AONE Gothenburg 2002 Fall Event site online

[Wittgenstein]

@ Seehund

There will be some *new* hardware shown after all:

At what point is the Pegasos newer compared to the A1?

Newer cpu? Nah, the A1-XE can take the same CPU as the Pegasos (and I havnt seen any working CPU-module to the Pegasos other than the one with the G3.)

Newer design? No, cant see anything here. A1 designed by MAI, Pegasos designed by Bplan and they are both targeting the same kind of CPU. A1 is following the POP specification but I'm not sure if Pegasos does (cant fint anything about on Bplans site).

Newer what?!? Can you please enlighten me?

/W

[Wittgenstein]

@ Seehund

The TeronCX which is the little changed basis for the board Eyetech is buying was sold in its first version in August 2001, and developed before that.

Hmm, but that means that even the predecessor to the A1 (which is in  fact a evaluation board from the make of the chipset, i.e. no product for the masses, only potential buyers of their chips like Bplan and Eyetech) is newer than the Pegasos since Bplan released the pegasos Feb 2001.

Ok, enough nitpicking, but do you  think the pegasos design is _NEW_? Do you think that Bplan only made Pegasos on ideas based by their own staff? Both the A1 and the Pegaos are based on _old_ tech and _old_ ideas and a release of one platform x month before the other one doesnt make it old. A1 and Pegasos can only be called new relative to the oldgen Amigas.

I also have a question about your petition. Your petition says that  

To us, the undersigned, it seems like you are overlooking the fact that you don't design or sell any hardware of your own, like e.g. Apple. Independent hardware designers and distributors naturally have no reason to get themselves and their products licensed and bundled with another company's OS, unless that OS is as dominating as Windows. Just look at the recent bplan GmbH Pegasos(TM) debacle for one concrete example of what could have been avoided if the compulsory licensing and OS/hardware bundling hadn't existed. Instead, we who wish to buy and use AmigaOS just lost a hardware option, the bplan company lost the entire AmigaOS market and you lost the Pegasos market to competing PPC operating systems.

My questions are:
1. You say that Amiga stops the possibility to run AOS4 on other hardware platforms (likte other POP-card).  You cant just move the binaries and runt it. The "porting" may be easy but the bugtesting will take a lot of time and resources. Who are going to write the drivers for those POP-boards (Bplan, Barbie,...)? When will it be done? Before or after the realease of AOS4 to the A1? If it is after, how do you know that Ainc isnt planing this?

2. You compare the A1 to the Pegasos. But since the Pegasos is a closed platform (it might follow the POP-specification but it is still closed), I dont see how we can excpect them to support it. Any comment about this?

3. Name one POP-compatible platform that is open, available and realistic for AOS4.

I ask this questions since I must find your petition sound to sign it (the biggest logic flaw is point three which fails to be constructive). The way it is stated now, it is much the same as asking Ainc to stop the time.

/W

[Wittgenstein]

@ Kronos

The Pegasos is "newer" (not really in age) because they took
the TeronCX-design, and changed it nearly 100% to get the max. out
of the chips, while the A1 is just a slighly updated version of
the TeronCX.

Or as a A1-supporter would say:
A1 is "newer" (not really in age) because MAI took the TeronCX-design and optimized it to get max of the chips, while the peagsos is just a modified version of TeronCX.

I want facts Kronos. Do you have a benchmark that sais where A1 is behind the Pegasos? Why would the maker of the chip create bottlenecks where the guys at Bplan doesnt?

The A1 is NOT a PoP-board as Hyperion plan to remove the OF-BIOS
(whicj was extremly buggy) and replace it with OpenBoot (sp),
which makes the whole board non-PoP.

Strange, the POP-specifications I have worked with (1.0, 0.1) doesnt say anything about the BIOS. Maybe you are confusing it with the CHRP (aka PPCP) which does (there are lots of stuff from Apple in CHRP and the Open Firmware is one of them).

The Pegasos is a PoP-baord with a self-developed OF-BIOS which
includes support for FFS-partitions (to boot from) and
"Disk_on_Chip" devices (probraly the 1st step to the eclipsis).

Nice, but why are they shy when they talk about the chipset and their hardware solutions?

The Pegasos is a PoP-baord with a self-developed OF-BIOS which
includes support for FFS-partitions (to boot from) and
"Disk_on_Chip" devices (probraly the 1st step to the eclipsis).

This is nice. Only flaw is that the Open Firmware specifications is a little bit old. I dont think much has happend since Apple left CHRP and POP was borned but I might be wrong.

Oh and yes Pegsos+G4 is a reality, but only with the ZIF-carrier and a G4-ZIF atm.

Yes, but our definition of reality isnt the same. I dont think Bplan can get any G4s (not in large quantities) since even Apple still has problem getting them so Pegasos+G4 is as much reality as the A1-XE.

/W

[Wittgenstein]

When Hyperion (are able to) buy a Pegasos, they have the full spec of
the main chips, and an open-source OS to look at.
Thats more than they have on the CS-PPC.

Ok, thanks. This clarifies the second point.

/W

[Wittgenstein]

@ Seehund

Nope, anyone could buy a TeronCX in August 01.

The prize was 3000$ or something like that and there were no working OS (maybe Linux booted). This wasnt meant for the normal user, it was ment as an evaluation board. I think the A1 has a better chans to be free from bugs since it is based on this and not made from scratch. This is based on personal experience.

Yeah, there might be nothing new (as in: not seen in other hardware or specs before) or revolutionary about either mobo, but chronologically the Pegasos implementation of existing standards is newer than that of the TeronCX/A1G3SE, and it does use more modern components.

What components are more modern? And again what is _newer_ with the design of the Pegasos(except that you claim that it was completed after the A1).

And now to the petitionstuff. I still dont get it how you can think that I will sign a petition that complains about isues that are so far in the future. Again my first point: How do you know that Ainc/Hyperion wont support more hardware than A1? I havent seen anything from Ainc/Hyperion which say that they dont will support anything more than the A1. In fact, Hyprion sounded possitive to a port to the PMG4 (if they could get Apples permision ofcourse). The problems and difficulties about not supporting enough hardware is so far in the future that anything could happned on the way.

Basically I'm saying "Don't exclude any viable hardware option by default for no technical reason, AmigaOS needs all the hardware it can get, leave the field open and by all means go ahead with licensing - but don't make it compulsory and a prerequisite for AmigaOS to ever have even a chance to be considered to be ported to any hardware option".

Yes I understand what you are saying but I am saying that you create a senario that doesnt exist. It can exist in the future and then I'll sign but now this is speculation. Why not wait and see? The licensing has not hurt anyone yet  (the MOS-Ainc war has roots way back and it is not a consequence of the licensing).

/W


/W