Again, Why didn't they port Amiga OS?

[seer]

@Erol

I'm more interested in CAOS, AOS is powerfull, but CAOS sounds even better. Doubt there is anything left of it source wise..

[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.

[SamuraiCrow]

hammer wrote:

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

It was least common denominator at the time but it supported 3dNow! technology.  Stuff written for the K6II would really fly on an Athlon64 nowadays wouldn't it? :-D

[Nightcrawler]

Now, getting rid of the GUI cruft that clogs a typical Linux system... that's what Amiga should be doing! I really wanted a QNX powered Amiga, especially since that company put a lot of effort and money into a new Amiga before Gateway screwed them over.

Yes please... I've been using qnx for a while now, and it would (at least as far as I can tell) make an excellent foundation for a home/business OS. Neutrino 6.x.x. and photon out of the box is very good stuff but really not suited for the average user, but add some Amiga-style usability and ease and we'd be all set.

Oh how good it is to dream... Why did the whole qnx-amiga thing fall apart anyway? Did QSS get screwed over?

[mikrucio]

porting AmigaOS to x86 is agreed as "a waste of time"
lets face it, the hardware sucks. and powerpc IS the future.
intel has stopped production of thier {bleep}ty cpu.
the mhz myth is slowly going out the door.
 
so why port a superiour OS like amiga to a {bleep}ty platform
thats already got a full market.

PowerPC rocks.

[Stew]

  Would be interesting to know the number of Amiga Forever cd's sold to run on these crappy pcs. I would hazzard to say there are a whole lot more pc's owned by the members here than geniuine Amigas (still working that is).It is strange that so much can be done by this pc intel crap now a days.

[bloodline]

mikrucio wrote:
porting AmigaOS to x86 is agreed as "a waste of time"
lets face it, the hardware sucks. and powerpc IS the future.
intel has stopped production of thier {bleep}ty cpu.
the mhz myth is slowly going out the door.
 
so why port a superiour OS like amiga to a {bleep}ty platform
thats already got a full market.

PowerPC rocks.

How about inputing some informed comments into this forum rather than using it as a place to dump your verbal diarrhea.

[Damion]

Hi Hammer,

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.

I agree with your statement, I realize RC5 isn't an accurate "across the board" comparison between PPC and x86...and that "real world" tests prove such...

To clarify a little, what I'm saying is that an Athlon Barton, emulating another CPU, benchmarks nearly as fast (or faster, depending on the benchmark) as the MPC7447 used in the Pegasos G4, while both running comparable OS's.

(i.e, run "AmigaMark" CPU benchmark on the above stated machine in WinUAE, and compare the results to the MorphOS executable of the same program (or the 68k executable to compare JIT performance)).

I realize it's not an "100% accurate" or even ideal method to compare systems ..and there are many other factors involved...my intent was simply to highlight the price/performance disparity between the two setups, both running amiga/amiga-like OS's, and then to note the potential of AROS, which runs *native* on x86 and isn't emulating '040s like WinUAE.

My apologies if you already determined that from my post, and were only making a comment.

[Damion]

-double post-