Pictures of AmigaOne motherboard and statements from Alan Redhouse

[downix]

But for me this HW is useles without AOS. I don't care for linux, and if I want to run linux. I will use x86 hw.

Then buy a Pegasos.  You won't be forced to run Linux and you can run your old apps.  What more do you want?

[downix]

Mike, you've never run the latest MorphOS to the best of my knowledge, how would you know how much software it can and cannot run?

If you use an experience with the old betas, then your experience is schewed.  I'd point out that an early NT Beta could not run a lot of win32 programs.  But 2k (the released version of that beta) is quite kind to me and runs all of them.

So please, before you start making such wild claims as compatability issues, run the product first.

[downix]

@ logain
Quote:
You seem to forget that MorphOS has an UAE too.


No I wasn't and for the record UAE ports are available for almost all better known OSes, including MacOS, AmigaDE and even AmigaOS itself.
The point of the original discussion was that an user was likely waiting specificly for AmigaOS4 and not solely for compatibility with Amiga software, for which there are many alternatives. According to community polls a new Amithon emulation solution by Bernie is the most popular, followed by an AmigaOS4/AmigaOne solution.

Last time I checked, however, I didn't ask "what was more popular."

And as for your chipset support arguement, I don't see any AGA chips on the A1, and in the AOS4 documentation, it doesn't mention any chipset support, so it looks like AOS4 and MOS are equal in that respect.  Note, I said "looks" as there is no AOS4 to compare with.

Quote:
You should also not forget that you can run MorphOS applications right from the start (which have the Amiga look&feel) instead of Linux apps for an unforeseeable time.


Yes, the entire ABOX is built on top of an Alien kernel, above this kernel is a second "reimplemented" Amiga-like Exec kernel. Everything within the ABOX is very Amiga-like, a similar structure, similar filenames, similar components, etc. Just like with Amithlon (Linux), the underlying kernel/OS is hidden from the user. Quark is just as alien to AmigaOS, as for instance QNX Neutrino or Mach.

Or ExecSG, which is also an alien kernel that can emulate the Executive Library.

Quote:
And also dont forget, that A-Box' JIT performance is ways higher than the Linux/WinUAE-JIT..


This depends on the hardware as well.
Funny enough lately with every positive AmigaOS4/AmigaOne thread, there seems to be attempts to artificially transform it into a MorphOS propaganda thread.  

Here's the worlds smallest fiddle there Mike, and it's playing just for you.

[downix]

As you probably have access to the latest MorphOS updates, can I make out of this that you say that currently MorphOS offers a similar level of 68k Amiga software compatibility as compared to UAE solutions?

You can make of it whatever you will, which is what you will do anyways.

But for the record, MorphOS is running 68k Amiga software now.  This does put it ahead of AOS4, which isn't shipping atm in order to allow a proper comparison of the two platforms.

However, unless Hyperion's somehow managed to hire ubercoders of the netherworld, it's doubtful that they've done better emulation in 2 years than the MorphOS team has done in 4.

[downix]

Nobody's said that the Teron boards are bad.  I did bring up the EOL status of some of the chips on it, but of course Mai is aware of that and will likely be solving that in the near future.  I happen to like the feature list of the Pegasos better, and like it's smaller form factor.  But, the Teron is a decent board.  All I asked was what more someone wanted, to get the flames above (yes, I did some flaming as well admittedly).  I could have asked in a better way, to best not put people on the agressive, so sorry about that.  I started a thread in the general boards to better discuss what I really wanted to know, so I'll discuss this more there if anybody would like to, friendly-like if you dont' mind.

[downix]

Poster: MikeB Date: 2003/2/9 13:22:31
Quote:
I happen to like the feature list of the Pegasos better, and like it's smaller form factor.


The Pegasos is excellently designed hardware. If the hardware would come with AmigaOS4/PPCBoot and offers G4 CPU options at a time of proper availability, I would surely consider buying a board in addition to getting an AmigaOS-XE.
My personal preference would however go towards an AmigaOne-XE solution, as I currently prefer to have an additional PCI slot instead of a smaller form factor board.

Our needs are likely different, as well.  Looking into my case.... *counts* I have 6 cards.  5 of them would be redundant or irrelevent in a Pegasos, while I could only get rid of 1 of them for the A1.  So, the Pegasos is a cleaner solution for my needs.  But my needs are not your needs.

Quote:
to get the flames above


I haven't seen any real flames in reply to your messages. My reactions were intended to be informative and there was just some little general criticism with regard to AmigaOne news items resulting into Pegasos propaganda threads.

That was never my intention, however.  I was asking a simple question about, if what they wanted was to run their AmigaOS software on a PowerPC, why did they not look at an alternative that's available.  That alternative might even run on the A1 at some point in the future (as it has run on an earlier model of the Teron board) so the question becomes even more relevent.

[downix]

To my knowledge, the first 66-MHz PCI-Slot is completely shared with AGPx2. So you can only use 3 PCI when using an AGP-Card otherwise you'll need the additional PCI for a PCI-GFX-card.

Not to promote the competition or anything, but that's not entirely true.

The AGP bus is properly a 66Mhz 64-bit PCI bus with a few extra bus modes, all pushed through a double-data-rate bus to reduce pincount.  Mai's PCI1 system has the AGP modes but also retains the addressing mode.  This means that, when a second device is on the bus, that the enhanced modes of AGP need to be turned off for the second PCI device to work properly.  This reduces the overall speed of AGP transfers, for cards that support them to begin with.

Note, the 3Dfx series of video cards do not use AGP modes at all, being purely PCI cards (which happen to be in an AGP slot).  So if you run a 3Dfx card, you won't notice a lick of difference.

[downix]

I happen to like OF for a few reasons:

1)  Many cards support OF out of the box.  This means you are more likely to put the off-the-shelf card into your system and have it work immediately.  (Great for networking cards or for video cards)

2)  OF is not limited to PowerPC's.  Sun's use them, for example.  This means that more high-end cards include OF support than not.  If you want your card to run on a Sun SPARCStation, you gotta use OF.

3)  The front end for selecting an OS is modular, allowing a great many choices for how you want your system to load up.

4) Many non-x86 OS's can use OF to load up the system without needing a bootloader (such as LILO) at all.  This provides a common denominator for OS support, and thereby gains a system more support from 3rd parties.

5)  OF is an industry standard.  This means that there will be more support for it than a competing standard.  It's a very big world out there.  While rolling your own HAL might work for some, it's always better to let the big boys do the work, and you take advantage of it.

My 2 bits on the OF vs PPCBoot thing.

Note, I'm not calling PPCBoot bad, as I've never seen it in action to compare, just that I prefer OF due to it's huge amounts of support from 3rd parties with very deep pockets.