I voted only PPC - I would think about a X86/ARM release if it supports seemless integration of 68k and PowerPC emulation via a hypothetical "Petunia NG".
I've actually spoken with the author of Petunia, and according to his blog on E-UAE JIT...
"So, what is the bottom line of my ramblings? This JIT implementation was made for PowerPC, but it can be changed to support multiple processor architectures. I don't think that it would be too complicated, the majority of the code can be reused, it just needs some restructuring."
He has informed me that it would it would be possible to create an x86 compiler from the E-UAE JIT engine he had done for PPC.
He also states in his blog on E-UAE JIT that....
"WinUAE, the Amiga emulator for Windows have JIT compiling for many years now. Unfortunately, it is closely tied to the intel x86 architecture, because the most efficient way of implementing the JIT compiling is kinda similar to an actual programming language compiler: the end result is machine code, which is executed directly. Although it is possible to implement a processor independent JIT compiler, but to squeeze more speed from the executed code in a general compiling model is much more complex.Recent Amiga (like) computers are using PowerPC processors, porting the WinUAE solution to PPC processor would be closely as hard to do as implementing a brand new solution. Not to mention that there are special requirements from the environment of the emulation, that cannot be simply resolved."
Hell yeah!!
Those are what I call supportable initiatives. It wouldn't be cheap and it wouldn't happen quickly, but it should be something that is pursued.
This is coming from someone who is the kind of geek that gets off on microprocessor architecture. I love the Power ISA, and I'm a big fan of SPARC and MIPS. But just because I have a soft spot for these things does not mean that the right choice for a viable computing platform is one of these esoteric CPUs. If intel x86 isn't your "cup of tea" then you have ARM; Those are the only choices.
I also get really nerdy about Operating System Architectures. I'm a big fan of BeOS and QNX, but I would still like to see AmigaOS play a more significant role in today's computing market.
I've actually used BeOS and its derivative Haiku. I'm also a moderator on a BSD forum.
Apple actually uses BSD in OSX, but instead of using drivers from FreeBSD they design their own using I/O kit. Apple has also contributed back code to FreeBSD for stuff like symmetric multiprocessing (SMP). As a matter of fact, it would be easier to replace the core of AmigaOS with BSD and rewrite the custom GUI to run on top of it. AmigaOS would go from using a slower micro kernel to a faster monolithic kernel with memory protection support. Hyperion doesn't even own the kernel, ExecSG, for OS4. They pay to license it from the Friedens. Hyperion wouldn't have to pay to use BSD as the BSD license allows them to use it for free without having to contribute anything back.
"The BSD license means that you can take the code in FreeBSD and do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't sue us or pretend that you wrote it. Without the legal obligation to share code, it is possible to use FreeBSD code almost anywhere. Some companies, almost certainly, will take our code, modify it, and never give anything back. They are free to do this, however many don't."
Source: freebsd.org
By replacing ExecSG with a BSD kernel, Hyperion OS4 could also use BSD drivers and gain close to the same level of driver support as Linux.
68080 all the way. Whether it be FPGA or ASIC, I am fed up with the other ones.
Never heard of a 68080. I know there was a 68070 made by Phillips though but it was a custom 68000 for their CDi.
