Ben Hermans still staunchly against x86

[Fransexy_]

@desiv

As for 486 vs 68k performance, I have an A1200 with a 68030 accelerator (CSA 1250 12-Gauge) clocked at 50 Mhz and ran benchmarks against a 486DX 33.  Performance is about equal even with the huge difference in clock speed.  So paolone's remarks are spot-on in spite of all the irrational remarks that will be made about the 68k family and how it's "superior".  It certainly is NOT superior.

It's fair compare an 386 against 486? because 030 was made to compete with 386.and you are comparing with an 486. 040 is the competitor of the 486, and i suspect that if the 030 is almost in par with the 486 then 040 is faster than 486 at the same clock speed.The 060 was made to compete with pentium when the fastest pentium was 100 mhz.I do not have benchmarks but i think that 060 50-66 mhz is as fast as pentium 100 or more in some operations.Of course we are talking abot raw CPU power because overall speed of the system the Amiga sweeps common PC of the era.What made me decide definitely for an Amiga was look a 486 in action,  it was in ridiculous compared to the unexpanded Amiga 500 so i definitely bought an Amiga 1200

[Fransexy_]

Thanks, but I frankly doubt I will be moderated or even censored for this.

Let me be a little more verbose.

I just got sick of listening the same anti-x86 rants for 20 years by the same people who can't simply understand that processors are just like engines. They don't have a soul and are made of silicon. The best processor is not the most optimized/alternative, but the most popular, eve better if this means it's also the cheapest in the cost/performance ratio. A 2,8 GHz 64-bit quad-core CPU like the Phenom II X4 630 from AMD costs (here in Italy, for the END USER) less than 80 euros! Which should mean little more than 100 dollars. How much does ANY hi-performance (with hi-end meaning up to 2 GHz) multicore PPC processor cost? And how much will cost the motherboards to support them?

68K was choosen at the time because it was already popular and reasonably cheap, and able to bring the necessary degree of performance the original Amiga models required. It wasn't chosen because 80286 were scary, plagued or weirdly ill. Nor Intel was seen by original Amiga engineers like an alien devil from the 8th dimension! Would Commodore be alive today, they'd use x86 for the very same reasons (well, now that I think about it... Commodore does exist today... and they are using x86... ;-) ). Or maybe ARM, but surely no PPC. This anti-x86 crusade from Amigans is something that came up from Amigans themselves, and while most people just grown up and understood that's plain stupid, others are still fighting for... what reason exactly? To have a "different product" on the market nobody needs or cares about? Do these clever people really think x86 prices are low thanks to a few PPC processors still surviving on the market?

Please try to understand me: I have nothing against alternatives, I am always happy when some alternatives exist (I'm happy for ARM's success, to be clear), but not if their adoption acts like a boomerang, and becomes counter productive for adopters. There's a boundary between "being different" and "being masochistics" amigans have surpassed long ago.

If jay miner developed the Amiga today, he would choose an ARM processor almost certainly and not a x86 IMHO

[Fransexy_]

My reasoning was in trying to come up with any reason the company would stick with PPC.

Pros:
Captive hardware market
No cost of porting

Cons:
Users pay high prices
Users have slower systems
Lower adoption rate

The only pro's I see are due to greed.

If they didn't want a monopoly hardware market, why didn't they port to Mac hardware long ago like Morphos did?

I don't see any benefit to PPC for end users, only downsides.

The problem of your reasoning is that I'm also an end user (and like me others more) and I see benefit with PowerPC. Don't  force others to see what you want to see.If you like x86 so badly you have AROS, What is your problem?

[Fransexy_]

I know it's the Internet so I'm not saying this site is accurate, but that is what I heard as well.  It's on this site:

http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/os2warp.html



desiv

If this is true then Microsoft Windows used also Amiga GUI elements.As windows 3 is almost identical to OS/2 (stolen work from OS/2 co-development with IBM?)

OS/2:




Windows 3: