MorphOS on Power Mac G5

[jj]

gussing he meant leopard

[kolla]

MorphOS (and OS4 i hope) users don't all just play around with their windows and icons.

 That, appearantly, is what the betatesters are doing.

[Lando]

Oops sorry I did mean my G4's are running Leopard, I didn't disassemble and recompile Snow Leopard for PPC or anything. It's my MBP that has 10.6 on it.

[Varthall]

Sure, but the list of apps you just cited are all surely available for your PC already and, unless it is equally retro, it should be able to run them better than the G5?

Take the OS in account, too; given the same apps and similarly specified HW, some people might prefer AmigaOS/MOS/AROS over Windows/MacOS/Linux.

Varthall

[haywirepc]

I am in favor of what I would call a user directed multiprocessor system.
 
Though it would certainly not be true smp, it may be better for some things...
 
Imagine you click on the top window border of a running program and there is a little dialog box. It says "using core" then a # - 1 2 3 4
 
You could assign which core the app should use to process its work.
core 1 could be given to the main gui/window manager.
 
Leaving cores 2 3 and 4 to be assiganable to whatever task you want.
Alternatively, what if you could assign video playing tasks to a specific core, sound processing tasks to another core, and rendering tasks to another and so on....
 
On the newer 8 and 16 core systems coming, you could distribute the workload over all the cores, making for a truly snappy system.
 
That kind of setup, sounds very amiga like to me...
 
Steven

[Fab]

Can it.  Cool will have to give that a whirl on MorphOS.  through Mplayer ?

Yes, MPlayer. While a 720p H264 clip is totally unwatchable with VLC and slow with MPlayer on OSX, MPlayer on MorphOS can deal with it at full speed very often. But you'll still find some high profiles videos that will be slightly too demanding and will cause some audio desync, unfortunately (using -lavdopts skiploopfilter=all can help too).

In any case, it deals with that much better than OSX, and the only explanation for this is that OSX has a huge overhead in graphic rendering.

[Crom00]

As far as the OSX graphics overhead. At an Apple Con an Apple employee told me OSX interface is totally PDF vector based... So there you go. Still amazing the fucntionality of it on the Imac G3400 with tiger.

[Iggy]

As far as the OSX graphics overhead. At an Apple Con an Apple employee told me OSX interface is totally PDF vector based... So there you go. Still amazing the fucntionality of it on the Imac G3400 with tiger.

I thought Apple graphics were rendered via OpenGL. Are you sure that they weren't referring to graphics functionality in documents. Even before OSX, Apple seemed to rely on PDFs for printing (or at least supported postscript).
Somehow, I just can't see what PDF format would have to do with screen display and  vector functions (while they may be the wave of both the past and future) would not convert efficiently in OpenGL calls.

[gdanko]

The G5 may clock higher and ultimately perform faster, but whichever way you look at it, they are both obsolete. Thoroughly and utterly.

That's a very bold statement you make. And I think it's more opinion than fact. Obsolete I would contend is relative. If a single core G5 allows me to do everything I possibly need in a computer, is it truly obsolete?

By definition, obsolete means: no longer produced or used. Well, my MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.4 GHz model is no longer produced. Is it obsolete? I would say no since it's still useful to me. By the same token, a G5 would absolutely be useful to me so therefore it is NOT obsolete.

[redrumloa]

That's a very bold statement you make. And I think it's more opinion than fact. Obsolete I would contend is relative. If a single core G5 allows me to do everything I possibly need in a computer, is it truly obsolete?
 
By definition, obsolete means: no longer produced or used. Well, my MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.4 GHz model is no longer produced. Is it obsolete? I would say no since it's still useful to me. By the same token, a G5 would absolutely be useful to me so therefore it is NOT obsolete.

 
I use my 128T almost daily and I find it very useful, but it is certainly obsolete

[Crom00]

I use my 128T almost daily and I find it very useful, but it is certainly obsolete

You tell 'em Red!!!

AS for OSX pdf thing... I know, it didn't make sense but the way he explained it to me was that I should look at the icons... they never pixelate when you use the genie effect becuase they're rendered in vectors. When I aske the goy some other questions he cas totally clueless and told me apple flew him to the convetion to fill in for someone else.

[Iggy]

You tell 'em Red!!!

AS for OSX pdf thing... I know, it didn't make sense but the way he explained it to me was that I should look at the icons... they never pixelate when you use the genie effect becuase they're rendered in vectors. When I aske the goy some other questions he cas totally clueless and told me apple flew him to the convetion to fill in for someone else.

Long live the obsolete hardware!
Commodore diehards prove that obsolete doesn't mean it can't still be useful.

What, an Apple expert that may not know what he's talking about? No....

[Karlos]

That's a very bold statement you make. And I think it's more opinion than fact. Obsolete I would contend is relative. If a single core G5 allows me to do everything I possibly need in a computer, is it truly obsolete?

I still use my classic amiga machines and they are of more use than an arcane hobby. My 1200 is still my main music production system, for example. It doesn't make it any less obsolete.

You may contend it is a relative term but, well, you correct yourself here:

By definition, obsolete means: no longer produced or used. Well, my MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.4 GHz model is no longer produced. Is it obsolete? I would say no since it's still useful to me. By the same token, a G5 would absolutely be useful to me so therefore it is NOT obsolete.

Your entire computer may not be produced and used but the components that it is made from are. However, no desktop systems are built with G5 processors, nor have been for some time.

You say "a G5 would absolutely be useful to me". To do what, exactly? This is what I have been asking. What do you routinely do in MOS (assuming you are a user) that is too slow on your current machine that none of your other machines (core2 macbook included) can't do for you already?

I dunno why people are interpreting my position here as particularly contentious. All I actually asked was what do people need G5 (or PA6T) for when it comes to running amiga apps? And, to be entirely honest, I only asked that thanks to the stupid and utterly predictable "yay G5 mac FTW totally pwns PA6T!!111!" remarks from certain members that have posted in this and related threads. Sure, a 2.7GHz G5 is going to outperform a 1.6GHz PA6T, I'd be surprised if it were not true, but what does it actually matter? It isn't as if G5 is an option for OS4 users and nor is PA6T an option for MOS users, so who cares either way?

Now, I've already said I totally understand the "I want to run my favourite OS on the fastest hw available" motivation. However, there is not one single amiga application that actually requires a G5 or PA6T that you can't get for an x86/64, so if you need to run those apps, cheaper and faster alternatives exist. Logically, you can only justify the former option if you are basically opposed to the latter one.

Now, for a long time, the point of how insanely fast and efficient MOS is on G4 mac hardware has been stressed and I am quite sure of it. Moving to G5 is an obvious and natural progression but why now, exactly? Obviously, I'm not privy to the development plan for MOS, but I am aware that there are plenty of other things that could be focused on instead - support for more graphics cards (especially now that gallium opens up nVidia support, also used in apple machines), support for wifi and other stuff that is surely of more immediate use to more people.

[Crom00]

I still use my classic amiga machines and they are of more use than an arcane hobby. My 1200 is still my main music production system, for example. It doesn't make it any less obsolete.

I hear what you're saying Karlos but you can widen your horizons a bit... Blender for example would benfit greatly from the G5's power. You may not be into GFX but the bottom line is for the price of a nice A1200 030 based setup you gain a really powerfull system that has access to Mac OSX leopard 10.58. The best of both worlds for many of us.

[Karlos]

I hear what you're saying Karlos but you can widen your horizons a bit... Blender for example would benfit greatly from the G5's power. You may not be into GFX but the bottom line is for the price of a nice A1200 030 based setup you gain a really powerfull system that has access to Mac OSX leopard 10.58. The best of both worlds for many of us.

Of course, but given that most people here also seem to have x86 boxes too:

However, there is not one single amiga application that actually requires a G5 or PA6T that you can't get for an x86/64, so if you need to run those apps, cheaper and faster alternatives exist. Logically, you can only justify the former option if you are basically opposed to the latter one.

Perhaps it's just me, but I can't imagine myself sitting there thinking:

"I need to run blender. My time is important! I have a stinky quad core PC already with free OS and blender available, but what I really need is to run it on a considerably slower G5 and buy an OS to run on it so that I can wait several times longer for it to render my stuff!"

Perhaps is my only system was a G4 box, I might think:

"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, a G5 would be nice."

But I'm much more likely to think

"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, what's the cheapest and best performing kit I can get to do it?"

I downloaded blender for OS4, it works and is fine, but if I needed to render seriously, my PC is far, far faster. SSE3 optimised and blender can use all four cores. I'd have to have real issues to choose the former in preference to the latter if it was something I wanted to do seriously.

[DaNi]

Of course, but given that most people here also seem to have x86 boxes too:



Perhaps it's just me, but I can't imagine myself sitting there thinking:

"I need to run blender. My time is important! I have a stinky quad core PC already with free OS and blender available, but what I really need is to run it on a considerably slower G5 and buy an OS to run on it so that I can wait several times longer for it to render my stuff!"

Perhaps is my only system was a G4 box, I might think:

"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, a G5 would be nice."

But I'm much more likely to think

"I need to run blender. My time is important! It's not so fast on this G4, what's the cheapest and best performing kit I can get to do it?"

I downloaded blender for OS4, it works and is fine, but if I needed to render seriously, my PC is far, far faster. SSE3 optimised and blender can use all four cores. I'd have to have real issues to choose the former in preference to the latter if it was something I wanted to do seriously.

G5 on morphos is perfect and the fastest "amiga" never see, you can launch a amiga program, like lightwave 3d, aladdin, art effect etc at the speed of 75% of ppc cpu using jit trance... this is a lot and a lots of mips, 1.8ghz give more than 5.000 mips for amiga native 68k aplications, warpos/powerup and morphos more than 7.000 mips, i think morphos can boot on a micro sencond and with very little memory usage windows is slow loading system, loading, loading loading... and consumes a lot of ram, morphos is ultra fast and mega-optimized, and of course, amiga compatible.