MorphOS on Power Mac G5

[Karlos]

Here's one for you, FLASH

But seriously, I don't "need" the speed for anything useful, just like I don't need to do any retro computing at all. Everything truly useful I can do on my PC already. The speed would be nice though, applications like MAME, blender, video conversion etc will benefit. Speed is nice and there will not be a huge price difference between a G4 box and a G5 box.

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?

[zylesea]

Rather than spending a lot of time discussing potential hardware, I wouldn't mind focusing on what's here or close to here.

Exactly my approach. There is a saying in German: That's unlaid eggs.
Use what's there or very close. In case of MorphOS that is Pegasos 1&2, Efika 5200B, Mac mini G4, eMac G4 1.25 GHz and, close (probably late August/early September), several PowerMac G4.
PowerMac g5 and Powerbook are both nothing to expect too soon - worked on, but unlaid eggs.

[zylesea]

You're amongst a large group of people who'd like to see support for those. But, right now it looks like only Powerbooks.

The MorphOS developer you need to bug goes by the name Bigfoot. Apparently none of the developers feels like writing the necessary routines for ADB keyboard/touchpad support.

The latest iBooks G4 had kdb/TP by usb and not by ADB. For these models the adjustemnet of the drivers may be an effort worthwile to consider.

[redrumloa]

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?

Why do people restore and drive old cars? Certainly a brand new hybrid is much more efficient? It's a hobby. Why do I go online with my accelerated 8bit Commodore 128(T)? My PC can certainly do it much better... Either you enjoy the hobby, or you don't...

[Iggy]

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?

I don't know. My slowest X86 PC is a dual core with a standard clock of 2.6Mhz running at 3.0.
The fastest G5 runs at 2.7 (and while there are dual and quad machines, MorphOS can only use one core).
For tasks that aren't heavily threaded and when not running a lot of concurrent apps, the G5 could potentially match the performance of the X86s.
It would definitely outperform most Intel Atom systems.

Flash...I was wondering if I was the only one who missed that (instead of just attacking it). Well, I can't get that (or a least a good variation of that) under PPC Linux either.

[Iggy]

The latest iBooks G4 had kdb/TP by usb and not by ADB. For these models the adjustemnet of the drivers may be an effort worthwile to consider.

With all the noise about them, I wouldn't be surprised to see them supported. Thanks for the point about those Zylesea. It doesn't sound like there's a lot separating the final ibooks from the Powerbooks. What video GPU did they use?

[Karlos]

Flash...I was wondering if I was the only one who missed that (instead of just attacking it). Well, I can't get that (or a least a good variation of that) under PPC Linux either.

I downloaded the linux 64-bit version whilst it was available, but it seems they withdrew it again. I'm still using it though, it's fast enough

Most people need flash for youtube but to be fair the HTML5 stuff seems to have that base covered nicely. Especially in OWB/MOS.

[Iggy]

I downloaded the linux 64-bit version whilst it was available, but it seems they withdrew it again. I'm still using it though, it's fast enough

Most people need flash for youtube but to be fair the HTML5 stuff seems to have that base covered nicely. Especially in OWB/MOS.

Valid point. I have no interest in playing Flash based games. I wish I'd caught the 64bit version you mentioned, I still regularly dabble with Linux (probably because even with my dissatisfaction with it, I appreciate its UNIX underpinnings).

[Karlos]

Valid point. I have no interest in playing Flash based games. I wish I'd caught the 64bit version you mentioned, I still regularly dabble with Linux (probably because even with my dissatisfaction with it, I appreciate its UNIX underpinnings).

It's open, I can probably send you the .so

[Iggy]

It's open, I can probably send you the .so

That is a good point and it would be useful.
Its always good to see that even when we've got open debates raging, we're still (mostly) a civil lot.
I'm not even vaguely aware of how to send a PM on Amiga.org, but I can get you may e-mail address somehow.

Thanks

[Karlos]

That is a good point and it would be useful.
Its always good to see that even when we've got open debates raging, we're still (mostly) a civil lot.
I'm not even vaguely aware of how to send a PM on Amiga.org, but I can get you may e-mail address somehow.

Thanks

PM info is in the site FAQ: http://www.amiga.org/forums/faq.php?faq=vb3_user_profile#faq_vb3_private_messages

The simplest way to send me a PM would be to click on my username to the left of this post and select "send a private message to karlos" from the menu that pops up

[DaNi]

I don't know. My slowest X86 PC is a dual core with a standard clock of 2.6Mhz running at 3.0.
The fastest G5 runs at 2.7 (and while there are dual and quad machines, MorphOS can only use one core).
For tasks that aren't heavily threaded and when not running a lot of concurrent apps, the G5 could potentially match the performance of the X86s.
It would definitely outperform most Intel Atom systems.

Flash...I was wondering if I was the only one who missed that (instead of just attacking it). Well, I can't get that (or a least a good variation of that) under PPC Linux either.

Is not only Ghz, G5 have a lot of power, more than any high-end pentium 4 or dual pentiums for example the parallel data structure supporting up to 216 simultaneous in-flight instructions, simultaneous issue of up to 10 out-of-order operations. It likewise has a dual-pipeline Velocity Engine for 128-bit single-instruction, multiple-data (SIMD) processing, two independent double-precision floating-point units and advanced three-stage branch-prediction logic.

Mips test:
Pentium 4 HT 631 Cedarmill 4Ghz (overclocked) FSB=1066Mhz 10.050 mips (faster than more intel dual cores)
Power PC G5 970FX 1.8Ghz FSB=1000Mhz 7.500 mips
Power PC G5 970MP Dual 2,5Ghz FSB=1350Mhz 15.400 mips

[Karlos]

@DaNi

I see your altivec and raise you SSE3.

I see my SSE3 and raise it CUDA, but meh :lol:

[amigadave]

Here's one for you, FLASH

But seriously, I don't "need" the speed for anything useful, just like I don't need to do any retro computing at all. Everything truly useful I can do on my PC already. The speed would be nice though, applications like MAME, blender, video conversion etc will benefit. Speed is nice and there will not be a huge price difference between a G4 box and a G5 box.

I have been looking on eBay and it actually seems that the price for the best G4 PowerMacs is VERY close to the price you can find for many of the G5 models being sold, including some of the dual core Dual 2.7GHz G5s and quad core Dual 2.5GHz G5s.

I wonder if a single core of the quad core Dual 2.0 to 2.5GHz last models of the G5 PowerMac will be supported by MorphOS someday?

OFF TOPIC:

Another valid question is; what will be a better option for the MorphOS Dev Team, 1) concentrate their work on MorphOS to better optimize performance on the G5 CPU and G5 PowerMacs until a more interesting architecture is introduced some time in the next 1 to 3 years or more, or 2) instead of spending a lot of time optimizing performance on old used Mac hardware beyond their initial release which supports them, should the team instead start working on switching to supporting i3/i5/i7 based hardware designs?

I could see the team easily spending years of their part time efforts toward taking full advantage of G4 & G5 Mac models, perhaps even some day trying to take advantage (in some limited way, shape, or form) of multiple cpu's or cores, which would make MorphOS many times more powerful than it is today.  I can just as easily see the team deciding that once they have a basic, but very usable release on most G4 & G5 Mac models, switching to another architecture and away from PPC, be that x86, or ARM, or something else.

I guess my personal preference would be for them to complete a very good implementation of MorphOS on the G4 PowerBook and G5 PowerMac before they begin work on any other platform and become distracted.  That will keep me a loyal MorphOS user for at least the next couple of years or more I would imagine.  The way the current state of SLOW progress appears to be happening all around the computer industry, I don't think there will be anything Earth shattering that is going to happen in the next two years that will tear me away from wanting to use MorphOS.  So, if it takes the MorphOS Dev Team another 6 to 12 months to finish working on all the G4 & G5 Mac models they decide are worth their efforts, my 2 year estimate would give the team another 12 to 18 months to work on another architecture before I think I would give them any complaints about which direction they are going to go in the future.

[minator]

The G5 was a disaster for apple. The worst performance per watt of any CPU they'd ever used at that point.

Not true, the late G4s were worse than the late G5s.

Given that one of apple's then long running claimed benefits over "hot, power hungry x86 processors", releasing dual processor, water-cooled CPU machines with over 60W per CPU, the G5 was an embarrassment to them.

They were competitive with x86 at the time, AMD was topping out at 125W, Intel were topping out at 150W.  The 2.7GHz G5 was closer to AMD.

They'd promised 3GHz but couldn't manage it.

IBM got pretty close at 2.7GHz, Intel were quoting 5GHz at the time and got nowhere near it.

They promised lower power, cooler workstations and couldn't manage it. Meanwhile, x86 continued to get faster and less power hungry the entire time.

See above, IBM were quite competitive.

And it was the smartest move he ever made. As much as I like PPC, and I do like it, it just cannot compete with current x86/AMD64 based architectures.
Not on performance, not on power consumption, not on cost and not on any permutation of the three. Whatever your CPU needs, there are faster, cooler, lower power and cheaper x86 parts available.

Erm, look at POWER7, it's the fastest processor you can buy at the moment (the POWER CPUs have been PPC since POWER2)
At the other end there's the embedded PPCs, Intel aren't even close to those on performance/watt.
As for cost, this is determined by the size of the chip - the G5 was small, so small in fact they had problems cooling it - that's why they had to use water cooling.

Which is why this G5 v PA6T pissing contest that you are so happily engaging in is a bit of a joke, really. The PA6T may be newer, perform better per watt and depending on which source you believe, better per MHz than the G5. The G5 may clock higher and ultimately perform faster, but whichever way you look at it, they are both obsolete. Thoroughly and utterly.

In absolute terms yes, however if you are trying to argue they are using an old architecture you should be aware the Core i7 is based on an architecture that goes back to the mid 90s.  AMD is remarkably similar.

Last time I looked, there wasn't really any Amiga specific software in existence that really needs the horsepower that even these old processors can deliver.

So, they're obsolete and not very powerful - but you don't don't need them because they're too powerful?

[minator]

Yes. Well, the point with the PA6T was to be in Apple laptops AFAIK, so the goal was probably to not consume much more than a G4, while still offering performance above the G4's they were using at the time. It would never compete on Apples power desktop market though; it wouldn't replace the G5.

They were specifically designed to produce G5 performance levels.  If they upped they clock (which they said was quite possible) they probably would have replaced the G5.
As for comparisons with the G4? PA-Semi's power numbers were below the Core2Duo.

Since then, what once was "PA Semi" as well as its IP was assimilated into Apple along with its developers. Apple obviously "scrapped" the technology, used the engineering competence and patents to create their own ARM "A4" processor or whatever,

I doubt they had anything to do with the A4.  It takes years to design chips, It'll be another year or so before we see what PA-Semi have done inside Apple.
And then there's what Intrinisity will do...

and AFAIK, most of those old PA Semi developers even left Apple since then...

Erm, a small number (6) of the senior people left.