PPC is bad bad bad

[Tigger]

>>>Please note that there were plenty of reasons >>>to go the PPC route.

Not really given the current PPC situation, but I'm sure you'll have a few interesting theories.

>>>One of them was the fact that there are already >>>8000 people out there using PPC's in their
>>>Amiga's and who paid a lot of money for them.

Ok lets look at this, how did you get 8000, is that the number of PPC boards sold for the Amiga??   No, you and I both know that isnt an accurate number.   In addition, its fairly funny that given  Hyperion wasnt supporting 4.0 on any platform except the A1 until this week, that supporting the old hardware is the reason to pick the PPC.

>>>Secondly, as the recent benchmarks from Petunia >>>demonstrated, the PPC architecture is               >>>simpy better suited to emulate the 68K than the >>>x86.

Thats a very funny comment, anyone with a P4 (motherboard, processor and memory currently less then an A1) will tell you that the Petunia numbers were not impressive compared to what you can see with UAE on the P4.

>>>There is no way that a Pentium 160 can emulate >>>an 060/50 yet a BlizzardPPC will do just                     >>>that.

Lets see I dont you can even buy a Pentium 160 anymore, noone is talking about running the amiga on a Pentium 160, we are talking about running an Amiga on a modern x86.   A current generation Athlon or P4, both of which will greatly outperform the 600 Mhz G3 in emulating the 68060, and of course both of the x86 solutions are cheaper solutions as well.  
   
>>>Finally, some people suffered from a lack of >>>historical insight.
Yeah, but we've decided not to hold it against you.
    -Tig

[Tigger]

>>As I said in my original post I have NOT seen a >>RECENT benchmark were the fastest PPC renders >>quicker than an x86 machine. I guess that would >>include an '060 also.

The Dual 1 Ghz Apple systems (fastest available, cost 3K) dont even make the 10 fastest list, a single P4 2.2 Ghz gives identical speeds, which of those systems is cheaper??  The P4 by a large margin.  

>>Sorry I thought you were familiar with Lightwave >>on the Amiga.
I am very familiar with Lightwave on the Amiga, I will never go back to rendering on a system as slow as the amiga or even as slow as the new A1, I went past the render speed of a single 600Mhz G3, 3 years ago, I am not going back there so I can say I am using an "Amiga".

>>"Renders are not shown at their true resolution >>as they are rendered."                         >>On the Amiga the render rendered on another >>screen in the correct resolution, no slowdown of >>the renderer and in a                      >>screen res and colour depth configured by the >>user. Currently the rendering screen can only >>have 3 selections; Off, 320x240 or 640x480.

First of all you most definitely can preview at larger sizes, secondly you can render to a toaster display getting to an NTSC or PAL preview if you would like (as most of us do).

>>"The object cannot move while being modeled."
>> The sentence says "cannot move" NOT, cannot BE >>MOVED. On the Amiga the 3D perspective view >>ossilated as/while/at the same time as, the user >>modelled.

You can spin the preview all you want on the PC while you model, what exactly do you think it missing???

>>Your original post seemed to suggest to use x86 >>rather than PPC. Although I understand your view >>I also understand that the AmigaOS can better >>use the resorces of a PPC than a Win machine, >>even though it runs at a greater Mhz rate

The issue is that despite Apples best effort at a making a slimmer/faster OS then Windows, and them using the fastest available PPC's (G4) (and even dual), they are still slower at rendering then x86s running windows.   So implying that a single 600Mhz G3 running AmigaOS will be not only faster then the Dual G4 1Ghz Apple but faster then X86 is a pretty strange theory.
    -Tig