Again, Why didn't they port Amiga OS?

[Hammer]

SamuraiCrow wrote:
(SNIP)
The AMD k6-II was the recommended platform for development of AmigaDE when it first came out.  The x86 development platform got the shaft when the Amiga community rejected AmigaDE.

Selecting AMD K6-II would be a bad choice i.e. Super Socket 7 hardware reference is in EoL at that time.  

[Hammer]

As we've seen with Windows, aggressive marketing beats superior architecture every time, but Amiga is fighting for survival with comparatively poor hardware and a marketing budget that wouldn't pay for a round of drinks.  

Depends on "superior architecture" e.g. one would defined Windows's legacy/software investment protection as the desirable characteristics.

[Hammer]

Nice comment, I agree with most of it but there is a little problem in part of it. The endian issues are not that simple. The PPC *can* work in both modes,

Except for PowerPC 970, hence Virtual PC issue.

the x86 can't.

Refer to i486 (and greater) instruction set Bswap instruction.

To everyone else: Don't start lecturing people about x86 hardware, most of us *ARE* PC users apart from Amiga users

Sticking with i386 POV doesn’t help things...

[Hammer]

dmac721 wrote:

It's not a matter of which hardware is better. I agree PPC beats x86 in most things hands down.

Careful with generalisations. IF you want to start yet another X86 vs PPC then go right ahead...

[Hammer]

-D- wrote:

That about sums it up... there are technical merits for using a byte order agnostic CPU like the PPC... but they are outweighed by the cost benefits of the x86.

Guess it took me a while to get it, but once I realized that an _emulated_ '040 on a dirt-cheap XP mobile chip crunches numbers pretty much identical to a Pegasos G4, the advantage of something like AROS became pretty apparent.

RC5 only highlights the lack of vector rotate functionally in the X86’s SIMDs(hence evolution from SSE->SSE2->SSE3->SSE-whatever comes next). General desktop applications doesn’t highlight this margin i.e. refer to MacOS vs Win32 comparisons. AMD and Intel’s SIMDs feature set is driven mainly by the general desktop market.

[Hammer]

Waccoon wrote:

Argo:  not to mention on X86 you have to compete to some degree with Windows.

You're competing with Windows if you do Windows-like things.  The hardware is irrelevant.  Microsoft makes many standards used on x86 boards, but they certainly don't own the architecture.

Extensive Microsoft’s backing for MacOS X (MS Office, MS Virtual PC, MS IE5, XBOX-whatever SDK**, MS Media Player 9, MS educational titles) didn’t change the fortunes of PPCs in the desktop market. MS Windows 4.0 PPC and Windows CE 2.x PPC (for handheld Windows devices) for didn’t rescue PPC desktop market.

**Rumoured for MacOS X PPC, now superseded by MS's XNA initiatives.

Microsoft has been patient with PPC for a while now.  

[Hammer]

Erol wrote:
@ALL

http://amiga.emugaming.com/tripos.html

You may find this article interesting..  

 :-o

CBM's HW model wouldn’t be competitive enough against a clone army (Wintel market).

[Hammer]

Hopefully, Sony's new "Grid" processor will be a real wake-up call to the industry.

Google VILW, Sony Cell, Trimedia VILW**(MIPS based media VILW processor). One may find that the certain key persons in designing Sony's CELL have a background with VILW processors.  

ATI and NVIDIA VPUs are already an extreme variant of media VILW style processor. In terms HW, XNA is VPU centric (Primary HW partners are ATI and NVIDIA).

**AMD and Philips are also interested with this particular VILW design.

 Game machines have always been far more advanced than PC hardware in all respects except I/O and CPUs

Not always i.e. note following and dates;
1. DOOM1's arrival during early 1990s
2. 3DFX's Voodoo during late 1990s.
3. NVIDIA's Geforce 256 in the late 1999.