Amiga OS 4 should be ported over to the xx86.

[coldfish]

Varthall wrote:

Of course everyone has their own tastes and preferences. I have always liked the idea of "custom" (i.e. with a high, or total degree of compatibility, not reached only by software drivers) computers as they make me, as an owner, fell more part of a community (same hardware, easier to get advice on hardware problems), hardware banging becomes a possibility, and last but not least I become much easier attached to them. Also, a custom machine with AmigaOs is more similar to the concept of the original Amigas. I have found the A1 (and the Pegasos even more) to be an acceptable balance between a custom machine and one using off-the-shelf components, required by economies of scale. Others disagree, saying that's too much similar to a PC, it depends to what you'd find acceptable and what not.

Varthall

You dont need "custom" hardware to get those things.  You can join any computer club and get a sense of community.  I think what you want is a sense of exclusivity, which is a selfish motive?  
This kind of thinking wont get Amiga anywhere other than remaining as a tiny niche, "not commercially viable" and henceforth lead to eventual extinction.

It really is a shame A-inc listened to the vocal nutters in the community when planning the A1 and OS4, (though I understand why they did) because if the OS was available right now for x86, we'd all be posting here using OS4, and have a sense of community and even some sense of exclusivity, complete with affordable, upgradeable hardware.  And the "PPC-only! - x86 is Satan" nutters would be silenced (or would they?) and we could get on building the OS's popularity.  

I guess this is where AROS comes in... :-D

[Waccoon]

Varthall:  I have always liked the idea of "custom" (i.e. with a high, or total degree of compatibility, not reached only by software drivers) computers as they make me, as an owner, fell more part of a community (same hardware, easier to get advice on hardware problems)

Custom hardware usually ends up having the worst compatibility.  I know, because I work with a lot of custom computers and kiosks -- and those machines always run on x86!  PPC has loads of well-known legacy issues.

PPC machines pretty much just follow x86 PC standards, too, even if they tend to follow older ones.

Who designs the custom hardware?  Probably some company that specializes in embedded hardware, so their chipset only offers the basics.  What, exactly, is custom?  Uh, it supports PPC.  What special features are available compared to a standard x86 PC?  Hmm... you'd need a custom case to put Zorro slots in there, and drivers (and cost) are a problem if you wanted an Amiga floppy drive controller.  What is lacking?  Modern PPC chipsets don't support things that all PCs have these days, like SerialATA, PCI-X, 6+ USB ports, cheap memory...

What cusomizations do you have in mind?

Oh, and aren't ATI/NVidia GPUs and Audigy cards custom enough for your tastes?  These chips are practically their own computers as they are massively programmable.

Varthall:  Also, a custom machine with AmigaOs is more similar to the concept of the original Amigas.

Which became a liability.  AGA was a piddling update to the original chipset to tide people over until AAA could be released.  It never was.

Funny how the original Amiga was made special by its coprocessors, but these days, a PPC CPU is the only thing that matters.  Doesn't anybody care about the function of the machine, rather than what brand chips you are using?

Before trying to support custom hardware, just get something running on what's available so people can get it and actually develop for it.  A good OS can be ported to anything later.

I have found the A1 (and the Pegasos even more) to be an acceptable balance between a custom machine and one using off-the-shelf components, required by economies of scale.

So, what special custom features make it better than an x86 PC?  To me, it looks like an expensive, slow PC that happens to have an exotic CPU on a daughter card.  It has far fewer standard features, let alone custom features.

Manu:  Yes, PCs can run silent too.

Impossible!  Everyone knows a Prescott with 12 fans is the only x86 solution available.

Maffoo:  Why does PPC offer any more potential than x86 for custom machines? In theory, couldn't a custom x86 motherboard be created? (Eg. using some sort of Kickstart equivalent instead of a BIOS, with integrated custom GPU.)

Well, Amigans don't want to be tied down by an Intel chipset, right?  Everybody knows it's impossible to do anything custom with vanilla x86 chipsets, as ASUS, Gigabyte, Abit, MSI, and Biostar keep proving to us.  All these manufacturers make totally identical boards that have no special features of their own.

Varthall:  I couldn't find any other reason for Hyperion to develop an operating system with so small possibilities of income than because of passion.

Key words:  "develop an operating system"

So why are they so picky about the hardware?  The whole point to an OS is to manage the hardware so developers don't have to.  If you want to hit the hardware, get rid of the OS and just make a bunch of libraries.

Varthall:  Using your own comparison, personally I'm not seeking for the wild wild west, rather the excitement of that era. It won't be the excitement for new discoveries, but rather n excitement by using a computer which I like.

Sorry, but even the hobby market is limited by the reality of economics.  You will wait forever to relive the past.

Varthall:  ...and a OS specifically made for it.

The OS was made for the PPC, not the motherboard, or any of it's special, custom (read: non-existant) features.

Then again, the OS was changed to disable the buggy features of the chipset, after problems arose.  OK, I guess it was made for that board, after all.

Varthall:  You're forgetting at least one other difference: the fact that we have now a single motherboard set as standard with its own OS, and not just an OS with a very poor support for the vast array of hardware in the x86 market. Isn't this a difference, too?

Choose only one x86 chipset to support.  Problem solved.

How many PPC chipsets are out there?  They're all the same, right?  If you have custom hardware made, will exploiting its power require forking some code here and there, ensuring that the AmigaOne will still work?

Oh yeah, go PPC, and you'll only have to have one HAL and unified drivers.  Especially if it's all custom.

Why can't people learn from the failure of BeOS?

TheWizard:  Aren't all three next generation consoles using PowerPC variants?

PPC cores, yes.  But, they are custom hardware that is most definately off-limits to mere mortals, unless you want to pay license fees up the wazoo through huge contracts Amiga cannot afford.  Consoles also don't need certain features reserved for "real" computers.

Note:  Most console SDKs don't actually run on the console hardware.  They run on workstations that produce code that eventually runs on debug units.  I suppose console developers regularly moan about the lack of "custom" hardware in their workstations.

Stone:  first off, amd and intel cant modify their chips as ibm can. so besides it being way more expensive, even smaller modifications would be magnitudes more expensive, while bigger changes is basicly impossible as an intel or amd customer you buy what they offer or nothing.

x86 chips are a lot more modular than you think.  Intel and AMD just can't be bothered making tons of custom variations of their flagship CPUs when they already sell millions of each "generic" core they produce.  Of course, Intel and AMD aren't the only ones that make x86 chips.

They do make chips for different market segments, you know.  Laptop, desktop, and server CPUs share the same parts, but they are definately different chips.  Obviously, that doesn't imply modular design.

Stone:  it seems one missed the point and instead ended up providing proof that you buy off the shelf parts at intel/amd while ibm provides any custom made powerpc cpu you might want.

OK, how much does it cost to have a custom CPU made?  50 bucks?  Can you have those chips made by anybody, or just IBM?  What will you do in 5 years if you can't have another custom CPU made for some reason?

I assume you'd like to spend $2,500 for a motherboard just for the novelty of having a custom-built PPC that is unlike any other?  Guess why server/workstation boards are so much more expensive than desktop boards.

[dammy]

by Waccoon on 2006/9/23 5:22:33

OK, how much does it cost to have a custom CPU made? 50 bucks? Can you have those chips made by anybody, or just IBM? What will you do in 5 years if you can't have another custom CPU made for some reason?

With the track record of PPC's developement by IBM (who knows what's Mot's is going to do with their new owners) of the PPC, it should still be close to their upper end CPU desktop.  Apple is no long there beating the drum for faster  developement of the PPC, why should IBM give a rat's ass on how fast the embedded CPU is developed?  Want real horsepower?  Go by a Power5 system.  Wanna bet some on here will say that is a perk?

I assume you'd like to spend $2,500 for a motherboard just for the novelty of having a custom-built PPC that is unlike any other? Guess why server/workstation boards are so much more expensive than desktop boards.

Logical debate over CPU archs died awhile ago when those denying reality started their PPC cult.  As a group, they can enable each other as individuals to deny reality of the situation.  Just like any other cult.  The funny thing is to pin them down on why PPC has been such a huge failure in the  desktop market.  They will claim it's a lack of advertising that killed Eyeteck but when you point to IBM's (and Apple's till recently) advertising budget and Apple still left them, they will say it was lack of knowledge of the greatness of the PPC on Jobs' part.  Kinda sad to watch this happen, like a fish in it's last dieing moments in a dried up pond, unable to escape the reality of time being up for it's survival.

Dammy

[stone]

It really is a shame A-inc listened to the vocal nutters in the community when planning the A1 and OS4

i think its safe to say that they didnt base any development based on a vocal fanbase. if you have any proof that they did, pleaes point me to it. i base my belief on the fact that even back then the userbase was too small to support any future products and hence a buisneess plan would have to focus on the broader perspective.

its very rare to see a userbase that is well enough educated to even know what is best for them, and the amiga user sure isnt one either

x86 chips are a lot more modular than you think. Intel and AMD just can't be bothered making tons of custom variations of their flagship CPUs when they already sell millions of each "generic" core they produce

sure they are able to produce different versions of them, but calling them modular in comparrison to powerpc is complete nonsense and rather farfetched.

you cant make something similar to a cell, p.a.semi's pwrficient or xilinx's programmerble powerpc based on any intel/amd offering without massive production costs. basicly meaning making a brand new cpu/architecture.

I assume you'd like to spend $2,500 for a motherboard just for the novelty of having a custom-built PPC that is unlike any other?

no reason to waste my time by assuming things. in my first post i clearly put a questionmark to wheter the fact that the powerpc is so flexible holds any value or is worth aiming for.

it all depends on where you want to take amiga and amigaos.

seems to me you are assuming im arguing for the use of powerpc when my posts all spins around customization possibilities.

i like powerpc. its a very impressive piece of technology. but its not nessessarily the right way to go at this time.

As a group, they can enable each other as individuals to deny reality of the situation

the interesting thing to notice, is how well your own postings fit into your own cult definition.

the important thing is to keep things in perspective. like mindlessly dismissing powerpc cathegorically without considering the strengths and possibilities really is rather foolish.

/stone

[neon32]

dammy wrote:

Logical debate over CPU archs died awhile ago when those denying reality started their PPC cult.  As a group, they can enable each other as individuals to deny reality of the situation.  Just like any other cult.  The funny thing is to pin them down on why PPC has been such a huge failure in the  desktop market.  They will claim it's a lack of advertising that killed Eyeteck but when you point to IBM's (and Apple's till recently) advertising budget and Apple still left them, they will say it was lack of knowledge of the greatness of the PPC on Jobs' part.  Kinda sad to watch this happen, like a fish in it's last dieing moments in a dried up pond, unable to escape the reality of time being up for it's survival.

Dammy

I'm all for listening to your arguments supporting your idea's against PPC's Dammy, but when you insert so much patronisation into them it kinda makes it hard for me to really support any of your oppinions.

[justthatgood]

Enough the whining about not having your "Pretend Play Chip".

This, I can't have my operating system on a PPC, I'm going to cry :bigcry: . I heard all this b***ching from the "diehard" Mac fans when their stuff went to Intel processors. The whole bit makes me naseauated and sick.

Quit ----------->:horse:

[Hammer]

neon32 wrote:
I believe the title of the thread is "Amiga OS 4 should be ported over to the x86" not "Do you care about Amiga OS4 or not?".

There's a couple of reasons off the top of my head why I don't want the Amiga to be running on x86. One is that I dont really want it to be involved in the Mhz race, where only the fastest speeds will do, which is how Mac and Windows seem to be doing things at the moment. It was the same back when the classic Amiga was around. "Your Amiga with it's 7 Mhz CPU is nothing compared to my PC running it 66Mhz!".

And another point is that you cannot simply buy a x86 CPU that can be passivly cooled - every cpu, even mobile ones run hot and i'm sick of having a computer that makes so much noise. (And yes I have "silent" fans and psu in my computer, it still makes as much noise when cpu intense tasks are running)
(SNIP)

Ermmm, I recall testing a passively cooling Athlon 64 mobile (CG) @800Mhz i.e. I didn't reconnect power for the fan. Each time AMD64 CPU driver kicks clock speed to 2Ghz from BIOS’s (InSyd) default 800Mhz speed it shut down the laptop. Works fine in Windows XP safe mode since AMD64 CPU driver is not activated.

The other heat source comes from GPUs…

[Hammer]

it seems one missed the point and instead ended up providing proof that you buy off the shelf parts at intel/amd while ibm provides any custom made powerpc cpu you might want.

Define custom PowerPC. Atm, only large corporations (e.g. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) fund significant customized PPE cores. Not much different to Microsoft’s co-designing AMD64 ISA with AMD.

PPE cores doesn’t equal PPC 970 cores.

co-processors are exactly that, and doesnt give you any more or less customaization options over the cpu. torrenzo doesnt do anything in this league either as it only allows for a series of cpu's to be used in the same socket.

That HTT socket and motherboard infrastructure is available in economic of scale. HTT Socket infrastructure is available from ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, Tyan, Newsys, Cray, and ‘etc’.

and counters what exactly? ibm has always provided its customers this option for years,

Note that the HTT socket and motherboard infrastructure is available in economic of scale.
 

 while amd only will offer it in 2007 at the earliest.

Factor in third party HTT enabled co-processors i.e. refer to AMD’s “Virtual Gorilla” strategy.  
 

[Hammer]

you cant make something similar to a cell,
.

Why Cell?

AMD has both CPU and GpGPU (assimilated ATI) solutions.

p.a.semi's pwrficient
.

Given its release date, I don't see p.a.semi's pwrficient special i.e. in future vs future comparsions.

or xilinx's programmerble powerpc based on any intel/amd offering without massive production costs.

Qoute SPECInt and SPEC FPU benchmarks for xilinx's programmerble powerpc 4xx based solution.

basicly meaning making a brand new cpu/architecture.

Refer to DRC's FPGA solution (Torrenza HTT socket) or XtremeData's XD1000 workstation (with Torrenza HTT socket Altera FPGA EP2S180).

XtremeData's XD1000 Altera's FPGA EP2S180 has access/own to all 3 HTT links (3X 8GByte/s or 21 GByte/s) and dual MCH DDR333 memory.

[Hammer]

neon32 wrote:

dammy wrote:

Amazing things happen when you keep your ego in check

That could go both ways Dammy.


It's a good thing none of the next generation consoles are using Power PC processors in their machines, or that would surely be a catastrophic business decision..

Note that both Nintendo and Microsoft game consoles are powered by AMD** GPUs.

[Hammer]

you cant make something similar to a cell

Atm, PC world requires different CPU/GPU price and performance points. MS Vista requires X86 solution with GpGPU hence AMD is building SoC packaged Cell like chip i.e. packaged multiple unfied shader SIMD/MIMD units with multi-OOOE X64 cores.

[Ancalimon]

The real question and problem is "who can port AmigaOS to x86?"

What will happen to AmigaOS4? Will it go to trash? I want to use it today. But can't because there's no hardware worth buying. AmigaOS4 is PPC and and AmigaOS5 will support more CPU's I remember reading.

I am telling you. There is only one option for Amiga (I mean the OS as there's no Amiga left and there won't be any succesfull product) to exist after today. The only was is to move to run on PC architecture. There are several marketing strategies that would work if one was bold enough.

[woz111]

Thankfully someone who agrees with me, we should all get in touch with Hyperon and ask them to port OS4 over to the x86 arcitecture. As you rightly say, we have no new hardware, PPC, as good as it is is a dead end, so were left with the x86. We all now need to drop this debate about custom chips etc, as that'll never happen. most of the consumer world think that the Amiga's dead.

[monami]

"CPU MHz race"

thats just a sales stratagy... and they usually dissapoint in terms of the end products performance.

i never was super impressed by os 3.9. the idea of os4 on ppc was a good leap... ppc is dead. i put my faith in aros way back when. and now it seems to be coming good. i'm looking forward to it on pc as standalone with all the bells and whistles.

even if there was an amiga slanted linux flavour i would love it. atari st too. but i don't want to have to run windows anymore if i don't choose too... os4 on pc sounds good. but is there someone making sure the amiga community has nothing but dead end development? i think i read os 4 is not allowed to run on pc!!! if so you'd better understand someone has a great interest in making sure amiga doesn't succeed... better give aros some love!

[AJCopland]

PPC cores, yes. But, they are custom hardware that is most definately off-limits to mere mortals, unless you want to pay license fees up the wazoo through huge contracts Amiga cannot afford. Consoles also don't need certain features reserved for "real" computers.

Note: Most console SDKs don't actually run on the console hardware. They run on workstations that produce code that eventually runs on debug units. I suppose console developers regularly moan about the lack of "custom" hardware in their workstations.

You're quite right that console SDKs run on a seperate workstation, usually PC. We just compile to another target using a compiler supplied as part of the SDK. However thats not to say that you have to do it that way.

The analogy would be writing a demo on an Amiga that when run kills workbench and just bangs the hardware directly to achieve maximum resources and speed.

You could run an OS on a console that built apps for itself using the SDK and did the same. It's simply that the console manufacturer doesn't want you too.

Andy

[adz]

[Eric Cartman]
Hyperion/Amiga Inc can suck my balls...
[/Eric Cartman]

Open source is the only way OS4 will stand a chance in the real world and since that's never gonna happen, just forget about it and move on. Think about it realistically for a second. Why would a large corportation abandon all its Win/Mac machines and purchase some obscure piece of custom PPC hardware to run an obscure OS that features no real security nor a decent web browser? Amiga OS is a hobbiest platform, plain and simple. The only way for it to thrive/survive is via an open source model. Amiga stInc. should release the rights to the Amiga community under a GNU and forget about trying to milk the platform for every last cent as this onlt serves to lower the Amiga coffin further into the hole.