MorphOS on Power Mac G5

[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.

[amigadave]

@Karlos,

As you well know, there are fanboys in the extreme for just about everything on the face of the planet, both Amiga Next Gen systems have more than their share of them that make stupid comments all the time.

As for why the G5 now, I would counter that support for the G5 is not coming now, nor is it going to be any time soon that it is released, as the MorphOS Dev Team does have higher priorities to work on.  I think part of the confusion is that many MorphOS users spread their wishful thinking as rumor like they are facts and the Dev Team is fairly silent about what they are working on at any given moment.  Also, from what I have observed and guessed, I believe that the MorphOS Dev Team is a much more loosely organized group of enthusiast developers that are basically free to work on which ever parts of the OS to see if it will work, explore new possible targets to port MorphOS to in the future, etc.  There is obviously some coordination and discussion about priorities and desired completion dates for certain items or targeted models that the Team as a whole wish to support and which models or platforms would be good candidates to support next, but only a member of the Team could know exactly how they are organized and how the workload is assigned, or otherwise divided between them.  With very little information officially released by the Team regarding what they are working on, or even which models of the PPC Macs they intend to support, there is a ton of speculation and rumor everywhere.

I haven't checked the official website lately, but the last time I was there, no mention of official support being planned for even the G4 PowerBooks was listed, not to mention the G5 PowerMacs, even though videos and at least two public demonstrations of the G4 PowerBook running a beta version of MorphOS have been presented, by Piru I think.  I am very sure that support for the G4 PowerBooks will eventually be released, but unless the support for the G5 PowerMacs is much easier than myself and most other people assume, it will likely be a long way off before such support is released, or even announced officially.

As to your other question about what do we need the G5 power for, and there are no Amiga apps that need that kind of power, you are obviously right for 99% of the apps, but with the old 68k apps needing to be run through a JIT engine and not natively, any demanding Classic Amiga app, such as 3D rendering, will benefit from the extra power.  But more important in my minds eye is that the extra computing power will open a few programming opportunities that everyone thought could not be accomplished on any Amiga computer in the past.  With G5, or PA6T power and if/when better graphics cards are supported, it will be possible to create better Amiga applications in the future than might be possible with only the current power of a 1.5GHz G4 MacMini, or in AmigaOS4.x's case, a 1GHz G4 Pegasos2, or AmigaOne.

Concerning your argument that we all have other computers that can run anything that can be run on a G5 or PA6T Amiga system faster and cheaper, not everyone wants to have to switch back and forth between different systems and many of us hope that with a sufficiently powerful Amiga system, more Amiga programmers will return to coding new programs for us to use and we might be able to do 100% of what we now do on multiple computers on just one powerful Amiga computer.  Not everyone here HAS to have all the latest software, or web plug-ins to satisfy our computing needs and I would say that many of us here at A.org are the die-hard few remaining Amiga enthusiasts that would prefer to ONLY use an Amiga computer and OS and not have to boot into any other OS ever again.  Maybe that is not realistic, and some will say it is not possible, but everyone has different computing styles and needs, so I say to those nay sayers, don't tell me what I have to own, or have to run to be happy with my computing experience.

[spihunter]

@Karlos,

One thing I don't understand where your coming from is that you keep asking us why we would want to run say Blender on a G4/MorphOS machine when we have a PC sitting here.
when you yourself just said that An A1200 is your main music production machine?

Under your logic, why use an A1200 and not your new x86 PC to do your music production?

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:



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.

[skwayb]

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.

if they brought the Graphics System over from the NeXT then it still might be the case.  NeXT was a color postscript display.

[Karlos]

@Karlos,

One thing I don't understand where your coming from is that you keep asking us why we would want to run say Blender on a G4/MorphOS machine when we have a PC sitting here.
when you yourself just said that An A1200 is your main music production machine?

Under your logic, why use an A1200 and not your new x86 PC to do your music production?

Well, that's a case of chalk and cheese. You are comparing very different tasks.

My A1200 runs OctaMED SS as a MIDI sequencer. First of all, OctaMED SS is my preferred tool as I have years of experience with it. There is, or was, a version for windows but frankly, I didn't like the interface and secondly I tend not to run windows. Now, MIDI sequencing is not an intensive task; the 68040 in that machine is already more than fast enough for the job, hence there is nothing to be gained from running it on a faster box. In fact, I did try using UAE but in the end, there was little gain and rigging up my existing MIDI gear to it was a PITA. So, my A1200 is totally up to the job I ask of it. When I'm making music on it using my preferred application, it's already as good as it needs to be and no amount of additional go faster stripes actually help it.

Secondly, my PC does factor into music production. Recording, mixing, post production and soft synthesis. All of which IO/compute bound tasks for which my A1200 is underpowered.

Unlike MIDI sequencing, raytracing, is very much a compute/memory bound task. It's great that blender exists for AmigaOS4/MOS and hopefully time will see it fine-tuned and optimised, but even by then, I don't see it competing with an SSE3 optimised build on a fast x86-64 machine with several GB of high speed memory, running parallel render tasks on a true SMP platform.

In short, it's horses for courses. If you start justifying your choice of hardware by choosing compute bound tasks, why pick underpowered hardware to run them on? As cheap as you can pick up a G5 for, it isn't going to compete with an x86 box you spent the same total on (assuming you factor in the cost of the OS, which if you pick linux, is nada).

[spihunter]

I think this answers your original questions of why anyone would want a faster MorphOS/OS4 or classic machine. There are apps that run on the Amiga that people really like or are used to using. many of them run just fine on the next Gen Amiga systems.

Octamed is not one of them but, there are many trackers for the PC that have many more features including VST support. Why not tell people to just use those? You like Octamed, maybe another user really likes ImageFX?. That program would fly on a G5 and only runs on Amiga's.

Well, that's a case of chalk and cheese. You are comparing very different tasks.

My A1200 runs OctaMED SS as a MIDI sequencer. First of all, OctaMED SS is my preferred tool as I have years of experience with it. There is, or was, a version for windows but frankly, I didn't like the interface and secondly I tend not to run windows. Now, MIDI sequencing is not an intensive task; the 68040 in that machine is already more than fast enough for the job, hence there is nothing to be gained from running it on a faster box. In fact, I did try using UAE but in the end, there was little gain and rigging up my existing MIDI gear to it was a PITA. So, my A1200 is totally up to the job I ask of it. When I'm making music on it using my preferred application, it's already as good as it needs to be and no amount of additional go faster stripes actually help it.

Secondly, my PC does factor into music production. Recording, mixing, post production and soft synthesis. All of which IO/compute bound tasks for which my A1200 is underpowered.

Unlike MIDI sequencing, raytracing, is very much a compute/memory bound task. It's great that blender exists for AmigaOS4/MOS and hopefully time will see it fine-tuned and optimised, but even by then, I don't see it competing with an SSE3 optimised build on a fast x86-64 machine with several GB of high speed memory, running parallel render tasks on a true SMP platform.

In short, it's horses for courses. If you start justifying your choice of hardware by choosing compute bound tasks, why pick underpowered hardware to run them on? As cheap as you can pick up a G5 for, it isn't going to compete with an x86 box you spent the same total on (assuming you factor in the cost of the OS, which if you pick linux, is nada).

[Karlos]

You like Octamed, maybe another user really likes ImageFX?. That program would fly on a G5 and only runs on Amiga's.

I'm sure it would, but again, does it not already fly on a 1.5GHz G4, considering that it was written for m68K machines that never really got past ~80MHz?

I suppose, though, it's a much better example of a potential candidate application, certainly a far better suggestion than any so far (given that it's not a port from another system). Image processing can always use more power; you just have to work with bigger images or more complex processing to get the benefit of it.

[minator]

if they brought the Graphics System over from the NeXT then it still might be the case.  NeXT was a color postscript display.

OS X uses a more advanced system called display PDF.

[minator]

In short, it's horses for courses. If you start justifying your choice of hardware by choosing compute bound tasks, why pick underpowered hardware to run them on? As cheap as you can pick up a G5 for, it isn't going to compete with an x86 box you spent the same total on (assuming you factor in the cost of the OS, which if you pick linux, is nada).

But nobody is doing this.  They are picking their hardware based on the OS, and MorphOS or OS4 do not run on x86.

Given this people do want the latest greatest hardware, and in this case the choice is X1000 or a G5.

I don't know about OS4 but the MorphOS developers work exactly like open source developers, i.e. they do things because they feel like it.  The G5 is cool* and it's a lot easier than a port to a different CPU architecture.

*Despite their reputation the later G5s ran easily cool enough to go in a laptop.  They were a lot cooler than the equivalent clocked G4s.

[Iggy]

G5s have definitely gotten a bad rap as far as their thermal properties go. Apple didn't help by using liquid cooling on the last units. It makes it look like that was necessary, it isn't, it's quieter. G5s at 2.7 Ghz have no more rigorous cooling requirements than an Intel or AMD processor (in fact, compared to some of those, their cooling requirements are lower).

And I understand Karlos' argument really well. I fact, since I recognize that I'm not going to be doing anything with a G4 Powermac that I can't do with a 1.25Ghz eMac, the first Powermac I've put together is a 1 Ghz Quicksilver. I'm pretty sure I can overclock this to 1.2 Ghz (which is close to my current 1.25) and if third party CPU upgrades are supported I can go as high as a 2.0Ghz 7448 (the fastest MDD upgrade is a 7447 which would be less powerful).

I don't expect to be able to decode HD video without high CPU usage or a video card based decoder. And, as before, there's going to be some applications that the system is either not powerful enough for or that software doesn't exist for under MorphOS. I also not pinning my hopes on hardware that's not going to be available in the immediate future and I'm glad to see that AmigaDave thinks the same way.

Will G5 support be cool? Will we be able to keep pace with AmigaOS4 hardware? Of course, its going to seriously kick ass, and we'll be paying less for our hardware.

The thing that Karlos is aware of and that I must admit I'm painfully aware of (as someone who worked for a company selling 68K based computers in the late 80's and early 90's) is that even if we have reasonably powerful hardware we're facing an impossible task.

Its simple, with the number of Windows and OSX computers sold each year the market for software for those machines is very large. As the time and energy necessary to create good software is also quite great, developers gravitate toward those markets with the greatest potential to make a profit.

As such, many great ideas and even better alternatives (to the current dominant platforms) have failed in the past. We need to keep our feet on the ground and remain realistic. The chances of a mainstream revival are slim. Our market does seem to be enjoying a period of renewal and growth. But, our systems and our software still serve a hobbyist market. Whether they will ever serve as primary systems of production remains questionable.

[Jakodemus]

Well, that's a case of chalk and cheese. You are comparing very different tasks.

My A1200 runs OctaMED SS as a MIDI sequencer.

A1200 is obsolete because it doesn't have built in midi-ports and cubase like my Atari Mega ST. Plus the Atari doesn't multitask, so every bit of cpu's prosessing time goes to midi sequencing.

[amigadave]

Thanks Iggy.

I am sure I am not the typical user in that I would gladly sell this 3.0GHz Quad Core Intel CPU powered PC with two video cards and SLI, w/4gb RAM and Vista Ultimate/XP Pro and a couple TB of hdd space and never boot into any Windows OS again if I could get a decent price for it and replace it with a Quad Core, 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac running MacOSX 10.5.8 and hopefully MorphOS some day.  I don't need any more power than the Quad Core G5 can provide and could probably run the one or two Windows programs I need through Virtual PC (yuck) until I could find replacement software on MacOSX or MorphOS.  I also just purchased a pristine 17" 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook w/2 year warranty (listen up new hardware buyers) and a bunch of software for less than 1/5 what it will cost to get an X1000 (when it is released???) and AmigaOS4.x.  The PowerBook should have MorphOS support in the relatively near future, maybe even before the production of consumer (not beta-tester boards) X1000 are released.  I might now sell my 2.0GHz Core2Duo MacBook.  It would be great to be back to running just one nice laptop and one nice desktop tower and then maybe my Classic Amiga collection would get some more attention than it does now.

I am sure this idea is not for many other people, but it will suit me just fine.  I might even install Linux PPC on a G5 PowerMac if I go through with this idea and try to go "Window-Less" in the near future (and yes I KNOW that Linux will be much better, faster and have more software and features on my current Intel powered PC, but I don't care about all that power, I just care about having the most "Amiga" power I can have).

[gdanko]

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:

Correct in that I somehow support your point? As if my point that a G5 is not obsolete is invalid?

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.

That is irrelevant.

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 find the user experience to be more pleasant under MorphOS so that's the first point. What do I need my computer for? 1) Web browsing, 2) IRC, 3) Secure Shell client, 4) Remote Desktop client. That's about it.

Yes, my MacBook Pro can do that but so can Windows... and Windows is certainly does not provide me with a pleasant user experience.

At the end of the day, ANY computer platform can perform these tasks so for me it's more about a pleasant and enjoyable user experience. Windows is absolutely out of the question. OS X becomes ore bloated with each release. I use Linux and MorphOS for my need.

I dunno why people are interpreting my position here as particularly contentious.

I am not. I simply disagree with your obsolete comment.

[takemehomegrandma]

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

Indeed, thanks for that comment!

I think it's funny that an Amiga enthusiast has to defend his preferred choice of OS and HW for his Amiga hobby here on Amiga.org. This is something I would expect over at slashdot, i.e. "Linux on x86 is cheaper, faster and better". Well it might be, but it won't be MorphOS. With the G5 support, MorphOS will support the fastest PPC architecture ever made. That's a good thing IMO, not a bad thing. And if it isn't for you, the MorphOS team has showed MorphOS running on a broad spectrum of Mac HW, a whole palette, where each option has it's own individual key benefit:

Mac Mini (Small)
eMac (Cheap)
PowerBook (Laptop)
PowerMac G4 (Cheap, expandable, "real" case)
PowerMac G5 (Powerful)

I know that it isn't Linux on x86, but for an Amiga enthusiast, this is a lot to choose from depending on your needs and wants. This are the best mainstream machines the PPC had to offer, and none of the options will ruin you. MorphOS doesn't run on x86, and the G5 is the most powerful PPC there is. Supporting it is a good thing, not a bad thing, it makes the picture above complete.

[lsmart]

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.

Apples icons are not vector images. They are 128x128 pixels and provide some downscaled versions in the ressources.

[Karlos]

A1200 is obsolete because it doesn't have built in midi-ports and cubase like my Atari Mega ST. Plus the Atari doesn't multitask, so every bit of cpu's prosessing time goes to midi sequencing.

:lol:

However, for the Atari Mega ST:

1) I don't have one

2) As nice as the built in MIDI interface is, it's actually less versatile than the one I already own.

3) It doesn't run OctaMED SS

4) I don't really want to buy another machine to do a job my machine does perfectly well,

5) Irrespective of all the above, the Mega ST probably doesn't the job as well as my existing machine anyway