Bloatware AmigaOS?

[downix]

koaftder wrote:

downix wrote:

koaftder wrote:

Quite right, and it is more than doable.  I would even strongly suggest partnering with nVidia, as they have a GPU and chipset design with some merit, but need to utilize it on a non-PC.  Some smart development, custom ASIC for the CPU, maybe a better memory controller, we'd have something.  Imagine a true legacy-free system paired with a super-thin OS embedded into the mobo.  

Or you could just focus on the software, which is what really matters.

And wind up on a dead end as you sink 18 months into developing "only software" just to have the one hardware piece you relied on dry up, with no alternative?

Have you not learned the lessons of the A1 and Pegasos?

Where they went wrong was tying down to a custom board. Stuffing some CPU core on an asic and having NVidia roll out a chip doesn't do anything but make it cost more. Heres an idea, do what apple did, float your platform on standard pc hardware. Nobody cares what chips are in the box. Advances in hardware don't impress people anymore. This is the late 1980s.

And gain vendor lockin like Apple is suffering from now?  With AMD, Intel and nVidia all forcing Apple to cancel products ahead of schedule, delaying the rollout of products, and generally hampering the platform development?  Sure, sign me up, and watch as we go *poof*.  Apple can get away with it due to their user base, we can't.  We're the other guys, the guys nobody bets on!  We want a future, we can't be the other guys, we have to be the best guys.

So, I'm willing to discuss this option, tell me, how do you propose gaining the documentation to enable us to even port our OS to the next-gen Intel or AMD CPU's?  The next-gen chipsets?  Next gen GPU's?  Now now, no bringing up todays products, we're talking a new platform, we need to hit the ground with the new OS, new apps all running on the new CPU Intel ships in 18 months before anyone else has had a chance to code for it.  Propose to me how we manage that, with our market how it is today.

[downix]

koaftder wrote:

And gain vendor lockin like Apple is suffering from now?  With AMD, Intel and nVidia all forcing Apple to cancel products ahead of schedule, delaying the rollout of products, and generally hampering the platform development?  Sure, sign me up, and watch as we go *poof*.  Apple can get away with it due to their user base, we can't.  We're the other guys, the guys nobody bets on!  We want a future, we can't be the other guys, we have to be the best guys.

So, I'm willing to discuss this option, tell me, how do you propose gaining the documentation to enable us to even port our OS to the next-gen Intel or AMD CPU's?  The next-gen chipsets?  Next gen GPU's?  Now now, no bringing up todays products, we're talking a new platform, we need to hit the ground with the new OS, new apps all running on the new CPU Intel ships in 18 months before anyone else has had a chance to code for it.  Propose to me how we manage that, with our market how it is today.

Your argument doesn't make much sense on the processor side. Sure, new procs come out every year or 6 months or something, but architecturally they are the same.

SSE4 or SSE4a anyone?  Yes, the general core design is constant, but the add-ons touted by both companies is incresingly proprietory.  AMD will soon be shipping CPU's with ATI GPU's embedded in them.  Would it not make sence to be targeting something like that?

The graphics processors and other types of devices, yup, moving targets. It's just something you have to deal with. Creating your own just means that you get stuck in an expensive and never ending cycle of obsolescence while the bigger players eat your lunch.

A small company like Amiga doesn't have the funds to go an talk to nvidia or IBM and pay for customized versions of different types of hardware just for the sake of having all the specs let alone actually having them fabbed.

Processor specs are easily avaiable. The linux folks are putting together software that runs on all kinds of stuff, the bsd guys are doing it, hell even Aros is running on cheap common hardware.

Aros will have a web browser before you could even work out a spec for a custom processor or get all the paperwork done to get access to the latest specs on an NVidia or ATI up and coming device.

Amiga has plenty of funds to approach the "other white meat" GPU vendors, such as ST Micro, VIA and XGI.  Each of them is hungry for a vendor to include them by default, and are willing to be wine and dined.  But you still do not know the cost of fabbing, I do.  It is not as expensive as it once was.

[downix]

A6000 wrote:
Just as I thought I was out, they drag me back in!

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OR POSSIBILITY THAT AMIGA INC WILL DO THIS.

What I am suggesting here must be done by an OEM with SERIOUS intentions of Mass Production of Amiga computers. A company fully committed to the Amiga concept. A company staffed with people with the vision and talent of the original hi-torro company, but with a lot more money.

This I don't think will happen, but it does not need to happen either.  Hi Torro needed a lot of cash due to the nature of the chip market back then.  Today, with modern HDL toolkits, they could have done a lot more with a lot less cash.

[downix]

persia wrote:
And how do you convince a graphics card maker you are serious.

Easily.  You actually talk to them.  Chip makers are more than willing 9 times out of 10 to talk and even give you specs for little more than NDA's.  I know I've gotten a ton of docs on a variety of chipsets, from high-end audio DSP's to next-gen CPU's, and I'm a guy working out of his closet.

[downix]

A6000 wrote:

downix wrote:
This I don't think will happen, but it does not need to happen either.  Hi Torro needed a lot of cash due to the nature of the chip market back then.  Today, with modern HDL toolkits, they could have done a lot more with a lot less cash.

Anything less will fail, Mass Production is necessary to achieve a competetive retail price, a lot of money is required for Marketing.

It is?  Funny, the company I work for spends less in marketing than most companies spend in staples, yet we do well.

Work smarter, not harder, and you can do a lot for a little my friend.

[downix]

BigBenAussie wrote:
Ah.. Guys. You've all gone way off topic.
So I will too. ;-)


Look. Clearly the future is x86 for the desktop. Stuffing around with PPC is clearly a dead end for so many reasons and you will never ever be anywhere near the cutting edge. PPC will only buy us a couple of years more based on the current state of Amiga OS(or alike) development.

There are more chips out there than PPC and x86.  ARM, MIPS, SuperH, and SPARC are all still viable, and each has their own unique strengths that lend themselves to a desktop platform, such as more efficiency, better OP-per-clock ratio, and... they're LICENSEABLE.  You could take them, embed them into a system-on-chip and produce a more cost-efficient system than any x86 machine could hope to be.  Broaden your horizons sometimes, I did and I haven't looked back.  *pets his SPARC*

[downix]

Hammer wrote:

persia wrote:
So what about modern PCs and Macs which all use multi-cores, how do they compare with the old style P4s?

This is a large topic.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/4
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/5

This refers to Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quads.

PowerPC G4's Altivec implementation was good, but it was throttled by a crap bus and chipsets. If G4 used EV6 bus; the outcome would have been different. Both AMD and Intel have 128bit FP hardware units with plenty of bus bandwidth.

Fully agreed, hence why I'm currently modifying the SPARC T1 to use a Hypertransport bus rather than it's current proprietory bus design.  Cuts costs, *and* booses speed.  But, lacking an Altivec-like design of my own at the moment, it's still little more than a design exercise.

[downix]

Hammer wrote:

There are more chips out there than PPC and x86. ARM, MIPS, SuperH, and SPARC are all still viable, and each has their own unique strengths that lend themselves to a desktop platform, such as more efficiency, better OP-per-clock ratio, and... they're LICENSEABLE.

Let's see SPARC IV competes against Celeron/Pentium Dual Core (Core 2 based), K8 Sempr0n and Athlon 64s in the race to bottom(for price).

The IV?  Egads guy, get into at least 2005.  Not that I'm one to talk, I run a IIi.

Entry level ATX boards start at under $200 including a 600Mhz CPU.  While performance wise the Core2 is higher at this price point, admitedly, it's not so far ahead that it's a blowout.