Ease off bashing AmigaONE X1000?

[Blizz1220]

There would be no bashing of x1000 if there was a cheap less than
200 Eur alternative on the AOS4 market like there is for Morphos ...

Sam 440 and 460 are not that alternative because only the
motherboard + CPU costs more than that and ACube is making
no more money than Trevor which is the fact everybody seem
to be forgetting ...

Why do you need "custom" motherboard anyway ?

When you put it in the tower you will never see it again
unless it breaks down , if there was a PowerMac G5 motherboard in there you wouldn't even know the difference.

[Blizz1220]

Even in the Commodore days, Amigas were considerably higher than that price for the low-end models. The only reason MorphOS is so cheap is because they're all mass-produced but obsolete second-hand models (and I mean that literally, not in a derogative sense).
Comparing Apples and Bananas again here.

No I don't think they are that much different ...

Motherboards based on say Sis 745 chipset or on Intel 945GZ chipset
are all the same even if they are produced by Asus,MSI,Epox,IBM or
anyone else ... PPC Chipsets in those old Macs are almost the same
thing as chipset used in AmigaOne x1000 ...

When you pay 3000 $ for it you are not supporting AmigaOS 4 developers , you are not supporting Trevor or Acube , you are supporting Freescale
and Varisys with that money because they will get the lion's share of
that price ...

I can see the need for having custom case,keyboard,mouse or even better having some cool piece of hardware like Catweasel or FPGA card designed
to give you Amiga experience , but I can see no rational reason why you
would want to reinvent the old Mac in the form of Amiga motherboard ...

[Blizz1220]

Actually Amiga 500 had better expansion options than Amiga 1000 that flopped due to its instability issues and high price. Expansion boards for Amiga 2000 were not that common and in practice it was on par with Amiga 500.

After all Amiga 500 received wide range of expansion options and they were relatively affordable.

Amiga 4000 was half the price of the 040 Mac and it was slighly less
expensive than 486 PC with the same speed with monitor hd sound card
and everything else ...

Amiga 500 which you could use without monitor,hd or sound card was
the cheapest thing available at the time that could be compared to
PC and Apple ... Except humble Atari ST with which you also got
a free monitor for the price of Amiga ...

[Blizz1220]

Not saying the statement's not true but comparing a plain hamburger from one shop against a hamburger with the lot from another shop and saying their price is the same is another "wha?".

You're absolutely right and I should have posted in another thread ...

But I don't think it's that much different , computer is a computer and
040 was actually faster computer system than 486 (unless you bought
100 Mhz 486 with fast and expensive Edo RAM) and AGA had better
graphics capabilities than most VGA cards on the PC and it was just
as good as any Nubus Mac ...

Mac even got sued for claiming that Quadras (i think) had million of colors
when all it had was 256 out of millions (or thousands I can't remember) ...

Amiga 4000 was most advanced thing on the general consumer market for it's price tag when it came out ...

I will stay with post like this one out of this thread from now ...

[Blizz1220]

No, they aren`t. In simple words Macs are mostly using IDE, DDR, AGP while X1000 uses SATA2, DDR2, PCI-E x16, in PC terms its about 2 generations ahead. Same goes for SOCCs Acube used. They might be "G2-G3 CPU class" (after all its embbeded sys) but at least I/O is faster. That gives quite better overall experience then with older boards, and tests prove that. In pure CPU only benchmarks both AMCC SOCs used by Acube and PA Semi perform poor. But old Macs kind of remind me of old PCs logic where CPU would be "muscles" on high frequency but rest of I/O components and RAM would be decreasing the performance, crippling overall experience.

Off course, this is from today point of view, at time those Macs were new, that were the high end standards.

G5 from 2005 (codename "Cypher") had Dual core , up to 16 Gb of DDR2 ,
PCI-E x16 (_not so sure_ too lazy to check) and USB 2.0 ...

And you can get it for extra cheap price right now ...

[Blizz1220]

True for CPU, but I don`t see Mac G5 or MacPro PPC with such a CPU and bus. So I don`t see how you could get it and what would you do with it in MOS that doesn`t support PCI-E cards at all.

This should be posted in "AEon strategy" thread as it is comparing
apples and water melons but still is somehow related :

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/specs/powermac_g5_quad_2.5.html

[Blizz1220]

Trevor's little vanity project is pretty impressive.
He took the ACK Systems/Ainc. specs and ran with them finding a partner that could actually obtain the CPUs and build the systems.

That would explain a lot ...

[Blizz1220]

Sounds really cool, thanx for the info and screen shots.

That would not just break Amiga and 68k compatibility that would
break ANY compatibility to anything :huh:

But it does sound very very cool :-)

[Blizz1220]

Well all of FPGA projects up to now they have mostly been failures.

  BoXoR  project is dead.
 
Because it was over-ambitious, and a moving target, which became more and more unrealistic.

NatAMI Project is most likely dead.

Because it was over-ambitious, and a moving target, which became more and more unrealistic.

FPGAArchade is too slow, not expandable, there is CPU card coming but it's not going be faster than a Pentium II 100Mhz or something like that.
  It too slow for modern standards.

FPGA Arcade whole budget was about 10-20 000 $ and is being made by
a person as a hobby project ...

Try going to Varisys and pay them amount payed for AmigaOne x1000 and
they will build you FPGA Amiga in no time