Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Eric_Z on January 28, 2003, 04:17:00 PM
-
Take a look. (http://www.apple.com/powermac/)
-
OOPS thats 1.42 Ghz
-
...
-
nice! :-D
-
> OOPS thats 1.42 Ghz
Ah, I knew that 1.43 figure was too good to be true.
Kay
-
> Ah, I knew that 1.43 figure was too good to be true.
:D
Oh, Eric_Z, I beat you by one minute! HA! ;)
fr0st p1st!
-
Kay wrote:
> OOPS thats 1.42 Ghz
Ah, I knew that 1.43 figure was too good to be true.
Kay
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
That's a nice machine :-D
-
He he, well not that any of this realy matters anyway because the ArticaS can't cope with the 166 Mhz fsb of the 7455.
To use the 7455 some one would have to make an amiga based upon the ArticaP (http://www.mai.com/products/articia%20p.htm).
-
Eric_Z wrote:
He he, well not that any of this realy matters anyway because the ArticaS can't cope with the 166 Mhz fsb of the 7455.
To use the 7455 some one would have to make an amiga based upon the ArticaP (http://www.mai.com/products/articia%20p.htm).
:-o wow! i think ill put off my buying of amigaone until i can get one with THAT!!
:-D
-
Holly smoke! This is one hell of an interesting thread! Maybe Eyetech should make a 1.4Ghz G4 a possibility, too? And at a later date, better configurations to the AmigaOne-mobo, like Articia P with 4x AGP, PCI-X, DDR and 2MB L3-cache!!
Anyway, i would love to have a 1.4Ghz G4 in my A1G4XE!!! Yeah, that would be extremely cool! :-D
-
by Helgis75 on 2003/1/28 17:45:23
Holly smoke! This is one hell of an interesting thread! Maybe Eyetech should make a 1.4Ghz G4 a possibility, too? And at a later date, better configurations to the AmigaOne-mobo, like Articia P with 4x AGP, PCI-X, DDR and 2MB L3-cache!!
Anyway, i would love to have a 1.4Ghz G4 in my A1G4XE!!! Yeah, that would be extremely cool!
The only problem is that the Artica P isn't finished yet there aren't even engineering samples ready yet.
And last of all if enough people don't buy the current A1 thinking that there will be a A2 just around the corner... well guess.
-
Helgis75 wrote:
Maybe Eyetech should make a 1.4Ghz G4 a possibility, too?
That would of course be up to the designer and manufacturer of the boards, not a distributor like e.g. Eyetech or others.
But Iook, right there, yes, the goddamn topic of this thread, a dual 1.42 GHz G4 machine staring you in your face! Or the dual 1GHz low-end machine, for $1499, a complete and well-equipped computer, while the company you mention sells a bare motherboard built with year 1999/2000 standards with one older G4/800 for $800.
The obvious solution is to port AmigaOS to the cheaper, better, faster and more easily (and currently) available machine. So nobody's licensed to sell it with an absolutely meaningless "AmigaOne" label. Screw that.
-
Will Apple allow Hyperion access to all the documents needed to write the drivers (or the HAL) for that machine? I was under the inpression that Apple don't like doing it any more then NVidia.
-
I just wonder when A1XE will be able to use these:
http://www.gigadesigns.com/ (http://www.gigadesigns.com/)
or these:
http://www.made4macs.com/products/powerlogix_pmg4.html (http://www.made4macs.com/products/powerlogix_pmg4.html)
or these:
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/cpu_upgrades.html (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/cpu_upgrades.html)
:-P
-
Will Apple allow Hyperion access to all the documents needed to write the drivers (or the HAL) for that machine?
When hell freezes over.
However, *maybe* taking a look at the Mac Linux kernel sources could be of help, but I seriously doubt this since they would still have the problem with ensuring the customer of interoperability with the hardware and we would also have the question of who the customer would turn to when running into hardware problems while running AmigaOS4. It's simply not feasible for a professional OS vendor to make official support for hardware they cannot guarantee interoperability with. We should also remember that this hardware is bundled with MacOSX, how many users are seriously willing to pay for another OS when their hardware already has one preinstalled?
The idea to clone their hardware and bundle it with AmigaOS4 is simply a so much better solution to the problem, don't you think? :-P
-
To use the 7455 some one would have to make an amiga based upon the ArticaP.
Now we are talking about a reasonably decent PPC chipset in terms of features - in fact that looks like a pretty damn good server chipset with PCI-X and three PCI busses supported.
Must be high pin count though, and probably pretty expensive.
-
Yeah, I really want to buy one of those with the Articia P. What do you think Eytech?
-
Not to mention totally untested and brand new. :-o
-
Good to see PPC get a small speed bump....
-
Eric_Z wrote:
by Helgis75 on 2003/1/28 17:45:23
Holly smoke! This is one hell of an interesting thread! Maybe Eyetech should make a 1.4Ghz G4 a possibility, too? And at a later date, better configurations to the AmigaOne-mobo, like Articia P with 4x AGP, PCI-X, DDR and 2MB L3-cache!!
Anyway, i would love to have a 1.4Ghz G4 in my A1G4XE!!! Yeah, that would be extremely cool!
The only problem is that the Artica P isn't finished yet there aren't even engineering samples ready yet.
And last of all if enough people don't buy the current A1 thinking that there will be a A2 just around the corner... well guess.
Cool! I like guessing games :-D :-D
Here is my guess, then we would all just have to buy a machine from a company that understands the computer market? Maybe a pegasos, maybe an Apple....but someone who understands the continuous upgrade cycle?
Did I get close? ;-)
-
samface wrote:
Will Apple allow Hyperion access to all the documents needed to write the drivers (or the HAL) for that machine?
When hell freezes over.
However, *maybe* taking a look at the Mac Linux kernel sources could be of help, but I seriously doubt this since they would still have the problem with ensuring the customer of interoperability with the hardware and we would also have the question of who the customer would turn to when running into hardware problems while running AmigaOS4. It's simply not feasible for a professional OS vendor to make official support for hardware they cannot guarantee interoperability with. We should also remember that this hardware is bundled with MacOSX, how many users are seriously willing to pay for another OS when their hardware already has one preinstalled?
The idea to clone their hardware and bundle it with AmigaOS4 is simply a so much better solution to the problem, don't you think? :-P
Why Linux....Darwin is open source and runs on Macs....[
-
jumpship wrote:
Will Apple allow Hyperion access to all the documents needed to write the drivers (or the HAL) for that machine?
Why would Hyperion (or a third party driver/HAL developer) be allowed less access to the docs than anybody else?
In addition, the Linux, *BSD and Darwin/OpenDarwin driver and kernel source and docs is freely available if developer.apple.com and opensource.apple.com should be considered insufficient.
Modern "Jobsified", "New World" Apple hardware is in essence just about as "closed" as, say, a Teron board...
Just don't expect any extra help if you come waving with a license contract in Stevie-boy's face... ;)
-
wow! i think ill put off my buying of amigaone until i can get one with THAT!!
I wouldn't. Not that I'm saying that an AmigaOne based on the ArticiaP chipset won't surface one day. I believe it will, but for that to happen Eyetech and others need to know that there are people out there willing to put their money where their mouth is and not just hold on to it and wait for the next even more powerful machine. There will always be a more powerful machine on the horizon, get used to it. There is no point in waiting.
Amiga needs you now!
-
Modern "Jobsified", "New World" Apple hardware is in essence just about as "closed" as, say, a Teron board...
I was under the impression that BeOS ran into the "no documentation for you" issue and that's one of the reasons it tried to move to x86. Not so much that Apple locked them out via a closed BIOS but more that they did not provide any documentation. Not sure how the flash-upgradable current BIOS helps with anything... unless you're trying to say that there are better sources/documents for Apple hardware now?
-
BeOS left the apple platform in the pre-OS X (pre open source Darwin) days....
things are different now.
-
Yet another paper launch…
(At least they are following the market leader’s example i.e. Intel’s Pentium3 1GHz paper launch.)
Refer http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-982370.html
Quote from zdnet
"but consumers will have to wait about a month for the high-end model, said Tom Boger, Apple's director of Power Mac Product Marketing."
-
I almost criticized the paper launch of one of the high end model....but Apple usually comes through a month later with the product as announced.
Then again I remember the G4500 fiasco......
there has been a lot of speculation that Apple is 'clocking' these chips...but then again, if its with moto's permission then, its just a redefinition of the chips tolerance....
its all word's...but they don't really have 1.42 ghz chips for sale to other people, that much seems real.
Noone stopping someone from building a quad processor machine out of 1 ghz parts, if someone really wanted to clean apple's clock....
but, you won't get 1.42ghz chips for a while.
-
MarkTime wrote:
there has been a lot of speculation that Apple is 'clocking' these chips...but then again, if its with moto's permission then, its just a redefinition of the chips tolerance....
.
IF Apple guarantees (and offer warranties) for those o/c G4s then it’s OK in my POV.
How fast could they clock with an AthlonXP2800+/ Pentium 4@3Ghz class coolers on PPC G4s?
-
How fast could they clock with an AthlonXP2800+/ Pentium 4@3Ghz class coolers on PPC G4s?
I agree wtih you, that as long as apple is warrantying the board, then from the customer perspective, its just fine.
Of course a complaint about the MDD mac's was they were extremely noisy from all the fans. Apple has addressed that, and they say this round is much quieter...those G4's have heavy duty heat sinks already...and the G4 chips, are exposed chips, so the heatsink is place directly on top....
Moto, lists the current G4 as a 133FSB at 1 ghz.
But in the high end Mac's, they had 166FSB, which supposedly this processor doesn't support, but the math worked out good...25% increase on the FSB and subsequent 25% increase on the processor for 1.25ghz.
Who knows how they are squeezing out the last mhz in the 1.42ghz chip....
but According to moto's roadmap, the next chip is the G4 on a .13micron process with a Top speed of 1.3ghz....well...thats less than what apple is already selling...
So either moto's roadmap is way way off, or Apple is clocking these things, and they seemed commited to clocking the .13 micron chip as well, cause they are already beyond 1.3ghz!
Well, if they are reliable, and if Apple warranties them, and if the machine is quiet....and they say all these things are true....I don't see any problem at all. But I wouldn't try to clock them further.
I have overclocked a G4 before, and they do have a bit of room....not as much as the old G3's...but usually you can get something, sometimes you need to up the voltage too.
I cannot see Amiga's beating apple on the high end though....in pure mhz...apple gets all the fast ppc's....but I wonder sometimes why a quad processor board isn't made....
-
Seehund wrote:
Helgis75 wrote:
Maybe Eyetech should make a 1.4Ghz G4 a possibility, too?
That would of course be up to the designer and manufacturer of the boards, not a distributor like e.g. Eyetech or others.
But Iook, right there, yes, the goddamn topic of this thread, a dual 1.42 GHz G4 machine staring you in your face! Or the dual 1GHz low-end machine, for $1499, a complete and well-equipped computer, while the company you mention sells a bare motherboard built with year 1999/2000 standards with one older G4/800 for $800.
The obvious solution is to port AmigaOS to the cheaper, better, faster and more easily (and currently) available machine. So nobody's licensed to sell it with an absolutely meaningless "AmigaOne" label. Screw that.
Actualyy the entry level PowerMac is now a single 1GHz G4, not a dual anymore.
-
Guys, don't give into Apple's hype. Yeah, dual G4 1.4GHz sound really nice until you realize they work on 166MHz front side bus. Then you realize you have DDR333 RAM that us just a gimmick because who needs bandwidth that CPU cannot use? And digging deeper into specs of chipset that Apple uses in those PowerMacs you find that both CPU share one data bus!
It's all hype. Apple tries to go around this pifitul design by using level 3 cache but Pentium 4 can get data as fast from main memory (!) as those Power Macs from 1 or 2 MB of level 3 cache. Apple uses benchmark composed of handful of Photoshop filters heavily optimized for AltiVec to draw their conclusion of owning P4. Take a look at any independent benchmarking and you'll see that 3GHz Pentium 4, especially combined with 1066MHz Rambus and i850E chipset or dual channel DDR333 and E7205 (Granite Bay) chipset is much faster in video encoding, 3D rendering, etc. than dual G4 Macs. It doesn't matter how efficient your CPU is when it gets no bandwidth.
Are Macs pretty and OS X nice? Definitely. Are they faster than PCs? No. Sorry, I'm realist.
I use Mac at work and bought my first Amiga back in 1991.
-
@Caelth
Who said I’m falling for Apple’s hype?
NForce 2 has a memory bandwidth of 6.4Gb/s**(with PC3200 DDR SDRAM modules in twin bank mode). But that's not the issue...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side track.
**Current Athlon XP 2700+ only talks to outside world at 2.7Gb/s and the rest of the excess bandwidth is allocated for AGP**** and Southbridge related services.
****AGP interface bandwidth can consume the following;
1050 Mb/s = 4X mode
2100 Mb/s = 8X mode
Nforce2‘s Northbridge to South Bridge (APU/DSP location) link consumes 800Mb/s of bandwidth.
All excess bandwidth could use for the second CPU and other co-processors (GPU and APU/DSP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If my memory serve me right, Apple's G4 1.25Ghz (non-DDR) talks to the outside world at 166Mhz x 64bits (~1328Mb/s).
It’s just good to see Apple for increasing the clock speed for PPC G4 based market.
IF this was 1Ghz PPC G4 clocked at ~189 Mhz FSB (7.5 multiplier x 183Mhz), I wonder IF the A1 and Peggy could be o/c to such a speed.
Did anyone attempted a liquid nitrogen cooled PPC G4s yet?
-
Driving a Mac that fast could be dangerous....
Lucky they have those trainer wheels. ;)
-
Caelth wrote:
Guys, don't give into Apple's hype. Yeah, dual G4 1.4GHz sound really nice until you realize they work on 166MHz front side bus. Then you realize you have DDR333 RAM that us just a gimmick because who needs bandwidth that CPU cannot use? And digging deeper into specs of chipset that Apple uses in those PowerMacs you find that both CPU share one data bus!
It's all hype. Apple tries to go around this pifitul design by using level 3 cache but Pentium 4 can get data as fast from main memory (!) as those Power Macs from 1 or 2 MB of level 3 cache. Apple uses benchmark composed of handful of Photoshop filters heavily optimized for AltiVec to draw their conclusion of owning P4. Take a look at any independent benchmarking and you'll see that 3GHz Pentium 4, especially combined with 1066MHz Rambus and i850E chipset or dual channel DDR333 and E7205 (Granite Bay) chipset is much faster in video encoding, 3D rendering, etc. than dual G4 Macs. It doesn't matter how efficient your CPU is when it gets no bandwidth.
Are Macs pretty and OS X nice? Definitely. Are they faster than PCs? No. Sorry, I'm realist.
I use Mac at work and bought my first Amiga back in 1991.
a few points:
1. they do use the extra bandwidth!!! thats why its there!
2. both cpu's share the same bus??? what do you expect! that is how SMP is done! all SMP machines have the CPU's sharing the same data bus!!!!!!!! i forget the name of this architecture, would somebody please help!
3. the cpu efficiancy CAN/DOES matter when there may be a reletivly low bus bandwidth! memory bandwidth is only important when there is a lot of data to move, otherwise, if there is litte data and more processing of that data, you dont need such a huge bandwidth
"a realist", everybody uses that term on a.org!
-
a few points:
1. they do use the extra bandwidth!!! thats why its there!
The system ASIC can, the CPUs can't.
2. both cpu's share the same bus??? what do you expect! that is how SMP is done! all SMP machines have the CPU's sharing the same data bus!!!!!!!! i forget the name of this architecture, would somebody please help!
Not true, they used to use this Architecture until point to point busses came along. Athlons multiprocessing have 2 processors on 2 different busses.
PPC 970 will be the same - except it goes up to 32 processors.
3. the cpu efficiancy CAN/DOES matter when there may be a reletivly low bus bandwidth! memory bandwidth is only important when there is a lot of data to move, otherwise, if there is litte data and more processing of that data, you dont need such a huge bandwidth
True, big caches help here also.
Bandwidth on the other hand fails completely if the task is latency bound i.e. iterating over a big tree structure. Test a P4 and a G4 on that and you'll find it'll cripple both.
"a realist", everybody uses that term on a.org!
I'm an unrealist 8-)
-
the lowest end mac is a total ripoff for that price...
XP 1800= $70 (retail)
EPoX 8RDA =$88
512MB DDR=$150
80gig IBM drive=$101
CDRW/DVD=$90
Antec+350 watt=$180
Gforce4Ti4200=$150
now that system I described is faster has twice the memory... 1/3 more HDD space... its got a much faster graphics card... and its much cheaper.... I dunno what would attract people to crapple hardware these days...
-
just $1999
-
Question:
How long did it take from the 1st (soemwhat) working ArticiaS to
actual boards being delievered to end-users ?
over 2 years !
How lon until MAI manages to satisfy the demand on those chips ?
Who knows
How many board need to be sold before they make the 1st $ profit ?
Lots more than we have seen.
Dont expect any nextgen Articia-boards which could run that CPU before
late 04 (for end users).
-
.... I dunno what would attract people to crapple hardware these days...
Perhaps the nice MacOS X.....
-
I think if apple somehow got the messege that PPC sucks and is slow...and that their hardware's price/performance ratio stinks... they would start cross-processor efforts like the Amiga did... useing a PPC/Athlon for example...and slowly migrate to at least.. .'dell' level hardware.... right now 2000 from dell gets you quite a bit more then 2000 on a mac...
-
bad idea
changing cpu's all the time
they did that 10 years ago, and i dont think they would want to go through it all over again
its unfair to the developers, who must compile & test their software for both machines
and not good for the users either
its especialy bad when you consider the big-endian/little-endian compatability issue
i think the ppc is just going through a 'slump' at the moment IMHO
it will probably recover with the PPC970, then what will you say?
-
If Apple tries to compete with Windows they're dead.
People buy Macs because Apple works on the human<->computer bottleneck. Most of the time the CPU is waiting for the human, not the other way around. This was true when CPUs were 8mhz, nevermind 1Ghz.
-
Not true, they used to use this Architecture until point to point busses came along. Athlons multiprocessing have 2 processors on 2 different busses.
Note that AMD's Opterons will power Sandia National Laboratory and Cray Inc's next supercomputer...
~Ten thousand Opterons will be used for the project. This X86 based beast will be connected via AMD’s Hyper-transport technologies.
-
strobe wrote:
If Apple tries to compete with Windows they're dead.
Have Apple ever tried to enter X86 home world?
Microsoft mostly draws its strength from the massive clone X86 market. Producing a high-powered chip doesn’t guarantee the destruction of X86 (refer to the higher clocked Alpha AXP@700Mhz during middle 90s as example).
It’s nice to have a strong home world. Note why MS has labeled X86 Linux as a threat…
People buy Macs because Apple works on the human<->computer bottleneck. Most of the time the CPU is waiting for the human, not the other way around. This was true when CPUs were 8mhz, nevermind 1Ghz.
Depending on the application.
-
If Apple tries to compete with Windows they're dead.
Well Strobe is correct, Apple would never be able to successfully penetrate the x86 market much less compete with Microsoft head on... their strategy with PPC is still a better choice! By the time they clock Power Macs to near 1.8 GHz, IBM's PPC 970 will already be in production and Apple will shift to the 32/64bit transition with the next major release of OS X!
-
Surprise, surprise. Amiga didn't want X86, they wanted PowerPC... and this is what happened. Here people are drooling over 1.4 Ghz PowerPC chips that will never become available to the Amiga community. That's what you get when you use proprietary hardware.
I use lots of proprietary hardware at my job, and it's very frustrating knowing that an ATA133 card you can get for $25 will outperform the old striped RAID SCSI controller your vendor gave you in that $10,000 workstation (several years ago). I'd love to just put together a new system, but I can't because the software is hard coded for the hardware. Custom firmware is good. Proprietary hardware sucks.
As for the Apple overclocking issue (from Page 1), I thought one of the things people were complaining about was the option for haveing a cool-running, very reliable system, as opposed to those "haphazard" X86 systems built to last 6 months. Sure, let's put a copper HSF on the PowerPC and overclock it until it explodes, and MAYBE it will be half the CPU the AMD Barton will be next month...
...but, hey, it's all OK 'cause it's under warantee! It's not like your data is actually, y'know... IMPORTANT.
Sorry I'm so bitchy tonight, but I've just had enough of the AmigaOne. It's a nice upgrade for old PPC Amiga users, but Amiga's future won't have anything to do with PowerPC and Amiga Inc. knows that all too well. It's just too damned expensive.
-
Strobe: If Apple tries to compete with Windows they're dead.
For the last time... X86 IS NOT WINDOWS!!!
Mac hardware is identical to PC hardware except for the CPU and the case. People use Macs for MacOS. They can convert to MIPS if they want to. So long as it runs MacOS, it's still a Mac.
Mac is already competing with Windows. Just because they use PowerPC makes them immune to a company that owns 95% of the PC market? Please...
All the rest of the world uses X86, including other OS vendors. It's the most widely supported CPU in the world. Not everyone likes it, but it works.
MacOS is the only thing that matters for the Mac market, just like AmigaOS is the only thing that matters for the Amiga market. All this talk of Supirior Hardware is really making me sick. I don't care what kind of hardware is realeased if I can stop using Windows, but I'm sure not going to pay through the nose for an old, slow machine.
-
Mac is already competing with Windows. Just because they use PowerPC makes them immune to a company that owns 95% of the PC market? Please...
All the rest of the world uses X86, including other OS vendors. It's the most widely supported CPU in the world. Not everyone likes it, but it works.
You're missing the major reality of the problem... no software developer (Adobe, Macromedia and etc...) in their right mind is going to support 2 OSes running on the same platform, there's no point in doing it!
Well I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of the world, but I work mostly around SPARC and have been since the early 90s! Intel is going to replace x86 eventually, so its future will rely on AMD (and VIA probably)!
Not all Mac users prefer Macs just for the OS, some actually appreciate the hardware aspect of it. I prefer it due to the integration of software and hardware as well as that PowerPC is more efficient than x86 for mobile (laptops) computing in regards to power consumption!
Apple will never go x86, so there is no reason to keep beating this dead horse any longer!!
-
All this talk of Supirior Hardware is really making me sick. I don't care what kind of hardware is realeased if I can stop using Windows, but I'm sure not going to pay through the nose for an old, slow machine.
This debate has been done to death elsewhere no doubt many times over. Apple may not have the cheapest or fastest hardware but they do have the benefits of integration so it looks good and works out of the box, for most people this is exactly what they want.
But what I increasingly notice is that for most people when you hit close to 1GHz you don't need any more speed. So, even if PCs are faster most people are not going to notice the difference.
If you need speed things are different. But I have an 800MHz Athlon and while I've considered upgrading it I've yet to think of a good reason to do it.
For work I use a 700MHz iBook and again it's fine for pretty much everything I do on it. OS X can be a slug at times but it improves with every update, I don't see the "spinning colour wheel of death" very often these days.
-
Have Apple ever tried to enter X86 home world?
One word: OPENSTEP
You may shut up now
-
Seehund wrote:
Screw that.
Now you are getting to the right level, eh?
Could you for once shut up and respect the decision of those that have the right to make it? You need to finally accept that, and no insults or bitching will change that.
I am fed up of your constant bickering. If you where doing the work, you would be able to decide its course. But you aren't. You're just complaining, like everyone else before.
-
the lowest end mac is a total ripoff for that price...
XP 1800= $70 (retail)
EPoX 8RDA =$88
512MB DDR=$150
80gig IBM drive=$101
CDRW/DVD=$90
Antec+350 watt=$180
Gforce4Ti4200=$150
now that system I described is faster has twice the memory... 1/3 more HDD space... its got a much faster graphics card... and its much cheaper.... I dunno what would attract people to crapple hardware these days...
Um....you forgot to add Windows ($129), keyboard ($50 if you want a decent one) and optical mouse ($30), plus the cost of someone to put it all together for the average person. Even then you are at 1/2 the cost. But then you are stuck with Windows (or Linux).
-
samface wrote:
However, *maybe* taking a look at the Mac Linux kernel sources could be of help
The trouble with reverse engineering is that you never catch the subtleties until you actually try.
What the Seehund and others faction always overlook (and of course refuse to see even if you wave it in their face) is Customer Support. I don't see the Apple support department answer to Mac customer queries about OS 4. That would mean that someone else would need to take care of that (and I can vividly imagine on what desk it would land).
With a licencing scheme, it will be guaranteed that part of the support (at least the hardware specific stuff) is handled by the hardware company/licence holder. This is the only way that such a thing could be managed.
What really makes me furious (I was about to say is me off, but I don't want to resort to such language) is the fact that regardless of how often I stress this point, I see the same arguments over and over again. No one even acknowledges that this is a problem. For crying out loud, you can't tell a customer that bought your product that his hardware platform is unsupported, or that we expect trouble because we didn't have documentatiion.
The "Go Mac" argument is always brought up by those people that think that this is the only way to go mainstream, or reach an adequate circulation, but this is exactly the problem - you can't tell Mr. ex-MacOS user "sorry, but we cannot help you if your harddisk driver is constantly crashing". That just doesn't work. People that contact customers support want an answer, not an explanation why things can't be changed.
Of course, everyone will continue to ignore this point, just pointing at "Apples are so cheap when you buy them used". People will go on about how they never contact customer support because they are the Über-Geeks that can do everything all by themselves.
But that is not how customer support works. For the same reason Hyperion doesn't officially support Amithlon and AmigaOS XL with our 68k based games - you cannot honestly sell something when you need to tell the customer "I can't help you" when problems hit.
Sigh. Posting this was probably a waste of time. Seehund will probably jump at the next opportunity to promote his free AmigaOS 4 stuff again.
-
Rogue wrote:
Sigh. Posting this was probably a waste of time. Seehund will probably jump at the next opportunity to promote his free AmigaOS 4 stuff again.
Never mind. I'm quite sure the majority of us are happy to pay for OS4. What, do people think you should just go do all this work purely out of the goodness of your heart?
-
Hi Rogue,
What really makes me furious (I was about to say is me off, but I don't want to resort to such language) is the fact that regardless of how often I stress this point, I see the same arguments over and over again. No one even acknowledges that this is a problem.
I will. :-)
Seriously, it's always the same people, bringing up the same arguements. The reason you don't see the acknowledgements is that most of us agree with you and don't see the need to come out shouting. What's the term? Silent Majority, I think. ;-)
-
If the G4 is on a removeable board, then the Articia P could be placed on that with a 1.42 GHz G4, with upto 2 Gigs on the same board (just like accelerators of the past). Is it possible? Making it possible to go to 4 Gigs. and possibly 2 CPUs.
Amiga! Toying with POWER!!
-
Karlos wrote:
Never mind. I'm quite sure the majority of us are happy to pay for OS4.
And that is what makes me furious .....
Noone ever said that OS4 should be free of charge.
But some people think it would be a good idea if OS4 wasn't
restricted to one specific piece of HW as it is been done by
the dongle.
Small difference I would say.
-
@Rogue,
Yes your post is a waste of time, because your customer support theories are just red herrings.
Fact is, if you plan to force someone to pay a $380 dollar premium and claim the reason is customer support when you have obligated yourself to provide exactly NO CUSTOMER SUPPORT,...it is beyond belief.
Customer support at any Amiga dealer or maker of software has been very very poor. They don't even acknowledge problems, let alone fix them.
But tell you what, please correct me and explain all the customer support you will be contractually obligated to provide.
Tell us, sirrrrr
You are guaranteeing satisfaction or my money back? You are guaranteeing if my old software doesn't run, you will spend 2 hours on the phone with me until it runs? If I report a bug, you will fix it?
Or will it be catch as catch can, with you providing support if you feel like, or NOT.......
We all know the drill, you get a nasty e-mail from someone, you post it all over the amiga websites...you announce your dramatic withdrawal from the community and all support ends, and cause your not obligated to make one dimes worth of support, no one gets any...even if you were obligated, a-la $50 t-shirt, that might not happen either.
I value your support as being worth .01cents maximum.
Linux is free, it survives without any official support, but for companies who need more than that, they can go to Red Hat and purchase support.
If you want to sell support, you can do that. noone will buy it, but feel free to try.
-
@Rogue,
And one other thing!
I don't pull any punches with my criticism, but I hope you will understand my perspective, because it didn't come from no where, it is how things look to me, and maybe some other people too, who knows....
The fact is when you say things like 'I can't give information cause someone didn't like everything I said.' or....why should I post cause Seehund might have his own opinions...
it doesn't make you sound like a rock solid stable personality that will always be there when someone needs support.
It sounds like to me like yet another of this communities very sensitive personalities...in this community, monthly, some website is shutdown a-la 'amibench' or another person shuts down development, a-la Bernd Myer... when someone gets their feelings hurt.
Quite frankly, I can't pay $380 for support, knowing that if someone sends you an e-mail later that 'hurts your feelings'...that all support will disappear.
These other people aren't you.....but you sure sound like them to me with your comments!
This is not an attack on you, this is my perceptions...if they are wrong, feel free to correct them....but post information or don't post it, but don't sway in the wind because criticism comes your way.
my 2 cents...ok maybe 1 cent.
-
@MarkTime:
Your opinion has to be respected,but please,this $380 stuff needs some FACTS and some searching on the net and contacting the people involved can easily get you wrong.
-
If Apple tries to compete with Windows they're dead.
thats the kind of mindset that killed amiga and IS killing Apple.
ignoreing the fact that as a home computer by definition Apples/PC compete with one another...and ignoreing the fact that if apple had cheaper hardware they might sway more users to their platform due to the OS.
as is only zealots and a handful of professionals buy macs... they could be mass marketed if they where not so expensive and proprietary and slow... its to bad apple wont wake up to the fact that by definition they are 'competeing' because they are in the 'home computer market' and under this idea of 'omg we cant compete with windows' they have gone from nearly 11% to 3% in a few short years.\
the idea you have strobe it would seem is.
keep hardware obselete,slow and proprietary
keep the OS good but limit it to this obselete, slow, priprietary hardware,
keep the prices so high we can barely sell units to the few zealots left standing.
that sure sounds like a winner...
-
thats the kind of mindset that killed amiga and IS killing Apple.
ignoreing the fact that as a home computer by definition Apples/PC compete with one another...and ignoreing the fact that if apple had cheaper hardware they might sway more users to their platform due to the OS.
Oh another death knell in regards to Apple from mips... there isn't anything killing Apple! They're still selling 3-4 million computers a year regardless of how their marketshare looks compared to others, which marketshare itself is not the only important ingredient for relevancy, installed userbase is another, which Apple has a grand share of 11.6% of all computers installed worldwide (supposedly). Take into account that out of 200+ million people in the US, only about 60+ million actually have a computer of some type (it being an Amiga, PC, Mac and etc...) and Apple's userbase accounts for nearly 30 million Mac users worldwide!
Apple will always be a niche and that will never change because it's not in their business model to be just another company like Dell or Gateway!
as is only zealots and a handful of professionals buy macs... they could be mass marketed if they where not so expensive and proprietary and slow... its to bad apple wont wake up to the fact that by definition they are 'competeing' because they are in the 'home computer market' and under this idea of 'omg we cant compete with windows' they have gone from nearly 11% to 3% in a few short years.\
Only zealots huh?! Yeah the usual word for the people who don't follow the masses in buying decisions and/or conform to the norm! I guess you can count Amiga and Linux users in that claim, which at the end of the day no one really gives a rats arse!!
keep hardware obselete,slow and proprietary
keep the OS good but limit it to this obselete, slow, priprietary hardware,
keep the prices so high we can barely sell units to the few zealots left standing.
Oh yeah, where was you when PCs were slower than Macs and just about everything else out there, you obviously wasn't preaching the same tune back then, but rather had some other ideology/argument why PCs were somehow better than the rest!
that sure sounds like a winner...
Well it seems to work very well for Apple!
-
Oh another death knell in regards to Apple from mips... there isn't anything killing Apple! They're still selling 3-4 million computers a year regardless of how their marketshare looks compared to others, which marketshare itself is not the only important ingredient for relevancy, installed userbase is another, which Apple has a grand share of (11.6% of all computers installed worldwide, supposedly). Take into account that out of 200+ million people in the US, only about 60+ million actually have a computer of sometime type (it being an Amiga, PC, Mac and etc...) and Apple's userbase accounts for nearly 30 million Mac users worldwide!
Just a few facts to help quiet your pro-apple rant. First of all noone who knows how to do simple math really believes that Apple is over 11% of the market. The man who claimed that in the article late last year, also claimed that Apple is the #1 computer manufacturer. Now for the real facts. Apple sells about 3 million computers a year, total worldwide sales of PCs (including apple) was about 120 million last year (apple is about 2.5 % of the market). Last year Dell sold more computers every quarter then Apple sold for the whole year (2 other companies did that as well). Dell last year sold more x86 computers then the entire number of PowerPC computers made by Apple over the last 6 years. See how 11% is getting to seem pretty far fetched??? In fact if you say that only the last 2 years of x86 boxes are still being used, and the last 6 years of macs are all in use you get less then 1/2 the mythical 11%. Add all the power macs ever made (including clones) and you still dont get 11% if you just count the last 2 years of x86 boxes against them.
-Tig
-
Tigger how convenient... I knew you would be in here soon enough!
Let me shed some light on your supposed know it all tales that turn out to be just that, tales!
In regards to our past debate on Pixar and Sun Microsystems and what Pixar was actually using in-house:
Pixar switches from Sun to Intel (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983898.html?tag=lh)
Enjoy the article!
:-D
As for the marketshare versus installed userbase... those 2 numbers don't go hand in hand!
Let's do simple math:
the first year:
Company A sells 90 computers
Company B sells 10 computers
...this results in 100 computers sold in total!
Company A has 90% of the marketshare and installed userbase!
the next year:
Company A sells 10 computers
Company B sells 90 computers
...this results in another 100 computers sold in total to equal 200 in the past 2 years!
Company A has 90% of the marketshare and breaks the installed userbase to 50% between it and company B since now they have 200 computers installed to the actual market overall in use!
Now that was the simple of it! Unfortunately for Dell, it hasn't been around as long as Apple, also Windows PCs have not held their value as long as Macs since Windows didn't start to lead over DOS until after Windows 3.1, while Macs were already being used and like my own Mac SE/30 (1989), is still usable today! There's probably more Macs from the late 80s in use than DOS PCs of the same era!
Of course it's hard to gauge how many computers that have been sold in the last 20 years are still in use, it's more of a guessing game and lots of research!
That's where marketshare percentage becomes obsolete because it can't erase the numbers of past sales and the installed userbase that has been put in place. On top of all that, marketshare shifts from quarter to quarter and year to year. We saw Apple's marketshare rise last quarter (for the US alone) to about 3.7% (maybe 3.9%). These numbers will always change, HP is #1 currently with Dell at #2 and with Legend out of China making inroads, there could be more competition on the way!
-
@Ami603,
I intend to make the difference 'real' by using an actual value, because otherwise we get into grey areas where marketer's say things that some construe as lies while others can say might not be intentional lies...they say things like 'slight price difference but you get more support'
I intend to remove the vagaries by giving actual values. I am using the actual situation that I face, if I pre-order, as an american, today. My amiga dealer, softhut === G4/XE 800Mhz Eyetech, is $879.00, if I order G4/XE 800Mhz Terrasoft, $499.00
The actual price difference on a pre-order is $380.
You say I e-mail someone I'll get different stories??? I believe you, this is the real price if I pre-order today. Rather than get an e-mail from someone, and then I call them a liar later... I will just stick with actual prices...the OS4 premium, for me, in my area, is $380.00
AS other people have posted, we have seen some worse than that, some better. And I am sure the gaps will change in the future, and as I do, my number of $380 will change...but I intend to talk about real numbers and not vagaries...
Even though, I agree, by placing out a real number its validity can always be challenged, and it puts me at risk as far as my reputation....but I'll take that chance, because, frankly, I think its more important to put out a real number.
by the way, I know I can talk endlessly sometimes...I thought you made a good point....as soon as this stuff is shipping, I'll try to think of a better way to compare prices...and the number will probably not be 380, and at a guess, it will be less of a gap, not more....
I have not had my A1200 for a few years...I look forward to buying real amgia or amiga like hardware soon....
-
@MarkTime:
Please,check this $499 price again on terrasoft webpage.
-
AmigaMac wrote:
Tigger how convenient... I knew you would be in here soon enough!
Been on vacation in southeast asia the last 3 weeks, so no posting here.
In regards to our past debate on Pixar and Sun Microsystems and what Pixar was actually using in-house:
Enjoy the article!
That article pretty much agreed with what I posted before I believe, at Siggraph we were told that they were going intel and that there was no version 10 of Renderman for Sun, it basically says that here as well, saying they replaced the suns with intel servers over the last 6 months, and as we saw before Pixar no longer lists Sun as a supported platform for Renderman as of the last version.
As for the marketshare versus installed userbase... those 2 numbers don't go hand in hand!
Now that was the simple of it! Unfortunately for Dell, it hasn't been around as long as Apple, also Windows PCs have not held their value as long as Macs since Windows didn't start to lead over DOS until after Windows 3.1, while Macs were already being used and like my own Mac SE/30 (1989), is still usable today! There's probably more Macs from the late 80s in use than DOS PCs of the same era!
Of course it's hard to gauge how many computers that have been sold in the last 20 years are still in use, it's more of a guessing game and lots of research!
That's where marketshare percentage becomes obsolete because it can't erase the numbers of past sales and the installed userbase that has been put in place. On top of all that, marketshare shifts from quarter to quarter and year to year. We saw Apple's marketshare rise last quarter (for the US alone) to about 3.7% (maybe 3.9%). These numbers will always change, HP is #1 currently with Dell at #2 and with Legend out of China making inroads, there could be more competition on the way!
Its great you like you Mac SE/30. But understand that if we just take the last two years of x86 boxes and EVERY SINGLE PPC mac every built as a UNIQUE user (obviously not true, lots have owned 2 or 3 Power Macs) and all still be used (obviously not true) then we are less then 1/2 way to the quoted 11.5%. There are lots and lots and lots of pre-jan 2001 x86 boxes out there, being used every day. Lots more then there are pre PPC macs being used by someone that doesnt have a newer computer. Every amiga still in use, reduces mac marketshare, every ST etc, I dont see any way to crunch the numbers and get mac to double digits.
-Tig
-
Its great you like you Mac SE/30. But understand that if we just take the last two years of x86 boxes and EVERY SINGLE PPC mac every built as a UNIQUE user (obviously not true, lots have owned 2 or 3 Power Macs) and all still be used (obviously not true) then we are less then 1/2 way to the quoted 11.5%. There are lots and lots and lots of pre-jan 2001 x86 boxes out there, being used every day. Lots more then there are pre PPC macs being used by someone that doesnt have a newer computer. Every amiga still in use, reduces mac marketshare, every ST etc, I dont see any way to crunch the numbers and get mac to double digits.
I really don't use that thing... I actually acquired it (in the summer of 2000 actually) from a friend's whose wife got it for free from a US Government office she worked at. It also came with an old Apple Laser Printer and works quite well and was well maintained. It has an old version of Microsoft Office on it and Netscape as a web browser and some other various software on it. I guess it could be the last resort if my other computers go bust (even my old PC)!
As for marketshare... I really don't care how much Apple has or hasn't got! I think most Mac users would rather be the small portion so that our computing can remain untainted by the exact problems Microsoft is dealing with now in regards to hackers and other such problems they have to deal with. I don't think Apple is in the position to handle those kinds of issues currently. I guess at the end of the day, as long as Apple sells enough computers to remain relevant and keep going year to year, let the other guys fight over the rest of the computing landscape! Steve Jobs might have a different opinion than me, but oh well, that's my opinion on the subject!
an article with some insight:
Apple Has Always Been a Significant Player (http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/0203.html)
Pretty much the raw truth on Apple and their niche market:
Apple Has Always Been a Niche Player (http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/0131.html)
:-D
-
Apple's significance doesn't come from their market share, which peaked at just over 20% in 1984 and has never been higher than 12% since then. According to Jeremy Reimer's Personal Computer Market Share: 1975-2002, it's under 3% today.
Apple's significance doesn't come from their market share, which peaked at just over 20% in 1984
20% of the 'overall' market maybe...but in desktop space... pre-amiga... the Apple2 hit big... really big...
-
I use Macs because they save me time and therefore money. I don't have a problem with the hardware choices since I stopped using desktop Macs. Apple's portables are excellent
People who want a Mac will buy a Mac. If Apple tries to support every crappy PC board they'll have a support nightmare and no hardware profits. A sure recipe for disaster.
Not to mention Mac developers would have a support nightmare and would likely drop Apple altogether and jump to Windows.
-
I think apple should keep their hardware prorietary...but when their buying apps like Shake out... its difficult for them to market an inferior slower architecture and then a high-end killer app like Shake...
if they switched to say X86-64 or Itanium... they would be alot more appealing... I'd probably buy one... even though the cost would be higher... It'd be a nice stable OS...and decent well supported hardware..
I dont care that much what CPU i'm running on as long as its fast and reliable... I'd like to see apple move to a faster chip ... it would bring them into bieng viable as workstations.
-
mips,
If you notice in Apple's latest price change, I think they're trying to head down that avenue where their computers become more affordable. But you know and I know that if they dropped the prices too rapidly, people will be wondering why and probably be really angry. I figure they'll slowly creep down the price range with every new release this year, which with their profit margins being great already, it shouldn't hurt their bottomline at the end of the day!
Only time will tell though!!
-
strobe wrote:
I use Macs because they save me time and therefore money. I don't have a problem with the hardware choices since I stopped using desktop Macs. Apple's portables are excellent
People who want a Mac will buy a Mac. If Apple tries to support every crappy PC board they'll have a support nightmare and no hardware profits. A sure recipe for disaster.
Not to mention Mac developers would have a support nightmare and would likely drop Apple altogether and jump to Windows.
true! people buy their computer for all sorts of reasons, not just because it has a cpu that is the fastest in a whole bunch of tests
i know mac owners who prefer them for many reasons, good reasons, i do not consider them zelots
i have an ibm-pc machine, but it doesnt matter how new it is, they are flawed, dated architecture, they have many problems, many bottlenecks
i hope to see more people support other architectures, & other cpus such as ppc, sparc, mips, x86-64, itanium
(well not x86-64 so much)
it would be good if everybody would move away from that old architecture, that would allow cpu's to get so much faster, machines would be quicker, & easier to configure etc...
i hate legacy technology - move away from it
hell, ive starting to do away with floppies!
i hope USB/firewire will replace parlel/serial ports
etc...
-
if they switched to say X86-64 or Itanium... they would be alot more appealing... I'd probably buy one... even though the cost would be higher... It'd be a nice stable OS...and decent well supported hardware..
I dont care that much what CPU i'm running on as long as its fast and reliable... I'd like to see apple move to a faster chip ... it would bring them into bieng viable as workstations.
so what about PowerPC 970?
whats wrong with that?
-
Ignore Marktime he is a MorphOS Dude
The $499 price he keeps quoting is obsolete and HE KNOWS IT!!!!
His hope and the other Morphos dudes hope if they keep bashing Amiga Inc and the Amiga one you will go running out to buy a Pegasos. (ohh they are the nice guys they care about us) They Keep promoting the LICENSING myth knowing full well that it is a load of bull and that GENESI is the the ONE and only reason AOS4 is not available for GREX and Pegasos.
Get a life I understand you have your prefered OS But you have to question why a company rather than promoting it's pluses has to constantly lie about the competition.
I would rather cosy up to M$ than these guy's
Kurt
-
so what about PowerPC 970?
will run at 2ghz when everyone else is at 5ghz...(and no them bieng PPC wont save them X86-64 is very comparale to PPC and may very well beat the PPC970 clock-for-clock)
will cost more.
no future... just like all desktop punypc....
-
will run at 2ghz when everyone else is at 5ghz...(and no them bieng PPC wont save them X86-64 is very comparale to PPC and may very well beat the PPC970 clock-for-clock)
will cost more.
no future... just like all desktop punypc....
Get a Life why dont you.
Your nothing but a Ghz fool.
Just cos there are faster cpu's it does not mean you must have it.
There are millions of ppl useing 500Mhz pc's & below & are very happy to do so.
All you seem to care about is Mhz/Ghz & not much else.
If you want to keep replacing your cpu at every speed jump then fine.
& no everyone else will not be running at 5Ghz as as most dont need 5Ghz & will be still useing 1 to 2 Ghz.
The mount of times i have been playing online & see the specs of the other players & see 333 to 500Mhz alot of the time.
I see many ppl who say but x86 is at 2Ghz blah blah blah but yet they are only on a 500Mhz cpu them selfs.
Only brain washed ppl like you will keep chaseing the Ghz, not cos you need it, just because its there.
-
Alkemyst my point revolves around apps like Shake that apple owns, and no shake dosent run well on a 500mhz punypc.
and also the point that apples price's are very high and performance extremely low..
and X86 isnt at 2ghz its at 3ghz with hyperthreading.
-
Ignore Marktime he is a MorphOS Dude
The $499 price he keeps quoting is obsolete and HE KNOWS IT!!!!
It seems to be the price (actually $495) on their website, systems with the board are $799 so I'm not sure how much more you think it is then $495, could you give us a source for your pricing, since the Terrasoft site disagrees with you????
They Keep promoting the LICENSING myth knowing full well that it is a load of bull and that GENESI is the ONE and only reason AOS4 is not available for GREX and Pegasos.
That theory would hold lots more water if we hadnt heard from the manufacturers of the Barbie PPC board and other PPC manufacturers the same thing about A0S4. The reason the OS isnt going to be on anything but "Amiga One" is the dongle ROM, pure and simple. If they had used an external USB dongle, the protection would have been the same for pirating (the "official" reason for the dongle rom), other manufactures could have bought the OS for their boards, Terrasoft might have even put it on Apple hardware like they do their YDL. Imac with AmigaOS 4.0 anyone, Powerbook with AmigaOS 4.0 sound interesting??? The only one that profits from the closed AmigaOne system is Eyetech, who dont have to compete with anyone for Amiga OS 4.0 compatible boards, everyone else loses.
-Tig
-
by mips_proc on 2003/2/9 6:45:06
Alkemyst my point revolves around apps like Shake that apple owns, and no shake dosent run well on a 500mhz punypc.
and also the point that apples price's are very high and performance extremely low..
and X86 isnt at 2ghz its at 3ghz with hyperthreading.
We dont care how well apple SW runs on it.
We care how well Aos & Aos SW runs on it.
Oh & We dont care how fast the x86 is
Aos4 will not run on it so its no use to us.
-
@Kurt
I'm not a MorphOS dude. In fact, I'm not totally convinced that MorphOS will be successful. I do think Genesi knows this communities dynamics better, but on the other hand, Amiga, Inc is holding most of the cards. I don't know who will prevail in the end, only that it should be interesting.
The Terrasoftsolutions website has changed from $499 to 'being revised'....this is a recent thing, and I talked about it in another post.
Still it isn't expected to change much....might go down, probably up, but not by more than 50 dollars according to an e-mail from Terrasoft only last week.
Whatever the final price is, I will post it when its known, and I will talk about the new price gap.
Prices fluctuate....a significant gap in pricing, as existed last week, is worth noting...if the new price gap is significantly less, than that is very good (especially if the gap has decreased because the AmigaOne pricing is less...if its just a rise in the terrasoft price, then that is useless to this community). If its still very large difference, then I will certainly make it known. As I would talk about the pegasos board, if and when Genesi gives us some info about their G4 solution.
-
As for the Apple overclocking issue (from Page 1), I thought one of the things people were complaining about was the option for haveing a cool-running, very reliable system, as opposed to those "haphazard" X86 systems built to last 6 months.
Careful with that type of generalisation… IF that case were true, there would be a massive product returns (i.e. ~120 million units worth). Sadly this is not the case.
X86 severs system is reliable enough for server use.
-
strobe wrote:
Have Apple ever tried to enter X86 home world?
One word: OPENSTEP
My statement was for Mainstream Desktop context such as in Windows 98/2K/XP markets.
Plenty of development work has to be done before that product was ready for MacOS X final release
i.e.
OPENSTEP -> Rhapsody -> MacOS X Server -> MacOS X(with Aqua GUI).
You may shut up now
I don't see "MacOS" label on it. Try again.
-
Oh no! It doesn't have the "MacOS" label! If only it did, then it would CRUSH Windows!
How laughable.
-
strobe wrote:
Oh no! It doesn't have the "MacOS" label! If only it did, then it would CRUSH Windows!
Where did I state this (in regards to "it would CRUSH Windows")?
How laughable.
What's your problem?
-
the openstep and beos arguments are vague... Apple has plenty of commercial support...if there was a good user friendly Unix for X86 with good application support...it would certinly get more application support then BeOS...and apps get users...
But I wouldnt argue that... I'd argue that Apple should make thier own proprietary motherboards to run this OS...and license the board/OS/rom out to OEM's like Sony/Panasonic/Avid/etc to make custom rigs and user level rigs with.
It would be a nice thing to see happen... lord knows Sony would love to do it..and it would certinly take some of the engineering burnden off of Apple's shoulders...they could charge a nice fee either per unit or per license for the ROM's or IP of useing it to make up for the loss of not getting 100% of hardware revenue....
I would buy one...
-
I never thought of that. AInc. could have made an x86, custom board which would ONLY run Amiga OS SW, but use all cheap pc components, that seems like it could have been done.
And, with a proprietery chip necessary, it wouldn't work on other x86 motherboards.
Amiga! Costly.
-
Atheist wrote:
I never thought of that. AInc. could have made an x86, custom board which would ONLY run Amiga OS SW, but use all cheap pc components, that seems like it could have been done.
And, with a proprietery chip necessary, it wouldn't work on other x86 motherboards.
Amiga! Costly.
If it is custom, it's not cheap, no matter what the CPU is.
-
If it is custom, it's not cheap, no matter what the CPU is.
they could do the same thing with an X86 board as they did with AmigaOne...
take a generic board you like.
alter the bios so its nice and proprietary.
pow... you got you can control who sells hardware for the OS.