potential PPC Amiga REAL CHEAP

[Louis Dias]

I'll say this again... "The PS2 is "compatible" with PSX games, but you can't take advantage of any of the PS2's new features. You also can't run old-gen and new-gen software at the same time"

To do those things, you NEED some sort of emulation.  Games don't need to do those things.  PCs do.

I suppose if you only play games on your Amiga all day, that's fine, but then, there's always WinUAE.

I'll say this again.  PS2 includes the exact same hardware as PS1 in order to run PS1 software.  If it was a software emulation then 'enhancements' could be patched in.  Iwata (Nintendo president) has stated in his keynote address at the GDC 10 days ago that development kits for Revolution will be familiar to current GC developers.  That leads me to believe that the API's will be similar.  If you go to Metrowerks's site on CodeWarrior for the Gamecube, you will notice that is was used to write the Gamecube's OS.  All game machines have an OS.  Some disk-based games on classic Amigas loaded a subset of the Amiga OS that they needed for the game.  For the games that 'hit the metal' themselves, those are the ones with compatibility issues.  I can't tell you exactly why Revolution will be backwards ompatible but since Nintendo is sticking with IBM and ATI it could be hardware-backwards compatible but I wouldn't rule out a software emulation that could enhance certain 3D graphical effects like PS1 and N64 software emulators do on the PC.

I'm talking about Amigas not PC's

"PC" means Personal Computer.  If you look at the Amiga as a console, no wonder you think Gamecube is adaquate.

I've been on this site long enough to know that when someone says 'PC' they mean a Wintel box.  Yes the Amiga is a personal computer but to me it's an Amiga, not a PC.  I don't know why you keep ignoring the Amiga's game-machine roots.  Every Amiga built was designed like a game machine.  Only the A1 has a 'PC' architecture.  Oh and isn't the A1 running PPC Linux?  Funny, so is the Gamecube.
http://www.gc-linux.org

You are being silly. You just stated that you are only familiar with the PS2. The PS2 has the longest load times of the 3 systems.

So?  You're focusing too much on the hardware itself and not on usage.  Even the best hardware in the world is crap if you use it incorrectly.  The Gamecube's CD drive is really no different than any other mini-disc drive, and saying it would get blazing performance due to low seek times is myopic, especially with the unit's very, very small memory cache.  The unit was designed to stream data, not work with a filesystem.

Actually the PS2 and XBOX stream data faster than the Gamecube.  As I've stated before, where the Gamecube excells is when loading many different files in succession.  It's faster spinning, lower average seek time drive is what brings down loading times of many games.  Again that depends on the design of the game/application.  An OS consists of many files and GC games come to a start/options menu quicker that the other 2.  The GC has an OS that comes on every disc not built-in to BIOS.  

Please quote me some REAL numbers here. You make it sound like reading an SD memory card is a slow as a C=64 floppy

It can be if it's not done right.  It depends how flexible the controller bus is on the Gamecube, and I'd have to look at the Gamecube hardware docs to know that.  Since you're the expert on the hardware, what's the throughput of the controller bus, are the busses independent?

used Gamecube at Electronics Boutique $60

Oh, so now you're basing your prices on used and Ebay'd hardware?

Is there something wrong with that?  The GC is a sturdy system.  Mines has fallen onto a wooden floor from a height of 2 1/2 feet on 3 seperate occassions and still works flawlessly.  I have no qualms about purchasing a used GC.  Also, you can buy 'new' hardware on Ebay from retailers who are looking to liquidate there inventory.  I picked up Final Fantasy:Crystal Chronicles w/GBA link cable brand new in a plastic sealed box for $26.90 shipped. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=8171712647&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT
That's about 1/2 price if I had bought it locally brand new.  So what's your issue with Ebay or E.B.?

Also, about the memory card bus...I know on Mario Party 6, a microphone is plugged into the memory card port for the mini-games that offer voice recognition...  So it would seem that the only reason to 'stop everything' to read/save to an actual memory card is to make sure the user knows not to pull it out or turn off the power will saving.  Just common sense.

for the low low price of $1044 you get:

Crap, but that's what you need to run OS4, legally.  I could build a comparable system on the PC for less than $275 -- a lot less if it's used.  That would blow away the Gamecube and be a "real" computer to boot, with PCI expansion, no hacks to add hardware, and the ability to do things that many modern PCs should do, like... burn CDs.

Hey, I'm all about doing it legally.  I think Hyperion and Amiga Inc. should get this license.  Then Eyetech could design an SX-1-like addon to give you your IDE, usb, etc...  The 81MB/second transfer rate of the GC's high speed parrallel port is no joke.

The Flipper outperforms the Radeon 7000.

Again, you're droning about the performance of the hardware, not the usage.  Also, OS drivers are very different from console drivers, but I already discussed that.[/quote]

Come on now.  You don't think that an ATI chip designed for a game console doesn't have optimized drivers?  How is using an API for graphics on a game different from using is in another application such as a gui for an OS?

I know one of you has a 'business' to maintain and justify.

What would that be?

billt - Bill Toner of Forefront Technologies who wrote the Radeon 7000 driver and sells it with the A1 for $1044.

All I see is constant bugs and patches and delays and outdated technology being sold for over-inflated prices.

How would Gamecube fix that?  Bugs and pathces are the result of development practices and flawed software design.  The limited flexibility of Gamecube's architecture wouldn't make running "AmigaCube" software any easier on Revolution without a lot of emulation.

If Eyetech, Amiga and Hyperion got together and went to Nintendo and got a license.

I wish them luck, especially seeing how Nintendo bleeds lots of money on those machines and would want a hefty licensce fee.  You're not taking that into account when you spew prices, of course.

The GC was/is a profitable console.  The current GC costs about $107 to make and they sell it for $99.  Originally it sold for $250, then $225, then $199, then $175, then $150 and finally $99.  That price has only been in effect for the last year.  How much of a license fee is part of a $49.99 title?  You must think that publishers pay a $100 license fee per game and only sell it at $49.99...does that make sense?  Also, license fees are negotiable.  They are usually based on units sold.  Either way, I don't see the average license fee being outside of the $5-$10 range per unit sold and is built into the $49.99 price.  As a consumer, a license fee is irrelevant to me when I buy a game at $49.99.  It's up to Hyperion and Amiga Inc. to negitiate a license fee, not me and you.  Either way that will be built into the cost of the OS when you purchase it.

Lots of people see faults in the road, but Amigans are famous for hair-brained ideas that aren't future-proof.  Also, you're overlooking a lot of hidden costs.  The Mac Mini is quite comparable to a game console.  Gee, there must be a reason it costs a minimum of $500 without a monitor, keyboard, or mouse.

I don't believe Apple will be handing out a license to run another OS on there machine.  So the Mac-mini is not a legal option.

(On Revolution):  ...it will all still cost well under $1000.

So?  How many other platforms are less than $1000?  This isn't the 1980's, anymore, though Hyperion seems to think so.

Well, the XBOX 360 will not included a hard drive so that figures to be the least expensive of the 3 next gen consoles...but like the Apple issue, I don't think MS will hand out a license to run another OS on the platform.  I can't believe any next-gen console will cost more than $500 initially...and they will be coming with fast and modern hardware.

It's direct hardware banging on the APPLICATION-level that we need to get away from. That's what an API is for.

Is this why you roasted me many posts ago that Gamecube are designed to hit the metal, and that was a good thing that made them so damned efficient?

Actually my point is that the API's you get with the GC dev kit are as close to hitting the metal as you want to be.  I believe it's these API's that will let Revolution be backwards compatible with GC.  That goes back to Iwata's statements about a familiar development environment for Revolution to current GC developers.  Nintendo knows the value of a system that is easy to program for.  The N64 was not but the GC is as will be Revolution.

Name me one desktop application that really needs 100% cpu utilization in order to run at all on today's modern hardware?

Process management is what the OS is for.  But, process management only works if the hardware *and* APIs are designed to run in user mode.  They are not, so Amiga would have to write their own APIs that use GC APIs like drivers, and that would be a real mess.

The only API's from the GC that Hyperion would need is the graphics, sound, controller port, memory card port, LAN port and other I/O like the high speed port.  This is all part of the HAL that they had to write for the A1.  The kernal/process management part is part of the OS and is just PPC code (compiled 'C') that is already written.  My point about porting OS4 to the GC is that all that need to be rewritten should be just the HAL (hardware abstraction layer).

I'll bet there are more Gamecube owners here than A1 owners.

I don't suppose "good software" and "huge marketting budget" has anything to do with that.  Also note that only 10% of the non-mobile game colsole market belongs to Nintendo.  You've said very, very little of Nintendo's competitors, especially seeing how XBox already has much of what Revolution will have.

XBOX is not PPC based so it would be a major rewrite of OS4 and as I've stated before is off-topic.  My point is that since many more people already own a GC vs. A1, it would be fairly convenient for them to purchase OS4 for GC vs. also having to purchase an A1...

I'm curious? Who am I hurting by suggesting this?

Part of the trick of pusing an "idea" is Proof of Concept.  All you've been talking about is prices and hacks.  You're not taking into consideration any of the technical issues related to getting a "real" OS working on a console, including development budget or licensing.

That's why people aren't taking your idea seriously.  I love the idea of a portable sub $200 computer.  In fact, I'm still debating whether to buy a Mac mini.  However, I know enough about OS development to know it's not techically feasable to get a multitasking OS working on console hardware, and I also know there's a lot of hidden costs you're not mentioning.

once again: http://www.gc-linux.org/
if it Linux can be hacked in, OS4 can be done legally and professionally at a profit to Amiga Inc. and Hyperion.  Eyetech can also benefit from an SX-1-like addon.  I already have an addon sitting underneath my GC - the GBA player.  I'd have no problem replacing it with an addon that gives me IDE, usb...etc.. ports to be a 'full' computer running OS4.  Such an addon can be designed for far less than a complete motherboard with ZIF socket...

Do you have a sudden urge to buy a Commodore MP3 player?

I don't have a use for a portable MP3 player but others may.  People originally believe the Apple IPod wouldn't sell.

Linux generated a buzz with the techie population. OS4 on a console (and other hardware) could do the same thing.

Note that Linux was designed to be a low-cost UNIX clone for college students, and was x86 exclusive, to boot.  It was the development of GNU, the porting of X11, and a huge rewrite with Kernel 2.0 that made Linux a real contender.  The only way AmigaOS could hope to have the same following is if it went open source.  Otherwise, it would take more money than you could imagine to get the "Linux Buzz" for the Amiga.

Linux is no longer x86 exclusive.  Linux is already running on the GC and A1 didn't the original A1s come bundled with Linux...  Once again: http://www.gc-linux.org/
Obviously the GC can run alternate OS's.  Having a professionally supported OS with professional software titles is something OS4 would have over Linux.  OS4 bundled with Ibrowse and some Hyperion games would, IMHO, be a good bundle on the GC.  Include UAE of OS4 to run classic Amiga games and use the MAX DRIVE to transer the .adf files to the GC and you could be playing classic Amiga titles through OS4 on the GC.

If OS4 was released for cheap hardware (wasn't that one of the goals of the A1?), I would buy it.

I don't think "cheap" had anything to do with it.  Piracy?  Locked firmware?  Politics?  That's more like it.

Non-issues with the GC.  I can't read GC discs on my PC.  I could read the A1's OS4 cd.  Piracy would be minimized with a GC port.

Besides, Gamecube is cheap because it is nearing the end of its life and didn't live up to expectations (assuming it hasn't already been taken out of manufacture).  When Revolution shipps, it will be powerful, but won't quite fit the tab as a cheap platform, anymore, especialy with the mandatory development licenses attached.

The GC was/is profitable for Nintendo.  As the next Gameboy (Evolution) is rumored to be GC compatible, software development for the platform is on-going.  Also, revolution is scheduled to arrive in late Q1 of 2006.  Sales of GC hardware are on-going.  Games like Resident Evil 4 and features like 2 exclusive boss characters in Mortal Kombat:Deception continue to drive hardware sales of the unit as will the release of the next Zelda title this coming Christmas.

I believe that's what x86 Amigan have been saying all along.  Amiga Inc. and Hyperion had plenty of time and arguments to render their decision, and they chose an expensive, buggy, outdated, expensive PPC platform.

Maybe the problem is that the people in charge don't give a damn?  Your Gamecube arguments are similar to x86 arguments.  Amiga and Hyperion turned them down, and show little interest in changing their minds, especially now that they are stuck with PPC whether they like it or not.

My key point is that OS4 is ALREADY a PPC OS so porting it to the GC should only require a rewrite of the HAL (licensing issues included).  Going to x86 is a much bigger issue.  Also, I like the fact that consoles are better for games.  The heart of the Amiga is a games machine.  The A1 is a PC design and has the same inefficencies as a PC (x86)...it's single shared system bus architeture.  Much of the Amiga's multi-tasking capabilities came from the fact that the custom chips could access memory on there own while the cpu was doing other things.  The GC is also built that way.  It's truly very Amiga-like from a hardware point of view.

[Louis Dias]

adolescent wrote:

OS4 will not run on 24Mb of RAM.  It's simply not possible.

How sad that Amiga OS 1.1 ran on 256k even 3.1 only used a couple of hundred kilobytes of memory on my CD32 with Workbench running.  Granted the Kickstart 3.1 ROM is 512k.  I don't see a problem with an OS4 w/gui running in clocking several megabytes of RAM.  Heck, didn't the A4000 come with 2-8 MB of RAM?  I find it hard to believe that OS4 can't run in WELL under 24MB.  I don't think it's that big a pig.  Most of the OS files can reside on the disc (which can store 1.5GB of information and has a low seek time).  Only the kernal and gui need to reside in memory.  Also, don't forget about the 16MB of RAM that most developers use as a RAM disk that the sound chip has direct access to.

[Louis Dias]

Oh my goodness!

http://cube.ign.com/articles/599/599399p1.html

Revolution to use same API as Gamecube...

I would have never guessed that.

Oh wait!  Yes I did...  Didn't I?

[Louis Dias]

bloodline wrote:

My key point is that OS4 is ALREADY a PPC OS so porting it to the GC should only require a rewrite of the HAL (licensing issues included). Going to x86 is a much bigger issue. Also, I like the fact that consoles are better for games. The heart of the Amiga is a games machine. The A1 is a PC design and has the same inefficencies as a PC (x86)...it's single shared system bus architeture. Much of the Amiga's multi-tasking capabilities came from the fact that the custom chips could access memory on there own while the cpu was doing other things. The GC is also built that way. It's truly very Amiga-like from a hardware point of view.

The Above quote is meaningless...

I think you study PC architecture before you post crap and prove that you are an idiot.

You are so far behind the tech curve you can't see how wrong you are... even busses in the traditional sense have been superceded by point-to-point packet based transport layers... Do the words Hypertransport and PCI-express mean nothing to you?

If I look at the PC sitting next to me, The CPU has three independant busses; a dual channel RAM interface (that means 2 separate busses dedicated to memory access) and a single hypertransport link.

The Hypertransport link connects to the PCIe (PCI-express) tunnel and to the PCI bridge.

On my PCIe bus I have a Graphics card, which I shall come to later, and some integrated system features like SATA, Gigabit-Lan, USB2, Firewire etc...

On the PCI bus, I have some standard southbridge features, IDE, FDC, BIOS, RTC, PS/2 ports, Serial etc... and I have a sound card and a TV card plugged in there too.

Ok back to the Graphics card; This is a separate Processor (aka the GPU) dedicated to graphics generation, it also has its own memory, 128megs on a dedicated bus that has nothing to do with anything else in the computer.

Ok, lets count up those busses! I counted 6, not counting the USB2 (With my digital camera, keyboard, mouse etc...) or the Firewire with my Edirol FA-101 audio module.

Now what were you saying about single busses? oh years that's right the amiga has a single bus...[/quote]

And you are a bigger idiot because the A1 has none of those features except the fact that a video card has it's own ram but that only gets filled through the main system bus so when that is happening, the CPU is probably already processed all it can in it's cache and is just waiting...

You are also getting confused with what a bus is...all the info that you receive from USB 2.0 etc goes through the system bus to be stored in RAM or HD.

[Louis Dias]

jarrody2k wrote:

And if you read  http://stuffo.howstuffworks.com/gamecube.htm , you will see that a GC is designed like an Amiga.  A true gaming machine unlike those PC's (PS2/XBOX) posing as game machines.

Hold on, I need to vomit...

.. right.  PS2 is like a PC?  I write software on the PS2 for a living and nothing is further from the truth.  More research, less zeal, buddy.

Jarrod

Sony calls it "Playstation 2 COMPUTER Entertainment System".  It has an archetecture just like a PC bus uses a different processor.  Just like the A1 uses a PPC and an 'IBM PC-compatible' computer uses in intel chip.

Now go call Sony a liar and make them stop calling it a 'computer entertainment system'.

[Louis Dias]

Karlos wrote:
@whoever bloodline was replying to

It's clear you don't understand where current PC hardware is at.

We each have our preferences, personally I prefer (for various reasons) PPC over x86, but I'd never suggest for a second that the current generation PC hardware was fundamentally crap, flawed or inefficient.

Lastly, you seem to refer to PC and x86 as interchanagable terms. This is like saying 680x0 and amiga (or apple) are interchangable. Just as many 680x0 based systems have moved towards PPC, so the PC has moved to a 64-bit clean architecture in the guise of AMD64.

Comparing an AMD64 running in native 64-bit mode to a 32-bit x86 is about as sensible (architecturally speaking) as comparing PPC to 680x0.

Please read the whole thread in future responses.  On this site, people refer to there Amigas as 'my Amiga' not 'my PC' so when I say PC, I mean wintel running Windows.  I also didn't start this thread to debate what is the best architecture for a future Amiga.  I started it draw support for a licensed version of OS4 on the GC as a quick and low cost alternative to the overpriced and outdated A1.  I don't care that there are better (and more expensive) alternatives, nor do they need to be discussed in this thread.  As I'm sure they have already been discussed in other threads.

[Louis Dias]

Waccoon wrote:

Well, I'm genuinly surprised.  The trouble is, that was '91,
and you were dealing with application-level stuff, not OS-level stuff.  Your little DOS/shell thing works just fine with no real OS underneath.

If you don't want multitasking, memory protection, virtual memory, and the ability to run applications without recompiling them for each hardware platform, then Gamecube is fine.

OS4 is designed to bring the Amiga world out of those dark days, even if it isn't designed all that well.

It's the kernel that give you multitasking, why would that change with a GC port?  Why does most software written for an A500 run on an A1200 without a recompile?  OS4 software written for OS4 should be able to run on a GC running OS4 or an A1.

mdma:  The dreamcast ran WindowsCE, NetBSD, and Linux 7 years ago.

Were they stripped down versions?  To say a console can run a modern OS implies that the OS retains all its original functionality.

You can look up the details of this in Microsoft's own MSDN library: http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?qu=dreamcast&View=msdn&st=b&c=0&s=1&swc=0

I've been on this site long enough to know that when someone says 'PC' they mean a Wintel box.

Things have changed a lot since the "IBM Compatible" days, buddy.

The Mac is a PC too, you know.

Hell, the machine is based on all the same standards, too.  :-)

yes but I'm sure you refer to it as 'your MAC' not 'your PC' on this forum...

http://www.gc-linux.org

How does the functionality of that OS compare to a "real" Linux?  How many lines of code did they have to rewrite to get it to work?  Are they using Nintendo's APIs or are they writing their own drivers?

You can get Linux running on anything.  You just have to strip it down to a toothpick to do it.

It's also worth pointing out that Linux is a kernel, and full builds of Linux are actually GNU/Linux.  There's a lot more to an OS than just the kernel.

These are all good questions and you can direct that to that website.  The amazing thing is that it was all done through reverse-engineering.  Never the less a point has been proven.  The GC can be a 'PC'.

The 81MB/second transfer rate of the GC's high speed parrallel port is no joke.

What's the buffer on that?  Is it DMA?

It's called a high-speed parrallel port which leads me to believe that it functions like.........a parrallel port.  Why do you want the specific details?  Are you going to code something on the GC?  Either way, I'm sure the details can be found on the Linux-on-GC site and definitely in an official Gamcube developer's kit.

Come on now. You don't think that an ATI chip designed for a game console doesn't have optimized drivers? How is using an API for graphics on a game different from using is in another application such as a gui for an OS?

Very.

Does the Flipper support overlays?

LOL, 'very' indeed...  You are a comedian now?  Overlays?!  Wow, you would think overlays are some secret feature of the OCS/ECS/AGA and can never be done again by any other GPU...  Again, for details get a GC developer's kit.

I don't believe Apple will be handing out a license to run another OS on there machine. So the Mac-mini is not a legal option.

*Snort*

Getting legal permission from Nintendo is looking easier by the second, eh?

It is.  I've been making that point.  Nintendo has publicly stated that they are looking to expand into new markets.  They are the only console that will and has published 'non-game' games.

I believe it's these API's that will let Revolution be backwards compatible with GC.

Maybe, but only the usage may be similar.  You'll still have to re-compile all your software for the new hardware.

I answered this at the beginning.  Again...why don't I have to recompile A500 software to run it on an A1200.  You must have forgotten that I've owned Amigas and would know this.

I'll go out on a limb here and make another prediction for the GC/Revolution backwards compatibility thing:

I'll bet there will be atleast 1 software title that will run on either system.  BUT!  Yes, big 'BUT', it will know if it's running on the GC or Revolution and will run in a higher resolution mode AND with better texturing as well, taking full advantage of the extra processing power of Revolution vs. GC!  Only time will prove me right or wrong.

This is all part of the HAL that they had to write for the A1.

A modern HAL makes a lot of assumptions about the underlying hardware, and is built around a lowest common denominator.  HALs are easy to port to other PCs.  Rewriting the HAL for a console machine that doesn't follow most PC standards is a HELL of a lot of work.  You'd also have to write a new BIOS for each machine on which the HAL has to run to do it "properly."  If you're not sure why a BIOS has to be written from scratch for each system, think about what "BIOS" stands for.

In a licensed product, Hyperion would have this information available to them.  It didn't seem to be much effort for them to write the A1 bios and even threw in an x86 emulator to boot.  Again, all this stuff is details that would be in the developer's kit.  We know the issues, they are no different than the issues they've had with the A1 except the hardware is proven and known, no mystery bugs like the VIA IDE DMA bug that surprised them and Eyetech.  So in effect I see an easier time of it.

I think you're a little confused over the fact that Gecko != PPC.  The core is similar, but not the same.  If you have to completely recompile everything compared to AmigaOne, then why should the CPU architecture matter at all?  You're definately not going to be able to run software compiled for AmigaOne or AmigaPPC on Gamecube directly, and vice-verca.

Non-PPC machines are most certainly not off topic.  You just don't want to expand your options beyond Nintendo.

What rubbish.  I swear, with every post it seems your IQ goes down.  You are going to tell me the a PPC cpu is not a PPC cpu.  Gekko is a PPC cpu.  This one has a faster bus speed and some Altivec instructions thrown in.  It's a better/newer core than the Apple G4 (oh wait, according to your logic the Apple G4 must not be a PPC cpu) and has some Altivec capabilities to boot (which is the only reason to want a G4 over a G3 at the same clock speed)

My key point is that OS4 is ALREADY a PPC OS so porting it to the GC should only require a rewrite of the HAL

My key point is that there is more to a hardware platform than just the CPU.  A modern OS can't run with the capabilites you'd expect from a modern OS (or even OS4), running on console hardware.

That's your opinion.  And you'll stick to it to your death I am certain.

The heart of the Amiga is a games machine.

Oh.  Well, you obviously don't want a modern OS with all the things that made the Amiga special, like multitasking and multimedia.  You want a game machine.

If all you want is games, then porting OS4 (with all the "OS" parts ripped out) is certainly feasable.

But... why bother with an OS at all?

A game machine's hardware multitasks better by design.  'Why bother with an OS at all?'  Good question.  I supposed it's about simplicity.  If I could own one system (vs. PC, game machine and stereo system, etc...) that could do it all, it would save me desk space and money on investing in multiple platforms.  I'm also not happy with Windows.  And I still have a fondness of Amigas.  I'd like to see the platform succeed.  Yes, it's wishful thinking but hey, we can dream, right.  Remember, Amiga is a software company now.  Look at Amiga-Anywhere...  Anyway, if the OS4 partners could profit from a console port and broaden there appeal at the same time, why not consider the option?

What's really damned ironic is that most consoles are really single bus machines, here.  A unified memory architecture means all the chips share the same memory and must work in perfect syncronization.  PC's are asyncronous machines tied together with multiple busses.  There's many good reasons for that, but I don't think you care, seeing how you keep saying, over and over, that the PC has a single bus, when it certainly does not.

Well, the GC is cetainly not a single-bus machine.  That's one of it's pluses.  There are pluses and minuses to syncronizized operation as well as asyncronous.  We need not discuss them.  Arguments there go both ways.

Much of the Amiga's multi-tasking capabilities came from the fact that the custom chips could access memory on there own while the cpu was doing other things.

I don't suppose "GPU" means anything to you?  Oh, look, my Radeon has its own 256MB block of memory.

Yes, I know.  Today's GPU are cpus in there own regard.  A real Amiga could access fast-RAM while it's blitter was accessing 'chip' RAM.  That's where the Amiga shined in it's heyday.  That's why it was the first multitasking computer...down to the hardware.

Revolution to use same API as Gamecube...

That's "compatible"...  not "same."  You still have to recompile everything.

I repeat - not so.

[Louis Dias]

bloodline wrote:

My key point is that OS4 is ALREADY a PPC OS so porting it to the GC should only require a rewrite of the HAL (licensing issues included). Going to x86 is a much bigger issue. Also, I like the fact that consoles are better for games. The heart of the Amiga is a games machine. The A1 is a PC design and has the same inefficencies as a PC (x86)...it's single shared system bus architeture. Much of the Amiga's multi-tasking capabilities came from the fact that the custom chips could access memory on there own while the cpu was doing other things. The GC is also built that way. It's truly very Amiga-like from a hardware point of view.

The Above quote is meaningless...

I think you study PC architecture before you post crap and prove that you are an idiot.

You are so far behind the tech curve you can't see how wrong you are... even busses in the traditional sense have been superceded by point-to-point packet based transport layers... Do the words Hypertransport and PCI-express mean nothing to you?

If I look at the PC sitting next to me, The CPU has three independant busses; a dual channel RAM interface (that means 2 separate busses dedicated to memory access) and a single hypertransport link.

The Hypertransport link connects to the PCIe (PCI-express) tunnel and to the PCI bridge.

On my PCIe bus I have a Graphics card, which I shall come to later, and some integrated system features like SATA, Gigabit-Lan, USB2, Firewire etc...

On the PCI bus, I have some standard southbridge features, IDE, FDC, BIOS, RTC, PS/2 ports, Serial etc... and I have a sound card and a TV card plugged in there too.

Ok back to the Graphics card; This is a separate Processor (aka the GPU) dedicated to graphics generation, it also has its own memory, 128megs on a dedicated bus that has nothing to do with anything else in the computer.

Ok, lets count up those busses! I counted 6, not counting the USB2 (With my digital camera, keyboard, mouse etc...) or the Firewire with my Edirol FA-101 audio module.

Now what were you saying about single busses? oh years that's right the amiga has a single bus...

Yes yes, you can ramble on about the wonders of the modern PC but in the end the A1 will not have Hypertransport, PCI Express, USB 2.0 (1.1 last time I checked) and some other things out of the box or ever.  I am about a low cost alternative to the A1 PPC platform.  Read the entire thread next time before you butt in with off-topic info and watch who you call an idiot as well.  It's one thing to state facts or opinions.  Name calling is just childish.

[Louis Dias]

From GamesIndustry.Biz:

Nintendo president Satoru Iwata has revealed more details of the next-gen Revolution console, focusing on the company's plans to make online gaming more accessible and overhaul the way controllers are designed.

Speaking to Japanese weekly Nikkei Business in an interview partially translated by US website GameSpot, Iwata-san confirmed that Revolution will feature wireless LAN capability and said he hoped it would make playing games online easier for consumers.

"The next-generation console will follow along the same line as the DS [for wireless LAN]," he said. "The ideal is for users to be able to connect to the Internet without having to think about it."

Iwata-san touched on online play in his recent speech at the Game Developers' Conference, where he confirmed that the Revolution would feature wi-fi technology as a standard feature.

He went on to reveal that the Revolution had received more positive response from developers than expected, partially due to Nintendo's intention to do everything possible to keep development costs low. As part of these plans, the Revolution will use the GameCube's software libraries and application program interfaces.

Itawa-san did not discuss recent rumours of a DS-style touch screen controller, but did say that controllers for current consoles "may satisfy the hardcore gamers, but they've become too difficult for more casual gamers."

"For the next-generation console, we plan to introduce a friendly user interface so that, for example, a mother who's watching her child playing a game might say, 'Oh, I'd like to try that too,'" he said.

"However, user interfaces are devices that can easily be imitated by other companies, so I can't reveal any details right now."

The full unveiling of the Nintendo Revolution is expected to take place at this year's E3.

[Louis Dias]

Waccoon wrote:

You make it sound like the CPU has to spend 90% of its time at idle waiting for something to do.

In applications that constantly wait for user interaction such as dtp software and wordprocessors, that is what's happening...

It's the kernel that give you multitasking, why would that change with a GC port?

Because the hardware looks different to the kernel.

Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) - remember?  OS4 has one.

Why does most software written for an A500 run on an A1200 without a recompile?

Because AGA is almsost fully binary compatible with OCS.  The AAA chipset was supposed to be a departure from OCS compatibility, but we'll never know by how much.

Why can't you just admit it's the games that use OS system libraries that are the compatible ones.  What you are taking about only makes those libraries easier to recode for the better hardware.

These are all good questions and you can direct that to that website. The amazing thing is that it was all done through reverse-engineering. Never the less a point has been proven. The GC can be a 'PC'.

No, the point proven is that you can force Linux to run on GC, albiet in a heavily stripped form.  How stripped it has to be is the real question that you keep dismissing.

Look I don't study Linux.  I also don't believe it's a stripped down version just because Linux itself in not big.  It's when you want to run Apache, PHP, MySQL and a whole bunch of other stuff one one machine that memory requirements go up.  40MB is more than enought to run a gui and browser and a word processor...Linux is a memory whore like Windows.

More questions you don't want to answer.

You never did give me the name of the "single" bus in the PC (sorry, I mean, "Wintel").

Yo ask me questions like I am claiming to be doing the port myself.  I never said I wanted to,infact I've stated that I can't.  I've stated that I believe Hyperion should.  So I don't know why you want to keep asking me questions about hardware I have no interest in.  You just seem bent to prove me wrong on any ridiculous point.

Wow, you would think overlays are some secret feature of the OCS/ECS/AGA and can never be done again by any other GPU...

I'm not asking you if overlays are a rare feature.  I'm asking if you're aware that Flipper != Radeon.

Oh yeah, and overlays are not a feature of OCS/ECS/AGA.  The Amiga used playfields, instead.

Where did that come from?  You are asking me one question but mean another.  I think you are going insane now.  I know Flipper is not Radeon.  Flipper was design by AtrX before ATI bought them.  Amiga has a layers library but support video background with Amiga graphics overlay...what's it called - genlock or something...

It didn't seem to be much effort for them [Hyperion] to write the A1 bios and even threw in an x86 emulator to boot.

You are aware that UBoot is an open-source project and was not written by Hyperion, right?

and that's great, it's obviously not a problem for them and they have experience doing it already.

Gekko is a PPC cpu.

No, it's based on a PPC core.

Are you on drugs?

There are pluses and minuses to syncronizized operation as well as asyncronous. We need not discuss them.

Why not?  One of the biggest tasks of an OS is to make sure than multiple processes don't stomp all over each other.  Is this also off topic in a thread about porting an OS?

The implimentation is not my issue but Hyperion's.  I'm saying "Hey, wouldn't it be great if OS4 was ported to the Gamecube."  Why can't you understand that?

I am about a low cost alternative to the A1 PPC platform.

You get what you pay for.

Yes and I paid for a gamecube and love it.

He went on to reveal that the Revolution had received more positive response from developers than expected, partially due to Nintendo's intention to do everything possible to keep development costs low. As part of these plans, the Revolution will use the GameCube's software libraries and application program interfaces.

So?  A kernel needs to run below libraries and APIs for them to work with each other corerctly.  Otherwise, the programmer has to do everything manually, and you are programming for Nintendo's APIs, not the OS.

An OS is supposed to make things portable and make a programmer's life easier, you know.

This all depends on how much of the Nintendo supplied API's an OS4 port could reuse.  If OS4's graphics.library just called the cube's API then it should still work fine on Revolution just like I've mentioned before with A500->A1200 os compliant software.  Yes that's only one example and others may fail but work that could have been ongoing in getting this port done could have continued on Revolution without a need to rewrite alot of what had been done already.
Also, let's go back to the HAL here.  Hyperion has stated before that they designed the OS so that rewriting the HAL for another hardware platform (like a Pegasus) is all that would be required for getting it to run on something other than the A1.  However, they've never received a Pegasus board (etc...) and aren't working on it.  I'm sure, as an OS4 partner, Eyetech would have something to say about what hardware platform gets a port too.  So you really don't need to argue with me about technical details.

Instead of arguing technical details and just having people say "Hey, I'd like to see this happen!" then maybe it would.

I'm a consumer looking for a product to meet my needs.  That's all.  You nor I are going to write one line of code to get OS4 running on ANY platform.

[Louis Dias]

bloodline wrote:

LOL, 'very' indeed... You are a comedian now? Overlays?! Wow, you would think overlays are some secret feature of the OCS/ECS/AGA and can never be done again by any other GPU... Again, for details get a GC developer's kit.
 

The Amiga never had Overlay support.

Right, so you could never throw Amiga graphics over live video...mmmm k.

As Waccoon correctly pointed out, a Games console will probably use a simple unified memory architeture for simplicity and cost reasons. Such an architecture is useless for a General purpose (read desktop) machine, but perfectly acceptable for a Games machine.

And if you knew anything about the GC, you would know it has 2 completely different and separate memory banks.

The AGA chipset supported all the OCS/ECS chipset registers, that meant that any software which poked values directly into the chipset would still work fine regarless of the chipset available... Commodore tried to discourage such practice as it halted the ability to introduce advanced new features into the chipset in a clean way.

Yes, by luck, some non-OS compliant games ran fine, most didn't.  The ones that were OS-compliant ran just fine as should any OS4 software run fine on either the A1 or GC if the GC was running OS4 as well...which is what we are talking about here.  Barring any software that exceeds the physical limitations of the machine (ie requiring more memory than the GC has to offer).

You critisize me for insulting you, which I accept was wrong, and now you do the same to Waccoon...

I didn't name call.  I'm simply pointing out that his posts are dropping in quality.

Gekko may well use a PPC core, but it is no more a PPC than a Mac is an Amiga (they share a CPU design, but are still incompatible).

So what you are saying is that OS4 which is targetted at the G3FX chip would have to be completely re-written to run on a G4 equipped A1?  Does that make sense to you?  Ofcourse not.  Just like 68000 assembly can be run on a 68060 (yes I know some instructions are missing).  Now if you wanted a graphics library to take advantage of the Altivec instruction in the G4 or Gamecube Gekko, then you could rewrite that library to do so.

Remember, all I'm asking for is a licensed port of OS4 to a cheaper (and in some ways more modern) hardware platform.  In my case I have a preference for the Gamecube and forth-coming Nintendo Revolution.  I don't want to code it myself, but (especially after seeing the latest video of OS4 running on an A1) I am willing to pay for it (just not for an A1).

[Louis Dias]

Gekko is a PPC just like a 1997 Pontiac Firebird is like a 1998 Firebird.  It's just better than the FX and has some Altivec ala G4 and a faster fsb.

[Louis Dias]

ottomobiehl wrote:
@ lou

I really love your idea and I think that it would be a cool if it were implemented.  Also, I think I know what you are trying to say.  If OS4 "could" get ported over to piece of hardware like the GC then we would have a "cheap" alternative to the A1 motherboard.  (Personally I think AROS ported to the GC would make more sense anyway)


I have no doubt that you have some knowledge about this stuff too.

But...

If I have learned anything by being a member of Amiga.org it is that members like Bloodline, Wacoon, Billt and a plethora of others really, really know what they are talking about as far as the technical underlayings of computers and there OS's go.

I think I would have asked more about the feasability of a project like OS4 (or AROS) on the GC and taken advantage of the vast knowledge of the members of Amiga.org who know such things rather than get in a heated argument about it.

That being said, I still think Amiga.org needs the dreamers like you to spout off ideas and maybe we could stumble on to something that is eventually worth doing because I think the survival of the Amiga as we know and love is going to come from the community and not the companies in charge.

Anyway, I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.

Thanks (in advance) for listening with an open mind.

Dan

Finally someone who actually understands...

[Louis Dias]

Waccoon wrote:

Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) - remember? OS4 has one.

The HAL relies heavily on a BIOS and lots of kernel-mode drivers.  The Gamecube doesn't have them, remember?

Other than the setup screen to set the time and play with the memory cards, it just looks to boot from disc.  I believe it's all of 32k...  

Look I don't study Linux.

Which, of course, makes you an expert on gc-Linux, and thus the "proof" that Gamecube is really a PC.

another silly comment...

]

I also don't believe it's a stripped down version just because Linux itself in not big. It's when you want to run Apache, PHP, MySQL and a whole bunch of other stuff one one machine that memory requirements go up. 40MB is more than enought to run a gui and browser and a word processor...Linux is a memory whore like Windows.

The Linux kernel can be forced to use 4MB of memory if required.  I hope you're aware that the reason why OSes use so much memory is because of performance optimizers like filesystem caching.  The size of the kernel itself has nothing to do with features or compatibility.  Some kernels can be written in 35K of flat memory, but that doesn't mean they do much.

Compare an OS for a cell phone to BSD UNIX.  Notice any differences?

I will reiterate that 40MB is more than enough to run the OS4 kernal and some apps.  I believe Hyperion has commented on the kernal size on this site quite some time ago incase someone wants to look it up.

So I don't know why you want to keep asking me questions about hardware I have no interest in. You just seem bent to prove me wrong on any ridiculous point.

Because you are an idiot who is spreading false information.  Your marketting points may still be valid no matter what other people say, but at some point you'll have to conceed that nobody is agreeing with you on the technical front.

If you concede my marketing points are valid, why must you knit-pick me to death on hardware comments I've made?  You are not the official OS4 'porter'...oh yes, you argue for fun, I forgot.

You still lied.

about what?

Are you on drugs?

Aspirin.  I need it for threads like this.

Actually, that's a lie.  I enjoy it.  :-)[/quote]

yes I see that...

The implimentation is not my issue but Hyperion's. I'm saying "Hey, wouldn't it be great if OS4 was ported to the Gamecube." Why can't you understand that?

Yes, it would be.  But it can't, unless they reprogram OS4 to retrograde it into OS3 again.

If you wanted OS3 on Gamecube, I wouldn't complain.  That's definately possible.

I still don't believe that.  You have done nothing to convince me of that fact except to throw 'possibilities' in for argument's sake.

Yes and I paid for a gamecube and love it.

Why don't you give gc-Linux a spin, then?

Then look at the source code.

I don't like linux for the same reasons you don't and others I've mentioned before.  I want a licensed and supported product.

If OS4's graphics.library just called the cube's API then it should still work fine on Revolution just like I've mentioned before with A500->A1200 os compliant software.

Ah, yes, it's all so simple on paper, isn't it?

I have been a business applications and database developer for 4 1/2 years.  Sometimes on paper things look simple and coding them ends up being a pain in the arse...and sometimes things look difficult on paper and they end up easy.  That's just how it is with coding.  You don't know until you do it.  Why not try?

So long as it follows PC standards.  Throw a proprietary bus into the works and your HAL has to be rewritten from scratch for each platform.

Ofcourse it needs to be rewritten from scratch for another platform.  You have a HAL and that's all you rewrite and then you can recompile with the rest of the OS and voila - OS4 on another platform.

You're also under the false pretense that all hardware abstraction is done with the HAL.

Do enlighten me then...not that it will really matter to me...

So you really don't need to argue with me about technical details.

Why?  Isn't that the primary fault with your idea?

The primary fault of my idea is that one(or some) of the OS4 partners only want to see OS4 on the A1.  What you think is possible or impossible means nothing.

Gee wizz, the Gamecube has support for bongoes, too!

Yes, it's truely a unique device that thrives on creativity over raw power.  You just gotta love it and ask what will they come out with next.

And if you knew anything about the GC, you would know it has 2 completely different and separate memory banks.

The memory is clocked at different speeds but is mapped continously.  They work like "chip" and "fast" RAM on the Amiga, except the speed differential is caused by the memory clocking, not which chip can access it.

Quite advanced, but technically, this is still a unified memory architecture.

Do your homework on that one.  24MB is T1 mosys memory (ultra low latency) and 16MB is SORAM not directly accessible by the cpu but is so by Flipper and the dsp.  Developers have been using it as a ram-disk.

So what you are saying is that OS4 which is targetted at the G3FX chip would have to be completely re-written to run on a G4 equipped A1?

Effectively, yes, because the total hardware is different, not just the CPU, and even if the system architecture is the same, the two cores are not binary compatible, which is why you'd have to recompile all your apps, too.

Recompiling apps for each hardware platform isn't a viable option.  Linux people deal with it, but that's another of the million reason why Linux can't gain any desktop market share.

So when you buy your MAC software you have to specify a G3 Mac or a G4 MAC?  I don't think so.  I think you are making stuff up to see if I buy it.  Nice try.

Remember, all I'm asking for is a licensed port of OS4 to a cheaper (and in some ways more modern) hardware platform.

It's modern only by gaming standards.  It's a purpose-built machine.

I'm not even saying it's modern (2001).  I'm saying it's a cheaper alternative to the A1 that could satisfy the needs of the average user who just wants to run an app or 2 at a time and surf the web.  Also, a more robust version could be written for Revolution (which will have more featured like a built-in hard drive).  Atleast there's a clear upgrade path - GC to Revolution.  What have we now?

Revolution could be different architecutally, but it's still purpose built for gaming.  So is XBox 360 and PS3, but those are off-topic, of course.

Actually, since the XBOX 360 is going to be G5 based, I will say that it is on topic.  As is the Cell processor.  Funny how everybody went to IBM...it's almost like Nintendo knew what they were doing with the Gamecube...or something...

Gekko is a PPC just like a 1997 Pontiac Firebird is like a 1998 Firebird.

Well... well... a 1949 Volkswagen Beetle and a 2006 Honda Accord both used the same gas and oil!  So there!

2 different companies here.  IBM makes the G3 FX and the G3 GX(Gekko), IBM doesn't make the G4 but since Motorola is part the the PPC architectural alliance...you know the rest.  What you are comparing in your example is a Pentium 66 to an Athlon XP...

Hey, do you think you can branch this topic some more, and maybe bump it a few more times every day by posting more than one response consecutively?

Bump.

[Louis Dias]

@ottomobiehl

Unfortunately the dreamers are locked into an A1 solution...  Sometimes I think the delays are almost an excuse to eventually say 'hey, the A1 is too out-dated now, let's move on...'

[Louis Dias]

Waccoon wrote:

Other than the setup screen to set the time and play with the memory cards, it just looks to boot from disc. I believe it's all of 32k...

You yourself said there's no BIOS.  I suppose this "32K" just magically appeared?

It's not a traditional BIOS in the sense you are thinking of.  An OS wouldn't look to it for any low-level stuff.  It's just what you see when you turn on the GC without a disc.  It all hits the metal directly to save space.  A HAL for a licensed OS4 wouldn't look at it for anything.  All drivers are booted from a game disc which was actually my original point when I said it didn't have a bios than needed to be studied.

I will reiterate that 40MB is more than enough to run the OS4 kernal and some apps. I believe Hyperion has commented on the kernal size on this site quite some time ago incase someone wants to look it up.

I will reiterate that kernel size has nothing to do with memory consumption.

No but name me one OS loads every system file into memory as well as has a huge chunk of the file system cached in RAM before it can function.  That's the only reason you would need alot of RAM.  Even Windows 95 booted with 16MB of RAM.

If you concede my marketing points are valid, why must you knit-pick me to death on hardware comments I've made?

Hardware != marketting.  That's why.  Dreamers tend to forget that

Also, I didn't say your marketting points are valid.  You should also learn the meaning of the word "may.".

How is hardware marketing.  In order to market this, why would a consumer care about the hardware challenges that WERE involved in getting the product created?  They just want something that they load up and it works.  

Yes, I know: you 'may' never admit my points are valid.

I have been a business applications and database developer for 4 1/2 years. Sometimes on paper things look simple and coding them ends up being a pain in the arse...and sometimes things look difficult on paper and they end up easy. That's just how it is with coding. You don't know until you do it. Why not try?

I'm a database programmer, myself.  I do other programming, too, but you wouldn't be interested.

Now if the other programming you do was OS4 porting, I would most certainly be interested.

Ofcourse it needs to be rewritten from scratch for another platform. You have a HAL and that's all you rewrite and then you can recompile with the rest of the OS and voila - OS4 on another platform.

You don't rewrite a HAL, you modify it.  If each platform doesn't have a common set of features (as PCs and consoles do not), porting the HAL eventually boils down to emulation.

I think we can both agree that the GC and A1 are different enough that the HAL would have to be MOSTLY rewritten.  Obviously the functions it presents to the OS would have to be the same but the implimentation is targeting different hardware.  I don't agree on the emulation issue.

The primary fault of my idea is that one(or some) of the OS4 partners only want to see OS4 on the A1. What you think is possible or impossible means nothing.

Even hardware compatibility?

[/quote]

Is a Cyberstorm compatible with an A1?  Would a Pegasus be? NO.  But the OS-compliant software should be.  Like I said before, I'm sure you don't specify whether your MAC runs a G3 or G4 when you purchase apps for your MAC...(remember your so-called binary incompatible core faux-issue).