for playback can't be done on my Efika because of a fault in MorphOS? I can't render 3D animations in real time on my G4 MacMini running MorphOS2.5 because the OS is lacking something and if they just added it to the OS my G4 MacMini would magically then be able to do that? Speeding up the time it takes to edit photos with generated effects or writing a decent CAD program that can also render 3D drawings quickly and runs on MorphOS needs more features in the OS and no improvement in the hardware speed and new graphics drivers?
Maybe faster hardware will help "inspire" just one MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x programmer to keep programming for those OSes AND allow one new app/game to be written that cannot be run, or run satisfactorily on the slower existing hardware that those OSes have available to them today. Using your comment and logic above why did anyone create 68060 cards for the A2000/A3000/A4000's? Faster hardware has allowed for new, more demanding software to be written on all OSes from the beginning, why shouldn't the users that care about continuing to use MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x want this for our OS of choice? Maybe modern OSes are also part of the problem and all those features you keep referring to aren't really necessary as part of the OS and should be optional for people with other priorities, needs and desires from their computing experience?
I have both, but I rarely use them since they lacking so much behind that I dont really see the point - I get more done with UAE and old m68k apps than with any of OS4 and MorphOS, since the host systems I run UAE on can transparently give UAE and the m68k apps access to data over modern protocols, something none of the so called NG systems are capable of. And as a bonus I also get much faster amiga systems, that can be live migrated, backed up and have hardware upgrades whenever it fits _me_, without having to jump through burning hoops and whatnot.
Then why even keep them? Why comment in threads that are about improving the hardware for an OS that you don't use and have little or no interest in? Just sell them to other Amiga users that can appreciate them and stay happy with your other OSes and computers. I don't know which "modern" protocols you are referring to, but my MorphOS2.x computer is connected to my LAN and has access to all the data I need or want on my other computers or on the Internet (I stress the "I need or want" before you respond with something that "YOU" want or need). After all, it is you that are making comments which infer that using MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x are a waste of time and money, in effect trying to convince others that your view is the only reasonable one to share and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. Oh, the "burning hoops" is a very nice dramatic touch (sarcasm, in case you can't figure it out for yourself, like the joke)
Nonsense. Programmers flee MorphOS and AmigaOS4.x mostly due to lack of modern features in the OSes, features that core developers see no point in adressing for whatever reasons.
So now you are a spokesman for all the programmers that have left programming for MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x and know their reasons for leaving AND you also know what the "core developers" are working on and what they have planned to address at some time in the future? The arrogance of that statement by you above amazes me. My statement wasn't even about programmers who have left. It is about those that have CHOSEN to remain and continue to use MorphOS2.x and/or AmigaOS4.x. needing more powerful hardware before they can write native apps and games that REQUIRE more powerful hardware.
No it's not, it's a "too many old hens laying rotten eggs" situation.
Why resort to insults to express YOUR opinion? You made your thoughts about the PPC NG Amiga OSes with your "I have both, but I rarely use them since they lacking so much behind that I dont really see the point" comment earlier.
You are wrong. There is no need for more CPU power, there is a desperate need for updating the core functionality of the OSes, providing modern features to them so that it becomes even slightly interesting for developers to provide software for it.
No, you are wrong. It is clear to all MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x users and unbiased observers that we will benefit from an increase in CPU power. We also know that progress continues, albeit at a slow pace due to available resources, toward updating the core functionality of our chosen OSes and accept that fact. Some software development continues, so these OSes are obviously interesting to at least a few programmers and users. You just aren't one of them.
Not really - MorphOS and OS4 were originally meant to be quite different beasts than what they are today - both went from being systems with promising roadmaps to glorified emulators with nice icons. Do you remember what OS4 looked like on the paper back in 1996? Or how abox in MorphOS was just meant to be a temporary stopgap? Today they are just short of being cought up by AROS - I find that highly ironic, sad and hilarious at the same time.
My statement is about users of MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x that prefer to do some tasks on their preferred OS instead of doing the same task on another OS because that is their choice and that is why many of us are reading a thread about the possibility of porting MorphOS to the G5 PowerMac. You obviously don't fit that description so why are you commenting in this thread? What is your agenda, or motive? What has your quote above got to do with my statement that you were replying to? Nothing! You are just rambling about your disappointment with the current state of either OS compared to where they were originally supposed to go. Well guess what, ideas, people and projects change sometimes. Some of us have gotten over it and moved on to a choice of using MorphOS2.x and/or AmigaOS4.x regardless of what was proposed when they were first thought of and development work started on them. Again, you are not one of them so why do you hold on to your computers that run those disappointing OSes you like to run down so much?
OS4 and MorphOS are not that much more interesting than OS3.x, really.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it is not shared by myself and probably a few hundred or more users of MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x and it doesn't add any value to this thread.
Nope :)
It wouldn't make sense to someone who is as biased and jaded toward both PPC NG Amiga OSes as you appear to be.
-
Granted, as Karlos likes to point out, most of those apps that we can run on MorphOS (AmigaOS4 is in the same boat) exist on other platforms that run orders of magnitude faster than any MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x machine at a fraction of the price, but I fail to see the logic of why any MorphOS or AmigaOS4 user would want to keep using underpowered hardware that limits the kinds of things we can do on the OS we prefer to use, not are forced to use because the software we want to run is only available on other OSes that we do not enjoy using as much as an Amiga-Like OS. Does Karlos use either MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x? I know he uses AmigaOS3.x as he uses his A1200 for music
Actually, a MorphOS 2 machine is the only "amigoid" system missing from my collection. They're not all listed in my signature, you know ;)
Regarding the application situation, I can only reiterate what I said in #153:
As to your other question about what do we need the G5 power for, and there are no Amiga apps that need that kind of power, you are obviously right for 99% of the apps, but with the old 68k apps needing to be run through a JIT engine and not natively, any demanding Classic Amiga app, such as 3D rendering, will benefit from the extra power. But more important in my minds eye is that the extra computing power will open a few programming opportunities that everyone thought could not be accomplished on any Amiga computer in the past. With G5, or PA6T power and if/when better graphics cards are supported, it will be possible to create better Amiga applications in the future than might be possible with only the current power of a 1.5GHz G4 MacMini, or in AmigaOS4.x's case, a 1GHz G4 Pegasos2, or AmigaOne.
I have to admit, I'd love to see that, for to me that would be a sign of genuine progress. I honestly think that OS4 and MOS are operating systems without software more than they are operating systems without hardware. Sure they run a large slice of legacy applications, but tiny minority of those actually benefit from the step up in performance, which has been my point of contention throughout.
Aside from apps and codecs ported from other systems where the required performance to run is considered minimal at best, neither OS4 or MOS presently seem to have applications that would appear to have been made possible solely by the improved performance they have over classic machines. And in my book, that's a real pity.
-
Point taken, but both OS4 and MOS as 32-bit non SMP are moving towards hardware SMP capable 64-bit platforms regardless, so really, that boat has already sailed.
Is there a better, more cost efficient PPC choice for the MorphOS developers to use as a target platform than the Mac's they have chosen already and the ones they are considering for future ports? In other words, given the amount of resources they have to work with, and the determination to continue to go forward with MorphOS and not just call it quits, what hardware would you have chosen? SMP is not possible for MorphOS2.x, or AmigaOS4.x and I would imagine this applies to AROS too, but might be wrong on that point. The fastest hardware that they can easily move to is all dual processor, dual core or quad core. That is all they have to choose from if they want to continue to increase the speed of their OS as far as possible without breaking compatibility, or going to another architecture which would require much more time and work, which they don't have the resources for.
The same way AROS does - or rather doesn't; by appealing to an existing user base instead of taking on the world. In truth, the only competition OS4 and MOS have is each other and that isn't going to change by moving to a more popular hardware platform. Alternative OS for x86 are legion; none of them are curling up and dying just because windows, osx and linux are in town.
Only a very small number of delusional fanatics still think that MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x are going to "take on the world", or become a mainstream OS any time in the future. I think every hobby has a few people that are out of touch with reality. I know that the MorphOS developers are not trying to, or claiming that MorphOS will ever be ready to compete directly against Windows, MacOSX, or even Linux and I very much doubt that the AmigaOS4.x developers are either. That does not stop them from wanting their OS to be better than it is now and also wanting more users to choose it as an entertainment, a hobby, or a part time replacement for their other OSes.
I actually think that an x86 port of MOS (or OS4) would face far more of a threat from AROS than it does any of the "big" ones.
Of course AROS would be the bigger threat as it is closer to appearance, and function and it is free. Have you ever considered that fact might be a big contributing factor for why MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x have resisted moving to x86 so far? Why would they want to compete with not just one free OS, but probably dozens, when both teams of developers are just tiny groups of programmers that could never compete with other OS choices that might have ten to a hundred times the man-power to work on an x86 alternate OS?
-
IOf course AROS would be the bigger threat as it is closer to appearance, and function and it is free. Have you ever considered that fact might be a big contributing factor for why MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x have resisted moving to x86 so far? Why would they want to compete with not just one free OS, but probably dozens, when both teams of developers are just tiny groups of programmers that could never compete with other OS choices that might have ten to a hundred times the man-power to work on an x86 alternate OS?
It has occurred to me many times and I'm sure I've said as much in the past. However, the key functionality required of any MOS x86 / OS4 x86 implementation would be PPC emulation, something which I doubt AROS developers are really interested in. You have to admit, the prospect of moving to x86 and sacrificing all compatibility with your existing software base is not an appealing one.
I hate to say this but if OS4 and MOS plan to stay tied to PPC forever, then enjoy it now, since with the G5 mac, you have reached the pinnacle of what the architecture had to offer for desktop systems. It's been 4 years since the line was discontinued. I admit, we're still using m68k amigas 25 years later, but do you expect to be using a PPC machine for as long?
-
Yes indeed this Mac will be faster. From the picture from the G5 Mac from the show:
Processor: 2700 MHz, FSB: 1350 MHz
AFAIK the PA6T processor in the "X1000": 1800 MHz, FSB: 1067 MHz.
So yes, performance wise it will kick "X1000" butt,
You're missing some rather important details here...
The G5 uses an "elastic bus" to a north bridge (actually 2 busses running in different directions).
At 1.35 GHz that's 10.8 GB/Second
However control signals are sent down the same wires so it's theoretical max is just under 10GB/second.
OTOH the PA6T uses dual memory controllers, it can use the full bandwidth of both busses.
At 1.067GHz is 17.07 GB/second.
With the on-die memory controllers the PA6T is also likely to have considerably lower memory latency - (the G5 northbridge was known for being rather slow, though a faster one was introduced later on).
We will know for sure *how much* behind OS4 on the X1000 will be compared to MorphOS on a fast Powermac G5 when we see a complete comparison benchmark of the two, like the obligement test some time ago. But it will be behind.
The PA6T has a much better memory systems so I think the hardware is going to be much more evenly matched than anyone suspects.
at a quarter of the cost (in the worst case, probably much less).
This is one area where they are not exactly evenly matched!
As before I expect any decision will be down to the choice of OS and price.
Amigoid memory speeds:
060@66MHz - 0.132 GB/s
Efika - 0.5GB/s (on-die 32bit memory controller)
Peg2/A1/µA1 - 1.0 GB/s (not sure, might be 0.8GB/sec)
Sam 440 - 1.1GB/s (on-die 32bit memory controller)
G4 - 1.6GB/s (late model PowerBooks only, the rest ran slower)
Sam 460 - 3.2 GB/s (on-die 64bit memory controller)
G5 - 10.8 GB/s.
PA6T - 17.07 GB/s (2x on-die 64bit memory controller).
and just for comparison:
My laptop - 8.5 GB/s (18 month old MacBook)
Cell - 25 GB/s
Core i7 - 32 GB/s
Nvidia GTX 295 - 220 GB/s
-
A multicore PC with multiple instances of UAE beats a G5 running MorphOS easily.
As UAE only runs 68K apps, that's hardly the point. We're talking about a PPC OS.
Nope, the comment I was responding to was not about PPC OS as such, it was about "what makes MorphOS more suited than anything else for old m68k amiga apps" - so MIDI sequencing doesn't need the CPU power and an old A1200 does it fine, and someone brought up ImageFx as an example of something MorphOS on a G5 supposedly can do so much better than anything else, and I counter that by pointing out that you can have a much faster environment for ImageFx by using UAE.
-
Nope, the comment I was responding to was not about PPC OS as such, it was about "what makes MorphOS more suited than anything else for old m68k amiga apps" - so MIDI sequencing doesn't need the CPU power and an old A1200 does it fine, and someone brought up ImageFx as an example of something MorphOS on a G5 supposedly can do so much better than anything else, and I counter that by pointing out that you can have a much faster environment for ImageFx by using UAE.
I guess Im not familiar here but what, if any unique PPC software exists for OS 4 or Morph that exists on no other platform ?
-
That's because it's an obvious joke.
OK, feel free to explain me where the funny bit is :)
What do you mean "Like what exactly"?
With "Like what exactly" I hoped to get a list of applications that are exclusive for MorphOS, and that really are so great that it justifies the hassle of getting a 20kg old G5 beast to keep around, and paying the MorphOS license for it too.
The decision to use or not use MorphOS (or AmigaOS4) is not in question.
It was in the comments I responded to, where Karlos pointed out that he does not need anything more than his A1200 to do MIDI sequencing, and someone brought up ImageFx as an example of something needing more CPU power - I would say it is much saner to set up UAE on a PC to run ImageFx rather than getting this old monster of a machine (G5 workstation) and pay for the extra MorphOS license for it.
I and many others have already made that choice, so we want as many native applications and games as we can get. We have made a choice to use MorphOS2.x, and/or AmigaOS4.x either in addition to, or instead of another OS on other hardware. For myself, I would rather get to a point where I never have to boot any Windows OS ever again for many reasons.
I never was a Windows user, and what does Windows have to do with anything in this thread?
You really missed the mark with this one. You are trying to tell me that decoding HD video for playback can't be done on my Efika because of a fault in MorphOS?
It's the fault of MorphOS that I for example cannot watch TV online as I am used to, even if I had a G5 to run it on, it's not about applications that are lacking either, it's about that darn stuck-in-the-90ies old IP stack that comes with MorphOS and the lack of modern features in it. And the developers are more concerned about how many bytes faster it is than almost equally antiqued MiamiDx over FTP transfers.
Maybe faster hardware will help "inspire" just one MorphOS2.x or AmigaOS4.x programmer to keep programming for those OSes AND allow one new app/game to be written that cannot be run, or run satisfactorily on the slower existing hardware that those OSes have available to them today.
Ah yes - you just need some magic software that only a G5 can make use of, and all the people who would want to use that killer application would have to hunt down old G5s too. MorphOS people have themselves uses this as an argument against the X1000, well...
Using your comment and logic above why did anyone create 68060 cards for the A2000/A3000/A4000's? Faster hardware has allowed for new, more demanding software to be written on all OSes from the beginning, why shouldn't the users that care about continuing to use MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x want this for our OS of choice?
I really don't see the relevance here, so I take it you're joking again :laughing:
Maybe modern OSes are also part of the problem and all those features you keep referring to aren't really necessary as part of the OS and should be optional for people with other priorities, needs and desires from their computing experience?
Ofcourse, that's true for any system.
But, just out of curiosity... what do you do the day your ISP fully switches to IPv6?
Then why even keep them? Why comment in threads that are about improving the hardware for an OS that you don't use and have little or no interest in? Just sell them to other Amiga users that can appreciate them and stay happy with your other OSes and computers.
Why? There are other operating systems I can run on them that do have the features I need. I have been running Linux on my old A1200 for since 1997, it does it just fine.
I don't know which "modern" protocols you are referring to, but my MorphOS2.x computer is connected to my LAN and has access to all the data I need or want on my other computers or on the Internet (I stress the "I need or want" before you respond with something that "YOU" want or need).
Right, you don't know, nor want to know my needs as long as your needs are fulfilled. That's OK, I'm used to that.
After all, it is you that are making comments which infer that using MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x are a waste of time and money, in effect trying to convince others that your view is the only reasonable one to share and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. Oh, the "burning hoops" is a very nice dramatic touch.
Now who is getting all whined up here :)
Did I really write "idiot" anywhere? And yes, I think the license scheme of MorphOS is very much like jumping though burning hoops, no need to explain sarcasm to me, you used it alot without commenting it already.
So now you are a spokesman for all the programmers that have left programming for MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x and know their reasons for leaving AND you also know what the "core developers" are working on and what they have planned to address at some time in the future?
Yes, I'm a demi god you see, I can read people's minds, it's quite convenient I can tell you.
The arrogance of that statement by you above amazes me.
If you really want to be amazed, you should take a peek down my pants.
My statement wasn't even about programmers who have left. It is about those that have CHOSEN to remain and continue to use MorphOS2.x and/or AmigaOS4.x. needing more powerful hardware before they can write native apps and games that REQUIRE more powerful hardware.
And we're back to "what apps, exactly?". Full circle :)
Why resort to insults to express YOUR opinion?
What insults? Where did I insult anyone? Or did you just chose to be insulted?
You made your thoughts about the PPC NG Amiga OSes with your "I have both, but I rarely use them since they lacking so much behind that I dont really see the point" comment earlier.
Yes, I'm sorry for that typo, I meant "lagging behind".
No, you are wrong. It is clear to all MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x users and unbiased observers that we will benefit from an increase in CPU power.
Unbiased observers tend to wonder what the point is when the OSes can only use one of the cores available, after all, supporting multiple cores is something that BeOS did on PPC back in 1995 - and here we are, 15 years later and nothing has changed in Amiga land.
We also know that progress continues, albeit at a slow pace due to available resources, toward updating the core functionality of our chosen OSes and accept that fact. Some software development continues, so these OSes are obviously interesting to at least a few programmers and users. You just aren't one of them.
Correct, I'm not particularly satisfied with the pace of things.
My statement is about users of MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x that prefer to do some tasks on their preferred OS instead of doing the same task on another OS because that is their choice and that is why many of us are reading a thread about the possibility of porting MorphOS to the G5 PowerMac. You obviously don't fit that description so why are you commenting in this thread?
I was originally commenting on how to fastest run ImageFx, and you went AWN on me for no appearant reasons, so I just answered back AWN style.
What is your agenda, or motive?
A couple that are relevant here:
* Open up the development of OS4 and MorphOS to the benefit of all
* Create awareness of the shortcomings of the systems, so that they might be addressed properly, and not just ignored as they typically are today (heck, there was alot more awareness of these issues during the days of OS3.x)
What has your quote above got to do with my statement that you were replying to? Nothing! You are just rambling about your disappointment with the current state of either OS compared to where they were originally supposed to go.
Ofcourse I'm disappointed, am I not allowed to be? As for "what has your comment to do with my statement" - that's how our nice little discussion started, with your "joke" that as far as I can tell had nothing relevant to my comment.
Well guess what, ideas, people and projects change sometimes. Some of us have gotten over it and moved on to a choice of using MorphOS2.x and/or AmigaOS4.x regardless of what was proposed when they were first thought of and development work started on them.
Sure, and I have no problem with that.
Again, you are not one of them so why do you hold on to your computers that run those disappointing OSes you like to run down so much?
My minimac runs linux 99% of the time, and it does it just fine, it can even play 720p quite nicely with both mplayer and VLC (which I've come to realize is the benchmark for how usable a computer is among MorphOS users). I boot MorphOS on it every now and then to check out updates or test out how some old apps work on it, but that's just about that. In addition I have this old peg1/april2 that I got for free, running Linux and MorphOS, and my old A3000 with CSPPC/CVPPC that boots into both OS4.0 and MorphOS 1.4.5, as well as OS3.9.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it is not shared by myself and probably a few hundred or more users of MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x and it doesn't add any value to this thread.
Yes, it is a well established fact that the hundreds of MorphOS 2.x users and AmigaOS 4.x users are ignorant about the limitations of their systems. (and that, my friend, was sarcasm too)
It wouldn't make sense to someone who is as biased and jaded toward both PPC NG Amiga OSes as you appear to be.
Yes, I'm teh evil! :laughing:
-
I'd take some quotes from past postings, but the back and forth bickering has gotten more than a little tired.
If you're a user of system 'x' and you're satisfied, fine. There's still a good chance I wouldn't find your favorite system all that satisfying.
If you're like me, and you've never found a ideal system, then you realize that all hardware/OS combinations present some compromises/flaws.
Fine, then things can only improve.
How does divergence of opinions and platforms hurt us? It doesn't. I agree to agree or disagree with any of you and still feel good about the current state of our community. Cus' there's a whole lot a shakin' going on.
-
Kudos to all of you for still bouncing this one back and forth though.
BTW - Where did any of you get the idea that MorphOS users were down on the X1000? Is it just because we think G5 Apples are a betters solution?
Personally, I'm impressed with the Nemo design and even sent an e-mail message to a former contact at Varisys congratulating them on it.
-
Where did any of you get the idea that MorphOS users were down on the X1000?
It might have been in the numerous X1000 threads on AmigWorld.net and MorphZone.
-
It might have been in the numerous X1000 threads on AmigWorld.net and MorphZone.
I'm on MorphZone regularly and the majority of posts I see (at least from the knowledgeable posters) are appreciative of the X1000.
In fact, we had the processor figured out before a lot of others and were suspicious that there might be a connection to Varisys several months ago.
While I don't see the MorphOS developers porting to Nemo, that market is served already by AOS4.
Perhaps what you perceive as negative are just statements of confidence in the current direction we're headed. G5 Apples are a natural evolution in the direction MorphOS is headed.
One of the primary reasons you don't see MorphOS on Acube or other AOS platforms (beyond the fact that the manufacturers won't help pay for the port) is a continued desire to see both systems prosper. Why step on Hyperion's feet? They've helped get this rolling and the majority of us are willing to share this market segment (PPCs).
-
Hardly, the Apple G5s were not really up for discussion at the time when X1000 was announced. Do you suggest that takemetograndma never put down the X1000?
And for what it is worth, I don't even see the point of the X1000 myself - from my POV, it is indeed just a waste of money and resources. But then again, I'm not a MorphOS user, so I cannot use myself as an example of MorphOS user putting down the X1000. Or maybe I do count as a MorphOS user, having three systems with it on, of which one is registered (for free).
-
Hardly, the Apple G5s were not really up for discussion at the time when X1000 was announced. Do you suggest that takemetograndma never put down the X1000?.
Actually, I'm rather hoping TMHG has learned a valuable lesson in this thread.
He's popped up in several OS4 related threads to shoot down OS4 and promote MOS. That, in itself wouldn't have really registered on my radar but there was one thread in particular that stands out. It was created by a poster that was asking specifically what the deal with OS4 was, what was fun and what was cool. He'd already created one for MOS asking the same.
Regardless of this, TMHG jumped into the thread in full fanboy mode to try and persuade the OP what he really wanted to talk about in that thread was MOS. The OP didn't and went as far asking that he desist. And, after some complaints, so did I.
Unfortunately, being in full fanboy mode, it seems he just was incapable of stopping and the thread got derailed further and further.
In the end, the OP was thoroughly put off both options.
Now, in the course of that thread, TMHG was pretty scathing towards the OS4 option.
Which is why, in this thread, after I tried to get him to explain why MOS on a G5 would be a better choice than say linux on an x86 for any compute intensive task, the following response made me laugh out loud:
I think it's funny that an Amiga enthusiast has to defend his preferred choice of OS and HW for his Amiga hobby here on Amiga.org. This is something I would expect over at slashdot, i.e. "Linux on x86 is cheaper, faster and better". Well it might be, but it won't be MorphOS.
Well, perhaps next time he'll remember that before he trashes some other amiga user's preferred choice of OS/HW.
-
@Karlos,
Thanks for the reasonable replies. It was not too long ago when MorphOS could only be run on hardware that was produced in very limited numbers and it has only been a little more than 10 months since support for the G4 MacMini was released. The power afforded by supporting the 1.5GHz G4 MacMini is not that much greater than the Pegasos2 and the developer base for third party native apps or games for MorphOS2.x is painfully small, so I think it is going to take more time before we see applications that fully utilize the small increase in power and even years longer before we see native MorphOS apps and games that take advantage of the G5, if it is ever supported by MorphOS. But if support never comes to MorphOS for the G5 we will just have to find a way to do as much as we can on the G4.
As for porting apps and games from other OSes instead of writing something new and original from scratch, that is more a function of the complexity of newer programs and the lack of man-power to code anything native for MorphOS. It just makes more sense to take advantage of any source code that can be found, instead of recreating the wheel just to show that we can do it. Like you, I would be very pleased to see any original ideas coded to run native on MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x, but with the limited number of programmers I think the best we can hope for are projects like OWB on MorphOS that runs better and faster on the same hardware than it does via Linux. If MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x programmers can take existing source code, port it to either or both Amiga NG PPC OSes and improve it's function, features and speed in the process, I think we have a winning combination. Having the fastest PPC hardware we can get will make this process more successful for certain power hungry apps and games.
I totally agree with you that both MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x desperately need more software and developers to write that software, but having more varied hardware choices certainly won't hurt our chances to get more software and developers, it should help at least in some small way.
@kolla,
Now you are just trolling for your personal enjoyment. I had forgotten how childish you could be.
-
Anyone considering purchasing a G5 tower should stay away from the water cooled models, as they have not aged gracefully and are leaking all over the motherboard.
Unless of course you're handy repairing water cooling systems.
Actually they aren't water cooled. The liquid propylene glycol (neon green).
I just took a look at the cooling unit in my dual 2.5GHz PowerMac G5 and it looks just fine. All the rubber pipes are ok, and there are no indications of any potential leakage. At least this particular machine has aged gracefully in this regard.
Obviously YMMV. The liquid cooling systems failed quite a lot, even as much as 20% of certain models within a year. On the other hand many liquid cooled systems are still working just fine. Go figure.
If this system dies I'll just get another.
-
At least propylene glycol is fairly non-conductive. As is pure deionised water, come to think of it. However, the former is far less likely to dissolve things that will increase it's conductivity once it has seeped out...
-
Actually they aren't water cooled. The liquid propylene glycol (neon green).
I just took a look at the cooling unit in my dual 2.5GHz PowerMac G5 and it looks just fine. All the rubber pipes are ok, and there are no indications of any potential leakage. At least this particular machine has aged gracefully in this regard.
Obviously YMMV. The liquid cooling systems failed quite a lot, even as much as 20% of certain models within a year. On the other hand many liquid cooled systems are still working just fine. Go figure.
If this system dies I'll just get another.
I saw eBay adds for some G5 PowerMacs that stated they had a Panasonic Liquid Cooling System that was much more reliable and could only be found in about 1 out of every 1000 LCS G5 PowerMacs. I have not researched this to see if it was sales hype, or if it is true.
I know that there has been no official MorphOS Team announcement regarding porting to the G5 PowerMac, but it is nice to know that at least one member of the Team has the Dual 2.5GHz G5 model. I hope it is the Quad Core 11.2 model, but I don't think I remember seeing any Dual Core, Dual 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac models, so maybe it is. That is the model I would like to get and use (there are tons and tons of them available near me that have been retired from movie and music studios recently) as it was the last and fastest G5 PowerMac for running MacOSX 10.5.8, and PPC Linux. I just saw one sold night before last for $611.00 just loaded with Mac software, like Final Studio2 and tons more.
-
@Karlos,
I totally agree with you that both MorphOS2.x and AmigaOS4.x desperately need more software and developers to write that software, but having more varied hardware choices certainly won't hurt our chances to get more software and developers, it should help at least in some small way.
@kolla,
Now you are just trolling for your personal enjoyment. I had forgotten how childish you could be.
That first statement above I couldn't agree with more. And with three OS' and the increased number of users, porting across the Amiga base should be easier than into it from outside systems.
As to the second, I don't mind those who sit on their own respective sides as long as the majority of us continue to remain objective.
The more contact I have with all Amigans, the more my respect for the community grows.
BTW - Karlos, thanks for the 64bit flash package!
-
@amigadave
Right, write me off as a troll, just like the rest of the blue pill crowd - you still have not answered my questions - for me those are real issues, soon enough they will be yours.
-
Right, write me off as a troll, just like the rest of the blue pill crowd - you still have not answered my questions - for me those are real issues, soon enough they will be yours.
Don't whine because I refuse to play your game any longer. Your "issues" will never be my issues.:lol:
-
I'm not whining, I'm just observing that once again, any critisism against MorphOS is written off as trolling, it's symptomatic for any discussion regarding MorphOS. And what "game"? If anything, it is your game, it was you who started this nonsense.
-
What we have here is a win win situation. For those that want os4, get one of the various bits of hardware. Morphos runs on Macs... If I was a developer I would make sure that releases can run on both, if such a thing is possible. I'm curious to see what sofware is developed in the future. Sure as hell beats the legal limbo of the past few years.
-
BTW - Karlos, thanks for the 64bit flash package!
No problem, but just remember it's unfinished software. That said, it has been far more stable for me than the the 32-bit version in npviewer...
-
What we have here is a win win situation. For those that want os4, get one of the various bits of hardware. Morphos runs on Macs... If I was a developer I would make sure that releases can run on both, if such a thing is possible. I'm curious to see what sofware is developed in the future. Sure as hell beats the legal limbo of the past few years.
Exactly! I really don't expect to see many packages that are exclusive to either OS. And the presence of competition may drive both development teams.
As to Kolla's "issues", apparently some of us take the matters we discuss to heart and they become argumentative and defensive. Luckily, most of you seem to be able to maintain your perspective.
-
Exactly! I really don't expect to see many packages that are exclusive to either OS. And the presence of competition may drive both development teams.
It'd be hilarious if Hyperion released a version of OS4 for G5 Imacs or the Graphite G4 (cheapest most common) or something like that.
Even better just fold and port it all to intel. Come one... if this stuff ran on intel, you don't think they're be Morphos or OS4 netbooks?
-
It'd be hilarious if Hyperion released a version of OS4 for G5 Imacs or the Graphite G4 (cheapest most common) or something like that.
Even better just fold and port it all to intel. Come one... if this stuff ran on intel, you don't think they're be Morphos or OS4 netbooks?
I doubt that's going happen and that's not quite what I meant. And, as we've repeatedly discussed, X86 is covered by AROS.
Again, with each OS devoted to different platforms, our base is increased. Both your ideas leave us cannibalizing each others sales.
-
OS4 or MorphOS on x86 will likely never happen because of the endian-ness.
-
Do you suggest that takemetograndma never put down the X1000?
I have, I do, and will continue to speak my opinions about the "X1000" whenever I see fit. I have no problems with the "X1000" per se though, nor people wanting it. It's their life and their money, and everyone is totally free to throw both away for all I care.
-
I certainly wouldn't say it's throwing money away. These avid golfers spend far more money on golf than we do on computers. It's a hobby and some people are willing to pay more. But for the Amiga experience I'd rather use my existing Mac Mini and just buy the OS.
-
I certainly wouldn't say it's throwing money away. These avid golfers spend far more money on golf than we do on computers. It's a hobby and some people are willing to pay more. But for the Amiga experience I'd rather use my existing Mac Mini and just buy the OS.
You're absolutely right. People are totally free to do whatever they want with their lives and money.
-
Takemehomegrandma makes a conciliatory statement. Everyone seems agreed to allow each other to pursue whatever they feel like.
G4 Powermac/MorphOS support is supposed to be very close (yesterday being the tenth anniversary of MorphOS).
G5 Powermacs and the X1000 to offer some parity between MorphOS and AOS4.
And AROS progressing nicely for those who insist on an X86 platform.
Time to put this thread to rest!
-
Time to put this thread to rest!
I wouldn't say that! :-O
I'm a sucker for screenshots, and I want piru to keep'em comming! :-P Unless he has some more important coding to do, that is! ;-)
-
OS4 or MorphOS on x86 will likely never happen because of the endian-ness.
That might be true, but I think it just depends on how much fun the MorphOS Team is having and the what degree of difficulty/amount of man-hours they think it will take them to make the switch to x86. Apple proved that a switch from PPC to x86 could be done, but that is no guarantee that MorphOS will ever make the same leap.
As soon as they are done tweaking the most speed they can get and any other optimizing or adding of features to MorphOS, and/or if the amount of work to port to x86 is more than the Team wants to invest in their fun little adventure, and if a different architecture that makes more sense to port to does not materialize before then, the Team may just decide to quit and call it a day, or move on to something else. If MorphOS ever ceases to be fun for them to play around with, they might turn it over to other programmers in the Amiga/Morph community to continue, or sell it to anyone that wants to continue work on it and thinks they can still make a buck from doing so. :)
-
Re endianess.
How did apple do it in their APIs with Universal binaries on PPC and Intel?
I understand that there were two compiled binaries into one executeable where the OS chose which part to execute, but for software developers. What were the API impact on coding for universal binaries?
-
Actually, I'm rather hoping TMHG has learned a valuable lesson in this thread.
Huh?!???
He's popped up in several OS4 related threads to shoot down OS4 and promote MOS.That, in itself wouldn't have really registered on my radar but there was one thread in particular that stands out. It was created by a poster that was asking specifically what the deal with OS4 was, what was fun and what was cool. He'd already created one for MOS asking the same.
Regardless of this, TMHG jumped into the thread in full fanboy mode to try and persuade the OP what he really wanted to talk about in that thread was MOS. The OP didn't and went as far asking that he desist. And, after some complaints, so did I.
Unfortunately, being in full fanboy mode, it seems he just was incapable of stopping and the thread got derailed further and further.
In the end, the OP was thoroughly put off both options.
Now, in the course of that thread, TMHG was pretty scathing towards the OS4 option.
Online discussions are dynamic. Sometimes a discussion can take a life of its own, and start growing and evolving in various directions. That takes both time and input from *many* people though, one man can't do it alone, but you seem to think so. Usually, many people are involved in discussions, and each and everyone is "guilty" in proportion to the input they provided to the thread, to the way the discussion evolves. But speaking of "guilt" at all implies that it would actually be wrong to speak your opinion in a forum; that some posts are allowed, and some are not. Which of course is insane to begin with. But here you are, publically singling me out as some single culprit(!) guilty of doing something wrong(!), the only one guilty of "fanboyism", and obviously in need of some public spanking, since that is what you are trying to do with your post (publicly speaking of me in third person, listing some vague offenses you think I did wrong in the past, and how you have now corrected me and "teach'ed me a lesson"). From the post of yours I get the impression that you have tried to "teach" me something (and you actually think you have succeded). However, I remember a thread you started some time ago, called "I don't get it". Clearly you *don't*, so you will probably be the last person on this planet that will be able to teach me anything at all. Educating me is not even your role as a moderator on this site. Trying to do so is not even appropriate. You are a moderator (here to keep structural order), not a teacher who sits on the absolute truth and knowledge (here to dictate content). If you think moderation is about the latter, I think you should apply for a job on amigans.net instead. If you see a need to moderate me because some breach of the TOS or whatever - moderate! And either do it *there and then* --- or let it pass altogether! Don't do *this*, whatever you are doing (harassment is probably a too strong word, but a moderator coming back several weeks after an "offense" to "teach a lesson" in a MorphOS thread is certainly a vindictive behavior not suitable for a moderator). I suggest you go back and re-read whatever thread(s) you so vaguely are hinting at, and try to see the input to those threads from the many others, try to see the chronological evolution, try to look at the discussion from more than *the one single side you obviously picked* to look at it from.
And please provide a link to the thread(s) where you think I have been out of line, so I can have a chance of publicly defending myself after this post of yours!
Which is why, in this thread, after I tried to get him to explain why MOS on a G5 would be a better choice than say linux on an x86 for any compute intensive task, the following response made me laugh out loud:
Indeed, thanks for that comment! :)
I think it's funny that an Amiga enthusiast has to defend his preferred choice of OS and HW for his Amiga hobby here on Amiga.org. This is something I would expect over at slashdot, i.e. "Linux on x86 is cheaper, faster and better". Well it might be, but it won't be MorphOS.
Well, perhaps next time he'll remember that before he trashes some other amiga user's preferred choice of OS/HW.
Wow. That must without doubt be the worst lesson ever. A moderator of an Amiga site talking down on various Amiga alternatives, just to "teach TMHG a lesson". I have on numerous occasions stated that I couldn't live without x86 and Windows. I have Linux as well. But I'm *here* for Amiga, which in my case is MorphOS. Discussions about pro's and con's of MorphOS vs. OS4 should be perfectly legit on an Amiga site!! It's discussions *within "the family"*. Talking down on Amiga on behalf of Linux, Windows, etc is just weird. Like we wouldn't know the pro's and con's between them and Amiga. Wow. Look, when people say that MorphOS isn't Amiga, I respond. When people say "Don't buy a PPC Mac, because it's second hand", I respond. When people say "Don't buy a PPC Mac because it doesn't come with a warranty", I respond. When people say "Don't buy MorphOS or MorphOS capable HW, buy TEH REEEL!!1!!!", I respond. I have always tried to provide arguments for my posted views that I thought were thought through and valid, arguments that people can respond to without restriction. I thought that would be the way to go. I ask the people *advising against* MorphOS (like user "DAX" for instance, he's like Samface and MikeyC merged into one, but he's obviously not a fanboy, nooo, only "TMHG" is) to put up valid arguments for their stances, like I did. They can't. No rational arguments. That's when they usually goes crawling away to moderators (was it "DAX" BTW?). They like to talk down on MorphOS and its hardware, but they can't take the discussion about it. But *I* am singled out to be the one that must "remember that before he trashes some other amiga user's preferred choice of OS/HW", not those mindless BAF's that trashes MorphOS's user's preferred choice, without even being able to put up valid arguments for it. :rolleyes:
-
Apple proved that a switch from PPC to x86 could be done
NeXT proved that a switch from m68k to x86 could be done.
Be proved that a switch from PowerPC to x86 coud be done.
Digital^wCompaq^wHP proved that switch from Alpha to Itanium could be done.
Linux proved that a switch from x86 to just about anything could be done.
*BSD proved that a switch from whatever to whatever could be done.
Why do you even bother to mention Apple?
-
Huh?!???
Yeah, and MorphOS sucks mostly because of you.
-
Yeah, and MorphOS sucks mostly because of you.
Kolla, I love you to. So very much...
-
@takemehomegrandma
And please provide a link to the thread(s) where you think I have been out of line, so I can have a chance of publicly defending myself after this post of yours!
Knock yourself out:
Here is the user's "How is MOS?" thread: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50993 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50993)
Three pages of perfectly matter-of-fact information about MOS, without any red trolls diving in and making a mess,
Here is the same user's "How is OS4?" thread: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53268 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53268)
Notice the difference? 16 pages, most of which are off topic arguments about the superiority of MOS, contributed heartily to by your good self. I concede, however, you weren't alone in doing so.
As for bashing, this not ring a bell?
OS4 is merely a sub-standard substitute for MorphOS (that was here long before OS4 development was even started), with quite poor Amiga compatibility in comparison, so it always puzzles me how anyone *really interested in Amiga* would even consider OS4. The only reason I can think of is some strange brand following (which is the only thing you are interested in as shown by your posts here), which is kind of sad, especially considering it was kind of "robbed" from the IP-owner under miserable circumstances.
There is a word that springs to mind after your epic butthurt and complaining about the meany mod making you "defend your platform of choice" after the above thread.
-
Kolla, I love you to. So very much...
You love me to what?
-
Well, so much for even, fair and balanced.
Let's get ready to rumble!
Kolla, takemehomegrandma - I love you BOTH so much!
-
Let's get down to FACTS for a change:
@takemehomegrandma
Knock yourself out:
Here is the user's "How is MOS?" thread: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50993 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50993)
Here is my contributions to that thread:
#25 - Me providing some pro-arguments of MorphOS compared to OS4.
#26 - Me providing my bottom line view on MorphOS vs. AROS.
#31 - Took the liberty of clarifying a statement on another user's behalf.
Here is the same user's "How is OS4?" thread: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53268 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53268)
Notice the difference? 16 pages, most of which are off topic arguments about the superiority of MOS, contributed heartily to by your good self. I concede, however, you weren't alone in doing so.
OK, that thread has #319 (!!) posts, of which I am "guilty" of *18*!(!!!) That's about *301 posts less* than one could believe after reading your post above, and seeing your actions in this very thread!
How about *actually reading* them this time? And I mean, reading them all, not just mine! Especially read the posts and the discussion threads to which I'm responding to! Watch how the thread evolves. Look how people contributes. What they are saying. It takes many people to move a discussion forward, not just one, not just "TMHG" (with his massive 18 posts).
I'm actually one of those who contributed *the least* (AND THIS IS A FACT) of all those people posting more than one or a few posts in that thread. As far as I can tell, the majority of pages *scrolls by completely without a single contribution from me*!
Look at DAX's mindless ramblings in that thread. Look at his post count! Look at the contents of his posts! That's no sign of "fanboyism", nooo, only "TMHG" qualifies as a fanboy in that thread.
There are lots of gems in this thread, from lots of people! Like the few but valuable contributions from "Kolla"...!
Yet you choose to hang me out like some kind of "troll" that "has now been taught a lesson by this powerful moderator" (Muahahaaa)!
Well, my own contributions to the monster thread starts at page #2, with post #16, a post *agreeing with you* that comparisons of the Sam should be with the Efika (both being "G2" based motherboards), and then extending it by providing info for som actual comparisons. Then my contribution continues with:
#42 - A reality check. The OS4 option might be that expensive, but the guy is saying it's the MorphOS that is, and while MorphOS is cheaper it still offers more.
#49 - Once again agreeing supporting *your own* idea that it's too early to compare Fire^H^H^H^H "Timberwolf" with the currently available browsers.
#51 - Agreeing with the OC that the discussion should focus on OS4. Nothing bad at all in that post IMHO. However, as I said above, discussions evolve in mysterious ways, and it takes many people to accomplish that.
#59 - (After discussion being continued by others, not me!) If you are ready to discuss pro's with alpha (Timberwolf) software, you should also be prepared to discuss con's? But maybe it's indeed too early?
#96 - Agreeing with others that MorphOS is the best (the only) measuring stick if you want to know how OS4 performs and what it will deliver. And after beginning to get a bit provoced by some of the posts in the thread this far, I also throw in a post of my views in the same spirit as most of the other posts made by other people.
#126 - A simple meta comment about DAX crawling to moderators (as he usually does when he has gone out on too deep water :))
#166 - Simply agreeing with gazgod that DAX obviously is uneducated...
#182 - Beginning to completely flipping out on DAX! Being the underdog here, I'm showing him that his "argument" about being "a true Amigan" goes unmodified the other way around. I then go on responding to him in his own posting style. Maybe he will understand his own downgrading language?
#183 - The OC has got his answers. Good! Topic/discussion should be free then...?
#194 - Explaining my take on realistic expectations of the term "warranty" when it comes to unknown upstarts. Putting this in context with Apple, since someone obviously thought Apple's customer service would be less secure than the upstart.
#195 - Spelling out the obvious facts (provided by others) in a more colorful way, to make it visible to the people who obviously can't comprehend!
#200 - Flipping out even more on DAX! I'm yet again showing him that his "argument" about TEH REEELL!!11! goes unmodified the other way around. Providing examples even. I then go on responding to him in his own posting style, but including rational arguments and mathematical truths. Maybe he will understand his own downgrading language?
#201 - This one doesn't even count, only clearing some thing up...
#202 - Getting tired about "Car" analogy. (On Samface's era, it was "cola" (pepsi/coke) that was used I think.)
#203 - Getting tired about the usual cries for moderation when running out of rational arguments.
#280 - Trying the same strategy on DrHirudo I previously tried on DAX, i.e. copying a statement the other way around.
#283 - Totally flipped out on DAX now. (OK, that post of mine was a little trollish perhaps ;), but not uncalled for in the context ;))
And that was the last post by me in that thread, which countinues to count up to #319 posts.
There is a word that springs to mind after your epic butthurt and complaining about the meany mod making you "defend your platform of choice" after the above thread.
I can't say I had expected an apology. But that comment, rubbing salt in the wounds, made my regards for you vanish completely!
Gone!
Anyone not completely blind will see that *my* contribution to those threads were *very minor* in comparison to other people's posts. Yet I'm getting 100% of the blame, for some problem that *I'm not even sure exists* outside a few peoples brains?
And what's even more disturbing, is the fact that you obviously has *spent time* and *quite a few posts* here in this very thread, with the only purpose of "retaliating", "teaching a lesson" etc. Are you trying to "get even"? On *ME*? A vindictive behavior I would have expected from some of the users on AW.net or amigans.net, not from an official moderator of Amiga.org. Why? Disturbed indeed!
And why you have appointed *ME* as your target, is beyond my comprehension! Clearly *it isn't* my contributions to the threads you quoted...
Did someone tell you to do this? Who?
Three pages of perfectly matter-of-fact information about MOS, without any red trolls diving in and making a mess
Are you saying that Red Trolls never post mis-information about MorphOS or its Hardware?!?? Red trolls are everywhere!
I made 18 posts in a #319 posts thread. One or a few of those (tops) could be considered inflammatory. And instead of judging me based on my own merits, you self-decided to take out your anger on the "Blue Collective" on *ME*! You have appointed me to some kind of collective whipping boy, following me here to this thread, making several posts with the only agenda of retaliation.
And you think it's strange that I react the way I do!
...and facts *still* remains:
"You Don't Get It"!
-
So much butthurt. Where to begin?
Your quantity of posts in the thread is not the point; it isn't about quantity, it's about quality.
How about *actually reading* them this time? And I mean, reading them all, not just mine! Especially read the posts and the discussion threads to which I'm responding to! Watch how the thread evolves. Look how people contributes. What they are saying. It takes many people to move a discussion forward, not just one, not just "TMHG" (with his massive 18 posts).
I have done, very carefully. Anybody that has been on this forum any length of time knows it's very rare for me to single people out, the fact that you are an exception to this should actually make you stop for a moment and wonder why. Of course you can't, because you're too busy feeling exasperated at it to realise.
You can't even take responsibility for your "contribution" without pointing out how many other people were doing it. And yet, you overlook one blindingly obvious point.
Anyone not completely blind will see that *my* contribution to those threads were *very minor* in comparison to other people's posts. Yet I'm getting 100% of the blame, for some problem that *I'm not even sure exists* outside a few peoples brains?
It is true that in that thread, other people got stuck in just as excitedly, but the point is that the thread was fine until you started going on about why the OP should use MorphOS instead, totally ignoring the polite request by the original poster not to. Which, ultimately, invited all the other trolls to come out of the woodwork and start a fight. You can't even claim you weren't aware of his older MOS thread as you posted in that one too, before posting in his OS4 thread.
Cause and consequence. I think you'll find most people understand the concept.
And as for your 18 posts, well, anybody reading that thread can judge for themselves, and if they are bored enough, perhaps they will. Except for the first few, they don't make pleasent reading. For all your protestation about red trolls, the huge irony here that in this thread you've basically behaved in exactly the same fashion you accuse said red trolls of. Complaining about having to defend your choice of OS from the nasty linux trolls that you expect to find only on slashdot having done exactly the same thing to fellow amiga enthusiasts right here on this very forum for simply preferring an alternative OS. And a final irony, here you are complaining at the unfair singling out, and what do you do in your defence? Single out someone else.
And what's even more disturbing, is the fact that you obviously has *spent time* and *quite a few posts* here in this very thread, with the only purpose of "retaliating", "teaching a lesson" etc. Are you trying to "get even"? On *ME*? A vindictive behavior I would have expected from some of the users on AW.net or amigans.net, not from an official moderator of Amiga.org. Why? Disturbed indeed
I didn't spend any time, I just remembered that particular thread from before. Again, an irony being that I might not have, had you not have started the e-pine rubbing over G5 in this one ;)
Did someone tell you to do this? Who?
Paranoid, much? No. What, I can't have my own opinions?
I happen to think you behaved hypocritcally, having bashed OS4 and it's users in a thread opened regarding OS4, to the point of goading "cry foul! moderators! make the arguments go away!" (or some such nonsense) and then cry like a toddler in a tantrum when it is pointed out to you that MOS on G5 offers nothing that it doesn't offer on G4 and that the few things that will run better on G5 will run far better on an x86 with linux, since invariably, that's where the software was ported from anyway. Boo hoo, somebody presented an argument that wouldn't go away. For shame.
Had you not have played the "I can't believe an amiga enthusiast has to defent his choice of OS here on amiga.org" card, this exchange probably would not have happened.
So, really, nobody to blame but yourself.
I can't say I had expected an apology. But that comment, rubbing salt in the wounds, made my regards for you vanish completely!
Gone!
I'm sorry to say it, but frankly I don't much care. I'm not going to lose any sleep whatsoever over it, I suggest you shouldn't either.
The original poster in that thread got put off OS4 and MOS thanks to the debacle you helped to create. I can't say I blame him one bit, the whole red v blue thing almost put me off the entire Amiga scene for good too.
Luckily, having to read your posts hasn't put me off the MOS2 option yet. Carry on though, you never know your luck.
Now, I'd rather not continue this conversation since it's not really doing anything for the thread. In fact, I should probably split it out.
-
So much butthurt. Where to begin?
If I may, I suggested something earlier (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=566206&postcount=284) :laughing:
-
Kolla, that posting wasn't funny the first time. Just gross and stupid.
You're not trying very hard to prove you're not a troll.
-
Times like this I wish we ran on Slashcode. As I'd mod your post up.
P.S. Kolla is taking the day off.
-
Times like this I wish we ran on Slashcode. As I'd mod your post up.
P.S. Kolla is taking the day off.
About time, thank you!
-
Can we get on topic? I read so much of this nonsense and I still don't know if and when MorphOS will run on g5... I'd like to know this as I was planning on buying a 1.25ghz emac for morphOS but I'd much prefer a g5 mini tower.
-
Can we get on topic? I read so much of this nonsense and I still don't know if and when MorphOS will run on g5... I'd like to know this as I was planning on buying a 1.25ghz emac for morphOS but I'd much prefer a g5 mini tower.
Gladly! Did you really write "mini" tower?!? :lol:
I have no inside information, other than what anyone can find on public forums like these, but I am fairly confident that MorphOS support for any model of the G5 PowerMac will not be released before they first release support for the G4 PowerMacs and G4 PowerBooks. I might be wrong about the PowerBooks coming before the G5 PowerMacs, but many rumors and I think some statements from MorphOS Team members themselves have said that support for a few of the G4 PowerMac models should be released within the next 2 to 3 months, or sooner.
Buying a G5 PowerMac to run MorphOS on is a risky decision at this point in time. It may get done quickly, or it may never get finished. AFAIK, there has been no official promise that G5 PowerMac support will be done, but since a screen shot has already been shown by one of the MorphOS Team members and at least one other Team member has mentioned in a forum posting that he also owns a G5 PowerMac, I would say that the chances are good that some day it will be completed and released. But that does not tell you which models will be supported yet, unless you decide to get the same exact model as the one shown in the already released screen shot. That one is probably a better bet than other models that it will get supported.
I have been hoping for a port to the G5 PowerMac for about a year already, but when I first mentioned it I was completely shut down by one or more of the MorphOS Team members who said it would never happen. I am very happy that they either changed their minds, or they were only trying to conceal their roadmap from any possible competitor a year ago.
Since I have just found and purchased a 17", 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook in like new condition, I am actually hoping that support for it comes before support for the G5 takes up too much of their coding time.
Both the G4 PowerBook and the G4 and G5 PowerMacs are going to be great additions to the list of MorphOS capable hardware if/when they are added. Those plus the release of new X1000 hardware for the AmigaOS4.1.2 users should keep both camps happy for a while, I think.
Edit: Don't bid on the G5 in Oakland, CA. It is mine, I saw it first so bid on a different one, because I have plans to pick that one up in person already.:rtfm: It's mine, all mine I say!
-
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well :)
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
amigadave, like piru stated in a few less words :)
-
@All
I'd just like to apologise for the off-topic argument yesterday. I still stand by my points completely but in retrospect the entire exchange itself was, well, pretty pointless.
-
Yes I said mini tower. I'm old school, so to me a tower computer is a real full tower computer. The tower computers now are mini towers.
I miss full tower cases alot. Lots of room for ridiculous amounts of hard drives.
Steven
-
@All
I'd just like to apologise for the off-topic argument yesterday. I still stand by my points completely but in retrospect the entire exchange itself was, well, pretty pointless.
Don't you dare, I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. It was delicious.
If you'd added the butthurt report form however it would have made it truly epic ;)
-
Yes, it had some comedy highlights, and Karlos made a good point about blue vs. red trolling.
As to whether or not it makes sense to plan for G5 support under MorphOS, I'd buy an eMac (I have). Why forgo using something right now because something better might be introduced later? If you did this with any platform you'd always put off purchasing as there would always be something better on the horizon.
I already have a Powermac standing by and I may purchase a G5, but since these are not currently supported I didn't wait to take the plunge. Right now eMacs can be had for under $75. That's cheaper than a Mac Mini, more powerful than a Pegasos or a SAM, and probably better suited to MorphOS than a multiprocessor, high RAM capacity, ultra fast system. MorphOS only uses a single processor/core, only supports up to 1.5G of Ram, and the best video cards supported are the R250/9XXX.
That makes the eMac perfect for MorphOS. Why would you wait for G5 support? Karlos is right. There isn't any current software that would greatly benefit from the extra processing power.
-
There isn't any current software that would greatly benefit from the extra processing power.
I hope I won't trigger an infinite loop by writing this. :)
But yes, there is current software that would greatly benefit from it (media players, encoders, web browsing / flash, emulators, ...). They are current, and often used, at least when you use MorphOS as your main system. :)
This doesn't mean the other points "against" Powermac G5 don't stand of course (consumption, noise, only a single core would be used on MorphOS and so on...).
I just strongly protest against this statement that no software would make use of it. :)
-
I hope I won't trigger an infinite loop by writing this. :)
But yes, there is current software that would greatly benefit from it (media players, encoders, web browsing / flash, emulators, ...). They are current, and often used, at least when you use MorphOS as your main system. :)
This doesn't mean the other points "against" Powermac G5 don't stand of course (consumption, noise, only a single core would be used on MorphOS and so on...).
I just strongly protest against this statement that no software would make use of it. :)
OK, I can buy the media playback argument, but web browsing isn't a very processor intensive task. Considering my habit of having multiple tabs and windows open, I'd want more video memory and a better GPU.
And there is the argument that more CPU power is always useful.
Right now I'm hoping that a least one or two Powermac accelerators with either a 7447 or 7448 processor get supported. That would give us 1.6-2.0 Ghz processors.
Currently, an MDD Powermac with a 1.42Ghz 7455 or a Powerbook with a 1.67 Ghz processor may be the highest speed processors that get support soon.
For older Powermacs, an OWC CPU upgrade to 1.5 Ghz might work as well since it uses the same processor (the 7455).
G5s at 1.6 to 2.7 Ghz would be considerably faster, but we're probably not likely to see support for video cards above the Radeon 9800 at first.
-
OK, I can buy the media playback argument, but web browsing isn't a very processor intensive task. Considering my habit of having multiple tabs and windows open, I'd want more video memory and a better GPU.
And there is the argument that more CPU power is always useful.
You'd be surprised. There's a lot of web apps out there and they've increasing in numbers and complexity all the time. They're so important that the Javascript engines are starting to get JIT engines and these are being heavily optimised. How much of that optimisation work do you think is being targeted at PowerPC processors? Without those optimisations (or possibly even without the JIT engines at all) these apps are going to run slowly, so a G5 might actually be quite a good idea for web browsing.
Media is another good argument, many DSLR cameras now have video encoding and this is high bitrate, high definition H.264. I'd like to see what a G4 can make of the 1080p files I record...
It's ironic but it's the other platforms are doing it the "Amiga way", they use dedicated hardware for video en/decoding (usually hardware blocks on the GPU chip). Phones do the same, right the way up to 1080p.
-
...Media is another good argument, many DSLR cameras now have video encoding and this is high bitrate, high definition H.264. I'd like to see what a G4 can make of the 1080p files I record...
It's ironic but it's the other platforms are doing it the "Amiga way", they use dedicated hardware for video en/decoding (usually hardware blocks on the GPU chip). Phones do the same, right the way up to 1080p.
I think I've mentioned this before. Some of the current video cards we have support for do have MPEG2 video coding hardware, but I don't think its being used.
More recent cards also have support for more advanced video formats.
However, if we don't take advantage of GPU assisted video en/decoding, then a lot of CPU cycles are going to get used even with a G5.
-
If you'd added the butthurt report form however it would have made it truly epic ;)
I did ;) See #150 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=572826&postcount=150)
-
I hope I won't trigger an infinite loop by writing this. :)
But yes, there is current software that would greatly benefit from it (media players, encoders, web browsing / flash, emulators, ...). They are current, and often used, at least when you use MorphOS as your main system. :)
This doesn't mean the other points "against" Powermac G5 don't stand of course (consumption, noise, only a single core would be used on MorphOS and so on...).
I just strongly protest against this statement that no software would make use of it. :)
Well, all of those apps/codecs are generally ports from linux and the like, so you could just use a cheap x86 box... wait... damnit! :roflmao:
Seriously though, these are the only apps that would probably benefit in that they aren't necessarily "fast enough" on a lower CPU. Of course, if one were to leverage GPU acceleration (even if only basic block decoding), the G4 is easily fast enough.
That makes the eMac perfect for MorphOS. Why would you wait for G5 support? Karlos is right. There isn't any current software that would greatly benefit from the extra processing power.
I know I made that point, but it's still cool to have the fastest kit you can run your OS on, even if most apps (save the x264 codecs) don't really benefit.
-
Seriously though, these are the only apps that would probably benefit in that they aren't necessarily "fast enough" on a lower CPU. Of course, if one were to leverage GPU acceleration (even if only basic block decoding), the G4 is easily fast enough.
"web browsing / flash, emulators" could use GPU acceleration? How?
-
"web browsing / flash, emulators" could use GPU acceleration? How?
I was referring to media players / video codecs, not web browsing :confused:
Re: emulators, well, OpenGL is used to accelerate display emulation (even if only to resize the funny aspect ratio screens) in various UAE implementations, is it not? Never mind emulation of various 3D consoles of old.
-
I was referring to media players / video codecs, not web browsing :confused:
Right. Well your comment didn't indicate that clearly.
Re: emulators, well, OpenGL is used to accelerate display emulation (even if only to resize the funny aspect ratio screens) in various UAE implementations, is it not?
Overlay is fully supported already. GPU won't make it any faster.
Never mind emulation of various 3D consoles of old.
That could work in theory, but I'd think in many (most) cases the 3d acceleration in emulation cannot be offloaded to the real GPU.
-
Right. Well your comment didn't indicate that clearly.
Fair do's. TBH, I pretty much saw the media player / codec part and hit reply ;)
Overlay is fully supported already. GPU won't make it any faster.
Well, the overlay is provided by the graphics hardware, so by definition it already is. It's not acceleration in the most obvious sense but a hardware feature of the GPU is freeing the CPU from having to do any display format conversion/scaling, so it still counts in my book. FWIW, some GPUs (may not apply here) only provide overlay services through video texture operations too.
That could work in theory, but I'd think in many (most) cases the 3d acceleration in emulation cannot be offloaded to the real GPU.
I was under the impression that several emulators already did this? I'm pretty sure FPSE, for example uses, or is able to use it.
-
@All
I'd just like to apologise for the off-topic argument yesterday. I still stand by my points completely but in retrospect the entire exchange itself was, well, pretty pointless.
Probably better handled elsewhere than to further pollute a very polluted thread.
Apology accepted.
Edit: It is hard for me to believe that this argument about MorphOS on a G5 PowerMac being a waste of time because that much power is not needed for anything we do while running MorphOS. I can't think of a single post in any forum thread anywhere that I have seen that talks about the X1000 being a waste of time because more power than a 1GHz G4 A1 is all that is needed to do anything on AmigaOS4.x. Would we be having this discussion if it were AmigaOS4.x being ported to the G5 PowerMac instead of MorphOS2.x?
And as I have tried to point out several times, ALL computer OSes have gotten more hardware power first and a way to take advantage of the power after the hardware was available, with very few exceptions. Why can't these people still arguing that the G5 PowerMac is a stupid idea, or waste of time for the MorphOS Team to add support for understand that point?
-
I don't know about everyone else, but I don't think porting MorphOS to the G5 is stupid.
I just think waiting until the G5 is supported is stupid.
We haven't even been given Powermac G4 support yet (I've got one of those waiting).
Before G5 support is introduced, I'll probably have one of those too.
But right now we have two cheap Mac G4s available with support (the 1.25 Ghz eMac and the G4 Mac Mini).
I'm not in any way against G5 support. I just don't think it makes sense to wait when G5 support probably won't be introduced till next year.
And these two Apple systems are already more powerful than all currently available AmigaOS hardware.
-
Posted bids on two G5 systems.
-
I would seek out a G5 but since I can't transfer my license I won't do that at this time.
-
I don't know about everyone else, but I don't think porting MorphOS to the G5 is stupid.
I just think waiting until the G5 is supported is stupid.
I disagree. Let's say you currently have a Mini that is MorphOS-capable and purchase a license. You upgrade to a G5 but you need to buy a SECOND license because, from what I hear, you cannot transfer your license to a new machine unless the original machine is somehow inoperable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, MorphOS developers...
-
I disagree. Let's say you currently have a Mini that is MorphOS-capable and purchase a license. You upgrade to a G5 but you need to buy a SECOND license because, from what I hear, you cannot transfer your license to a new machine unless the original machine is somehow inoperable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, MorphOS developers...
You don't need a MorphOS developer to address that one.
You're right. Unlike Windows, you can't transfer a MorphOS license from one machine to another.
Actually, you shouldn't be able to do that with Windows either, but Microsoft will allow you to upgrade your hardware to the point where it becomes your Grandfather's axe (head replaced twice, handle four times).
-
Then it would be wise to wait for G5 support if you don't want to buy two copies, even though you'll only be using one.
-
Then it would be wise to wait for G5 support if you don't want to buy two copies, even though you'll only be using one.
Ah yes... the waiting game, maybe we will get something even better to wait for before a release for G5 appears.
-
Edit: It is hard for me to believe that this argument about MorphOS on a G5 PowerMac being a waste of time because that much power is not needed for anything we do while running MorphOS. I can't think of a single post in any forum thread anywhere that I have seen that talks about the X1000 being a waste of time because more power than a 1GHz G4 A1 is all that is needed to do anything on AmigaOS4.x. Would we be having this discussion if it were AmigaOS4.x being ported to the G5 PowerMac instead of MorphOS2.x??
If you look back, you'll see that I also mention the PA6T in many of the posts that make this point.
-
I'm waiting for a wave of third-hand mac minis when the mos mini owners upgrade :D
-
MorphOS team why dont you sell recon emac's/powermacs with MorphOS yourselfs ?
-
"web browsing / flash, emulators" could use GPU acceleration? How?
Flash has GPU acceleration. IE 9 and Firefox are also both getting GPU acceleration. OpenVG, It has hardware acceleration...
Even Adobe Acrobat has a GPU acceleration option (you might want to avoid it though because it makes it even less reliable then normal).
Since GPUs became programmable people have been experimenting with GPU acceleration for all manner of different apps. This has been going on for years now, it's only now beginning to go mainstream.
It's mostly image related but with OpenCL that could open up, I can easily see audio being accelerated.
Ironically though, GPUs pretty much suck at video acceleration. That's why they have separate hardware blocks for it...
-
Ironically though, GPUs pretty much suck at video acceleration. That's why they have separate hardware blocks for it...
Well, certain aspects of video decoding do not lend themselves readily to massively parallel processing and overall you end up limited by the slowest step that operates serially. It's not a total loss though, the GPU comes in handy for post processing. In the CUDA SDK, there's a demo of real-time image de-noising that, if the static demo is anything to go by, looks like it might be nice for cleaning up compression artefacts.
-
Flash has GPU acceleration.
Usable open source flash doesn't. At least not yet.
Also, I am well aware what CUDA stuff can do. None of the MorphOS boxes is likely ever going to even support hardware which has programmable GPUs, nor would we ever be able to add software support for it.
So really, any acceleration there might be would be limited to 3D pretty much. And this limits the things you can do.
-
Usable open source flash doesn't. At least not yet.
Also, I am well aware what CUDA stuff can do. None of the MorphOS boxes is likely ever going to even support hardware which has programmable GPUs, nor would we ever be able to add software support for it.
So really, any acceleration there might be would be limited to 3D pretty much. And this limits the things you can do.
CUDA, since it is Nvidia specific, isn't important to MorphOS (which doesn't support Nvidia video cards, let alone the high end cards CUDA runs on).
And if flash finally gets working well under Linux, I'd hope to see it under MorphOS.
But are we really limited to 3D acceleration? What about video encoding/decoding? On X86 systems, video card acceleration of these functions helps lower CPU load. Isn't there something there that could be done?
-
posted by inoel:
MorphOS team why dont you sell recon emac's/powermacs with MorphOS yourselfs ?
That is not an additional responsibility and time consumer that the Team needs to take on and take away from their time to write improvements to MorphOS and do work on supporting the next target hardware model they are trying to complete. If any individual, including someone from the MorphOS Dev Team wishes to purchase old G4 Mac's and pre-load the demo version of MorphOS on them to ready them for resale, they are free to do so, but the time required as well as the investment of money and all the potential headaches that could happen when selling used hardware, are probably something none of the Team members want to bring upon themselves. There have been a couple of MorphZone users that have tried doing this on a very small scale, with just a few machines, but I think they quit when they realized that it is very hard to buy and pay shipping for the used hardware and then sell it to other Amiga users (be they 4.1.2, or 3.1>3.9 users), without losing money, let alone trying to make any profit. Part of the problem is that the prices for the used G4 Macs varies wildly from one location to another and from one week to another and with their low prices, adding shipping to the cost to get them to a potential buyer can easily make them much more expensive that the buyer could get one for themselves locally. Lastly, the prices of PPC Mac hardware continue to fall at a fairly fast rate, so if you buy one with the thoughts to sell it to another potential MorphOS buyer, you had better sell it very fast, because the longer it takes you to sell it the higher the risk that you will lose money as the prices of competing PPC Mac sellers may drop below what you have invested in your PPC Macs and you will not be able to get back your money.
posted by arnljot:
I'm waiting for a wave of third-hand mac minis when the mos mini owners upgrade :D
I don't think you have long to wait as some current G4 MacMini owners are anxious to upgrade to the G4 PowerMac due to the expansion slots they will then have to play with, which is a famous trait of Amiga users, their love to upgrade and play with the configuration of their computers. I think I am going to probably use my G4 MacMini as my desktop MorphOS2.x machine for as long as it takes until support is released for the G5 PowerMac models. Then I might sell the Mini, or I might move it into the RV and keep it.
posted by Karlos:
If you look back, you'll see that I also mention the PA6T in many of the posts that make this point.
Yes, I should have qualified my comment as I was thinking outside of this thread, which for me anyway, is a thread only about MorphOS on the G5 PowerMac, so I have pretty much tried to forget any references about the X1000 and PA6T running AmigaOS4.1.2 (even though I did make a few comments where I stated that the X1000 and PA6T w/AmigaOS4.x, is in the same, or similar situation as MorphOS2.x on the G5 PowerMacs). I was thinking that I had not seen a similar reaction toward the X1000 being announced. Yes, many people, from both camps, have made comments that the X1000 may not be a good idea, but for the most part every one of those dissenters have used the price as the number one reason that they are not interested in the X1000, not the argument that the X1000 is not needed because there is no AmigaOS4.x software that needs the power that will come with the production of the X1000. Maybe I have just missed such threads and there really several such threads and complaints out there, just like the complaints made in this thread.
-
Usable open source flash doesn't. At least not yet.
Also, I am well aware what CUDA stuff can do. None of the MorphOS boxes is likely ever going to even support hardware which has programmable GPUs, nor would we ever be able to add software support for it.
So really, any acceleration there might be would be limited to 3D pretty much. And this limits the things you can do.
CUDA won't be a prospect for MOS or OS4, since it's utterly dependent on nVidia writing drivers for it. AMD have been pretty open with the ATI documentation though. Not sure if they've been open enough to expose stream processing details but it may be that OpenCL can work on free ATI drivers - as long as the hardware supports it, of course. AFAIK, this is possible with R700 at least (could be limited programmability for older ones too).
-
Yes, I should have qualified my comment as I was thinking outside of this thread, which for me anyway, is a thread only about MorphOS on the G5 PowerMac, so I have pretty much tried to forget any references about the X1000 and PA6T running AmigaOS4.1.2 (even though I did make a few comments where I stated that the X1000 and PA6T w/AmigaOS4.x, is in the same, or similar situation as MorphOS2.x on the G5 PowerMacs). I was thinking that I had not seen a similar reaction toward the X1000 being announced. Yes, many people, from both camps, have made comments that the X1000 may not be a good idea, but for the most part every one of those dissenters have used the price as the number one reason that they are not interested in the X1000, not the argument that the X1000 is not needed because there is no AmigaOS4.x software that needs the power that will come with the production of the X1000. Maybe I have just missed such threads and there really several such threads and complaints out there, just like the complaints made in this thread.
Actually, most of the posts I made about the PA6T being underutilised by software were in this thread, side by side with the G5.
However, I must reiterate that I'm not actually against G5/PA6T, I actually think it's pretty cool that they are options. The whole issue came up as a consequence of earlier posts in the thread that were attempting to start another red v blue fight on the point of the G5 2GHz outperforming PA6T. As I said, so what? It isn't as if you can actually leverage the full potential of either with current amiga software.
-
@ Karlos,
Fair enough! Not much use beating this horse any further until the X1000 is selling to the general public and if/when support for the G5 PowerMac is released by the MorphOS Development Team. Then we can go back to fighting with our biased comparisons of each computer and OS in real earnest. :lol:
-
I can easily see audio being accelerated.
Old news. Already OCS Amigas could mix Audio with GFX Blitter. ;-)
-
Old news. Already OCS Amigas could mix Audio with GFX Blitter. ;-)
Anyone know why Paula samples can be played in >28 khz IF a dblscan screenmode is used? I use to rip CD audio and play it back on an '040 A1200 @ 44.1 khz, @ 14 bit-sounded brilliant.
-
Anyone know why Paula samples can be played in >28 khz IF a dblscan screenmode is used? I use to rip CD audio and play it back on an '040 A1200 @ 44.1 khz, @ 14 bit-sounded brilliant.
Audio HW can process 16bits at a time per horizontal tick (per channel). With PAL and NTSC modes the horizontal frequency is 15,75 kHz. Since the sampledata is 8bit it means 2 samples are processed. This gives the theoretical limit of around 30kHz.
DBLScan modes double (roughly) the horizontal frequency, and thus also the limit for the audio playback frequency.
-
Audio HW can process 16bits at a time per horizontal tick (per channel). With PAL and NTSC modes the horizontal frequency is 15,75 kHz. Since the sampledata is 8bit it means 2 samples are processed. This gives the theoretical limit of around 30kHz.
DBLScan modes double (roughly) the horizontal frequency, and thus also the limit for the audio playback frequency.
Thanks Piru!
-
I doubt we'll see OpenCL support under MorphOS because of the GPU requirements. Even once G5 support is released, the majority of Powermac G5s have an AGP video slot.
That is one advantage the X1000 running AmigaOS4 will have over a G5 Mac running MorphOS.
I understand that a driver for the R700 is already under development for AmigaOS. So, you might stand a chance of getting OpenCL support.
It likely that when the G5 is supported a lot of users are going to choose a Radeon 9600 video card. Their cheap, faster than current cards supported by MorphOS and a 9600 was shown at Essen running in a G4 Powermac.
While that GPU is somewhat dated, it still should provide a nice boost compared to something like my current Radeon 9250 (especially when paired with a much more powerful processor).
So, while we've spent so much time focusing on the relative merits of each others future top processors, each sysyem will differ in other areas and each system will offer specific advantages..
I believe MorphOS on a G5 Mac will offer good value in a powerful Amiga like PPC computer. In fact with up to four cores and 8gigs of memory, its got more power than MorphOS can use. Also, while AmigaOS user hate to hear us repeat this, MorphOS as a slightly more mature product performs many operations quicker than AmigaOS. It will give our diehard fanatic MorphOS users (the people who wouldn't use anything else) a product that won't leave them with X1000 envy.
The X1000 is completely new. While MorphOS focuses on supporting hardware that is primarily second hand, in the future the majority of
the platforms available to buy to run AmigaOS4 will be brand new. Also, featuring a more modern expansion bus the X1000 will be able to utilize expansion cards that won't be available to MorphOS users as well as more modern video cards. For people willing to pay the premium, this system will offer features unavailable elsewhere.
Its going to be interesting, but I'd be willing to bet that when these systems become available to the users we're going to find that they perform somewhat on par with each other and are more similar than they are dissimilar.
If there some contention between both camp, so be it. One thing I think we can all agree on is that its nice to see so many new developments in our market. Especially the new high power systems. Whether you're blue or red, these new introductions are bound to be good news (even if you're of the opinion, as many of us are, that it still makes more sense to move to a mainstream system).
Hey Amigans are stubborn, opinionated and a little bit fanatical. Even if you're sure that we'll never climb out of our current hobby machine status (something I myself am unsure about) ain't it cool that our community is still here and new products are being introduced?
And, you know, the thing that amazes me most is that virtually everything that has survived and continues to advance was developed by and for the people who have supported and maintained our community after long years of failures and broken promises by multiple companies.
Hey! Pat yourself on the back Amiga mutant. In the long run, even without a major backer, current developments prove your faith in your beliefs was not misplaced.
Finally, as has been pointed out, we are now poised to move from hardware that is entirely adequate to new systems that have more power than we need.
If my past experience with other systems over more than 30 years is any indication, once we have this hardware we'll find applications for the extra power.
-
The X1000 is completely new. While MorphOS focuses on supporting hardware that is primarily second hand, in the future the majority of
the platforms available to buy to run AmigaOS4 will be brand new.
The PPC in the X1000 represents the last gasp of the arch outside of seriously niche markets PPC currently resides in. The only other general purpose PPC chip that even has the potential to level peg it will likely be the e5500 and that won't be available for a while.
I also have to say this: It assumes that the X1000 will be a commercial success, or at least pay for itself and in this I have I to say I'd be more than a little concerned.
If the X1000 flops, it is likely that it will spell the end of the line for OS4.
Also, featuring a more modern expansion bus the X1000 will be able to utilize expansion cards that won't be available to MorphOS users as well as more modern video cards. For people willing to pay the premium, this system will offer features unavailable elsewhere.
Two words: Driver support.
Without it, all the "potential" is just talk.
This of course assumes that the board don't turn out to be another A1 or early model Sam.
Finally, as has been pointed out, we are now poised to move from hardware that is entirely adequate to new systems that have more power than we need.
I've seen very little evidence to show a need in terms of hardware that requires more than what the Sam can deliver when equipped with a graphics card. Certainly there isn't much software that demands more.
If my past experience with other systems over more than 30 years is any indication, once we have this hardware we'll find applications for the extra power.
That assumes a lot. Has there really been much of anything released for either MorphOS or OS4 that really take full advantage of the extra resources available? I don't think so. Thanks to all the fighting, the vast majority of developers left the scene a long, long time ago.
-
If the X1000 flops, it is likely that it will spell the end of the line for OS4.
I suppose this is why A-eon is a seperate comany, so that Hyperion can live on after A-eon has folded, but for the sake of argument - what will happen to OS3.x and OS4 sources when Hyperion folds?
Two words: Driver support.
Without it, all the "potential" is just talk.
Driver development can keep the few developers busy for years and years. For these small developer groups it only makes sense to support a very limited set of cards. I remember when QSSL was trying to push neutrino to the "geekhood", they failed for several reasons:
* lack of drivers
* closed developing model, "anyone" could not just develop drivers
* way too few developers internally at QSSL to deal with above problem
* way too little hardware internally at QSSL to deal with above problem (I helped the pcmcia ethernet card developer, appearantly I myself had more cards availably than he did)
* some clever person ported gtk to photon and everyone got busy bringing gtk apps to neutrino instead of creating native apps, with very mediocre results. Users quickly realized that there are better platforms for running gtk apps and left.
Thanks to all the fighting, the vast majority of developers left the scene a long, long time ago.
That, and some other reasons
* limitations in the OSes that makes development painful
* limitations in the OSes that makes alot of software irrelevant to implement
* closed source OS with all that brings (for development of subsystems, drivers etc)
* the license model, you cannot do proper testing of your software on different hardware without paying new licenses (30 minutes is not enough)
* the "social contract" developing for these systems implies
-
I doubt we'll see OpenCL support under MorphOS because of the GPU requirements. Even once G5 support is released, the majority of Powermac G5s have an AGP video slot.
Actually, I'm pretty sure there are AGP versions of SM based Radeon cards.
-
* the "social contract" developing for these systems implies
What is this "social contract"?
-
What is this "social contract"?
You have to be "socially compatible" with the other people developing the system you're developing for, and be able to merge into the existing group. For application developers this is not such a big issue, but if you want to develop OS components and bring the system further, it very much is.
For MorphOS this means you have to suck up to Laire, play alot of Quake online, laugh at OS4 "progress", maintain a list of people that are uncapable, praise MUI, ridicul Reaction and anything from OS3.5+ (yet support it, just for kicks), sort me under "trolls" and much more. :lol:
On Linux and BSD this is much easier, as there are so many camps to join and if none fits already, nothing prevents you from starting your own.
-
The most advanced ATI GPUs available on a video card with an AGP interface are the Radeon 4650 and 4670. There are no 48XX cards and nothing is available with the current 5000 series. Also, the older Radeon 3850 (also available in AGP) is usually able to keep up with these cards and often bests them while maintaining a smoother fps rate in many titles.
While the X1000 will not be able to support many older GPUs that are currently supported under AOS4 (because the older GPUs are not PCIe compatible) the advantages of having a new design with a more modern expansion bus are easily apparent. The X1000 could potentially support any recent video card, while the later GPU available on AGP cards that could work in the G5 are limited and the top tier GPUs are simply not available.
Another further problem may appear in the complete lack of BIOS support for Apple computers for anything more recent than the X850XT.
While the Pegasos was designed to accept PC video cards and has a feature that can emulated an X86 to allow those cards to be used, Apple hardware has always been designed with modifications that prevent video cards from working in both PCs and Apple computers. There have only been a handful of ATI fielded cards that would work on both platforms and the prices they command are even higher than the Apple specific cards (which are invariably higher than the equivalent PC video cards).
Keep in mind that I present this information as a MorphOS user and advocate and I am not trying to present a biased point of view. It's just a fact that while MorphOS users will face a lower entry cost with the G5 than AmigaOS users will with the X1000 and that we believe that these proven fairly well built computers offer an advantage (as does our OS), that there are some advantages in the products offered by our competition (if you must think of it that way, I don't).
As I've said before, I personally think that each system is equally valid. And, both systems are actually so similar that it sometimes becomes quite amusing hearing proponents of one system over another argue with each other. Its a little like a two headed mutant arguing with itself as to which side won the nuclear war. Who the heck are you guys trying to convince and does anyone outside of our small community even know or care?
While it is unfortunate that some people will stubbornly insist on using one system over the other , I hope that most of us will weigh each systems advantages and disadvantages fairly and make their choices based on their needs, budgets, and how their system of choice will satisfy those needs.
Frankly, as a Radeon 9600XT on a G5 would provide me with a significant boost in performance and I'm not sure that the inherent complexity of today video cards is going to allow us to easily extract the performance that will be present on Mac or PC platforms (which ATI will provide proprietary drivers for), I don't feel impelled to great concern over this matter yet. I can obtain a 9600 at a low cost. Having owned one a few years ago, I'm familiar with its level of performance (which is better than my current 9250 but lower than my former 9500Pro) Frankly, I think this GPU is well matched to the capabilities of our OS and as we are apparently going to get support for a system that is more powerful than we really need (that we all asked for but douted we might get) I can accept this situation.
Finally, there may, in the future, be a work around that would allow us to install PC video cards that are only modified to mask over the pins on the card edge connector that are not Apple compatible. Consider this, if you were to have an existing MorphOS instillation on a Powermac with a supported video card and you installed the drivers for a new video card (that did not have an Apple BIOS), once you shut down and swapped your old video card with a suitably modified new card why would the prescense of a video card that the Apple would not recognise at all prevent MorphOS if the system were somehow to proceed with booting from loading a driver that would allow the card to function? Keep this in mind, the X86 emulation in the Pegasos only faciliates booting, from what I've been able to tell MorphOS completely disregards the video card BIOS after start up.
Now, I'd like to address a trend in these recent postings which, while the posters may be technically correct in making, are actually total irrelevant. Anyone who continues to use Amiga hardware and software or systems that have been designed to continue and improve our use of these ideas does so fully aware of the compromises that decision presents. Why, when Karlos, Amigadave and so many others with vastly differing systems can come to an accord about the irrelevance of our differing approaches can't some of the rest of you understand why we can still treat each other politely without feeling the need to constantly present our own choices as the real superior choice? Guys, this argument is silly and pointless. Yes we fully recognize that X86 has advanced light years beyond us and has finally overcome almost all the major faults present at its introduction.
Further as I consider this a hobby and regularly use PCs, the Powermac I purchased for MorphOS under OSX, and even recognize the value presented by Linux I don't need to be reminded that a system I'm still supporting is not likely to ever be competitive with the mainstream market again.
I accepted losing this battle to inferior systems years ago and fully understand why market forces often allow a second rate product to become dominant.
I don't blame Bill Gates or Steve Jobs for having the business prowess to adopt good ideas when they see them and slowly improve their products either. If you think what Microsoft and Apple offer today bears any resemblance to the products you used to hold in such disdain then you haven't been keeping up with how much development has been pored into this market to overcome the inherent disadvantages it had originally.
As to whether or not the people who have been successful in the computer industry stole their ideas from others, don't be naive. Everyone stole from each other and if your not aware of how all current operating systems at their core are almost identical (and remind me that we really owe a lot to Bell Labs and our nations universities for developing UNIX) then your not as knowledgeable as you think you are.
Why are so many of you willing to point to current mainstream systems as a more logical choice when we already know this?
Can't you just be happy that while we lost the battle, that our competition had to invest huge sums to become more like what we had originally? If you haven't noticed there is no other legacy system that today's personal computers resemble more than the Amiga.
And please, stop trying to convince me that PPCs are a dead issue in the personal computer market. I know this. Since Apple switched there is no longer anyone using these processors in systems designed for the general public. This does not mean that PPCs are dead. The 68060 died because it was introduced after a similar switch by Apple years ago. But there are several manufactures of PPC processors and new products are being introduced all the time. All the three major game console manufacturers use a PPC related processor. The military industrial complex, with a large investment in hardware that uses PPCs, continues to buy these processors in order to avoid the complexity of having to redesign systems for radically differ processor lines. Today, Freescale the offshoot of Motorola that inherited their processor legacy has continued to design new PPCs tailored to specific markets like communications and has just released their first 64bit processor which although it no longer supports Altivec may turn out to be the most powerful PPC processor ever designed (yes more powerful than the PA6T and the G5). So, the PPC uis not dead, it just isn't marketed for PC use and new designs favor features that are useful in other applications.
So, stop trying to convince me that my interests are futile and that all our endeavors are doomed to fail. If you think that way you have totally missed the point. Those of us left in the Amiga community continue to do this to further our own interests and build the hardware we'd like to have. None of us are stupid, its not that we don't know of the inherent advantages presented by the developments in well funded mainstream systems.
Guys, get this through your intensely thick skulls, we aren't doing this because we intend to hold up the creations we can accomplish with our limited resources and marketplace for comparison to mainstream systems. We do it because, after years of hype about products that were in reality, never going to be produced we've finally realized that with the current advances in electronics we don't need to wait for the fulfillment of promises that were never going realized. Even if it only satisfies ourselves, things have advanced enough to allow us to continue development of this without those who have for years disappointed us. Its a hobby, do you get it?
-
@Iggy,
the last generation of the G5 PowerMacs did have PCIe and no AGP slots, up to 4 cores @2.5GHz, and they have a maximum RAM capability of 16gb, not 8gb, so if that model is ever supported by the MorphOS Team, there is the same potential for PCIe video cards to be supported on MorphOS2.x as there will be on AmigaOS4.x with the X1000.
And IMHO, most developers stopped writing code for the Amiga community because Commodore stopped doing any meaningful engineering to advance the Amiga hardware long before they went bankrupt, and most of the developers could see the writing on the wall and knew the Amiga was not going to be able to compete with the PC's and Mac's in the near future. The subsequent owners of the Amiga IP never did anything to revive, or advance the Amiga and the Amiga user base was shrinking so fast developers were forced to move onward to other more mainstream OSes to make a living, or give up on writing apps, or games for profit and get into another occupation to pay the bills. The only developers we have left in the Amiga community are ones that do it for fun, not for profit, even if they do charge a small amount to pay for their beer and pizza's, you can't really call their work profitable, or compare it to commercial software development.
Edit: I wonder if the MorphOS Dev. Team is regretting releasing that screen shot of MorphOS2.x booting on the G5 PowerMac so early? No one outside of the Team can know how much work is needed to complete the support for any of the G5 PowerMac models, but several Team members have stated that the next release will focus on support for the G4 PowerMac. Since there have been more YouTube video's showing demonstrations of MorphOS2.x on the G4 PowerBook, and there was a demonstration of MorphOS2.x running on the G4 PowerBook at the Essen show recently, it is very likely that the G4 PowerBook will be the next target platform after the G4 PowerMac and before the G5 PowerMac, so it may be quite a long time before a release of MorphOS supports any of the G5 PowerMac models.
-
I'm sure you're right about the developers wishing that they hadn't made the mistake of reveling yet another one their projects that wasn't ready for release yet.
Since they managed to get MorphOS to work well enough on the Mac Mini to release to the public, they've obviously spent quite a lot of time experimenting with other Mac models.
Quite awhile ago they made statements about future support for Powermacs and Powerbooks and recently they showed these works in progress at the show in Essen.
But they must be tired of hearing people ask them when the software will be ready for release. After all, they can't release it till its ready, till it works.
Since Mac Mini support was introduced, the only other model that has been added is one specific model from the eMac line that didn't require as much work as these other projects because of the many similaities in internal components.
I think when they let the word slip out about future Powermac support, they were confident that they could resolve any issues the port presented and release it fairly quickly. Obviously there were some problems that have taken longer to resolve than they anticipated.
One thing I am certain of is that even if they release these plans early, that unlike some many other endeavors in the Amiga community in the past, they will eventually complete it and the public will get what they promised.
The project shown at Essen definitely look like their close to ready.
That G5 screenshot? That was just the start of the OS initialization process. I'm sure that what they didn't show us is where the process failed right after that and the developers had to struggle to figure out what issues they had to overcome to proceed further.
You have made what I think may be one of the most important points of this thread. Most of the time, the MorphOS development team can keep all of the projects they're working on that aren't ready from being disclosed to the public. But these guys are doing this work primarily because its something the want to do, not as a normal business enterprise. Occasionally someone gets a little too enthusiastic about something and they let information about what they're working on slip out.
I can understand why these little leaks occur, but I can't imagine what it must be like to constantly be badgered about the future release date of a project that isn't complete yet. When is it going to be done? When its ready. That's got to be a tiring thing to have to constantly go back and forth over.
That's why I've repeatedly stressed the fact that people shouldn't get too excited about the premature release of information about hardware that the developers are working to port MorphOS to.
If you want to wait for one of these platforms to be supported, by all means go ahead, but you better realize that the wait is probably going to be longer than you or the developers anticipate.
As Karlos has pointed out, as I have pointed out, and as your question would again clearly indicate focusing on the hardware that isn't supported yet when the hardware that is supported is entirely adequate to run the software is silly.
Hey, I want to run MorphOS on IBMs latest supercomputer with x# of processors! When can you have it ready?
Come on Guys. This OS was developed to carry forward a platform that at best ran on a 50Mhz 68060. For the time being, until that next great leap forward is ready, can't you be satisfied with running on a system that is up to 30 times faster? How much power does Amiga software require that a 3000% improvement in CPU clock speed isn't enough?
While all this discussion stirred up by that one screenshot has been fun, when its all over, I'll go back to using what I have and patiently wait for the releases to come in the future. Yeah, they'd be neat, but they're not necessary yet.
-
For MorphOS this means you have to suck up to Laire, play alot of Quake online, laugh at OS4 "progress", maintain a list of people that are uncapable, praise MUI, ridicul Reaction and anything from OS3.5+ (yet support it, just for kicks), sort me under "trolls" and much more.
It is simply not true. Maybe except sorting you under "trolls" ;-).
-
It is simply not true. Maybe except sorting you under "trolls" ;-).
It is a waste of your time and effort to respond to anything that Troll writes. It only makes him more active here.
-
The most advanced ATI GPUs available on a video card with an AGP interface are the Radeon 4650 and 4670. There are no 48XX cards and nothing is available with the current 5000 series. Also, the older Radeon 3850 (also available in AGP) is usually able to keep up with these cards and often bests them while maintaining a smoother fps rate in many titles.
While the X1000 will not be able to support many older GPUs that are currently supported under AOS4 (because the older GPUs are not PCIe compatible) the advantages of having a new design with a more modern expansion bus are easily apparent. The X1000 could potentially support any recent video card, while the later GPU available on AGP cards that could work in the G5 are limited and the top tier GPUs are simply not available.
Another further problem may appear in the complete lack of BIOS support for Apple computers for anything more recent than the X850XT.
While the Pegasos was designed to accept PC video cards and has a feature that can emulated an X86 to allow those cards to be used, Apple hardware has always been designed with modifications that prevent video cards from working in both PCs and Apple computers. There have only been a handful of ATI fielded cards that would work on both platforms and the prices they command are even higher than the Apple specific cards (which are invariably higher than the equivalent PC video cards).
Keep in mind that I present this information as a MorphOS user and advocate and I am not trying to present a biased point of view. It's just a fact that while MorphOS users will face a lower entry cost with the G5 than AmigaOS users will with the X1000 and that we believe that these proven fairly well built computers offer an advantage (as does our OS), that there are some advantages in the products offered by our competition (if you must think of it that way, I don't).
As I've said before, I personally think that each system is equally valid. And, both systems are actually so similar that it sometimes becomes quite amusing hearing proponents of one system over another argue with each other. Its a little like a two headed mutant arguing with itself as to which side won the nuclear war. Who the heck are you guys trying to convince and does anyone outside of our small community even know or care?
While it is unfortunate that some people will stubbornly insist on using one system over the other , I hope that most of us will weigh each systems advantages and disadvantages fairly and make their choices based on their needs, budgets, and how their system of choice will satisfy those needs.
Frankly, as a Radeon 9600XT on a G5 would provide me with a significant boost in performance and I'm not sure that the inherent complexity of today video cards is going to allow us to easily extract the performance that will be present on Mac or PC platforms (which ATI will provide proprietary drivers for), I don't feel impelled to great concern over this matter yet. I can obtain a 9600 at a low cost. Having owned one a few years ago, I'm familiar with its level of performance (which is better than my current 9250 but lower than my former 9500Pro) Frankly, I think this GPU is well matched to the capabilities of our OS and as we are apparently going to get support for a system that is more powerful than we really need (that we all asked for but douted we might get) I can accept this situation.
Finally, there may, in the future, be a work around that would allow us to install PC video cards that are only modified to mask over the pins on the card edge connector that are not Apple compatible. Consider this, if you were to have an existing MorphOS instillation on a Powermac with a supported video card and you installed the drivers for a new video card (that did not have an Apple BIOS), once you shut down and swapped your old video card with a suitably modified new card why would the prescense of a video card that the Apple would not recognise at all prevent MorphOS if the system were somehow to proceed with booting from loading a driver that would allow the card to function? Keep this in mind, the X86 emulation in the Pegasos only faciliates booting, from what I've been able to tell MorphOS completely disregards the video card BIOS after start up.
Now, I'd like to address a trend in these recent postings which, while the posters may be technically correct in making, are actually total irrelevant. Anyone who continues to use Amiga hardware and software or systems that have been designed to continue and improve our use of these ideas does so fully aware of the compromises that decision presents. Why, when Karlos, Amigadave and so many others with vastly differing systems can come to an accord about the irrelevance of our differing approaches can't some of the rest of you understand why we can still treat each other politely without feeling the need to constantly present our own choices as the real superior choice? Guys, this argument is silly and pointless. Yes we fully recognize that X86 has advanced light years beyond us and has finally overcome almost all the major faults present at its introduction.
Further as I consider this a hobby and regularly use PCs, the Powermac I purchased for MorphOS under OSX, and even recognize the value presented by Linux I don't need to be reminded that a system I'm still supporting is not likely to ever be competitive with the mainstream market again.
I accepted losing this battle to inferior systems years ago and fully understand why market forces often allow a second rate product to become dominant.
I don't blame Bill Gates or Steve Jobs for having the business prowess to adopt good ideas when they see them and slowly improve their products either. If you think what Microsoft and Apple offer today bears any resemblance to the products you used to hold in such disdain then you haven't been keeping up with how much development has been pored into this market to overcome the inherent disadvantages it had originally.
As to whether or not the people who have been successful in the computer industry stole their ideas from others, don't be naive. Everyone stole from each other and if your not aware of how all current operating systems at their core are almost identical (and remind me that we really owe a lot to Bell Labs and our nations universities for developing UNIX) then your not as knowledgeable as you think you are.
Why are so many of you willing to point to current mainstream systems as a more logical choice when we already know this?
Can't you just be happy that while we lost the battle, that our competition had to invest huge sums to become more like what we had originally? If you haven't noticed there is no other legacy system that today's personal computers resemble more than the Amiga.
And please, stop trying to convince me that PPCs are a dead issue in the personal computer market. I know this. Since Apple switched there is no longer anyone using these processors in systems designed for the general public. This does not mean that PPCs are dead. The 68060 died because it was introduced after a similar switch by Apple years ago. But there are several manufactures of PPC processors and new products are being introduced all the time. All the three major game console manufacturers use a PPC related processor. The military industrial complex, with a large investment in hardware that uses PPCs, continues to buy these processors in order to avoid the complexity of having to redesign systems for radically differ processor lines. Today, Freescale the offshoot of Motorola that inherited their processor legacy has continued to design new PPCs tailored to specific markets like communications and has just released their first 64bit processor which although it no longer supports Altivec may turn out to be the most powerful PPC processor ever designed (yes more powerful than the PA6T and the G5). So, the PPC uis not dead, it just isn't marketed for PC use and new designs favor features that are useful in other applications.
So, stop trying to convince me that my interests are futile and that all our endeavors are doomed to fail. If you think that way you have totally missed the point. Those of us left in the Amiga community continue to do this to further our own interests and build the hardware we'd like to have. None of us are stupid, its not that we don't know of the inherent advantages presented by the developments in well funded mainstream systems.
Guys, get this through your intensely thick skulls, we aren't doing this because we intend to hold up the creations we can accomplish with our limited resources and marketplace for comparison to mainstream systems. We do it because, after years of hype about products that were in reality, never going to be produced we've finally realized that with the current advances in electronics we don't need to wait for the fulfillment of promises that were never going realized. Even if it only satisfies ourselves, things have advanced enough to allow us to continue development of this without those who have for years disappointed us. Its a hobby, do you get it?
I agree. No more needed than that.
-
@Iggy,
the last generation of the G5 PowerMacs did have PCIe and no AGP slots, up to 4 cores @2.5GHz, and they have a maximum RAM capability of 16gb, not 8gb, so if that model is ever supported by the MorphOS Team, there is the same potential for PCIe video cards to be supported on MorphOS2.x as there will be on AmigaOS4.x with the X1000.
Yes, I am aware of these G5s, but from what I've seen the development team seems to be working with a G5 model 2,3. Total speculatiion on my part, but from that I would guess that their working on the AGP models first.
As support for Apple computers has only come to specific models within the G4 lineup that seemed a reasonable assumption.
However, until recently, it was assumed that Powermac support would initially only cover the MDD. Since the computer at Esssen was one of those models that could be seen as proof of that. But we've recently learned that all AGP G4 Powermacs are to be supported at the same time.
What G5 models will be supported initially is anybody's guess until some more informastion is released. Thats why I based most of my hardware statements arounf the 2,3.
That model, since it accepts video cards that they either already have drivers for (or have beta drivers for) should require a little less work than the later PCIe models.
However, you do have a point. If they support the AGP G5s, supporting the PCIe G5s would allow us to use some of those cards.
I'm still not sure how they're going to address the issue of BIOS avaliabilty for PCIe G5 video cards (or even some AGP cards). The number of cards that are compatible is pretty limited (unless some way can be found to use PC cards).
-
And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time. :)
When will it be available?
Oh, and I can beta test it on M9031LL/A and M9032LL/A if you like. :D
-
I have a G5 power mac in the garage along with my G4 iBook. I'll be happy with Morphos for either....
-
There have been no details released as to a possible release date for support of G5s
-
ridicul Reaction and anything from OS3.5+ (yet support it, just for kicks)
Isnt OS 3.5/3.9 from Hack & Patch compatible with the official AmigaOS 3.1?
-
Isnt OS 3.5/3.9 from Hack & Patch compatible with the official AmigaOS 3.1?
Wrong thread ?
-
no
-
I used to know so many people who owned PowerMac G5 tower systems. Unfortunately most of them ended up having component failures and the rest got sold. I'm hopeful that iMac G5 gets supported at some point. I can get those any time.
-
@Iggy,
the last generation of the G5 PowerMacs did have PCIe and no AGP slots, up to 4 cores @2.5GHz, and they have a maximum RAM capability of 16gb, not 8gb, so if that model is ever supported by the MorphOS Team, there is the same potential for PCIe video cards to be supported on MorphOS2.x as there will be on AmigaOS4.x with the X1000.
As far as I know the Graphics card needs to have a correct flash version, and the only PCIe Radeon card that's suitable is the 1900XT, it's what I've got fitted in my Quad 2.5, and the last time I mentioned it one of the MorphOS team said that was news to him. (if I get time I'll find it on Morphzone)
-
As far as I know the Graphics card needs to have a correct flash version, and the only PCIe Radeon card that's suitable is the 1900XT, it's what I've got fitted in my Quad 2.5, and the last time I mentioned it one of the MorphOS team said that was news to him. (if I get time I'll find it on Morphzone)
http://www.morphzone.org/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7648&forum=3#80692
Posts #15 & #16
-
Sounds like G5 support would be a tad bit of work to get done.