Was PCI for Amiga a good choice?

[Thorham]

Damn, Amiga purists can be such flat earthers.

Really? Then tell me, what's the point of an Amiga with a graphics card, sound card and PPC cpu? Where's the Amiga in that?

Want a practical machine? Use a peece, it's the only thing that makes sense. Amigas need to retain their retro value, and they don't retain that if you start using them as glue logic.

So, yes, I like to use the old chipset in the old computer I like. When I need something more powerful, I'll use my peecee.

[warpdesign]

Anyone remember why the PIOS never got released ?

[HammerD]

Who was it, DCE that had a PPC card for the A3000 that was directly connected via cable to the PCI backplane?  Rather than go through the system bus, that's the better way - let the card draw power from the system, do the data transfer directly with the CPU, and use the host system for native chipset, etc. (if we're talking about upgrading old gear).

You're talking about the GREX.  AFAIK there was never a 3000 version released, just the A4000 version and A1200 version.  We added support for it  in AmigaOS 4.1 Classic Final Edition.  At least for Voodoo 3 gfx.  You get faster speeds through that direct connection vs. Zorro 3.

[matthey]

@billt
Thanks. My Haynie quotes became garbled since this old thread started and I was too lazy to fix them. The links are nice too.

Who was it, DCE that had a PPC card for the A3000 that was directly connected via cable to the PCI backplane?  Rather than go through the system bus, that's the better way - let the card draw power from the system, do the data transfer directly with the CPU, and use the host system for native chipset, etc. (if we're talking about upgrading old gear).

I believe Phase5 first made the CSPPC/CSMKIII and then DCE bought the rights. There was still some hardware needed to turn the PCI signals into PCI slots or the G-Rex(s) would be simpler. This or a whole new motherboard is the way to go so the Zorro III to PCI bottleneck can be avoided. The later Boxer motherboard and Natami would have had active faster PCI slots as well.

Really? Then tell me, what's the point of an Amiga with a graphics card, sound card and PPC cpu? Where's the Amiga in that?

Want a practical machine? Use a peece, it's the only thing that makes sense. Amigas need to retain their retro value, and they don't retain that if you start using them as glue logic.

So, yes, I like to use the old chipset in the old computer I like. When I need something more powerful, I'll use my peecee.

So you prefer OCS over ECS or AGA and a 68000 over a 68030? Some enhancements are upgrades without losing much if any compatibility. Enhancements like more depth and chunky for the gfx and more bits/channels for the audio could be added to the custom chips with no significant compatibility problems. Likewise, the 68k CPU could be enhanced to provide more speed, more ease of use and better code density with better compatibility than the 68060. Going from 68k to PPC is a major change which has major disadvantages including incompatibility, 50% larger code and difficulty of low level programming and debugging compared to an enhanced 68k. I understand that the old classic Amigas are cool in the same way a vintage car is but they aren't as useful or convenient as a modern daily driver. Try using an unexpanded Amiga 1000 for awhile and let us know how enjoyable your experience is.

[B00tDisk]

You're talking about the GREX.  AFAIK there was never a 3000 version released, just the A4000 version and A1200 version.  We added support for it  in AmigaOS 4.1 Classic Final Edition.  At least for Voodoo 3 gfx.  You get faster speeds through that direct connection vs. Zorro 3.

Yah!  That's the one, I thought it was for the 3000, as well.  Wish more of those had made it into the wild; that was a pretty slick solution.  One of those and a rebuilt/overclocked PPC card and you'd have a wicked fast Amiga...

[QuikSanz]

Imho, I think that approach should be used for any new fast FPGA accelerators! Best of both worlds, Zorro & PCI.

Chris

[matthey]

Imho, I think that approach should be used for any new fast FPGA accelerators! Best of both worlds, Zorro & PCI.

... or PCIe. FPGAs with SerDes for PCIe and SATA are more expensive but still relatively affordable. PCI is still the best for providing the cheapest commodity hardware and there are existing drivers for the Amiga but PCIe and SATA would be great for a little more cost and work .

[Thorham]

So you prefer OCS over ECS or AGA and a 68000 over a 68030?

AGA+50 mhz 68030 is my preferred system. 68040s and 68060 are too fast, while 68000s are too slow. The 68030 is just right.

I understand that the old classic Amigas are cool in the same way a vintage car is but they aren't as useful or convenient as a modern daily driver.

Which is why I use a peecee. Very powerful, and lots of up to date, and often free, software. Lots of nice games, too.

[QuikSanz]

... or PCIe. FPGAs with SerDes for PCIe and SATA are more expensive but still relatively affordable. PCI is still the best for providing the cheapest commodity hardware and there are existing drivers for the Amiga but PCIe and SATA would be great for a little more cost and work .

Maybe one of each, put the SATA onboard where it can play nice with DMA and Fast ram!

[matthey]

AGA+50 mhz 68030 is my preferred system. 68040s and 68060 are too fast, while 68000s are too slow. The 68030 is just right.

I prefer a slower clocked CPU which is easy to program and has consistent real world performance than a high clocked CPU with high theoretical performance but lots of pipeline bubbles and performance bottlenecks. IMO, the 68060 maintains good real world performance and is easy to program. Its weaknesses are primarily due to lack of resources (logic gates) as was common at the time, incomplete internal optimization, and an unchanged ISA and ABI. The lack of resources is not a problem today and a more compatible writethrough cache could provide better compatibility. Instruction scheduling takes a little effort to learn (the 68060 is relatively easy to schedule) but ignoring it would slow your code down if it is too fast. Besides, if the CPU is too fast then use a compiler .

Which is why I use a peecee. Very powerful, and lots of up to date, and often free, software. Lots of nice games, too.

Sure, but do you program your PC or power use your PC? Windows is the lazy man's brain dead OS and Linux is a pain in the butt geek's OS. AmigaOS is freedom in comparison.

Maybe one of each, put the SATA onboard where it can play nice with DMA and Fast ram!

It makes sense to provide PCIe and SATA on the accelerator if the FPGA supports SerDes and PCI (mini SD and PCI cards for drives) otherwise. Supporting both PCIe and PCI would make the boards unnecessarily more expensive.

[Thorham]

I prefer a slower clocked CPU which is easy to  program and has consistent real world performance than a high clocked  CPU with high theoretical performance but lots of pipeline bubbles and  performance bottlenecks.

That may be so, but apparently the  current complex CPUs are the only way forward performance wise, and  performance is the only thing anyone cares about these days.

IMO, the 68060 maintains good real world performance

Not compared to current machines.

Sure, but do you program your PC

Not as much as I should.

or power use your PC?

What do you see as power use?

Windows  is the lazy man's brain dead OS and Linux is a pain in the butt geek's  OS. AmigaOS is freedom in comparison.

Compared to AOS,  Windows and Linux are awesome powerhouses of might and magic AOS is thoroughly stuck in  the past and it will always remain in the past. If only I could replace  it with a better, faster OS on my A1200.

[yssing]

Sure AOS is stuck in the past, especially if you use classic amiga with 3.1/3.9, which was released many many years ago. You could equally claim the same for windows, if you use 95/98/2000.
But AOS4.x is not stuck in the past, it is true, that you can't install it on any 68k based classic, but that does not change the fact that AOS4.x is not stuck in the past.

[matthey]

That may be so, but apparently the  current complex CPUs are the only way forward performance wise, and  performance is the only thing anyone cares about these days.

Complexity adds cost and heat. Performance per clock is more important than maximum clock speed ever since the Pentium 4 days (perhaps Motorola's 68060 successors would have been able to overtake Intel at this point if they hadn't bet the farm on PPC). Die shrinks are responsible for higher clock speeds now but they are reaching practical limits because of cost. The 68060 has good performance per clock and similar technology could be clocked up substantially without causing problems. OoO and expensive die processes would be needed to compete in performance with modern desktop processors though.

What do you see as power use?

I suppose it is not well define. It is basically the OS getting out of the way to do more work. Using many programs at once while maintaining responsiveness, communicating between programs at my request (ARexx), advanced scripting without a book sized manual, etc.

Compared to AOS,  Windows and Linux are awesome powerhouses of might and magic AOS is thoroughly stuck in the past and it will always remain in the past. If only I could replace  it with a better, faster OS on my A1200.

Windows and Linux are powerful but Windows thinks for and limits the user and Linux requires reading bookshelf's equivalent of manuals to use the power. They are both adequate for running programs and PCs have enough processing power to make them fairly responsive even with modern bloated software. I can still do more in less time on my Amiga when I have the software and processing power to do it. Of course the 68k AmigaOS is 20 years out of date because it hasn't been updated. So the slow old Amiga hardware is still good but the fast old AmigaOS is bad today? You are strange indeed .

[Thorham]

Complexity adds cost and heat. Performance per clock is more important than maximum clock speed ever since the Pentium 4 days

Yes, but isn't that where increased complexity comes from?

Using many programs at once while maintaining responsiveness

All you need for that is RAM on contemporary systems.

communicating between programs at my request (ARexx), advanced scripting without a book sized manual, etc.

Right, no, I don't do a lot of that on the peecee.

So the slow old Amiga hardware is still good but the fast old AmigaOS is bad today? You are strange indeed .

You misunderstand. Amiga hardware is cool because it has a high retro coolness factor. AmigaOS isn't bad, it's just not as good and fast as it could be for 68k.

[agami]

Sure AOS is stuck in the past, ...
But AOS4.x is not stuck in the past, it is true, that you can't install it on any 68k based classic, but that does not change the fact that AOS4.x is not stuck in the past.

I didn't know that the criteria for being 'stuck in the past' is the ability to be installed on 68k hardware.

How about you provide us examples of where AmigaOS 4.x is future focused? Then maybe your statement may carry some water.

The simple fact is that all of the mainstream userland operating systems are stuck in the past because the bulk of the users (early, and late majority) are stuck in the past. Every new release is a delicate balance between introducing forward thinking concepts whilst maintaining enough of the old stuff to try and keep the user base.

It is my assessment that:
- Mac OS X Yosemite is about 60% SITP (Stuck in the Past)
- Windows 10 is about 65% SITP (down from Windows 8.x which started at about 60% SITP)
- Mainstream Linux Distro like Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, Fedora, etc are about 70% SITP
- Most other linux distros are 70-80% SITP
-
-
- AmigaOS 4.x is about 95% SITP

Compared to other actively developed commercial operating systems, AmigaOS 4.x is soooo stuck in the past.

[yssing]

I didn't know that the criteria for being 'stuck in the past' is the ability to be installed on 68k hardware.

That was not what I wrote, and I expect that you know that.

But let me comment on it anyway, the classic 68k is stuck in the past, my critery for saying that, is that it was developed last century, the 68k cpu has not been developed in, what close to 20 years, the same for the rest of the classic amiga. I know there are FPGA implementations and what not, of the classic, but they still have to conform to the very dated chipset, so does software running on 68k.

Compared to other actively developed commercial operating systems, AmigaOS 4.x is soooo stuck in the past.

That is your oppinium, I would not list that as a criteria, besides albeit slow progress, it is still developed.

but why don't you give me examples why AOS 4.x is stuck in the past, besides backwards compatability, which all OS's has, as you pointed out.