AMIGAONE.... isn't it an obsolete technology already?

[dylansmrjo]

Well, we did mess a bit with PPC asm in school. Looks way better than x86 asm IMO.

Haven't seen 68k asm but I've heard it should be a beauty :-P

[dylansmrjo]

bloodline wrote:
Both are very much obsolete!!! No one in their right mind would buy these technologies any more.

PCI and AGP 8x isn't obsolete. There are newer standards, but mobos with PCI-E are approx. 5-8 times more expensive than mobos with good old PCI and AGP 8x. Most graphics card are still AGP-based, and 32-bit PCI is still the most widely used standard.

The fact that there are newer standards, does not make older standards obsolete. It'll take 12-18 months before they can be considered obsolete for the home user.

Only hardcore gamers benefit from PCI-E and DDR-RAM2.

I wouldn't buy a DDR ram machine anymore either... DDR2 is now the minimum spec, I would part with cash for.

Well, you're a hardcore gamer, right?

I don't buy expensive stuff. I buy the cheap stuff, and a lot of that. 1024 MB DDR-RAM is much better than 256 MB DDR-RAM2 :-P

You also consider 32-bit CPUs obsolete, right? And parallel IDE? Despite the fact that most computers sold are still 32-bit and most harddisks are still parallel IDE?

REPEATING: The fact that there are newer standards, does not make older standards obsolete.

Obsolete and over priced, it always has been.

Nope, just overpriced. Look at it from home user perspective, and not from a narrowminded clueless stupid hardcore gamer, who knows next to nothing about optimizing a system :lol:

Not a major risk, simply an impossibility, the money is not there.

Nothing is impossible. However, certain actions are extremely risky.

An x86-64 board would be better.

Well, it would be overkill. But it wouldn't be bad. But x86-64 is still 5-8 times more expensive than a standard 32-bit system. Remember: Selling for the masses, not the classes. We don't care about hardcore gamers, we care about the home user. No need for anything above 1.5 GHz, nor higher than AGP 8x or DDR-RAM.

We're not building a high-end server system, you know :-P

[dylansmrjo]

@ bloodline:

It's interesting you can get a mobo for 50$ and still get PCI-E.

In Denmark you don't get PCI-E at that price. You get a couple of 32-PCI slots, an AGP 8x, and 2 or 3 DDR-RAM slots. And perhaps S-ATA if you're lucky (just checked up on the prices).

Even many mobos at 200$ doesn't ship with PCI-E and DDR-RAM2.

Take a mA1-C, replace PC133 with DDR-RAM, G4 @ 1.4 GHz, S-ATA and AGP 8x and sell it for no more than 150$ and you have something which can sell quite well.

Nodoby with a sane mind would ever buy a Mac Mini. Mac OS X is extremely slow, and eats system resources in a way that ought to embarass Steve Jobs. It's as bad as Vista. Mac OS X has however a nice implementation of the desktop metaphor.

But an updated mA1-c with AOS4 at a much lower price still beats Windows and MacOS X IMO (but I prefer efficient small systems).

[dylansmrjo]

Aaahh... Pound Sterling it is :-P

Well, it means 60% higher prices ;-)

But okay. In Denmark one can for £50 (and not $50) actually get a DDR-RAM2 and PCI-E capable mobo. But only for AMD (ASRock 775Dual-880Pro).

But it doesn't change the fact that the mobo is more than twice as expensive as standard mobo's.

Upgrading the mA1-C to DDR-RAM and AGP 8x should be enough for the next 18 months. If (and only if) the price is comparable to the prices for the x86 platform.

A mA1-C mobo (without CPU) for £25 would be nice - and then I wouldn't care about PCI-E nor DDR-RAM2 :-)

A much much better idea would be to port AOS4 to Peg2.

[dylansmrjo]

In Denmark you can for £356.52 get a Peg2 with 256 MB DDR-RAM, a G4 @ 1 GHz, Radeon 7000 with 64 MB RAM, and a MorphOS cd (which would be replaced with AOS4 if it was available - but unfortunately it isn't).

I would buy such a solution, if it ran AOS4.

A mA1-C with somewhat similar specs costs £610.85. And that's the main problem.

A lot would be gained if AOS4 was ported to the Peg2.

[dylansmrjo]

Look at the hardware requirements for Vista. It says all which is needed

Of course you can get "decent" performance if you turn of several services, just like we do on XP to get better performance.

Personally I prefer Windows 2003 Server of the Windows versions I've used so far (starting with 3.0 back in the old days).

Gentoo Linux is much better, but not a choice for the ordinary user, but definitely a choice for me :-P

The day when Mac OS X (and newer for that matter) and Windows and Linux can run with a GUI on hardware similar to what AmigaOS 4PR can run on... then I'll stop calling it bloated and slow ;-)

[dylansmrjo]

seer wrote:
That will never happen....

True, and the day when I'll stop complaining about them being bloated will never happen too :-P

No doubt Vista on reasonable hardware is faster than XP. XP is anything but optimized in regard to I/O and is a far cry from the speediness known in Win2K3 Server.

Hardware requirements for Vista is atm. (according to MS):

2 GB RAM, DDR-RAM2
Graphics card with no less than 256 MB RAM and support for DirectX 9 (this is just to show the desktop and the standard theme, mind you).

This is recommmended minimum, not nescessarily the lowest possible minimum.

Most hardware running to day cannot run Vista without turning off several services.

It takes a fast machine (like a P4 @ 2.4 GHz - it's still a fast machine - and far away from lowend machines - remember - clockspeed hasn't got higher on x86 for a few years) to run Vista reasonably.

For Vista (and Mac OS X) to become decent systems requirements for 3D MUST disappear.

They are bloated. Period.

[dylansmrjo]

It already does (in games).

But it's terribly terribly horribly wrong, to use it in regard to draw a 2D desktop.

It adds NO functionality at all.

But of course it can be used for more heavy weight eye candy that completely kills your computer, but heeey... if that's you want then go ahead.

You'll just have to live with the fact, that what your computer could do in 10 minutes in 1985 still takes 10 minutes today. Just with hardware much much faster :lol:

People who like eye candy like the Mac OS X and Vista way should be banned from using or looking or even thinking about computers. Period.  :-P

[dylansmrjo]

Nope.

It's wasting my CPU cycles :-o´

It requires more work from the CPU to draw windows and widgets.

It should require less work. It's about time systems STOP getting bloated with non-functional elements dragging the computer back to the stoneage.

Vista has nothing in regard to eye candy that I want, and couldn't get with an operating system from 1995 (Like OS/2 2.0)

In regard to functionality Vista has nothing. Only bloatedness in regard to eye candy.

Eye candy is evil.

REPEAT after me: Eye candy is evil!

 :-P

[dylansmrjo]

Eclipse wrote:
Isn't one of the new consoles using the PPC?

Yup. You heard right ;-)

Personally I'd still prefer AOS4 running on an updated A1 with specs (and prices) similar to the Peg2 :-P